Ideas concerning the cross. || JESUS ADHERENTS ONLY.

[djhwoodwerks]

Immorality is something that takes place in all organizations, but those who represent Christ are especially reprehensible, especially when it seemed to be endemic in the whole system, not just isolated incidents. The priesthood became a haunt for homosexuals and pedophiles because they had access to children and other men with the same leanings....and the church turned a blind eye.

If you bothered to read, I acknowledged that sexual abuse happens in every organization....

But then proceeded to reference the Catholics! With no personal reference to your own org. If you can bring the dirt of other religions out, you should bring your own out as well. "The beam in your own eye..."!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The wheat have been in existence since Jesus chose the Twelve.

Then why did God wait until 1919 to chose 7 men as His only channel to the world?

Then why did God deem it necessary to start a brand new religion in 1918?

 

[Deeje]

But then proceeded to reference the Catholics! With no personal reference to your own org. If you can bring the dirt of other religions out, you should bring your own out as well. "The beam in your own eye..."!

Is there any real point in talking to someone like you djh? You have made up your mind, so why not go in peace and be confident of your position. You have Jesus' assurance that he knows those who belong to him. No one can snatch them out of his hand....right? So what are you jumping up and down about?

I used the word "endemic" because the scale of abuse in Roman Catholic institutions, in comparison to others, including my own, was seen in extraordinary numbers all over the world.

Then why did God wait until 1919 to chose 7 men as His only channel to the world?

Daniel 12:9-10. It was prophesied.

Then why did God deem it necessary to start a brand new religion in 1918?

He didn't...any more than Jesus came to start a new religion in the first century. He came to rescue the lost sheep from a religion that had descended into a farce. In these last days, Jesus is calling the lost sheep out of Babylon the great. Its not a new religion, but a re-institution of the one he began.

When Jesus was enthroned in heaven (Daniel 7:13-14) unseen to human eyes, Jesus gave his disciples a "sign" so that they would know when he had begun his reign. (Matthew 24:3-14) Its first event was global war, the like of which had never been seen before. The First World War was fulfillment of that sign. It was followed by disease, (the Spanish Flu epidemic wiped out more people than the war did.) Food shortages were rampant because of the war. And major earthquakes have been seen in increasing numbers with much loss of life in this period. Also seen was an increasing in lawlessness and the love of many cooling off. The final part was a global preaching work as "a witness to all the nations" before the end would come.
In these last days, we have seen all of these things beginning in 1914.

If you do not see the sign in fulfillment, then what can I say?

 

[Shiranui117]

Please note that light appeared on the first day. That light could only come from the sun. The "lights" were not 'created' on the third day, but God said, "let there be lights....to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years".....Since the creation of the universe (including everything in it) had already taken place "in the beginning" and the earth was at first "formless and waste", there was no doubt some kind of barrier that prevented the full light of the sun, moon and stars from being visible on earth. But there was enough light for vegetation to grow because they came before the full appearance of the luminaries.

Genesis 1:12
"And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds." How do these grow without sunlight?

The only thing that creates "night and day" is the sun and earth's rotation. The two "great luminaries" (as seen from the earth) were already in existence, as were the rest of the stars in the universe, but in some way God lifted the cloud mass (or whatever the barrier was,) so that they became clearly visible. The moon has been used for thousands of years in marking off days, years and seasons.

Your reasoning here makes no sense.

You're missing the point of this part of Genesis, as St. John Chrysostom explains: God is the source of life and crop growth, not the sun. You are no doubt aware that pagan cultures around the world worshiped the sun as a god responsible for life on earth. The creation story of Genesis subverts this when it states that God created life before creating the sun, moon and stars, which astrologers and religious philosophers of the day believed ruled over all events on earth Therefore, we are taught to worship God, not the sun, since He can make life without needing the sun. And we are taught to worship God, not the sun, moon or stars, because it is God Who creates day and night and gives order to time and the seasons, not any of these luminary bodies. That is the whole point of Genesis giving this order of events--to teach us to depend on God and worship Him, rather than trusting in luminary bodies or other elements of nature. And that is the point that you are missing.

You're assuming a modern scientific filter when reading Genesis, and thus you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make Genesis fit in with modern science, all while missing the point of the great spiritual wisdom hidden beneath the surface of a literal reading of Genesis.

Context is also a good indicator....

Romans 8:31-34:
"What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us."

Seeing the verse in context, it is clear who is being spoken about. It is evident who "God" is in these verses. No definite article was required to differentiate him from his son. If you remember that there was no trinity back when these scriptures were written, they were not recorded with a distinction in mind, especially to Jews.

But if we look at verse 31, we do see the definite article being used. And yet this is (presumably, grammatically speaking) the same God that is spoken of in verse 33. Why would St. Paul use the definite article for God in verse 31, not use it in verse 33, and not therefore mean the indefinite article, according to your logic? After all, we have one instance of theos with the definite article, one instance without, and by your reasoning, we should therefore conclude that verse 33 is speaking of Jesus or some other theos, not God.

You also understand that there was no indefinite article ("a" or "an") in Greek, but the Bible is littered with them in English translations. So what?

"So what"? My friend, this gets to the very heart of how we should understand John 1:1c. Obviously there are various possible interpretations of what it grammatically means when there is no definite article being used before the noun. One interpretation is that the absence of a definite article is the equivalent of an indefinite article when being rendered in English. Another interpretation is that sometimes the writer leaves off the definite article when it is clear what noun is being discussed. A third interpretation is that, when the noun does not have a definite article, it is being used as a qualitative noun, such as in John 1:14, where it states that the Word became flesh, or 1 John 4:8, where it states that "God is love" (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν/ho theos agape estin). Does this mean that "God is a love"? Of course not. Rather, it is understood by this verse that "God possesses the qualities of love" or "Love is a quality of God".

Now, compare the Greek of 1 John 4:8, "ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν/ho theos agape estin".
and compare it to John 1:1: "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος/theos en ho logos".

Identical constructions, though the word order is slightly different. In both instances, the subject receives the definite article, and the predicate noun does not receive an article. However, as numerous scholars have pointed out (and as native Greek-speakers have also stated), the anarthrous noun is also often used to describe qualities or properties about the subject. Quoting Philip B. Harner in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:3 and John 1:1":

The first is that a predicate noun in Greek is anarthrous when it indicates the category or class of which the subject is a particular example. Thus when Mark, for instance, writes, 'ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς' (7:26), he means that this particular woman was a Greek, although other women would also belong to this category. The second principle is that a predicate noun is arthrous when it is interchangeable with the subject in a given context. It may be identical with the subject, the only one of its kind, or something well-known or prominent. In the parable of the vineyard, for instance, Mark represents the tenants as saying to one another, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος ( 12:7 ) . He means that in this context there is only one heir under consideration, and this man alone is that heir.​

John 1:14...."So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth."

Sorry but that is a ridiculous argument. Why would an indefinite article even be needed in that verse?

There are cases where we can speak of "sarx" as a definite subject or object, and where we can speak of it qualitatively. If we admit that in the phrase "And the Word became flesh", that "sarx" is a qualitative predicate noun, then this helps to set a precedent which I will expand on later.

Now, Greek does have an adjective derived from theos, which is theias, i.e. "divine", However, we don't see that in John 1:1. We see "theos" in its nominative form. As you and I both agree, the absence of the definite article does not always imply that the passage is talking about someone other than God. Indeed, within the same verse we can have "theos" with and without an article, and both refer to God, so your assumption that instances of theos with and without the definite article suggest that two different "theon" are being referred to is already faulty and cannot be upheld as a general rule of thumb.

Context again allows us to see what is clearly stated. "No one has seen God at any time" This is true of Jehovah, as the scriptures indicate that a human in the presence of God would die from the experience. (Exodus 33:20)

Which is precisely why God became man, so we could behold His glory without dying.

Someone who is "begotten" has to have a 'begetter' or someone who generated his existence. Since the Father is an eternal being, it is impossible for him to be begotten, but the son, as a created being (Revelation 3:14) who is said to be at the Father's side, did a great job of representing him.

This doesn't say that Jesus was a created being, it states that He was the beginning of creation, much like The son is a worshiper of his Father, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

There is no equality with his God, and never was. (John 14:28) He also calls his Father "the only true God" (John 17:3)

Very well, so then it would be wrong to render John 1:1 as "And the Word was a god", since there is only one true God, so Jesus cannot possibly be another god. Additionally, when Jesus said that "only one is good", He is saying that He is not good.

Two separate personages are being spoken about in John 1:18, just they are in John 1:1. One is created and seen by many...the other uncreated, never having been seen in person by any human.

Then why is Romans 8:31-33 not talking about two different personages? We have the same grammatical instances of "theos" with and without articles in both cases.

 

[Shiranui117]

The wheat have been in existence since Jesus chose the Twelve. He mostly used them to write the Christian scriptures. No "scripture" was written after the death of the apostle John. But much was written in the period that follows. There is a reason why it is not included in the inspired Bible canon. No further scripture was needed because what God had recorded, especially in the Revelation, takes us a thousand years into the future.

And yet these "wheat" never did anything, wrote anything or built anything for historians and archaeologists to find. Nobody ever commented on these strange people who asserted that Jesus is the Archangel Michael and a created being, that the Bible alone is the only thing Christians should ever use, that liturgical worship was a vain, repetitious abomination to God, that even showing a sign of respect for the state, the ruler or images of Christ was idolatry, that the soul does not survive death, that Hell does not exist, and that the Church was in apostasy. If your reading of history and your claims are correct, everybody, including pagans and Jews would have written extensively on the very odd beliefs of these people. It would be like zoologists writing about the discovery of an entirely new kind of life form that recently arrived on an asteroid from another star system.

It was Daniel who foretold the 'cleaning, whitening and refining' of God's people in the "time of the end"....a time when knowledge would be "abundant".

Daniel 12:4

In verses 9, 10......

What knowledge is this? And who were going to accept that 'cleansing, whitening and refining'?....not the wicked. They would understand nothing and be given no insight.

Now see, the reason that nobody ever uses verses like these in a serious argument to discredit the other side is that the other side can easily turn these verses around and claim that you are the "wicked ones who won't understand". If you want to prove the other guy wrong, then prove him wrong, don't say "Oh well you're the antichrist/Whore of Babylon/wicked/apostates that the Bible was talking about", because those words are meaningless and prove nothing.

To me, it is no co-incidence that Jehovah raised up those who were seeking the truth; not just one individual, but a group of men from different religious backgrounds in Christendom, having individually come to the conclusion that their church's teachings were not scriptural. Over a period of many years, they slowly analysed each doctrine and practice and prayerfully 'cleansed and refined' their understanding of what the scriptures were teaching, as opposed to what the churches were passing off as "Christianity". The vast difference soon became evident. It didn't happen all at once because cleansing, stain removal and refining are processes that take time. They took all the time that was necessary and today the good news they preach as one united global brotherhood has spread to every corner of the world.

To me, it is no coincidence that two thousand Evangelicals from various backgrounds asked the question "What was the original Christianity like?" and then ten years later, after extensively studying the Bible and history, and upending all their assumptions about worship, prayer, theology, Christian living and the church, where do you think these two thousand Evangelicals all wound up?

All I can say is, I hope you are confident of your position.

Oh, I most certainly am. I have on my side native Greek-speakers from all centuries of Christianity, who were brought up in the teachings of the Apostles, including those which they received "either by word [oral teaching which was never written in the Bible] or by our epistle [the epistles of the New Testament]".

 

[Deeje]

You're missing the point of this part of Genesis, as St. John Chrysostom explains: God is the source of life and crop growth, not the sun. You are no doubt aware that pagan cultures around the world worshiped the sun as a god responsible for life on earth. The creation story of Genesis subverts this when it states that God created life before creating the sun, moon and stars, which astrologers and religious philosophers of the day believed ruled over all events on earth Therefore, we are taught to worship God, not the sun, since He can make life without needing the sun.

I put no great store in what John Chrysostom says. He is your saint, not mine. And this is pure supposition on his part.

If the same power that created the universe also inspired scripture, then it will be scientifically accurate. Besides, what does God care about sun worship? And why does the church have a problem with it?.....to me it seems to be obvious that the Catholic church is steeped in it anyway.

And we are taught to worship God, not the sun, moon or stars, because it is God Who creates day and night and gives order to time and the seasons, not any of these luminary bodies. That is the whole point of Genesis giving this order of events--to teach us to depend on God and worship Him, rather than trusting in luminary bodies or other elements of nature. And that is the point that you are missing.

I am not missing any points. This is Catholic belief...nothing to do with my beliefs, which are not based on the speculations of men with nothing but their own opinions.

You're assuming a modern scientific filter when reading Genesis, and thus you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make Genesis fit in with modern science, all while missing the point of the great spiritual wisdom hidden beneath the surface of a literal reading of Genesis.

I am assuming that God knows the order of his own creation, which is clearly stated in Genesis.

Jumping to conclusions based on human thinking is also a bit precarious.

"So what"? My friend, this gets to the very heart of how we should understand John 1:1c. Obviously there are various possible interpretations of what it grammatically means when there is no definite article being used before the noun. One interpretation is that the absence of a definite article is the equivalent of an indefinite article when being rendered in English.

The heart of the matter in John 1:1 is whether it indicates that Jesus is Almighty God. Your church cooked up the trinity, not mine. It is not a scriptural teaching, in fact I believe it to be blasphemous.
There is no scripture that says Jesus is Almighty God incarnate. The apostles did not teach that Father and son share any equality and Jesus never once said he was God.

Jesus only ever referred to his himself as The "son" of God.

John 10:31-36:
"Again the Jews lifted stones to stone him. 32 Jesus answered “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?”

33 The Jews answered “We are not stoning you in reference to a good work, but to a blasphemy and because you, being a man, are claiming to be God.”

34 Jesus answered “Is it not set down in your law ‘I said, You are gods’? 35 If he called those men gods, those who had had God’s word coming to them, and the text cannot be invalidated, 36 do you say of the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said ‘I am God’s son’?"

Here Jesus says that his Father called human judges in Israel "gods" because of their exercising divinely appointed authority.
If ever there was an opportunity for Jesus to proclaim his status, it was then....but what did he call himself?

It was the Jews accusing him of claiming to be God because they wanted an excuse to kill him. They wanted to stone him, which usually meant death.

Another interpretation is that sometimes the writer leaves off the definite article when it is clear what noun is being discussed. A third interpretation is that, when the noun does not have a definite article, it is being used as a qualitative noun, such as in John 1:14, where it states that the Word became flesh, or 1 John 4:8, where it states that "God is love" (ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν/ho theos agape estin). Does this mean that "God is a love"? Of course not. Rather, it is understood by this verse that "God possesses the qualities of love" or "Love is a quality of God".

Paul wrote...."If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions..."

I am not going to "dispute about words" anymore. You are free to believe whatever you wish about this. We will never agree. This is descending into the ridiculous....

Which is precisely why God became man, so we could behold His glory without dying.

So you are of the opinion that mere mortals can kill God?

If Jesus was God, then he was immortal and cannot die. If he did not really die, then the ransom is not paid and we are all still doomed in our sins. You assume a great deal about what scripture does not say.

Why did Jesus have to become a human in the first place? If he was God, then why the need to be born as a human child?

The story really starts to unravel when you see what is implied in God becoming a human. To whom did Jesus pray?
If he was God, then he spent a lot of time directing people to another part of himself.
It says in Matthew that God knew things that Jesus didn't.....how can that be?

If Jesus was God, who raised him from the dead? Can God die?

This doesn't say that Jesus was a created being, it states that He was the beginning of creation, much like The son is a worshiper of his Father, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

That makes no sense. If he is "the beginning of the creation by God" then his 'begetting' is his creation. "Only begotten" is "monogenes" which means an "only child". It is used with reference to Jesus in the same way that others are referred to as "only" children. If Jesus still worships his Father even in heaven, then where is the equality? Does one part of God worship another part of himself? Do you see how ridiculous that is?

1 Corinthians 11:3: Paul wrote....
"But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God."

God is the head of Christ...even in heaven. This was written after Jesus' ascension.

Very well, so then it would be wrong to render John 1:1 as "And the Word was a god", since there is only one true God, so Jesus cannot possibly be another god. Additionally, when Jesus said that "only one is good", He is saying that He is not good.

The definite article is before one theos but not the other, indicating a difference in their status. If Jehovah himself can call human judges "gods" and if he said he can make Moses "God" to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).....then Jesus can be a god in the same sense.....a powerful god-like one, but not THE Almighty God.

Now see, the reason that nobody ever uses verses like these in a serious argument to discredit the other side is that the other side can easily turn these verses around and claim that you are the "wicked ones who won't understand". If you want to prove the other guy wrong, then prove him wrong, don't say "Oh well you're the antichrist/Whore of Babylon/wicked/apostates that the Bible was talking about", because those words are meaningless and prove nothing.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating....won't it? Are you really confident of the position of your church? If you are, then there is really not much more that can be said.....

To me, it is no coincidence that two thousand Evangelicals from various backgrounds asked the question "What was the original Christianity like?" and then ten years later, after extensively studying the Bible and history, and upending all their assumptions about worship, prayer, theology, Christian living and the church, where do you think these two thousand Evangelicals all wound up?

Now, that's funny. Apostate Christians judging other apostate Christians to see who the real Christians are.

Oh, I most certainly am. I have on my side native Greek-speakers from all centuries of Christianity, who were brought up in the teachings of the Apostles, including those which they received "either by word [oral teaching which was never written in the Bible] or by our epistle [the epistles of the New Testament]".

If you say so....then go in peace....my job is done. I have delivered my message and I wish you all the best.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

You have made up your mind, so why not go in peace and be confident of your position.

Because I believe the same as you!

It is a Christian's duty to warn others who may be seen to be going down a wrong path.

Then why did God wait until 1919 to chose 7 men as His only channel to the world?

Daniel 12:9-10. It was prophesied.

Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV) 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Where do those verses say that God and Jesus will appoint 7 men as their only channel to the world?

 

[metis]

Since the writing of Christian scripture ceased at the end of the first century with the last apostle John's contribution, (no coincidence) there is no scripture covering the apostasy except as a future event.

Since you admit that such supposed apostasy is not covered in the scriptures, then you simply have undermined your own position. You claim that the Bible is your source, and yet such apostasy isn't found being covered there. In essence, you believe in a non-Biblical fabrication.

And if you read the scriptures supplied to you, you will see that corruption was already beginning back in the apostolic period. After the death of the apostles the weeds took over.

Therefore, is the "apostolic period" to also be disdained because there was some corruption, like we saw with Judas? Should we throw out the entire Bible since every part of the NT was written after Judas?

Apostolic succession is a myth.

Not according to the book of Acts and some of the epistles that covers the appointments by the apostles. And, logically, if they make these appointments that you can read right there in black and white in your Bible, then what logic is there that the leaders would not continue doing that for one very good reason: there was no other source since the Bible hadn't yet been canonized and the apostles were dying. The "mark" of the early church couldn't have been the Bible, and we know it wasn't. Instead, it was whether your leaders could point an unbroken chain back to the apostles, and we see that even in Acts taking place.

I'm sorry metis, but that is simply not true. The RCC uses a Bible with books that we do not acknowledge as canonical.

The Apocryphal were sort of left in a "limbo" state in the 4th-5th century selection of the canon because there was some disagreement. But notice your inconsistency here, namely in essence admitting that it was indeed the CC that chose the Bible, even though that they hadn't decide on several of them. Inconsistent much?

Since there was no other "Christianity" in existence for 1500 years, Jehovah can use whomever he pleases to accomplish his will...even his enemies, as he has done in the past.

So Jesus lied. So, his statement about guiding the church until the end of time was a lie. So, his statement to Peter and the others about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church was a lie. I thought you said you believed in the Bible?

All of the RCC's doctrines come from Babylon, not Christian scripture. That is what I have learned through research.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this. Over and over again I have given you links and explained that the CC gets its source from the Bible, which even common sense should tell you. It is easy to get links to what is said at any given mass in general, and yet you come back with the above statement of utter dishonesty.

Here--this took me about 10 seconds to find for you: Order of Mass

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Is there any real point in talking to someone like you djh? You have made up your mind, so why not go in peace and be confident of your position. You have Jesus' assurance that he knows those who belong to him. No one can snatch them out of his hand....right? So what are you jumping up and down about?

Only if you pay attention!
You also. Why are you here? We're both here for the same reason. We feel "it's our Christian duty". You can dish out the criticism to other religions, but can't take it for your own. Should you really be here?
Don't you believe that salvation can be lost?
From the looks of this post, it's you who are jumping up and down!

Why is it, that when a witness is trying to show others the sins of their religion they are calm and polite and try to seem caring, but when it points right back at them and their religion, they get agitated and defensive and not so nice any more?

 

[metis]

Repetitive prayers are meaningless. Just before the "Our Father" prayer, Jesus warns us not to say the same things over and over again.

Do you say the "Our Father"? If so, do you realize that you are using a repetitive prayer, Deeje?

Those who "believe" in Jesus have to be "doing the will of God".....what does it mean to "believe"? (James 2:19) What is the will of God? (James 2:18; 26)

So, those church leaders in the 2nd century supposedly didn't do the will of God? How could you know that since you do not accept the 2nd century sources? Where did you get your information from, Deeje?

Straight after the prohibition on images Jehovah said.....

I just have to comment again on the "Jehovah" name since it shows the JW hypocrisy on this. That name s not pronounced correctly and yet the JW's keep using it while blaming other denominations for not using the right name. If my memory is correct, there are 17 different names for YHWH in Hebrew as used in the Tanakh, and yet the JW's get on everyone else's case for not using the one that the JW's use even though it's wrong.

"All of a sudden"? Are you serious? The whole of the Hebrew scriptures are a history of Jewish excursions into false worship and God's punishment of them, starting with the golden calf incident.

But what you miss is that judgement is not going to be en masse, Deeje-- judgement is personal. None of us, according to the scriptures, is going to be judged by which building we walk into or which denomination we may belong to. But, as you have it, supposedly all Jews are going to be judged because they're Jews that do "false worship". Well, Deeje, how could you know that we use "false worship". Who are you to judge exactly what is "false worship"?

I am telling the truth as I understand it metis.

And I can accept that, but then maybe allow others to do the same without condemning them for "apostasy" or "false worship", OK?

 

[metis]

This makes a mockery of the meaning of baptism and its full symbolism. Only complete immersion fits the criteria.
Jesus set the example by his own baptism. The verb "baptize" means “to immerse,” or dip under water.

@Shiranui didn't comment on this so I will. First of all, your last sentence first, and I'll use a source that's neutral:

"The usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the candidate to be immersed, either totally (submerged completely under the water) or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her)..."...

The English word baptism is derived indirectly through Latin from the neuter Greek concept noun baptisma (Greek βάπτισμα, "washing-ism"), which is a neologism in the New Testamentderived from the masculine Greek noun baptismos (βαπτισμός), a term for ritual washing in Greek language texts of Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period, such as the Septuagint... -- Baptism - Wikipedia

So, one point I'd like to make is why is the depth of the water so important to you while on some other issues you rant and rave against "meaningless ritual". Is the depth of the water really that important? Also, please note that "baptize" does not come from complete immersion.

Also, let me just mention that in Acts there's a reference to an entire family being baptized although we don't know their ages. This gave the early church the go-ahead to allow infant baptism, but in order to make it compatible with the scriptures, they split it into two sacraments: "baptism" and "confirmation".

Why did they do this? Because during one of the early plagues, children were dying en masse, and in Mark it says that one must" believe and be baptized to be saved". So, out of fear, they split the sacrament.

 

[metis]

Besides, what does God care about sun worship? And why does the church have a problem with it?

Why do you keep posting this outrageous lie? Again, I posted links for you to show you that Catholics don't do this, and yet you come back with this blatant falsehood. Is it no wonder why some of us get very frustrated with some of the trash you post like this? No matter what proof we may show you, all you do is to keep coming back with these pathetic lies.

Frustrating-- very frustrating.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Paul wrote...."If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions..."

I am not going to "dispute about words" anymore.

A little late for that, isn't it?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Why did Jesus have to become a human in the first place?

If we can be counted worthy for "paradise earth" by our own works, if we can be good enough to live in God's kingdom, why did Jesus have to become a human in the first place?

 

[Deeje]

Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV) 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

KJV? Ugh! Do you speak like that at home or in general conversation djh? .....Me either.

ESV...Daniel 12:9-10 "He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand."

"Many" were going to 'purify, whiten and refine' "themselves". It was they who saw the need, in "the time of the end" to remove the impurities that had crept in over many centuries.....but the "wicked" wouldn't see anything wrong with what they were doing.....who are 'wicked' in God's eyes? Isn't it those who fail to do "the will of the Father"? Doesn't Jesus call these ones who claim him as their "Lord"....."workers of lawlessness"? (Matthew 7:21-23) Those who didn't discern the need to clean up their worship would not understand or be granted "wisdom" in seeing the need to change anything.

In this "time of the end", the wheat and the weeds would not resemble one another at all because of removing themselves from "Babylon the great". I see a clear fulfilment of this prophesy....perhaps you do not.

Where do those verses say that God and Jesus will appoint 7 men as their only channel to the world?

Actually, as part of the sign of the last days, Jesus spoke about the appointment of a "faithful slave" who would "feed" his household their "food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45) We know who we believe this 'slave' to be.....you may disagree, but who are they to you? Who are they to Christendom?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Actually, as part of the sign of the last days, Jesus spoke about the appointment of a "faithful slave" who would "feed" his household their "food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45) We know who we believe this 'slave' to be.....you may disagree, but who are they to you? Who are they to Christendom?

I can agree with that, but where does it say that this "slave" would teach trash, lies and mistakes in between the "proper time"? Does God allow His "only channel" between Him and His "true worshipers" to TEACH His "true worshipers" lies, or as the witness org likes to candy coat it, errors, until He/God deems it the "proper time" for His "true worshipers" to know the truth?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

who are 'wicked' in God's eyes?

The ones who reject Jesus. The ones who pass the emblems without partaking of His flesh and blood.

 

[Deeje]

Since you admit that such supposed apostasy is not covered in the scriptures, then you simply have undermined your own position. You claim that the Bible is your source, and yet such apostasy isn't found being covered there. In essence, you believe in a non-Biblical fabrication.

Umm.....you don't seem to have paid much attention, so I will repeat it one more time.....the apostasy is covered in some detail in the NT, but as a future event. (Acts 20:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4;1-3; 2 Timothy 2:16-19; Hebrews 6:4-8) Look these scriptures up in your own Bible.....are they a "non-Biblical fabrication" or something you choose to ignore?

Therefore, is the "apostolic period" to also be disdained because there was some corruption, like we saw with Judas? Should we throw out the entire Bible since every part of the NT was written after Judas?

This is your reasoning? Good grief!

True to Jesus warning about the 'weeds' of counterfeit Christianity being sown by the devil, soon after the death of the apostles, (and the implanting of the wheat) apostate teachers from within the congregation began to take control of it. They spoke “twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29-30) As a result, many Christians ‘fell away from the faith.’ They were “turned aside to false stories.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)

By the fourth century C.E., according to The New Dictionary of Theology, “Catholic Christianity had become the official . . . religion of the Roman Empire.” There was a “coalescence of ecclesial and civil society”.......this was a merging of Church and State that was diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the early Christians. (John 17:16; James 4:4)

The same source states that in time, the whole structure and nature of the church, as well as many of its fundamental beliefs, was changed radically “under the influence of a curious and thoroughly unhealthy combination of O[ld] T[estament] and neoplatonic models.” Just as predicted by Jesus Christ, his genuine disciples were hidden from sight as counterfeit Christian 'weeds' flourished. "Power corrupts"...and the power gained by the church in those early centuries, did exactly that.
Some can see it very clearly....some don't see it at all. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Not according to the book of Acts and some of the epistles that covers the appointments by the apostles. And, logically, if they make these appointments that you can read right there in black and white in your Bible, then what logic is there that the leaders would not continue doing that for one very good reason: there was no other source since the Bible hadn't yet been canonized and the apostles were dying. The "mark" of the early church couldn't have been the Bible, and we know it wasn't. Instead, it was whether your leaders could point an unbroken chain back to the apostles, and we see that even in Acts taking place.

The Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession claims that there is an unbroken succession of popes in a line extending all the way back to the apostle Peter. (We believe that the church misinterprets Jesus’ words that are quoted at Matthew 16:18, 19. It was not Peter upon whom the church was built, but Christ himself.)
Catholicism also claims that the pope is infallible in matters of doctrine when he speaks ex cathedra, or in an official capacity. Many are taught to believe this and think that if the pope, whom Catholics call "Holy Father", is infallible in doctrinal matters and has proclaimed the Trinity to be true, then it must be true. But if he is not infallible, then the doctrine could very well be false. No wonder that for many Catholics the teaching of apostolic succession is a very important teaching, since the correctness or incorrectness of other Catholic teachings hinges on it!

I notice you and @Shiranui117 quote little to no scripture in your responses. Is there a reason for that? Quoting Catholic writers is meaningless to me and many others.

The Apocryphal were sort of left in a "limbo" state in the 4th-5th century selection of the canon because there was some disagreement. But notice your inconsistency here, namely in essence admitting that it was indeed the CC that chose the Bible, even though that they hadn't decide on several of them. Inconsistent much?

No, I did not admit that the CC chose the canon. Scripture is not the work of men but written by those under the inspiration of God's spirit. It is the same spirit that chose the canon....God used the only "church" in existence at the time to compile it, but even then, they added to it later as you admit.

So Jesus lied. So, his statement about guiding the church until the end of time was a lie. So, his statement to Peter and the others about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church was a lie. I thought you said you believed in the Bible?

"Jesus lied"? Really? He was the one who told us about the weeds of false Christianity being sown soon after the wheat sprouted. Yet the RCC acts as if there never was any deviation. They happily admit to being the continuation of those weeds.

Daniel tells us that at "the time of the end" God would 'cleanse, whiten and refine' his people, yet we find no such cleansing or refinement in Christendom. They still promote teachings, adopted into "the church" centuries ago, for which there is no scriptural support at all. Jesus didn't lie, but Christendom does....through her teeth. I was brought up with those lies, so I am speaking first hand.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this. Over and over again I have given you links and explained that the CC gets its source from the Bible, which even common sense should tell you. It is easy to get links to what is said at any given mass in general, and yet you come back with the above statement of utter dishonesty.

I am not ashamed to tell the truth metis. If you do not believe what I say is true, then defend the church and its doctrines. Since you already admit to disagreeing with 99% of what it teaches, I find this rather strange TBH.

The trinity comes from Babylon....
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Ancient trinities are common, but not found anywhere in the Bible. No Abrahamic faith teaches a trinity except Christendom....and they did not get it from scripture.

Do you see what I see? Perhaps not.

The doctrine of Mary as the "Mother of God" is based on this erroneous doctrine. She is only ever called "the mother of Jesus" in the Bible, and since Jesus never claimed to be God, that doctrine can be traced back to Babylonian "mother goddess worship", seen in ancient cultures, but never in original Christianity.

None of her titles come from the Bible either....."Mother of God"..."Queen of Heaven"..."Our Lady"...all come from pagan mother goddess worship.

I could go on for pages metis, but what would be the point?

If you are happy attending the Catholic Church with your wife, then that is of course, entirely your choice. We all have free will in the matter of worship. But we believe that we are living in the "time of the end" and that there is no room or time for error in our choices....so we must be absolutely sure that what we believe is true and not be sucked in by the weeds established by the devil, centuries before any of us were even born.

 

[Deeje]

I can agree with that, but where does it say that this "slave" would teach trash, lies and mistakes in between the "proper time"? Does God allow His "only channel" between Him and His "true worshipers" to TEACH His "true worshipers" lies, or as the witness org likes to candy coat it, errors, until He/God deems it the "proper time" for His "true worshipers" to know the truth?

The "trash and lies" are your interpretation of events. You are free to interpret things any way you like. But the apostles made mistakes in the timing of the Kingdom's coming too, so we are in good company. (Acts 1:6)
We have 'kept on the watch' as Jesus commanded.....not falling asleep as the foolish virgins did and missing the very thing they were supposed to stay awake for.

Jesus said to...."Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it." (Matthew 24:42-44)

Since it could be any time, we have never offered a "day or hour"...but a year here and there might have seemed to be the one to bring relief to suffering humanity. Was it wrong to hope? (Hebrews 6:19) The watchman on guard duty in the 'watchtower' on the city wall, sounded the alarm when something was seen in the distance. That was his job......if it proved to be nothing, everyone went back to business as usual. If it was something that needed action, then the people were ready.

The ones who reject Jesus. The ones who pass the emblems without partaking of His flesh and blood.

If you say so......time will tell I guess, won't it?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

but a year here and there might have seemed to be the one to bring relief to suffering humanity.

But the "year here and there" cost witnesses their lives. Witnesses sold their houses and lands and belongings because they were told the end was in 1975. How much suffering did that "false prophecy" cause? All the people that DIDN'T buy into that nonsense didn't suffer at all, did they? Only the people your "true teachers" deceived into believing the end was here. They sold everything they had, gave the money to your "true teachers" and then they ended up with nothing!