• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Catholic=/=Roman.

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
From Wiki:

The total membership of the various churches accounts for about 16 million, according to the Annuario Pontificio, thus making up about 1.5 percent of the Catholic Church, with the rest of its more than 1.2 billion members belonging to the (Western) Latin Church.

Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia

... so if someone uses the phrase "the Roman Catholic Church," they're about 98.5% correct.

The Eastern Rite churches might have personal significance for you, but in grand scheme of things, the Catholic Church is predominantly Western Rite.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Have you at least skimmed it in Greek before? Do you know what a "presbyter" and an "episkopos" are? Or how about a "diakonos"? Let me help you: They're presbyters, episcopates and deacons, respectively. Or, in more common English, priests, bishops and deacons. In reading the Didache (a handbook on how to Christian from 50 AD), which is older than any of the writings of the New Testament, we find that there very much are Christian priests. There were leaders within the Christian community who exercised priestly functions, such as the consecration of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11). 1 Timothy 3 lists the qualifications for those who seek to be named to the position of episkopos and diakonos.

The Greek pre·sbyʹte·ros is translated “elder” when it refers to those responsible for taking the lead in the congregation.
But there were no earthly priests in Christianity. Elders took the lead in the congregations. God promised that if Israel kept his covenant they would "become" to Him "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exodus 19:6) However, the priesthood of Aaron’s line was to continue only until the coming of the greater priesthood that it foreshadowed. (Hebrews 8:4, 5) It would endure until the ending of the Law covenant and the inauguration of the new covenant. (Hebrews 7:11-14; 8:6, 7, 13) The offer was first made exclusively to Israel to become Jehovah’s priests serving in God’s promised Kingdom arrangement to come; in time this offer was extended to the Gentiles. (Acts 10:34, 35; 15:14; Romans 10:21)

Since the Jews expected God's kingdom to be established on earth, they saw the priesthood as something that was an extension of what they already had with an earthly Temple and priesthood, but for Christians, the promise of "becoming" priests was yet future. As John said in his Revelation......"Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years."

It required a resurrection to become a priest in God's kingdom....and their priesthood and kingship is obviously in the future tense as this verse indicates.

Care to back the public speaking classes up with Scripture? According to Acts 2, Christians met to break bread (i.e. have the Eucharist) and to pray. As in, prayer and the breaking of bread were the main body of the Christian meetings, not public speaking practice. The Eucharist was celebrated whenever the Christian community came together on the first day of the week (Sunday), as 1 Corinthians 11:20 and Acts 20:7 give evidence. The Apostles, the leaders of the Christian community, gave themselves to prayer and to study of Scripture, and they led the congregation in prayer, as we see in Acts 6.

Do all Scriptural references to “breaking of bread” indicate that Christ’s death was being commemorated? (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, JB) Jesus ‘broke bread’ when food was being shared at a meal even before the Last Supper. (Mark 6:41; 8:6) The bread used by the Jews at that time was not what many people are accustomed to today. When eating it, they would often break or tear off a piece. It was customary to break bread at mealtimes.

At Acts 20:7 it says..."On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight." I see nothing here about this being a special meal, just a meal taken on the first day of the week. The emphasis in this passage is on the length of Paul's address and the young man who fell from the window and died.

Jesus did not specifically state how often the Memorial of his death was to be kept. However, he instituted it on the date of the Jewish Passover, which was replaced among his disciples by the Memorial of Christ’s death. The Passover was an annual event, celebrated on Nisan 14. Similarly, the Jewish Festival of Unfermented Cakes, the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost), the Festival of Booths, or Ingathering, and the Day of Atonement were all held once a year.

Really? Then why does Paul call himself the spiritual father of Timothy and the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 4:16-17? And why does Peter call Mark his son?

I have heard the Pope called "Holy Father" which is the sense that Jesus told us not to use. Being 'like a father figure' to someone is not the same as setting yourself up with a title that makes you sound more like God than his servant.

Paul's relationship with Timothy was recounted in Philippians 2:20-22:
"But you know the proof he gave of himself, that like a child with a father he slaved with me to advance the good news."

Timothy was a 'fatherless boy' because his fleshly father was an unbelieving Greek. Paul was a true father figure to him.
Same with Peter and Mark.

Introduction to Mark — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Have you at least skimmed it in Greek before? Do you know what a "presbyter" and an "episkopos" are? Or how about a "diakonos"? Let me help you: They're presbyters, episcopates and deacons, respectively. Or, in more common English, priests, bishops and deacons. In reading the Didache (a handbook on how to Christian from 50 AD), which is older than any of the writings of the New Testament, we find that there very much are Christian priests. There were leaders within the Christian community who exercised priestly functions, such as the consecration of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11). 1 Timothy 3 lists the qualifications for those who seek to be named to the position of episkopos and diakonos.
And one of those qualifications is that an episkopos should be "husband of one wife," which doesn't match with the Western Rite's current practice. I'm not sure your interpretation works in a Catholic context.

IIRC (and I may be wrong), I believe the Church's position that "episkopoi" in those passages refers to what we'd call deacons today.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So you have a 'Kingdom Hall, who pays for that, who pays the tax, where does the travel money come from, obviously your Cult leader don't tell you where they get the money from.

We all contribute to a world wide fund that is used for all the needs of the brotherhood globally. The building of places for worship, practical relief in times of natural disasters, where funds are used to give help in the way of food, water and volunteers to help rebuild homes and lives. We have no "cult leader" so you have no idea what you're talking about.

There are over 8 million of us who see to it that there is no want in our family. Those who have, share with those who do not have. Your observations are not based on facts, but on bias and misinformation. There is no emphasis on money in our brotherhood but no organization on earth can function without it. It never has to be demanded because the Bible says that "God loves a cheerful giver". God is generous and his worshippers follow his example. We cover all our own costs so what does that have to do with you?
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
And one of those qualifications is that an episkopos should be "husband of one wife," which doesn't match with the Western Rite's current practice. I'm not sure your interpretation works in a Catholic context.
Yeah, bishops in the Catholic and Orthodox churches are always celibate, though this only became a rule at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. I'm not sure why that change was introduced, but it isn't a dogmatic thing by any means. Theoretically it could be reversed, and among at least the Ukrainian Orthodox - Kievan Patriarchate (which are out of communion with basically every Orthodox church, but the reason why is complicated as hell and not because of this) they do allow for married men to be elevated to the rank of bishop.

Somewhat uniquely, it's usually the case that all bishops in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches have a monastic background. Unlike in the Roman West, there was never a large decline in monasticism among the Eastern Churches, and the spirituality of these Churches in general is marked by a more ascetic, monastic character.

IIRC (and I may be wrong), I believe the Church's position that "episkopoi" in those passages refers to what we'd call deacons today.
Not the case. "Episkopos" actually translates out to "bishop", such as with the term "episcopacy" or "episcopal". "Diakonos" is a deacon. Hooray, linguistics!
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
We all contribute to a world wide fund that is used for all the needs of the brotherhood globally. The building of places for worship, practical relief in times of natural disasters, where funds are used to give help in the way of food, water and volunteers to help rebuild homes and lives. We have no "cult leader" so you have no idea what you're talking about.

There are over 8 million of us who see to it that there is no want in our family. Those who have, share with those who do not have. Your observations are not based on facts, but on bias and misinformation. There is no emphasis on money in our brotherhood but no organization on earth can function without it. It never has to be demanded because the Bible says that "God loves a cheerful giver". God is generous and his worshippers follow his example. We cover all our own costs so what does that have to do with you?

So you have a 'Kingdom Hall, who pays for that, who pays the tax, where does the travel money come from, obviously your Cult leader don't tell you where they get the money from.

If y'all don't mind, I'd rather we split this conversation off into another thread. @Deeje, is it alright if I respond to this post down here in a new thread dedicated to the topic? It's a separate issue from what I wanted to address with this thread.
The Greek pre·sbyʹte·ros is translated “elder” when it refers to those responsible for taking the lead in the congregation.
But there were no earthly priests in Christianity. Elders took the lead in the congregations. God promised that if Israel kept his covenant they would "become" to Him "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exodus 19:6) However, the priesthood of Aaron’s line was to continue only until the coming of the greater priesthood that it foreshadowed. (Hebrews 8:4, 5) It would endure until the ending of the Law covenant and the inauguration of the new covenant. (Hebrews 7:11-14; 8:6, 7, 13) The offer was first made exclusively to Israel to become Jehovah’s priests serving in God’s promised Kingdom arrangement to come; in time this offer was extended to the Gentiles. (Acts 10:34, 35; 15:14; Romans 10:21)

Since the Jews expected God's kingdom to be established on earth, they saw the priesthood as something that was an extension of what they already had with an earthly Temple and priesthood, but for Christians, the promise of "becoming" priests was yet future. As John said in his Revelation......"Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years."

It required a resurrection to become a priest in God's kingdom....and their priesthood and kingship is obviously in the future tense as this verse indicates.



Do all Scriptural references to “breaking of bread” indicate that Christ’s death was being commemorated? (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, JB) Jesus ‘broke bread’ when food was being shared at a meal even before the Last Supper. (Mark 6:41; 8:6) The bread used by the Jews at that time was not what many people are accustomed to today. When eating it, they would often break or tear off a piece. It was customary to break bread at mealtimes.

At Acts 20:7 it says..."On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight." I see nothing here about this being a special meal, just a meal taken on the first day of the week. The emphasis in this passage is on the length of Paul's address and the young man who fell from the window and died.

Jesus did not specifically state how often the Memorial of his death was to be kept. However, he instituted it on the date of the Jewish Passover, which was replaced among his disciples by the Memorial of Christ’s death. The Passover was an annual event, celebrated on Nisan 14. Similarly, the Jewish Festival of Unfermented Cakes, the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost), the Festival of Booths, or Ingathering, and the Day of Atonement were all held once a year.



I have heard the Pope called "Holy Father" which is the sense that Jesus told us not to use. Being 'like a father figure' to someone is not the same as setting yourself up with a title that makes you sound more like God than his servant.

Paul's relationship with Timothy was recounted in Philippians 2:20-22:
"But you know the proof he gave of himself, that like a child with a father he slaved with me to advance the good news."

Timothy was a 'fatherless boy' because his fleshly father was an unbelieving Greek. Paul was a true father figure to him.
Same with Peter and Mark.

Introduction to Mark — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
From Wiki:



Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia

... so if someone uses the phrase "the Roman Catholic Church," they're about 98.5% correct.

The Eastern Rite churches might have personal significance for you, but in grand scheme of things, the Catholic Church is predominantly Western Rite.
Oh, of course. Colonialism gave the Roman Church a gigantic leap forward in terms of her population. But despite the small overall percentage of Catholics in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the presence of these Churches makes a profound difference in what the Roman Church can consider dogma or doctrine, and how she is able to define these things. For example, Rome has had to reinterpret the Filioque clause which they added to the Nicene Creed in their Church's use (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son) in such a way that conflicts with neither Roman nor Byzantine nor Oriental nor Assyrian theology. Likewise, the language surrounding Papal primacy/supremacy has been carefully crafted so as to not stand in open violation to Byzantine and Oriental ecclesiology. The Catholic Church's definitions of Original Sin and Purgatory are also subject to these same pressures, and without the presence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, I can almost guarantee that Rome would have enshrined her own theology as dogma. Certainly, many Traditionalist Roman Catholics still think their particular theology IS dogma, and they've managed to convince a great many in the West, whether Catholic or Protestant or of another religion altogether that this is the case. Many people think they have a problem with Catholicism because they think Catholic teaching is synonymous with Scholastic thought.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Alright, so I just want to bring up a point that I've seen over and over and over again and it annoys the ever-living crap out of me.

So when people talk about Christianity, they talk about Protestantism, ROMAN Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Alright, all fair... Technically you're leaving the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East out in the cold, but since like every other language in the world has just one word for East and the Assyrian Church of the East is waaayyyyy past its heyday where it went from Persia all the way to China, I'm willing to overlook those two things. But I DO have one major problem. The Roman Church is not the entirety of the Catholic Church. You still have about 22 other Catholic Churches to go before you have the entirety of the Catholic Church.

"Wait, what?" I hear you say. Don't worry, confused reader, allow me to explain.

You see, like with the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church isn't just one church. It's a whole bunch of them, all in communion with one another and adhering to the same dogmas, though some of these dogmas are read just a little bit differently by the different Churches. Unlike the Orthodox Church, all the Catholic Churches recognize the Pope of Rome as the head of the universal Catholic Church and of the Roman Church in particular.

While the Roman Church is the largest of the Catholic Churches (thank you Spanish and Portuguese Empires), there exist 22 other Catholic Churches, a list of which you can find here. They have their own parallel church hierarchies, with their own deacons, priests and bishops, with Patriarchs sitting at the top of that particular Eastern Catholic Church's hierarchy. Most of these Churches used to be Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, but for one reason or another, they split off from their not-Catholic counterparts and came into communion with the Pope of Rome and the Roman Church, while keeping all of their own spiritual, liturgical, theological and customary traditions. And that gets SUPER awkward at Catholic family get-togethers when you have the Oriental Catholics and Chaldean Catholics commemorating Saints on opposite sides of theological and political arguments who repeatedly went at it harder than the opponents in the good episodes of Epic Rap Battles of History, but everyone involved ignores that small tidbit for sanity's sake.

However, you DO have two Eastern Catholic Churches who, as far as anyone can tell, never went out of communion with the Roman Church: The Italo-Byzantines (take a guess as to why) and the Maronites, who basically got screwed over by their new Abbasid mobile service providers and thus lost touch with Rome for like 400 years. That is, until the Crusaders with Raymond of Toulouse came by and the Maronites were all like "Sup fam" and the Crusaders were like "New phone who dis" and the Maronites were like "We're the Maronites, who's the Pope rn" and then Raymond was like "Pope Urban II" and the Maronites were like "Sweet kthx" and later on the Pope was like "O hai guyz welcome back"

Fun fact: One of the Papal titles used to be "Patriarch of the West", as the Church of Rome was historically the only Western church to have its own Patriarch.

As a fun side note: You'll see the heads of some Eastern Catholic Churches being called "Major Archbishop". How you should read that is "Guy who is basically a Patriarch but isn't getting called that, probably due to political shenanigans that nobody really cares about".

Now, what makes the Eastern Catholic Churches not-Roman? Tl;dr answer: Basically everything. Yes, you read that right. Even the hats are different (and I have proof). Eastern Catholics have different theologies, different Saints, different church buildings, different worship services, different liturgical calendars, different prayers, different customs... And the list just keeps going on. For example, Romans make the sign of the cross with an open hand going up-down-left-right. Eastern Catholics put their thumb, pointer finger and middle finger together (three Persons of the Trinity) and fold their pinky and ring finger down against the palm (two natures of Christ, divine and human when He came down and became man), and go up-down-right-left. This makes a lot of sense, as it follows the direction that the priest blesses you. The Romans used to do it like this too, but things changed around the 1200's for some odd reason. In the areas of theology, list of Saints, church buildings, worship services, calendars, prayers, customs and all that stuff, the Eastern Catholics are basically identical with their Eastern Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian Church of the East counterparts. If you walk into an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy/Holy Qurbana, the only time you'd actually be able to tell it was Catholic is when the time came to pray for the church's bishops.

But for the differences that you probably actually care about: Eastern Catholics don't have a concept of Original Sin in which we all bear the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve. We believe that humanity inherited only the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin, namely mortality, susceptibility to disease, a tendency to sin and, most importantly, a separation from God. And the Catholic Church as a whole only names these latter things as being dogmatically binding. To quote the Catechism:

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

And another thing: Purgatory is ONLY a Roman idea. It never existed in any other Church. Eastern Catholics believe that we all receive a foretaste of the Judgement in between the time that we die and the time of the Last Judgement. But the idea of indulgences, or the treasury of merits, or any of this stuff has zero place in Byzantine, Oriental or Assyrian theology.

Oh, and Limbo? It was never, ever doctrine within the Catholic Church, not ever. It was a popular idea among the Roman Catholics, but it was never doctrine. Why, you ask? Because it's a solution to a problem that only the Romans had. To us Easterners, it's cut and dry: Babies have committed no sin, and they're innocent. Of course God will have mercy on them and admit them into Heaven. And luckily the Romans have finally caught up, but for a few centuries there was some silliness where they had to make up a place to satisfy both the cold, hard logic of Scholastic thought which stated (erroneously) that original sin is actual sin that we are personally guilty of on the one hand, and the compassionate, common-sense idea that they're just babies. Scholastic solution? Let's invent Limbo, which isn't Heaven, but it isn't Hell, either! Perfect!

This is probably Part 1 of the installment. There is oh so much more to cover. But if you want to ask any follow-up questions, fire off a gotcha-question/comment about the Catholic Church or tell me that I'm bad and I should feel bad, then leave a comment below.

There are so many branches, cults, church's of Christianity, numbering close on 50,000, perhaps more by now, 23 seems a drop in the ocean.

All (or most) claiming to be the only true christian church because their interpretation of the one (of 200+) versions of the Bible is the correct interpretation.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yeah, bishops in the Catholic and Orthodox churches are always celibate, though this only became a rule at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
But 1 Timothy 3, in the criteria you referred to, says they should be married, not celibate. That's what I was getting at.

1 Tim 3:2 (emphasis mine):

The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
But 1 Timothy 3, in the criteria you referred to, says they should be married, not celibate. That's what I was getting at.

1 Tim 3:2 (emphasis mine):
Note that the verse specifies that they be the husband of one wife. In other words, bishops cannot have multiple wives. That is what the verse is stipulating. It's not necessarily requiring that all bishops be married.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Note that the verse specifies that they be the husband of one wife. In other words, bishops cannot have multiple wives. That is what the verse is stipulating. It's not necessarily requiring that all bishops be married.
Zero wives <> one wife. The verse doesn't say "husband of no more than one wife;" it says "husband of one wife."
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If y'all don't mind, I'd rather we split this conversation off into another thread. @Deeje, is it alright if I respond to this post down here in a new thread dedicated to the topic? It's a separate issue from what I wanted to address with this thread.

No problem. :)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Somewhat uniquely, it's usually the case that all bishops in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches have a monastic background. Unlike in the Roman West, there was never a large decline in monasticism among the Eastern Churches, and the spirituality of these Churches in general is marked by a more ascetic, monastic character.

Can I ask where the idea of a monastic existence is even hinted at in the Christian scriptures? It seems to me that being cloistered away in a monastery, taking vows of silence, etc is completely contrary to everything Jesus taught. He wanted his disciples to be evangelists....preachers of God's kingdom. (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14)

Also contrary is the present role of a bishop. Originally, it was nothing close to what it has become in Christendom. How did this happen?

After Christ’s death his disciples organized themselves into congregations, many of which met in private homes. (Philemon 2) For decades these congregations were cared for by spiritually “older men.” (Acts 20:17, 28; Hebrews 13:17)

After the death of the apostles, however, there was a falling away from true Christianity. (Acts 20:29, 30) In time, a number of elders elevated themselves above the others and became viewed as bishops having oversight of a number of congregations—something Jesus had warned against. (Matthew 23:9-12)

The word “church,” which originally applied to Christians themselves, was then also applied to their place of worship—the building itself. It wasn’t long before some bishops sought to have churches that befitted their rank. A new term was thus coined to describe the bishop’s church—the cathedral.

This term comes from the Greek word kathedra, meaning “seat.” The cathedral was the bishop’s throne, the symbol of his temporal power. From his cathedral the bishop presided over a jurisdiction, the bishopric.

We can see in many nations the degree of importance placed on the building that housed the bishop's throne. These very expensive and impressive buildings were constructed whilst many in their bishopric were living in extreme poverty. There are still beggars on the steps of the Vatican.

What "the church" became after the death of the apostles was foretold.....the great apostasy, I believe, is clearly evident. But it took place so long ago, most people are unaware that the Christianity they practice today bears little resemblance to the original. :(

How did we go from these humble beginnings.....
images
......to this?
images


And why is it that the colors associated with "Babylon the great" (the devil's world empire of false worship) are purple and scarlet? (Revelation 17:3-5) These are the colors of royalty, not servants. This prostitute "queen" sits on a scarlet-colored beast, ruling over the kings of the earth, having immoral relations with them. This is spiritual immorality....exerting influence over things that should be none of her business given who is running the show. (1 John 5:19 John 15:18-21)

images
images
images


This is not the Christianity that Jesus started IMO.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
But there were no earthly priests in Christianity.
The apostles acted as priests did in Judaism, plus their traditional leadership role was continued in the early church, but is missing with the JW's.

Jesus did not specifically state how often the Memorial of his death was to be kept. However, he instituted it on the date of the Jewish Passover, which was replaced among his disciples by the Memorial of Christ’s death.
It really was from the "agape meal", which is mentioned in the Didache, and it was done on Sunday according to that text.

I have heard the Pope called "Holy Father" which is the sense that Jesus told us not to use. Being 'like a father figure' to someone is not the same as setting yourself up with a title that makes you sound more like God than his servant.
Not again. We've gone through this before as it deals with what can happen when going from one language to another.

BTW, Pa-pa' is Latin for "father", whereas Pa'pa is actually how Pope is pronounced.

BTW, who is/was married to your mother?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Can I ask where the idea of a monastic existence is even hinted at in the Christian scriptures?
What about Jesus going into the wilderness for 40 days? What did John the Baptist do while in the wilderness?

They almost without a doubt were using the meditative form of prayer, which Jesus probably also used in the Garden, and a great many Catholics used and still use this as well.

What about your JW's? Seems that they're totally unaware of this traditional form of prayer used within Judaism and Christianity.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And why is it that the colors associated with "Babylon the great" (the devil's world empire of false worship) are purple and scarlet?
I suppose if they wore green that you would say that they are too earthy, thus children of the forest and not "true believers" in God. The colors of the vestments vary due to the rotation within the liturgical calendar.

It is truly pathetic that this is the kind of low that the JW's resort to in order to try and make themselves look like "true believers" and all other Christian denominations as being varying degrees of "evil".

IMO, the JW's only demean themselves when resorting to this kind of disingenuous trashing of other Christian groups in order to sell themselves. Maybe the JW's should actually try to run on their own merits instead.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The apostles acted as priests did in Judaism, plus their traditional leadership role was continued in the early church, but is missing with the JW's.

The Christians were thrown out of the temple metis. They used to meet in the porticos of the temple, but when the Pharisees deemed them to be apostates, and hatred against them mounted, they threw them out.

The apostles did not act as priests at all. Priests could only come from one tribe in Israel and none of them were of the priestly tribe. None of the Pharisees were of the priestly tribe either.
The Christians met in private homes and dedicated themselves to the study of God's word and to training for the preaching of the good news, as Jesus directed them to do. A body of Elders presided in the congregations, not priests. We base our practices on the first century model.

The apostles and other Christians knew that a priestly role was assigned to them, but not in any earthly temple. They were to serve God in this capacity only in heaven, after they were resurrected. (Revelation 20:6) The body of older men in Jerusalem were responsible for teaching the congregations what was passed on by the apostles, but Peter and Paul both warned about a coming apostasy. I believe that we can see clearly when it happened.
15.gif


It really was from the "agape meal", which is mentioned in the Didache, and it was done on Sunday according to that text.

These "love feasts" were not commanded by Christ or the apostles and there is no real detail about them in the Bible.
The day is not significant except that Sunday was the day the pagan Romans honored their sun god. When Catholicism adopted Roman sun worship under the disguise given it by Constantine, the Sabbath established by God with Israel (our Saturday) was changed to Sunday. There was no Biblical command to observe a Sabbath for Christians, however.....it was only for Jews. There is no record of any of God's worshippers keeping a Sabbath before the Law was given. Gentile disciples of Christ were not required to observe a Sabbath at all.

Not again. We've gone through this before as it deals with what can happen when going from one language to another.

BTW, Pa-pa' is Latin for "father", whereas Pa'pa is actually how Pope is pronounced.

What does the title "Pontiff" mean metis? Why does the Pope bear the title Pontifex Maximus?
It is not a Christian title but a pagan Roman one...."The Pontifex Maximus was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion" (Wiki)

Since the apostle Paul made it clear that you cannot fuse or mix truth with falsehood, (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) he said we had to "separate" ourselves from these things in order to be acceptable as God's sons and daughters.

Jesus said to 'call no man your Father on earth'. He obviously wasn't talking about fleshly fathers....so what did he mean? (Matthew 23:9)

It is truly pathetic that this is the kind of low that the JW's resort to in order to try and make themselves look like "true believers" and all other Christian denominations as being varying degrees of "evil".

Oh please metis
4fvgdaq_th.gif
.....Jesus himself exposed religious error when he saw it. He did not mince words or tip toe around those who were misrepresenting his Father's worship. Unless people are informed, they will go on living in ignorance....and worshipping in vain. (Mark 7:6-8) They cannot make decisions without hearing both sides of the issue. After studying the Bible with many Catholic people, I can honestly say that they were grateful to be informed about the truth. Ignorance benefits no one. :(

No one has anything to fear from the truth...do they? What have I said that was not true?

IMO, the JW's only demean themselves when resorting to this kind of disingenuous trashing of other Christian groups in order to sell themselves. Maybe the JW's should actually try to run on their own merits instead.

Did Jesus "trash" the teachings and traditions of the Pharisees of his day? He certainly did!.....and in no uncertain terms. Read his condemnation metis and understand why he said those things. (Matthew 23:9-33)

People challenge our beliefs all the time.....we defend them. The Roman Catholic Church cannot defend what they have done to Christianity.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
What about Jesus going into the wilderness for 40 days? What did John the Baptist do while in the wilderness?
They almost without a doubt were using the meditative form of prayer, which Jesus probably also used in the Garden, and a great many Catholics used and still use this as well.

You think people need a monastery to meditate on the word of God? I can do that in my own home.

What about your JW's? Seems that they're totally unaware of this traditional form of prayer used within Judaism and Christianity.

On the contrary metis, we are encouraged to meditate deeply on God's word. We just don't use religious traditions passed on by apostate Christianity or Judaism to accomplish it. :confused: I have a personal relationship with God and my communication with him is a frequent part of my day....it is not performed ritualistically by means of beads or icons or statues. It is an informal ongoing dialogue with my best friend. :)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The apostles did not act as priests at all.
Oh really. Such as when Jesus endowed them with the power to bind or loosen sins, Deeje? Or when they demanded that certain observances be followed even though they are not found in the OT? What do you think a "priest" actually is, Deeje? And did you again forget where the word comes from and the issue of translation?

When Catholicism adopted Roman sun worship under the disguise given it by Constantine, the Sabbath established by God with Israel (our Saturday) was changed to Sunday.
That's pure rubbish as the CC never was involved in sun worship. It is entirely dishonest to make up or pass on fabricated lies, Deeje. How unfortunate that you are so blind to reality that your leaders have so thoroughly brainwashed you to believe in absurdities like this..

Also, do you observe the Sabbath as prescribed by Jewish Law? It is entirely hypocritical for you to say that the church must follow what's in the Law, such as with the Sabbath, and then turn around and say that the church is not bound by the Law because it's Gentile.

Jesus said to 'call no man your Father on earth'. He obviously wasn't talking about fleshly fathers....so what did he mean? (Matthew 23:9)
Do you know what an "episcopos" was and is, Deeje? Any clue whatsoever?

And I note that you didn't answer my question as to who is/was married to your mother. The point being that you have undoubtedly used the term "father" many times, so it is hypocritical for you to use your argument in regards to the CC.

Oh please metis
4fvgdaq_th.gif
.....Jesus himself exposed religious error when he saw it.
You ain't Jesus nor God, Deeje.

Secondly, we have seen you over and over again make up or parrot out and out falsehoods, so you maybe should take your own advice and correct your own errors. Of course I never see you doing that or admitting you could be wrong.

Did Jesus "trash" the teachings and traditions of the Pharisees of his day? He certainly did!.....and in no uncertain terms.
Except that Jesus operated out of the Pharisee tradition, as did Paul. Jesus had issues with the mainline Pharisee group, but his teachings were quite compatible with more liberal Pharisee elements.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You think people need a monastery to meditate on the word of God? I can do that in my own home.
What is utterly irresponsible response the above is. Does it make a difference where one meditates? So, you do it in your home, which is all fine & dandy, so what in the world is so tragically wrong if one does it in a monastery, Deeje? You don't even realize that you have gone against your own position with the absurdity of the above.

We just don't use religious traditions passed on by apostate Christianity or Judaism to accomplish it.
And it is you who says that the CC is "apostate", which is really sort of pathetically bizarre since there are other Christian groups who think that the JW's are "apostate". BTW, I certainly don't agree with them either. .

I have a personal relationship with God and my communication with him is a frequent part of my day....it is not performed ritualistically by means of beads or icons or statues.
I don't care what you may or may not use in worship, so why are you telling others what they may or may not use in worship, Deeje? Ever hear of "mind your own business"?

But let's take an overlook at what the JW's do. Let's say you and I met one day, and all I did was to pick out ever single what I believe to be a flaw in you. Maybe your nose is too big for me. Maybe your hair color is not of my liking. And then I pay you no compliments whatsoever-- just nit-pick every single flaw I think you have.

If I did this to you, Deeje, what would you think of my tactic? This is exactly what you and the JW's do all the time, Deeje, namely tearing others down in order to try and make you and your JW's look better.

Instead, why don't you encourage your denomination and yourself to do something that's not so utterly self-serving, namely to talk about what you believe in without demeaning other denominations that believe in what they believe in for reasons, even if you don't believe in those reasons. Just because someone does something different than you and your JW's doesn't mean they're automatically wrong or "apostate". In the process of tearing down others, including fabricating destructive talking-points, all you are doing is to make yourself and your JW's look very self-serving and child-like.

IMO, the JW's do have some points that can and should be made, but they all too often go about it in a destructive, not constructive manner. Instead of taking the "Look at me, I'm better than others!" position, maybe they should just put forth what you and they believe and why you and they believe as such, and then let others make their own decisions. After all, this is what any good parent would teach their kids to do, namely to respect others even though they may strongly disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
Top