Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Clear · Sep 11, 2021

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20

1) REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ANIMOSITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ANOTHER RELIGION BY OFFERING FALSE INFORMATION
Dogknox20 said : “I reply: What does the Watch Tower call the Catholic Church?! I am fairly certain your are taught the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is Anti-Christ! Don't point your finger at me with your OPINIONS!

I don't know what the Watch Tower calls the Catholic Church and perhaps from even before the reformation millions may have called the Catholic Church “The Whore of Babylon”. I do not know.

However, If you are wanting revenge for these people calling your church a bad name, lying about them is not the way to do it.

Whether you are caught lying in post #1187 regarding transfusion and deaths, or whether you are caught in another lie in post #1289, it both decreases your own credibility and reflects upon other Christians who do not engage in this behavior.

Credibility is the issue and if people insult your church, I still do not see how it gives you justification to lie about another church.

2) COMPARING THE MORALITY OF FAITH BASED POLICY OF REFUSING BLOOD VERSUS THE MORALITY OF POLICIES CONDONING SLAVERY, THIEVERY, OPPRESSION, TAKING CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS, FORCING RELIGIOUS PRACTICE UNDER THREAT OF EXILE OR DEATH
Clear said : “For examples, simply look at some of the church councils of your organization in it’s attempt to gain power and money and to oppress not only it’s members, but others as well
Dogknox20 replied : “I reply: OPINION! All you have is your opinion!”

Actually there is a combination of Facts and opinion based on historical fact.

For examples :

IT IS FACT : In Paris, a.d. 557 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.

IT IS MY OPINION : taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Toledo, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.

IT IS MY OPINION : burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Nabonne, a.d. 589 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.

IT IS MY OPINION : oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Reims, a.d. 624-625 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)

IT IS MY OPINION : prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Toledo, a.d. 633 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave

IT IS MY OPINION : prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Toledo a.d. 638 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”

IT IS MY OPINION : the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Toledo a.d. 656 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.

IT IS MY OPINION : allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Emerita a.d. 666 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.

IT IS MY OPINION : stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : Toledo a.d. 694 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.

IT IS MY OPINION : taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Boniface a.d. 745 your church created a policy as follows :
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.

IT IS MY OPINION : the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : In Paderborn a.d. 785 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

IT IS MY OPINION : making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

IT IS MY OPINION : making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

IT IS FACT : At the Lateran IV, a.d. 1215 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

IT IS MY OPINION : making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation is morally wrong and it is NOT a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.

Another opinion I have is that Neither Jesus, nor Peter, nor the Holy spirit prompted your organization to create such policies. Your schism created different policies than the policies of the church of Jesus Christ.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clear · Sep 11, 2021

POST TWO OF TWO

3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE APOSTLE PETER WAS NEVER A STANDING BISHOP IN ROME FOR 25 YEARS

Dogknox20 said : “The Church Fathers tell you; Peter is the first pope! “

We agree that in the later centuries (your two quotes come from the 4th century), the hierarchy of the roman Schism began to advertise that the apostle Peter became a standing bishop of rome.

This was purely dogma.
The problem is that this dogma cannot survive in history or in the early historical literature.

Historically, Peter was never a standing Bishop of Rome.
Ever...
And there are multiple early histories that tell us that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation, not Peter.

For examples :

Eusebius, in his history of the Christian religion tells us that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus.
Eusebius tells us that after Paul and Peter were martyred, "Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome." (eusebius of caesaria - eclesiatical hx). This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled "The first ruler of the Church of Rome". Eusebius repeats this same history n chapter thirteen which is entitiled "Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome".

Anastasius' also confirms that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation, then 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

The Liberian Catalogues also confirm that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman Congregation, then Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

In liber Pontificalis, peter suffers martyrdom "in the 38th year after the Lord suffered (68 c.e.) And Linus "was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and scipio (56 c.e.)

To that of Capito and Rufus (67.c.e.) Linus was bishop of Rome for 11 years from 56 c.e and by an amazing coincidence, Paul arrives in Rome (under house arrest) at this approximate time. Though Bishop Irenaeus indicates that both "the blessed apostles, St. Peter, and St. Paul, upon founding and erecting the church at Rome committed the office of administering the church at Rome to Linus".

Clement succeeding Linus as the first real bishop is in agreement with the testimony of the Apostolic constitutions and it's list of who were the first bishops of various cities in the first century.

"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).

The lists placing Linus as first Bishop ordained by Paul (and not by Peter), followed by the second bishop of Rome, Clement (ordained by Peter) reflects the earliest tradition and may be preferred over the conflicting traditions. As I say, the history becomes a bit murky.

It is, obviously, inconsistent with History to claim Linus received the bishopric upon the death of Peter when Peter ordained another bishop years after Linus and Cletus served as bishops.

Not only do Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs list Linus as the first Bishop of rome, but Irenaeus tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8)

Whether it is Paul who ordained Linus, or if it was Peter who ordained Linus, Still, All of these early witnesses consistently agree that Linus was the first bishop of the Christian congregation in Rome and thus the Apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome.

As I pointed out, The later advertisement that was started regarding the apostle Peter serving as a standing bishop of a single congregation was a "back claim" made in later years as the roman congregation sought justification for pre-eminence.
In fact your quotes also confirm this specific claim.
Look at your dates.
They are from the fourth century.
Thus, it was a back claim made in a later century as I pointed out.

Additionally, there are many other reasons why Peter was never, historically the first standing bishop of Rome. Ever.

4) JESUS IS THE TRUE SHEPHERD OF HIS FLOCK AND ALL APOSTLES WERE GIVEN KEYS TO BIND AND LOOSE

Dogknox20 said : “What you have to do is name another Shepherd of God' Holy Flock; Name another Key Holder! If NOT then all you have is your OPINION once again!”

Jesus is the shepherd : In John 10:14 Jesus tells us "I am the good shepherd, I know my own and my own know me."

All of the apostles had keys to bind and loose : In speaking to the disciples (plural), Jesus in Matthew 18:18 tells them “Truly I say to you (gk υμιν = plural), whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ( the greek is Αμην λεγω υμιν which is “you” plural).

In conclusion :
1) It is wrong to lie about another religion to produce prejudice and animosity against them.
2) The Roman movements policies of slavery, thievery, taking children from their families, forced obedience and oppression of the masses was never morally superior to an individual refusing blood
3) Peter was never a standing bishop of the roman schism.
4) JESUS is the good shepherd. He was always the good shepherd.

Clear
φυτωειακτωω

Dogknox20 · Sep 11, 2021

Clear I am Christian!
Christians believe the words of Jesus! Christians do NOT reject the scriptures as being a lie!

Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in person Jesus is telling all peoples: Peter is Alone apart from the other Apostles, it shows to Christians Peters primacy among the twelve apart from the other Apostles!
The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:

"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Clear The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Keys are a symbol of AUTHORITY!

"God the father from heaven kept Peter from making an error" (Matthew 16:18)

"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter's name is mentioned more often in the Gospels than the names of all the other apostles put together.

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter walked on water

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter spoke for Jesus "In Jesus' name"!

Peter was first to enter the tomb!

Peter raised the dead.

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter shadow cured all it fell on.

Clear The word Peter means ROCK! Jesus changed Simons name to "ROCK"! ONLY with the most important people God changes their name!

Clear Yes all twelve Apostles hold keys.. Keys are a symbol of AUTHORITY!
The One Holy Catholic APOSTOLIC Church established by Jesus founded on the Apostles has the AUTHORITY to bind and Loose!

St. Irenaeus and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea provide testimony: The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the Church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [cf. Phil. 4:3]
(Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Clear If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?

2ndpillar · Sep 11, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
Clear I am Christian!
Christians believe the words of Jesus! Christians do NOT reject the scriptures as being a lie!

Jesus giving the Keys to Peter in person Jesus is telling all peoples: Peter is Alone apart from the other Apostles, it shows to Christians Peters primacy among the twelve apart from the other Apostles!
The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:

"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Clear The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Keys are a symbol of AUTHORITY!

"God the father from heaven kept Peter from making an error" (Matthew 16:18)

"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter's name is mentioned more often in the Gospels than the names of all the other apostles put together.

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter walked on water

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter spoke for Jesus "In Jesus' name"!

Peter was first to enter the tomb!

Peter raised the dead.

The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible: Peter shadow cured all it fell on.

Clear The word Peter means ROCK! Jesus changed Simons name to "ROCK"! ONLY with the most important people God changes their name!

Clear Yes all twelve Apostles hold keys.. Keys are a symbol of AUTHORITY!
The One Holy Catholic APOSTOLIC Church established by Jesus founded on the Apostles has the AUTHORITY to bind and Loose!

St. Irenaeus and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea provide testimony: The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the Church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [cf. Phil. 4:3]
(Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Clear If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?

The appointment of Peter, the "worthless shepherd", (Zechariah 11:17) as a shepherd of a "flock", "doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), was simply the fulfillment of the "Law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:7), who was not going to feed, care, or tend the sheep (Zechariah 11:16) & (John 21:15). The appointment of the 2nd shepherd of Zechariah 11, Paul, who was called by the term "Favor", which would be linked to Paul's false gospel of grace, as being in grace, is as being in the "favor" of God. The 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11, would be Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13), as pointed out in Matthew 27:9-10. As for Peter being called "petros", little stone, and the petras, foundation stone of the church, are two different things. Peter was called "petros", to fulfill Isaiah 22:15, whereas he represented Shebna, who was put in charge of the "royal household", for which he would have the keys, and he was eventually to be the "shame of the master's house", and to try and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:17). Peter's heir, the pope, who also claims the keys (Isaiah 22:22), will "fall", and all those hanging onto him, will be "cut off" (Isaiah 22:25). Hanging onto the shepherds of the "flock doomed for slaughter", doesn't seem the wise thing to do.

Dogknox20 · Sep 11, 2021

2ndpillar said:
The appointment of Peter, the "worthless shepherd", (Zechariah 11:17) as a shepherd of a "flock", "doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), was simply the fulfillment of the "Law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:7), who was not going to feed, care, or tend the sheep (Zechariah 11:16) & (John 21:15). The appointment of the 2nd shepherd of Zechariah 11, Paul, who was called by the term "Favor", which would be linked to Paul's false gospel of grace, as being in grace, is as being in the "favor" of God. The 3rd shepherd of Zechariah 11, would be Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13), as pointed out in Matthew 27:9-10. As for Peter being called "petros", little stone, and the petras, foundation stone of the church, are two different things. Peter was called "petros", to fulfill Isaiah 22:15, whereas he represented Shebna, who was put in charge of the "royal household", for which he would have the keys, and he was eventually to be the "shame of the master's house", and to try and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:17). Peter's heir, the pope, who also claims the keys (Isaiah 22:22), will "fall", and all those hanging onto him, will be "cut off" (Isaiah 22:25). Hanging onto the shepherds of the "flock doomed for slaughter", doesn't seem the wise thing to do.

2ndpillar
Gibberish ?????? I don't understand your OPINIONS! It's not scripture!
I am Christian; Christians believe the scriptures God' Holy Words!

Soapy · Sep 11, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
Soapy I agree Scripture Prophesy tells us from AMONG the church will come heretics!
Out of the Church will come False Teachers... Martin Luther "WAS" a Catholic he was AMONG Catholics! ALSO...

Soapy also Arius was a Catholic; he was AMONG Catholics!
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius was a False Teacher he taught Jesus is NOT God. Arius was removed as a False Teacher a Heretic because he introduced destructive heresies! This PROPHESY proves true! The next verse also is true! (verse #2)..

. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Soapy Clearly this PROPHESY points out.. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus established on ROCK not on sand is the way of truth ! This Scripture Prophesy CANNOT work in the reverse... The Holy Catholic Church was NOT among Arius.. The Catholic Church was NOT among Luther. NO.. They were AMONG Catholics they WERE IN the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church until they were removed as False Teachers!

The ‘holy ROMAN Catholic [WORLDWIDE] Church’ was underwritten by the Roman Empire under a Roman emperor who didn’t believe in Christianity. The ‘holy’ Catholic faith is a disingenuous belief that undermines Jesus’ principles.

‘GOD’ establish a church (congregation of people who believe and worship him’.

‘God’ made Jesus the HEAD of that church.

Jesus chose those who would be the BODY of GOD’s church.

Now ask the right questions:

Whose church is it?
Who heads up the church?
Who are those making up the body of the church?

Answers:

It is YHWH GOD’s church
Jesus Christ is made head of GOD’s church
The ELECT (chosen by God from before time and…) selected by Jesus make up the body

Take note:

‘Father,… THEY WERE YOURS AND YOU GAVE THEM TO ME… and none are lost except the one destined for purgatory.’

So YHWH knew ahead of time that one would be deceitful but it was necessary for it to be that way for the sake of YHWH’s plans.

It did not need to be Judas… it turned out to be Judas…! It could have been Thomas or Phillip or Matthew the tax collector… but it was Judas!

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is God… therefore Jesus is YHWH… we know that is not true. We know that the Father is the only true God.

The Catholic faith teaches that God is three… we know that is also not true… We know that God is one … that the Father is the only true God.

The Catholic faith teaches that God put on first and came to earth. We know that that is not true. We know that God never leaves heaven and is NEVER said to ‘come’ anywhere! We know that if ‘God came’ then BY TRINITY it would be ALL THREE AS ONE GOD … but Catholics say it was Jesus AS GOD who came. How can an IMMUTABLE GOD separate himself to fine as one of the supposed three that us an undivided ONE GOD? Can a cake be divided into its constituent parts after baking? No! So his can an immutable god be separated so that only one member become flesh?

Can you offer an explanation of an impossible belief?

Soapy · Sep 12, 2021

Clear said:
The church of Jesus Christ.

There is no such thing as ‘Church of Jesus Christ’.

The CHURCH is YHWH GOD’s Church, of which Jesus Christ is the head. This is clearly written in the scriptures.

God MADE JESUS TO BE the head of his congregation of believing people (the church):

“To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people,” (1 Cor 1:2)

The church is “God’s Church”. The congregation of people are sanctified (set aside) in Jesus Christ.

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (Col 1:1)

Jesus cannot be God if it is by the Will of God that Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ! Illustration:

‘They were yours, Father, and you gave them to me…!’

These are the elect, those chosen by God ‘from the beginning’ (does this mean that the elected ones were pre-existent as Trinitarians claim Jesus was pre-existent because they misinterpret ‘word of God… from the beginning’ as being Jesus Christ?

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Col 1:18)

Jesus said to be God by Trinitarians… Is God the firstborn from the dead?

You still accept disingenuous claptrap as valid ‘Historical Data’?

I see you are having a really difficult time with J.W.

And yet you can’t see that what I’m showing you is the truth!

I did tell you your research would lead you to be a disbeliever in Christianity because the truth is not in those established churches. The TRUE CHURCH OF GOD IS A SPIRITUAL CHURCH… it is not a building, a place, a physical gathering… it is SPIRITUAL CHURCH.

The riches of this spiritual church are not gold and silver, ornaments, or other possessions… the riches are glory in the knowledge and worship of Almighty God, the Father led to him by his glorified sinless, holy, and righteous human servant, Jesus Christ!

Oh, and I, too, say that the ‘Holy Roman Catholic Church’ is the ‘Whore of Babylon’…. Trinitarian false ideology Indulged in by kings and priests worldwide… a belief system underwritten by the very enemies of true christians: the Roman Empire by their emporer Constantine who did not (could not/had no interest other than to keep the peace to save his emporership position) even believe in true Christian faith…

Brian2 · Sep 12, 2021

Clear said:
Hi @Brian2

REGARDING THE ROLE OF MORAL AWARENESS AND MORAL CULPABILITY IN NEWBORNS AND MORALLY INCOMPETENT INDIVIDUALS (INCLUDING MENTAL RETARDATION OR MENTAL DISEASE)

Soapy said : “In the main, children do not commit ‘DEPRAVED’ or ‘WICKED’ acts. They more often do SIN out of ignorance, for curiosity sake, for innocent malice…This would mimic Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they sinned. God would forgive them anything they did that was wrong and show them the right way … but they sought to know good and bad for themself… thus making them no longer innocent of wrongdoing.”

Clear said to Soapy : “Adam and Eve were ignorant of sin (like little children) and thus, would only be culpable for any transgression AFTER having achieved moral awareness and thus could not be justly punished for any moral act done in moral ignorance BEFORE they were morally aware.

Brian said to Clear : God told them not to eat the fruit of a certain tree and if they did eat it they would die.
God was true to His word and that is what happened.
Do you think God was holding them morally responsible for eating the fruit? (post 1292)

The short answer :
I think their moral responsibility is attenuated to the degree they lacked knowledge and understanding. The less knowledge and understanding, the less responsibility. ("To whom more is given, more is required...)

A newborn that is born without a functioning brain has no sin and no moral responsibility at all and is under no condemnation for anything. If they die an hour after birth, they are under no condemnation. I believe this is true in all individuals.

I think this is true of Adam and Eve and all individuals in all times in history. Regarding the various versions of the story of Adam and Eve, It is in the various historical nuances that the story and it’s meaning and outcome changes.

A longer discussion to the answer :
There are multiple versions of this story and a variety of historical traditions and considerations that change the nature of the story, it’s meaning and the effects of the outcome.

One of the difficult insights for non-historians is the realization that their modern Christian beliefs, texts and interpretations are not the same as the beliefs, texts and interpretations of ancient Christianity. While Historians typically have come to terms with this, the non-historian “go to church on Sunday” Christian who works as a mechanic cannot be expected to have discovered this or even fully understand the concept.

We tend to grow up hearing our version of the garden of eden tradition without realizing there are multiple versions that are different and more expansive than our own. My current thinking is that the early versions described by Christian literature are more logical and rational than the later versions that became popular.

Having said that, I (and probably you..) grew up with the concept that the original plan of God was to place Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden and they were to have children and populate the earth with morally ignorant population that did not know the difference between good and evil and remain in this state for ever.

And further, in this modern version, somehow, this original plan created by an omnipotent and Omniscient God is scuttled by a wiley and clever Lucifer who ruins the original plan and this unexpected problem necessitates a hastily prepared “plan B” which involves a Savior who atones and dies for mankind who has become both mortal and who, through their experiences in mortality have been introduced to the moral knowledge of Good and Evil.

The philosophers and religionists have long pointed out that an omniscient God would have known that Lucifer would scuttle the first plan and an omnipotent God could have worked out a fix and a merciful God could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve, etc. The point is that the modern version has logical problems that the earlier versions did not have and the greater detail in the early versions explain details that are problematic.

Did an omniscient God know that the fall was going to occur?

If he knew the fall was going to occur, then was the fall his actual, original plan (or was an omniscient God surprised at the fall)?

It is in the context of the “fall” of Adam having been according to God’s plan all along that the prophet Sedrach said to the Lord : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master.”

And, an omniscient and omnipotent God could have simply banished Satan, or not put him in the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve in the first place, or have killed Satan. This is the question the prophet Sedrach asked God : “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him..... The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7

The answers to such questions and the meaning behind the fall and what is happening inside mortality changes depending up the version and the details one pays attention to.

For example, one Jewish version describes the first sin in the Garden NOT as disobeying God, but instead, as Adam lying to Eve when telling Eve that God forbade even “touching” the tree of moral wisdom (tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the modern version I grew up with).

The lie was that God didn’t actually tell Adam not to touch it or that, if he or Eve touched it, they would die.

Adam’s lie takes on importance in this Jewish version when Satan is trying to get Eve to eat of the tree and she relates that they can neither eat nor touch the tree or they will die. Satan then pushes Eve so that she makes contact with the tree and Eve then realizes that Adam had not told her the truth.

This discovery leads her to wonder whether the prohibition against eating was also a lie and ultimately, this doubt plays a role in her ultimately eating of the fruit.

This places Adam in the position of either remaining alone in the Garden (and being unable to obey the commandment to “replenish/fill the earth”), or eating and staying with Eve, having children, and gaining moral wisdom as a result. The point is not that this or any specific version of the story is true and others false, simply that there are differing versions in Judaism and in Christian traditions and some of the versions create different meanings regarding what actually happened in this "pre-history" tradition.

For example, once one removes or at least attenuates the concept of guilt and punishment from the story involving these two, naïve and partly morally incompetent adults, the possible meanings of the story shifts and gaining moral knowledge and understanding was not an evil occurrence, but was the plan from the beginning.

For example, this knowledge was never, itself, evil. God himself provides for the teaching and moral experiences which provide Adam (and the rest of us) knowledge and wisdom concerning "good and evil". The desire for moral wisdom itself was never a bad thing and God gives Adam and Even the moral education they sought by partaking of the fruit of the tree of wisdom (or knowledge of good and evil).

Regarding the early Christian belief that newborns are pure and sinless.
I simply making the point that all individuals are responsible only for their own sins and not for anything Adam or their horse-thief great, great, grandfather did.

This is the point the prophet Baruch was making regarding the cause of individual punishment for sin, saying “Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 54:17-19;

In such early Christian traditions, No one is being punished for Adams or anyone else's sins, only for their own sins.
I think this is a logical and rational and a more just model than one person being punished for what someone else did.

In any case Brian2, I hope whatever models of belief you come up with, that they are insightful and your spiritual journey in life is wonderful.

Clear
φυτωτζφινεω

Thanks for that.
I know that the problem of Satan and God's knowing his fall is part of the bigger picture and think that God had more than evil in the world to contend with. There seemed to be some sort of trouble in heaven and with whatever governmental arrangements were set up there and rebellion was probably immanent.
As with Job when Satan probably thought that he was getting the better of God in harming Job, but God had used the whole thing for Job's good even though it meant suffering for Job and others.
Satan may have thought he had the better of God and did what he did for his own purposes but God seems to be in the job of bringing good from what look to be bad and impossible situations and in the end good will come from all the suffering and evil in the world.
I agree with you about people being judged for their own deeds only.
Was the eating of the fruit sin?
It was certainly what God had said not to do.
That law led to a wrong action and what seems to have been a self centred action and based on lack of trust in God, and just as a child can feel guilt after disobeying the parent, so Adam and Eve felt guilt and hid from God.
God carried through with what He said and made sure they did not live forever and no access to the tree of life. In the wild outside the garden it was not a paradise. It is almost like the story of Israel being given the promised land conditionally.
I suppose the suffering we endure is meant for our good and teaching at times but even when it teaches nothing, in the end God's purposes will be fulfilled.
It is such a simple story really but it is hard to get to the bottom of, and it is interesting what people do with it and how imo they twist it, but some people do that with most of what the Bible says.
I think I'll just stick to story we have in the Bible about A@E and not go into other versions............at the moment.

Dogknox20 · Sep 12, 2021

Soapy said:
The ‘holy ROMAN Catholic [WORLDWIDE] Church’ was underwritten by the Roman Empire under a Roman emperor who didn’t believe in Christianity. The ‘holy’ Catholic faith is a disingenuous belief that undermines Jesus’ principles.

‘GOD’ establish a church (congregation of people who believe and worship him’.

‘God’ made Jesus the HEAD of that church.

Jesus chose those who would be the BODY of GOD’s church.

Now ask the right questions:

Whose church is it?

Who heads up the church?

Who are those making up the body of the church?

Answers:

It is YHWH GOD’s church

Jesus Christ is made head of GOD’s church

The ELECT (chosen by God from before time and…) selected by Jesus make up the body

Take note:

‘Father,… THEY WERE YOURS AND YOU GAVE THEM TO ME… and none are lost except the one destined for purgatory.’

So YHWH knew ahead of time that one would be deceitful but it was necessary for it to be that way for the sake of YHWH’s plans.

It did not need to be Judas… it turned out to be Judas…! It could have been Thomas or Phillip or Matthew the tax collector… but it was Judas!

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is God… therefore Jesus is YHWH… we know that is not true. We know that the Father is the only true God.

The Catholic faith teaches that God is three… we know that is also not true… We know that God is one … that the Father is the only true God.

The Catholic faith teaches that God put on first and came to earth. We know that that is not true. We know that God never leaves heaven and is NEVER said to ‘come’ anywhere! We know that if ‘God came’ then BY TRINITY it would be ALL THREE AS ONE GOD … but Catholics say it was Jesus AS GOD who came. How can an IMMUTABLE GOD separate himself to fine as one of the supposed three that us an undivided ONE GOD? Can a cake be divided into its constituent parts after baking? No! So his can an immutable god be separated so that only one member become flesh?

Can you offer an explanation of an impossible belief?

.
I am Christians "Christians believe Jesus is God" Christians do NOT reject the scriptures!
Soapy I pointed out in Scripture Prophesy.. Arius is a False Teacher! Arius WAS a Christian until he was removed as a False teacher!
Arius the False teacher taught "Jesus is NOT God"! Just as the Watch Tower does today! Christians rejected Arius and his false teaching!

Soapy You have a lot of Opinions in your post not much in the way of scripture!
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas tells you "Jesus is his God"! Thomas is an Apostle Thomas is a CHRISTIAN! LOOK....

Soapy look what Jesus replies to Thomas.. Jesus does NOT correct Thomas.. Jesus does NOT say.. "Thomas stop worshiping me" NO...
Jesus' reply is "All are blessed that believe I am God, not only you who has seen me"! Jesus is telling you.. "You are NOT blessed!"
Scriptures prove the Christians belief.. Jesus IS GOD!
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
&
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
&
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God,

Soapy Scriptures tell you.. God became flesh.. God came to earth an lived among us!
Christians reject the teaching of Charles Taze Russell. Christians KNOW beyond all doubt.. Jesus has remained ALWAYS with his Church not moving over to Russell'!
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

2ndpillar · Sep 12, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
2ndpillar
Gibberish ?????? I don't understand your OPINIONS! It's not scripture!
I am Christian; Christians believe the scriptures God' Holy Words!

To "understand", one must read the "Word of God". I gave the definite "Scripture", whereas Yeshua was fulfilling the "Word of God", by appointing the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, and fulfilling Isaiah 22:15-25 by appointing Peter as head of "the royal house". As for you being "Christian", and being a follower of the false prophet Paul, one of the "shepherds" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed for slaughter", I agree you have apparently adopted the tare seed, the message of the devil, instead of the message of the son of man (Matthew 13:37-38), and whose consequence will be that of being thrown into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:30). Keep in mind that the good seed, the message of the son of man, is to be planted in the same "field"/book, as the word of the devil. Apparently you lean towards the tare seed versus the message of the son of man. Examples of the seed/words of the devil, would be messages by the unknown authors of Luke, Acts, 2 Peter, and any supposed writings of the false prophet Paul.

Soapy · Sep 12, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
I am Christians "Christians believe Jesus is God" Christians do NOT reject the scriptures!
Soapy I pointed out in Scripture Prophesy.. Arius is a False Teacher! Arius WAS a Christian until he was removed as a False teacher!
Arius the False teacher taught "Jesus is NOT God"! Just as the Watch Tower does today! Christians rejected Arius and his false teaching!

Soapy You have a lot of Opinions in your post not much in the way of scripture!
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas tells you "Jesus is his God"! Thomas is an Apostle Thomas is a CHRISTIAN! LOOK....

Soapy look what Jesus replies to Thomas.. Jesus does NOT correct Thomas.. Jesus does NOT say.. "Thomas stop worshiping me" NO...
Jesus' reply is "All are blessed that believe I am God, not only you who has seen me"! Jesus is telling you.. "You are NOT blessed!"
Scriptures prove the Christians belief.. Jesus IS GOD!
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
&
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
&
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God,

Soapy Scriptures tell you.. God became flesh.. God came to earth an lived among us!
Christians reject the teaching of Charles Taze Russell. Christians KNOW beyond all doubt.. Jesus has remained ALWAYS with his Church not moving over to Russell'!
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I don’t give a fig about what Arius said or did. Dispelling the beliefs of one of Two wrong ideologists don’t make the non-dispelled belief correct.

And there is no scripture that say Jesus is God!

Dogknox20 · Sep 12, 2021

2ndpillar said:
To "understand", one must read the "Word of God". I gave the definite "Scripture", whereas Yeshua was fulfilling the "Word of God", by appointing the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, and fulfilling Isaiah 22:15-25 by appointing Peter as head of "the royal house". As for you being "Christian", and being a follower of the false prophet Paul, one of the "shepherds" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed for slaughter", I agree you have apparently adopted the tare seed, the message of the devil, instead of the message of the son of man (Matthew 13:37-38), and whose consequence will be that of being thrown into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:30). Keep in mind that the good seed, the message of the son of man, is to be planted in the same "field"/book, as the word of the devil. Apparently you lean towards the tare seed versus the message of the son of man. Examples of the seed/words of the devil, would be messages by the unknown authors of Luke, Acts, 2 Peter, and any supposed writings of the false prophet Paul.

.
Christians believe Jesus is God.. Always have!
Christians believe the words of God... The scriptures.
I am Christian!

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2ndpillar Jesus does NOT correct Thomas.. Jesus does NOT say.. "I am NOT God"! NO...
Jesus tells Thomas those people coming after who believe as Thomas are Blessed!

2ndpillar Jesus is telling you: "You are NOT blessed"! As I said (above) Christians believe the words of Jesus!

Dogknox20 · Sep 12, 2021

Soapy said:
I don’t give a fig about what Arius said or did. Dispelling the beliefs of one of Two wrong ideologists don’t make the non-dispelled belief correct.
And there is no scripture that say Jesus is God!

BUT.. Soapy you fail to see.. Christians rejected Arius because He taught "Jesus is NOT God"! Christians believe "Jesus is God"; Always have!
Christians believe the scriptures!

This Scripture Prophesy cannot work in the reverse... "Christians were NOT among Arius"! It can only work in the one direction "Arius was AMONG Christians" UNTILL he was removed as a Heretic! "Arius was AMONG Christians" UNTILL he taught; Jesus is NOT God!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Soapy This is Scripture Prophesy! You are forced to reject the words of Jesus to be a JW!

Jesus is God the scriptures tell you so..
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
&
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
&
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God,

Thomas tells you "Jesus is his God"! Thomas is an Apostle Thomas is a CHRISTIAN; Christians have always believed and Taught Jesus is God!

The man who started your church "Mr. Russell" taught as Arius taught that Jesus is NOT God. He preached Jesus is NOT God1800 years AFTER Jesus! Russell taught 1800 years after Christians have been teaching Jesus IS GOD! He rejected what Christians have always taught! He rejected the scriptures!
Soapy You have to reject Christians and the scriptures to be a JW!

2ndpillar · Sep 12, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
BUT.. Soapy you fail to see.. Christians rejected Arius because He taught "Jesus is NOT God"! Christians believe "Jesus is God"; Always have!
Christians believe the scriptures!

This Scripture Prophesy cannot work in the reverse... "Christians were NOT among Arius"! It can only work in the one direction "Arius was AMONG Christians" UNTILL he was removed as a Heretic! "Arius was AMONG Christians" UNTILL he taught; Jesus is NOT God!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Soapy This is Scripture Prophesy! You are forced to reject the words of Jesus to be a JW!

Jesus is God the scriptures tell you so..
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
&
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
&
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God,

Thomas tells you "Jesus is his God"! Thomas is an Apostle Thomas is a CHRISTIAN; Christians have always believed and Taught Jesus is God!

The man who started your church "Mr. Russell" taught as Arius taught that Jesus is NOT God. He preached Jesus is NOT God1800 years AFTER Jesus! Russell taught 1800 years after Christians have been teaching Jesus IS GOD! He rejected what Christians have always taught! He rejected the scriptures!
Soapy You have to reject Christians and the scriptures to be a JW!

I don't know what bible you quoted John 1:18 from, but every bible I have seen says different.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

As for the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14), he was "begotten from the Father". The "Word" had a beginning, and God does not. (John 1:1). God the "Father" was not "begotten". The "Word of God" includes the testimony of Yeshua, which is the Spirit of prophecy/revelation (Revelation 19:10). God is Spirit. Yeshua was flesh, and David does not become "prince", chief shepherd, until after the judgment by God (Ezekiel 34:22-23). At that time he will reign over Judah and Ephraim in the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 37:24-25). Judgment day, the day of the Lord (Joel 2:31-3:2), remains behind the door, and the ruler of the world, is the devil and his henchmen, the heads of the beast (Revelation 13), upon whom sits the woman, Babylon the Great, which includes Constantine, the Pontifex Maximus, the overseer of the Roman Catholic church at his convened council of Nicaea. No I think you are following the "wise and intelligent", upon whom Yeshua said they would not understand (Matthew 11:25). The bright side is that the "great tribulation" remains behind the door (Matthew 24:33), and you still have a chance to repent.

Soapy · Sep 12, 2021

Dogknox20 said:
.
Christians believe Jesus is God.. Always have!
Christians believe the words of God... The scriptures.
I am Christian!

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2ndpillar Jesus does NOT correct Thomas.. Jesus does NOT say.. "I am NOT God"! NO...
Jesus tells Thomas those people coming after who believe as Thomas are Blessed!

2ndpillar Jesus is telling you: "You are NOT blessed"! As I said (above) Christians believe the words of Jesus!

You wrote the exact answer:

‘Christians BELIEVE that Jesus is God…’

That is a presumption too far!

Ok, if to believe in Jesus being God is to be ‘Christian’ then yes, I am not ‘Christian’.

Truth is, ‘Christian’ means ‘A follower of Christ’.
In that respect, I am ‘Christian’.

So there is a dilemma. The solution is simple. We need to add a declaration and clarification element to the title of our belief. So, I suggest that you and others who believe Jesus is God (and by that claim, also the Holy Spirit and the Father are God) are called TRINITARIAN Christians.

So what do I call those who do not believe Jesus is God? I say, ‘TRUE CHRISTIANS’.

But, of course, there are modalists and JW and others who are NOT this True Christians yet also believe Jesus isn’t God.

For my belief, I don’t give it a title addition. J just say, ‘Truth’.

It is like asking, which is the true ‘Church of God’. Everyone will say that their church is the true church… yet that cannot BE true!

I say that the true church if God does not have an earthly title. If is a church with an anonymous name, it’s congregation is an set of anonymous believers in the true Christ if God… there isn’t a building, there isn’t a physical gathering, it’s a spiritual church… a spiritual church in which its congregation worship the one true God in ‘Spirit and in truth’… just like the true Christ commanded his apostles to do!!

Commanded his apostles? Yes, Jesus commanded worship of his Father, alone… for such ones the Father is seeking to worship him!!!

Jesus made no such command to ‘Worship the Christ of God’ nor are there any scriptures, and prophesies, and directive, to worship the shepherd of the flock of God… for God is SPIRIT so must be worshipped IN SPIRIT. For Jesus is man:

“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)(Matt 26:24)
“At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” (Luke 21:27)
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.” (Matt 25:31)

The latter verse… Jesus gets to sit on HIS THRONE… the throne of his ancestor, King David.
God, … the Father, … on the other hand, is ALWAYS seated on HIS OWN THRONE! (Rev 3:21 & Rev 4:2)

rational experiences · Sep 12, 2021

Human science said my irrational human science creation theorising has to stop.

Human science the theist storyteller was always wrong and lied to their self owned presence just a human.

Science is the human who says it learns.

Natural spiritual humans honouring all life already knew they were one hundred percent correct. As humans.

Science today says false preaching science creation thesis has to stop by purpose irrational human advice.

Dogknox20 · Sep 12, 2021

2ndpillar said:
I don't know what bible you quoted John 1:18 from, but every bible I have seen says different.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

As for the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14), he was "begotten from the Father". The "Word" had a beginning, and God does not. (John 1:1). God the "Father" was not "begotten". The "Word of God" includes the testimony of Yeshua, which is the Spirit of prophecy/revelation (Revelation 19:10). God is Spirit. Yeshua was flesh, and David does not become "prince", chief shepherd, until after the judgment by God (Ezekiel 34:22-23). At that time he will reign over Judah and Ephraim in the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 37:24-25). Judgment day, the day of the Lord (Joel 2:31-3:2), remains behind the door, and the ruler of the world, is the devil and his henchmen, the heads of the beast (Revelation 13), upon whom sits the woman, Babylon the Great, which includes Constantine, the Pontifex Maximus, the overseer of the Roman Catholic church at his convened council of Nicaea. No I think you are following the "wise and intelligent", upon whom Yeshua said they would not understand (Matthew 11:25). The bright side is that the "great tribulation" remains behind the door (Matthew 24:33), and you still have a chance to repent.

.
Christians believe Jesus is God!
Christians believe the scriptures!
NO the word does NOT have a beginning..
"In the Beginning was the word!" .... In the beginning was GOD!
2ndpillar Are you saying; God had a beginning?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIRV
In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
WE
The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.

2ndpillar Scripture Prophesy proves Jesus is God!
Arius was AMONG Christians until he taught "Jesus is not God" he was removed as a False Teacher!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

This PROPHESY cannot work in the reverse.. Christians were NOT AMONG Arius! Christians believe Jesus is God as the scriptures tell you! Thomas is an Apostle he tells you "Jesus is his Lord and GOD!"
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
2ndpillar Jesus does NOT correct Thomas;. Thus Jesus is GOD! Jesus does NOT stop Thomas from making error because Jesus is GOD! LOOK..

2ndpillar look what Jesus said to Thomas in reply...
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
2ndpillar Jesus is telling you: "You are NOT blessed"!

Charles Taze Russell taught "Jesus is NOT God!" 1800 years AFTER Christians have taught "Jesus is God". Russell comes along teaching the opposite!
2ndpillar Jesus warned about Anti-Christs, If I was to look for a true church I would reject the JWs because they don't teach what Christians have always taught! If I was Satan I would also start a church that rejects Jesus!

Clear · Sep 12, 2021

Hi @Dogknox20 (and @nPeace since you started a thread on Matt 16:18)

1) THE APOSTLE PETER WAS NEVER A STANDING BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATION, EVER
Dogknox20 said : “Name another Key Holder! If NOT then all you have is your OPINION once again!”
Clear replied : “All of the apostles had keys to bind and loose : In speaking to the disciples (plural), Jesus in Matthew 18:18 tells them “Truly I say to you (gk υμιν = plural), whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ( the greek is Αμην λεγω υμιν which is “you” plural).”
Dogknox20 said : “primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:”

Yes, I believe so as well. Thank you for agreeing with this point.
Peters primacy does not help your historical claim since, historically, the apostle Peter, never served as a standing Bishop of Rome, ever.
Nor, historically did the apostle Peter ever transfer his apostolic authority to an obscure Bishop of a congregation in rome.

The main call of an apostle was to go “into all the world and preach the gospel” (mark 16:15). We have no historical evidence that Peter gave up his call as an apostle and took on a standing bishopric of Rome for 25 years as the roman Advertisement came to claim. We also have a lot of reasons to believe Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome for 25 years as the advertisement claims.

Nor do we have any historical evidence that the obscure bishop of the Roman congregation Linus, left his calling as a bishop of the roman congregation and was given the apostolic authority and position of an apostle to “go into all the world and preach the gospel”. Instead, Linus, the first Bishop of the Roman congregation remained a bishop of that local congregation.

Thus, your claim that the roman congregation “has the AUTHORITY to bind and Loose!” was a good advertisement and it served its purpose as Rome later sought primacy and power over the other congregations, but in historical reality, the roman congregation was simply one congregation among many congregations and it never received authority it claimed.

As I said, it was always a dogmatic claim.
Historically, it never happened.

2) JESUS IS THE TRUE SHEPHERD OF HIS FLOCK AND ALL APOSTLES WERE GIVEN KEYS TO BIND AND LOOSE
Dogknox20 said : “What you have to do is name another Shepherd of God' Holy Flock;
Clear replied : Jesus is the shepherd : In John 10:14 Jesus tells us "I am the good shepherd, I know my own and my own know me."

3) CHRISTIANS HOLD FAST TO THE UNITY OF GOD AND JESUS CHRIST, NOT A THEORETICAL "UNITY OF PETER".

Dogknox20 said : “Clear If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?”

Of course. The Gathering represented by the ancient Christian usage of Εκκλησια was never about gathering around Peter, but instead, the gathering was intended to gather around Jesus and his teachings.

THE CONCEPT OF AN ETERNAL AND UNIVERSAL GATHERING WAS TO THE ROCK OF JESUS, HIS TRUTHS, AND HIS ATONEMENT

The early Judeo-Christian concept of the Rock that the εκκλησια, the gathering was to gather toward was always the messiah, his truths, and his atonement.
Peter was not the messiah.
Peter received his truths from the messiah and his source.
Individuals came to Jesus and his power and any authority Peter and the other apostles had, originated from the rock of their salvation, Jesus.

Matt 16:15-19

Jesus asks Peter in vs15, “…whom say ye that I am?”

Peter answers in vs 16, “…Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus explains the source of this faith is revelation from God
He said to Peter in vs 17, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

In verse 18 the controversy regarding what Jesus meant starts.

Jesus said three phrases :

“…thou art Peter”

“…upon this rock I will build my church” Is the rock Jesus, or is the rock revelation by which Peter comes to his faith, or is the rock God (who revealed the truth to Peter), or is the rock Peter?

“…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The difficulty is in determining what “rock” Jesus was referring to.

Was Jesus referring to himself as the rock of salvation upon which the Gathering of Christianity was to occur?
It is more plausible that Jesus was to guide his church than the mere Bishop Linus of the roman congregation.

Was Jesus referring to God the Father who revealed Jesus’ messiahship as the rock upon which the gathering of Christianity was to occur?
It is more plausible that God himself was to continue guiding his church than to hand over the reigns of his gospel to Linus, the bishop of the Roman congregation.

Was Jesus referring to the principle of revelation which produced Peters faith and commitments as the rock and principle upon which the gathering of Christianity was to occur?
It is more plausible that the workings of the spirit in the lives of individuals world wide was the principle motivating individuals to come to Christ than to believe this meant Linus, the bishop of the Roman congregation.

The point is that there are multiple principles that are referred to as a “Rock” in the texts and it is not clear which tradition Jesus was referring to.

For examples :

GOD and JESUS AS THE ROCK

Jesus as the “spiritual rock” that followed the Israelites :
Paul reminds the Jews that Jesus was the Rock, saying of the ancient Israelites “…And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor 10:4)

Jesus as the “rock of offense”, the “stone of stumbling”, the stone that was mad “the head of the corner”.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, …” 1 Cor 10 : 1

God, The rock who is the source of salvation
“…I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. 1Sam 2 1-2 :

The Rock of Israel
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 1Sam 23: 3

The Lord is a rock
And he said, The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. 2 Sam 22: 1-3

The Rock of Israel
2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. 3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Sam 23 : 2-3

God is our Rock
Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Deut 32 : 3-4

The Lord is the rock whence we are hewn
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Isaiah 51:1

The Lord of hosts is a rock
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Isaiah 8: 14

The Lord is my Rock
The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:1-2

God is my Rock
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? Psalms 42 : 9 9

God only is my rock
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. Psalms 62:1-2 1

God is my rock and my fortress
Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress. Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man. Psalms 71:3-4 3

My God is the Rock of my salvation
I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. Psalms 89: 18-27

The Lord is my rock
To shew that the Lord is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Psalms 92 : 15

My God is the rock of my refuge
But the Lord is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge Psalms 94 :22

The Lord is the rock of our salvation
O come, let us sing unto the Lord: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Psalms 95:1-2 1

Is Peter, as a Jew, aware of such references and associate Jesus' words with this context or some other context?
The gathering of the Ecclesia has always been toward faith in and gathering toward the truth of Gospel principles and toward the author of THOSE principles.

You and I have always agreed that your organization inaugurated evil policies enumerated in posts #1300 and #1301 by your religious movement involving slavery, thievery on a large scale, oppression of members of your church, torture and murder of thousands and thousands though inquisitions and other manner of oppression including taking children from their parents and introducing them into tacit slavery in order to gain riches and influence and power.

Why would ANYONE think that such policies would be the policies of God, or Jesus, or Peter?

In conclusion :
1) It is wrong to lie about another religion to produce prejudice and animosity against them.
2) The Roman movements policies of slavery, thievery, taking children from their families, forced obedience and oppression of the masses was never morally superior to an individual refusing blood
3) Peter was never a standing bishop of the roman schism.
4) JESUS is the good shepherd. He was always the good shepherd.

Clear
φυτωφιτζειω

Dogknox20 · Sep 12, 2021

Soapy said:
You wrote the exact answer:

‘Christians BELIEVE that Jesus is God…’

That is a presumption too far!

Ok, if to believe in Jesus being God is to be ‘Christian’ then yes, I am not ‘Christian’.

Truth is, ‘Christian’ means ‘A follower of Christ’.
In that respect, I am ‘Christian’.

So there is a dilemma. The solution is simple. We need to add a declaration and clarification element to the title of our belief. So, I suggest that you and others who believe Jesus is God (and by that claim, also the Holy Spirit and the Father are God) are called TRINITARIAN Christians.

So what do I call those who do not believe Jesus is God? I say, ‘TRUE CHRISTIANS’.

But, of course, there are modalists and JW and others who are NOT this True Christians yet also believe Jesus isn’t God.

For my belief, I don’t give it a title addition. J just say, ‘Truth’.

It is like asking, which is the true ‘Church of God’. Everyone will say that their church is the true church… yet that cannot BE true!

I say that the true church if God does not have an earthly title. If is a church with an anonymous name, it’s congregation is an set of anonymous believers in the true Christ if God… there isn’t a building, there isn’t a physical gathering, it’s a spiritual church… a spiritual church in which its congregation worship the one true God in ‘Spirit and in truth’… just like the true Christ commanded his apostles to do!!

Commanded his apostles? Yes, Jesus commanded worship of his Father, alone… for such ones the Father is seeking to worship him!!!

Jesus made no such command to ‘Worship the Christ of God’ nor are there any scriptures, and prophesies, and directive, to worship the shepherd of the flock of God… for God is SPIRIT so must be worshipped IN SPIRIT. For Jesus is man:

“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)(Matt 26:24)

“At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” (Luke 21:27)

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.” (Matt 25:31)

The latter verse… Jesus gets to sit on HIS THRONE… the throne of his ancestor, King David.
God, … the Father, … on the other hand, is ALWAYS seated on HIS OWN THRONE! (Rev 3:21 & Rev 4:2)

.
I reply.. Followers of Christ believe the words of Christ! Christians rejected Arius because he taught "Jesus is NOT God!" All who believe as Arius are NOT Christian!
Thomas is a Christian he is a Follower of Christ he is an APOSTLE! He tells you; Jesus is his God! To reject what CHRISTIANS believe is not a follower of Christ; it is "Anti-Christ"!
Soapy Jesus tells you the same thing he told Thomas.. 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Scriptures tell you.. They worship Jesus: Jesus lets them worship him, NEVER does Jesus stop anyone from worshipping him! Worship is ONLY for GOD!
Scriptures tell you.. "The WORD was GOD and the WORD became flesh and lived with us"!
Christians believe and teach; Jesus is God!
Christians believe the scriptures!
The Word was God the Word became Flesh and lived among us!
Charles Taze Russell is an Anti-Christ 1800 years after Jesus established Christianity Russell taught "Jesus is NOT God" just as Arius the False Teacher did! If I was Satan I also would start a church and teach Jesus is Not God.. Satan wants to be worshiped he does not want Jesus to be worshipped!

rational experiences · Sep 12, 2021

God in science chosen by human men as scientific quotes was stone the seal.

Theists. Just humans as a human born a human have lived however long as just humans have lived.

Yet one self which anyone is says a human is only as old as your human given age.

Scientific fact both occult and medical and cannot be argued against. Age of one human is how old that human is as science data.

Yet theists just humans were given entitled human status to theory against life existing. By claiming life living incorrectly as destroyed history.

By the rich humans who want to get richer. By false status money. Money is a fake system.

O earth owns naturally any product as God the planet. Named by men in science.

Life lived on earth equally is a human teaching of scientific natural observed intelligence.

Science by natural terms is real intelligence present now only.

Which by science law is all about just human babies.

Using no other advice.

Bible said the human baby owned the adult life and all were innocent.

To be innocent you cannot be guilty so hence no law is broken. No judgement of a law imposed.

Science only imposes laws.

Is the correct bible teaching using a historic advice.
Advice.....as correct and incorrect information is both taught to claim I was advised.

Babies are innocent hence no human man life should get sacrificed.

So father told me the bible is a human contradiction.

As so is science by status I research destructive advice. To cause loss of human life by its conditions advised.

A healer reasons hurt life and never sought destruction advice as advised.

So Jesus is involved with all defined quotes Satan. Destruction.

And the terms it was against God remaining one and whole as it's first body. The planet.

Why you are wrong. Natural life lives surviving only. You heal bodily if you can. If you cannot the human is advised of bodily damage as term healthy is removed.

Healthy was our first human self advice. Everyone hence should only be healthy with God. Whole.

God was just the one body of science quotes the stone.

In the heavens human bio owns life only which is not science as a definition.

Because we did not own life by a baby life as an act destruction. It was by sex.

Also discussed humans chose to have sexual intercourse.

Therefore only some bible quotes are real. The test is attacked life advice.

If you want attacked life advice your human self believes in it and is motivated to cause it.

Science owns no place to say humanity is wrong. Science sought destruction.

A natural human not a scientist is right. Your science community today and historic a lot of liars is real. The term God in occult science conditions.

As even a large medical reasoning is now based on human greed.

Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member