Is Catholicism a Christian religion ?

[Deeje]

Yet you quote from one such effort. Of course its a 'pipedream' for one who considers all other Christians have lost their way and only you as a JW have the only truth. To me that is far worse than a pipe dream, its a nightmare.

Its a nightmare only for the "weeds". The "wheat" are not part of that rabble.....they are separated out before the gathering of the wheat into the storehouse....soon to take place by all accounts.

You can tell the "wheat" because they do not resemble the "weeds" in any way. The "weeds" have labels that show that they are just a different variety of a common genus.

All of Christendom virtually believes the same core or foundational beliefs, none of which are scriptural....IMO meaning that Christ never taught them. You all only disagree on many minor matters...although the Reformation threw out a good number of doctrines held by the Roman church, as being total inventions of the church leaders...shame the purging wasn't thorough enough.

Yes, Luther had legitimate complaints, no, the Church has not been toppled at all, as it recognizes wrongs and corrects them.

Really? What corrections can you show me that they have made? Please be specific...I would really like to know....

Incense represents prayers of the saints lifting up into the heavens before God. This is evident from the blessing verse of the celebrant of the censer before incensing begins:

• "We offer to Thee, Christ our God, this incense as a spiritual fragrance; receive it, we pray, to Thy heavenly altar and send down to us, in return, the grace of Thy Holy Spirit."[3]

And what has that got to do with me? I have no interest in what is concocted by the Catholic church, calling Christ their God. I do not know your God and you do not know mine.

I see no incense mentioned in Christian scripture except those that relate to what it symbolized in the Jewish system of worship.....it was only the high priest who could offer incense, and only in the temple....the Jews lost their temple, so there was no official place to offer incense anymore. The physical Temple was an earthy representation of the much grander spiritual temple in heaven. (prophetic patterns...types and shadows) Those who officiate as priests in the spiritual arrangement are not on earth. Their priesthood was to be served in heaven in the future.

Revelation 20:6....
"Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years." (NRSVCE)
It says that they WILL BE PRIESTS of God and of Christ....not that they are or were.There was no earthly priesthood in first century Christianity.

Catholic churches, no matter how grand the architecture, are NOT Temples.
Any offering of illegitimate incense is an offense to God. It carried the death penalty.

• Psalm 140:2 - "Let my prayer be set forth before You as incense, The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice."[4]

Incense is also described as being used in heavenly worship, offering the faithful a foretaste of what is to come.

• Revelation 5:8 - "Now when He has taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."[5]
• Revelation 8:4 - "And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel's hand."

Offering incense in Jewish worship was an important part of the commands that God gave to Israel. The ingredients were forbidden to be used for any other purpose. And only those authorized to offer it were permitted to do so on pain of death. It is a very serious offense.

What you have quoted here is the symbolic use of incense in Christian worship. It was not used literally because it was reserved exclusively for use in the temple and the Jews no longer had one.

Are you trying to tell me that your meetings in 'Kingdom Hall' is a 'free for all' with no order, otherwise you follow a ritual. The Church has retained some ritual practice from the Synagogue
which Jesus would have acknowledged.

The church actually modeled itself on the old Jewish system that ended in 70 CE.

JW's model their meetings on the first century congregations.....meeting for scriptural education, training in the ministry for preaching and teaching (as Jesus instructed), songs of praise to God and communal prayer......not ever repetitious. Every meeting is different, with new topics to discuss every week and a choice of over 150 songs, with new ones added every year.

Jesus inaugurated a new covenant which Jeremiah prophesied would NOT be like the old one.(Jeremiah 32:31-33)
So what Catholicism transferred over to Christianity.....liturgy, priests, distinctive clothing and headgear, ornate buildings that resembled Temples and the offering of smoke and incense was part of an old and discarded system that had become corrupt, and Jesus and the apostles warned that it would happen with Christianity too.
Human traditions would again be substituted for God's word. (Matthew 15:3, 9) That is what I see very clearly.

Then why quote from it?

Because I was responding to a Catholic and using a Catholic Bible drives home the points better than any other translation.

 

[pearl]

You all only disagree on many minor matters...although the Reformation threw out a good number of doctrines held by the Roman church, as being total inventions of the church leaders...shame the purging wasn't thorough enough.

You do realize that the Roman Church is but one Catholic Church and with others share the same priesthood, the same sacramentals, and are Apostolic and are Trinitarian.
1 John 5:7 Ибо три свидетельствуют на небе: Отец, Слово и Святый Дух; и Сии три суть едино. For three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Includes the Johannine Comma. (Russian Orthodox)

..although the Reformation threw out a good number of doctrines held by the Roman church,

Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)

John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639
These were not 'thrown out' by the original reformers so, if the Catholic Church believes in this doctrine and the reformers believed in this doctrine–by whose authority and when was this doctrine rejected by all the Protestant Churches?

JW's model their meetings on the first century congregations.....meeting for scriptural education, training in the ministry for preaching and teaching (as Jesus instructed), songs of praise to God and communal prayer......not ever repetitious. Every meeting is different, with new topics to discuss every week and a choice of over 150 songs, with new ones added every year.

Do you not call this worship, and if so, is there not an 'order' to your gatherings, no Eucharist shared?

Because I was responding to a Catholic and using a Catholic Bible drives home the points better than any other translation.

You did not use a 'Catholic' bible, simply a translation approved by the Church as containing no heresy.

I do not know your God and you do not know mine.

I believe you have made your God a book, the words of which are God inspired, but, human words.

 

[Deeje]

You do realize that the Roman Church is but one Catholic Church and with others share the same priesthood, the same sacramentals, and are Apostolic and are Trinitarian.
1 John 5:7 Ибо три свидетельствуют на небе: Отец, Слово и Святый Дух; и Сии три суть едино. For three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Includes the Johannine Comma. (Russian Orthodox)

Oh dear....I’m really sorry you used that particular verse because it is actually horribly mistranslated...
Here it is from ‘a translation that contains no heresy’.....

“There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.” (1 John 5:7-8 NRSVCE)

And here is the Mounce Interlinear translation...
“For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in accord . (1 John 5:7-8 - MOUNCE)

No trinity there.

Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)

John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639
These were not 'thrown out' by the original reformers so, if the Catholic Church believes in this doctrine and the reformers believed in this doctrine–by whose authority and when was this doctrine rejected by all the Protestant Churches?

Yep, like I said, the purging didn’t go far enough, which is why IMV, Christendom as a complete entity, regardless of denomination, is viewed by God as belonging to “Babylon the great” (Revelation 18:4-5).....because these all share the same core of beliefs with non-Christian religions. i.e. multiplicities of gods, (particularly in threesomes) immortality of the human soul, and belief in a place of fiery punishment for the wicked and some kind of heavenly bliss for the righteous, after death. We are commanded to remove ourselves from that kind of worship.

God does not differentiate between all of the religions that teach these things....because all teach things that Christ never did. Christendom, by their acceptance of these teachings, work against the Christ, not for him. Just the trinity alone would disqualify them.....breaching the first Commandment. (Exodus 20: 3) Then of course, there is the second Commandment that is broken as well. (Exodus 20:4-5) There is no justification for this.

Do you not call this worship, and if so, is there not an 'order' to your gatherings, no Eucharist shared?

Our meetings are not “church”. We meet for the same reason the first century Christians did.....to learn more about the God we worship and also about the role of Jesus and the holy spirit in the outworking of God’s original purpose for putting us humans here on earth. We have no belief in “all good Christians go to heaven” because that was never in the original plan.
We also train for the ministry that Jesus assigned to all Christians (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20)....we are to be preachers of the word.....God’s word. To invite others as we ourselves were invited to become a footstep follower of Christ. (Revelation 22:17)
We study the Bible in order to ascertain God’s truth because we believe that he did not authorize any humans to teach things contrary to what Jesus did.

No one was promised heaven unless they were chosen for a specific role in the Kingdom of God. These are the “saints”, those who are chosen by God, and who will be “kings and priests” with Jesus to rule over redeemed mankind on earth. (Revelation 20:6) Not everyone is a “saint”....Kings need subjects and priests need sinners for whom to intercede.....there are no sinners in heaven.

The result to those of us who will get to enjoy the earth as God first intended, Revelation 21:2-4 gives us a glimpse of what it will be like....

“And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.” (NRSVCE)
This is the “Paradise” we were supposed to enjoy forever.

You did not use a 'Catholic' bible, simply a translation approved by the Church as containing no heresy.

Ever wondered why there has to be a Catholic Bible? The Bible is God’s word, not the work of a corrupted church. It is for all Christians and should not need particular translations suited to certain denominations. It should stand alone and translations should remain loyal to the original texts.

We have no ritual of sharing bread and wine with those who are not anointed for heavenly life. As the emblems of the bread and wine are for those who are parties to the New Covenant, (not the beneficiaries) so only they will take those emblems at the annual celebration of the Lord's Supper, as those assigned by God to rule with Christ. This replaced the Passover for Christians. It was a yearly celebration, not something that occurred weekly. And certainly not partaken by those who do not qualify. It makes a mockery of the whole arrangement, IMV.

I believe you have made your God a book, the words of which are God inspired, but, human words.

If that is your view then what can I say? That is your opinion and I strongly disagree with it because I see that your beliefs are from human traditions that remain outside of what Jesus and his apostles taught. Jesus castigated the Pharisees for doing the same thing....

“He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:3,7-9 -NRSVCE)

That is how I see it....

 

[pearl]

Oh dear....I’m really sorry you used that particular verse because it is actually horribly mistranslated...
Here it is from ‘a translation that contains no heresy’.....

“There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.” (1 John 5:7-8 NRSVCE)

The point is that when you refer to the Catholic Church you narrowly only direct you sword at the Roman church. The translation you posted is in line with the Roman Catholic translation;

7So there are three that testify,
8the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. NABRE, A Roman Catholic translation. The verse you corrected is from the Russian Orthodox Church.

No trinity there.

Nor in the Catholic translation!

Ever wondered why there has to be a Catholic Bible? The Bible is God’s word, not the work of a corrupted church. It is for all Christians and should not need particular translations suited to certain denominations. It should stand alone and translations should remain loyal to the original texts.

Where did Luther acquired his bible? From the Catholic Church. And there continues to be further findings of earlier writings thanks to biblical archeology. You might want to look outside of the Watch Tower bible for some biblical history. You may reconsider whether you or anyone else have the original biblical text.
History of publishing - Books in the early Christian era | Britannica

That is how I see it....

I think it would be beneficial for you to broaden your vision.

 

[metis]

I hate to be sarcastic, but all so many JW's and some others seemingly believe that the complete unabridged Bible miraculously floated down from heaven and landed right into their arms.

 

[Deeje]

The point is that when you refer to the Catholic Church you narrowly only direct you sword at the Roman church.

If they are all 'one church' then why would it matter? One criticism fits them all......right?
Although the Roman church was the one who did the most damage IMO. Its the one that most westerners are familiar with. Where is the Vatican and the Pope after all? Can you envision Jesus dressed like the Pontiff, living in a gold inlaid palace with servants whilst his disciples were living in poverty?

The translation you posted is in line with the Roman Catholic translation;

7So there are three that testify,
8the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. NABRE, A Roman Catholic translation. The verse you corrected is from the Russian Orthodox Church.

OK, now I am really confused....why did you post a Russian Orthodox translation when it is incorrectly rendered?

You said...

You do realize that the Roman Church is but one Catholic Church and with others share the same priesthood, the same sacramentals, and are Apostolic and are Trinitarian.
1 John 5:7 Ибо три свидетельствуют на небе: Отец, Слово и Святый Дух; и Сии три суть едино. For three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Includes the Johannine Comma. (Russian Orthodox)

I though you said you are all "one Catholic church"? Doesn't appear to be so then does it?
Even your Bibles don't agree.

Nor in the Catholic translation!

Isn't the Russian Orthodox a Catholic translation?
I think you are getting yourself quite confused.....I know I am. You are not making a lot of sense.

Where did Luther acquired his bible? From the Catholic Church. And there continues to be further findings of earlier writings thanks to biblical archeology. You might want to look outside of the Watch Tower bible for some biblical history. You may reconsider whether you or anyone else have the original biblical text.
History of publishing - Books in the early Christian era | Britannica

As I have reminded you several times, the Bible is no more a product of the Catholic church than Jesus and his apostles were. Not a single word in all of scripture was written by a Catholic.

Just as God used apostate Judaism to accomplish producing his Messiah, he can use an apostate church to produce his word....but you seem to forget that the church forbade anyone to read it under penalty of death....not exactly what Christ would have done...is it?

I think it would be beneficial for you to broaden your vision.

Funny thing about 'vision'.....? Hindsight is 20/20....look back at the history of your church and you will see why Christ has never set foot in it.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately, some don't realize that the Church that Jesus and the Apostles formed had a name for it that evolved over time, going from "the Way", to eventually adopting "Christian", to then to adopting "Catholic" ["Universal"] as its most widely used name. Name changes are not unusual in the scriptures, usually with a newly assigned name taking on a special meaning.
Catholic Church - Wikipedia


Thus, which church chose the NT? Certainly wasn't the JW's. It's the "Catholic Church" that did as such in the 4th century.
New Testament - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

Can you envision Jesus dressed like the Pontiff, living in a gold inlaid palace with servants whilst his disciples were living in poverty?

No, of course not, Francis has denounced much the same.

That description does not fit Francis. The title “Vicar of Christ” does not appear on the listing for Pope Francis. He has refused, thankfully, many of the trappings of tradition.

I though you said you are all "one Catholic church"? Doesn't appear to be so then does it?
Even your Bibles don't agree.

Obviously there are differing translations, to imagine only one has it 'correct' is just plain arrogant and unfounded.

Isn't the Russian Orthodox a Catholic translation?

It is not a Roman Catholic translation. Translations do not have to be word for word identical.

As I have reminded you several times, the Bible is no more a product of the Catholic church than Jesus and his apostles were. Not a single word in all of scripture was written by a Catholic.

What you received your Scripture from is the Canon of the Catholic Church, minus the few books Luther did not accept as inspired; those not accepted in final Jewish Canon, the Septuagint which became the OT of the early Church, that Jesus would have been familiar with. You may bury your head in the sand and remain blind to history but it doesn't change the facts,

Just as God used apostate Judaism to accomplish producing his Messiah, he can use an apostate church to produce his word....but you seem to forget that the church forbade anyone to read it under penalty of death....not exactly what Christ would have done...is it?

And as a result the encouragement for all to know Scripture was, in hindsight perfectly timed. Along with reading Scripture we were given the skills to understand 'how' it came to be, that it just didn't appear as a finished product dictated by God to robotic copyists.

Funny thing about 'vision'.....? Hindsight is 20/20....look back at the history of your church and you will see why Christ has never set foot in it.

You're exactly right, He never stepped 'foot' in it. But He did send the promised Paraclete; The Paraclete will speak nothing on his own; he will take what belongs to Jesus and declare it; he will speak only what he hears (John 16:13-15).
The Paraclete is "the Spirit of Truth" who supplies guidance along the way of all truth (16:13). The Johannine Jesus had many things to say that his disciples could never understand in his lifetime (16:12); but then the Paraclete comes and takes those things and declares them (16:15).

New Unfortunately, some don't realize that the Church that Jesus and the Apostles formed had a name for it that evolved over time, going from "the Way", to eventually adopting "Christian", to then to adopting "Catholic" ["Universal"] as its most widely used name. Name changes are not unusual in the scriptures, usually with a newly assigned name taking on a special meaning.
Catholic Church - Wikipedia


Thus, which church chose the NT? Certainly wasn't the JW's. It's the "Catholic Church" that did as such in the 4th century.
New Testament - Wikipedia

quoted with permission