1. 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!

Featured Jehovah's Witnesses' problems with the Catholic Church

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Shiranui117, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    This thread has been split off from my other thread "Catholicism =/= Roman", with Deeje's permission.

    Following the example of Jesus is how it happened. Jesus often went out alone or in the wilderness to pray (Luke 9:18, John 6:15, Luke 9:28). Many of the prophets also went out into the wilderness to pray--I'm sure you know the story of St. Elijah on the mountain in 1 Kings 19. Vows of silence is a story that I have no idea how it got started, but it was only ever a thing in the West as far as I'm aware.

    The point of being a monastic is following Jesus' words to the letter: Selling all that you have, taking up your cross and following Him. The man who made monasticism the phenomenon that it is, St. Antony the Great, heard these words in the Gospel one Sunday, and without a moment's hesitation he sold his estate which he had inherited from his parents, made sure that his sister was well-supported, gave the rest of the money to the poor, and went out into the wilderness to engage in the struggle against his passions. The point of being a monk or a nun isn't to shut yourself off forever from the world, but to dedicate your entire life to God. St. Seraphim of Sarov once famously said, "If you acquire a spirit of peace, a thousand around you will be saved." The point of being a monastic is to mortify your passions and to give your entire being to God, so that He can use you as He sees fit. Monasteries are a refuge from the world, where the faithful can go to disconnect from everything, be with God and find useful spiritual counsel from the monastics living there. Monks and abbots will sometimes even try to help you find a good person to begin a relationship with! :D

    Actually, it happened in the reverse of what you said. First you had bishops, or episkopoi, who were responsible for the liturgical meetings of the early Church, and for celebrating the Lord's Supper, which happened on the first day of the week (Acts 20:27). The episkopoi and presbyteroi were also responsible for administrative decisions, such as the Council of Acts in Acts 15, or sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22-30) Overtime as Christianity grew and the number of congregations increased, it became impossible for the bishop to visit them all, and so presbyteroi became distinct from the office of episkopos. These presbyteroi were appointed to celebrate the Lord's Supper in place of the bishop. In the beginning, there was no real delineation between a presbyteros and an episkopos.

    And bishops were principally found in cities, which acted as convenient hubs for Christians around the region. Also given the larger populations of cities, it became necessary to have larger churches to accommodate more people. The Greek word for "church", as I trust you know, is ekklesia, or gathering. Calling the building where everyone gathers "the gathering" makes a lot of sense.

    And there is always more work to be done to help the poor. As Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always."

    You cannot possibly prove a "great apostasy" where every single Christian fell away and the true church ceased to exist for 1800 years until a bunch of Americans with no connection to the historical, intellectual, philosophical, linguistic connection to first-century Christianity began interpreting the Bible better than the Christians to whom these books were addressed, to the point of knowing Greek grammar better than native speakers.

    State sponsorship of the Church. Which, yes, has led to a lot of good and horrible things over the millennia.

    Red symbolizes the passion and humanity of Jesus. Purple is associated with repentance; it is a sign that we should be focusing on the Kingdom of God. Specifically in the Orthodox Church, red is the color of vestments worn on Pentecost, symbolizing the descent of the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire.

    And if you're seriously arguing that the Catholic Church is Babylon the Great because people wear red and purple, I hope to not find either of these colors among your wardrobe.

    There is a difference between the priesthood of all believers, as the Lutherans put it, and the liturgical priesthood which has been established since the Apostles first began appointing presbyteroi. You also are conveniently ignoring the fact that episkopos means "overseer".

    Consider the liturgical formula for the Words of Institution found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. Also consider Justin Martyr's account of the Christian Liturgy in chapters 65-67 of his First Apology, written in 150 AD.

    Also, note St. Ignatius of Antioch's words of admonition to the Smyrnaean Church around 105 AD:

    See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

    It is additionally worth noting that St. Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of Antioch, with Peter being the first and Evodius being the second. St. Ignatius' writings were later gathered up by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a personal disciple of St. John.

    The liturgical formula at 1 Corinthians 11 does. According to St. Paul's own words in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

    The Pope only got that title after the people of Rome called him that as a title of endearment for so long (in Latin it is literally "Papa") that it just stuck.

    Yes, and you don't think that priests aren't father figures to the parish, especially in a time where EVERY Christian was a convert to Christianity either from paganism or Judaism? Priests very much were and are father figures, which is why nowadays they have to move around every six to twelve years, sometimes more often, so cults of personality don't arise.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Jesus did not go to a monastery, nor did any other biblical figure. It is one thing to find solace in a quiet place for a time to meditate on God's word, but entirely something else to cloister yourself away and concentrate selfishly on your own spirituality for years. What disciple of Jesus ever did that? When Christ went into the wilderness after his baptism, it was to commune with his Father. It says that "the heavens were opened" at his baptism, which we believe was the time he was made aware of his full role in the outworking of God's purpose. There was a lot to discuss and a huge sacrifice to be made. We see in the final hours before his arrest, his complete reliance on his Father to provide the strength necessary to complete his task. God's will was paramount and the future of the entire human race was on his shoulders.

    Our own salvation is important, but not more important than the salvation of others. This is why we cannot remain silent as to God's intentions towards mankind. His disciples were to be witnesses of him "to the most distant part of the earth". (Acts 1:6-8) I don't think I ever heard of Jesus saying that conversion had to be done at the point of a sword however. :eek:

    That wasn't being 'monastic'....that was being Christian. Selling what you had to give to the poor meant devoting your life to the service of others in the most noble work that Jesus assigned to all of his disciples......preaching about God's kingdom. Taking up our "cross" was simply a metaphor for enduring the reproach that Jesus endured. (Matthew 28:19-20; John 15:18-21) It wasn't a life of pleasure or leisure, but one of self sacrifice. It never meant living an austere existence for the sake of how it benefited an individual personally. Jesus wasn't totally destitute and neither were any of the apostles. Although they did at times go without, but God saw to it that their needs were met.
    The apostle Paul worked at his trade to earn enough money so as not to become a financial burden on his brothers. (1 Thessalonians 2:9) If a person did not want to work, they shouldn't eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

    I cannot refer to any human as a source of my beliefs. I accept only the Bible. JW's have no "saints" like the CC does. We have no "leaders" or hierarchy either. Yes, there are "overseers" but this is a servant's role.
    There is a body of older men who give us guidance in our Christian course and help us to understand the scriptures. We believe that these are the "faithful and wise slave" mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:45-47. At the time of Jesus return, this "slave" will have been found carrying out his assignment faithfully...."feeding" Christ's household their "food at the proper time". For this they are "appointed over all his belongings". Since Christ had no earthly belongings of a material nature, these are his spiritual belongings...his disciples. We believe that Christ has been ruling now since 1914 and that we are deep into "the time of the end." Jesus assigned his disciples a preaching work that was to be carried out before "the end" would come. (Matthew 24:14)

    Can you show me monks or nuns in first century Christianity? Distinctive clothing or funny hats? To my knowledge, all Christians were to preach and teach about God's Kingdom. That is the way you dedicate your life to God. You sacrifice your personal comforts and aspirations to become a preacher and teacher to others who in turn become preachers and teachers themselves. This is how Christianity was to be spread. Who said you can't do this in a God honored marriage? (1 Timothy 4:1-4) One of the foretold traits of apostasy was a "forbidding to marry" and abstinence from certain foods, both of which were or are characteristics of the RCC.

    Jesus taught us to pray for this kingdom to "come" so that God's will could "be done on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus also said that "the meek shall inherit the earth"....so how does that happen if all the "good" people go to heaven? :shrug:
     
    #2 Deeje, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  3. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    In line with 1 Timothy 3, we can see the duties and qualifications of those appointed to various roles in the congregation.
    To the best of my knowledge, a "bishop" was originally an "overseer" or one who watched over or shepherded the congregation under his care.

    "If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having his children in subjection with all seriousness 5 (for if any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he care for the congregation of God?), 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment passed on the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil."

    They were married obviously. We have no "bishops"in our organization....we have "Overseers". These are viewed as servants of their brothers, not men of rank. They dress like everyone else so you could never pick them out from the brothers they serve.

    An "Elder" was a man of mature age, but in the Scriptures, one who primarily holds a position of authority and responsibility in a community or a nation. The word is also used of heavenly creatures in the book of Revelation. The Greek word pre·sbyʹte·ros is translated “elder” when it refers to those responsible for taking the lead in the congregation. (Exodus 4:29; Proverbs 31:23; 1Timothy 5:17; Revelation 4:4)

    We have "Elders" who see to it that the flock is fed and watered with nourishing spiritual food. That "food" is prepared by Christ's "Faithful and wise slave" appointed by him for that role in these last days. (Matthew 24:45) All in Christ's household were to be "fed" the same food. All hold the same beliefs and practiced the same faith. There were to be "no divisions" among them.

    "Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought" (1 Corinthians 1:10)

    A rendering of the Greek word di·aʹko·nos, which is often translated “minister” or “servant” refers to one who serves as an assistant to the body of elders in the congregation. He must meet Bible standards to qualify for this privilege of service, the same as an Elder. (1 Timothy 3:8-10, 12)

    We call these assistants, "Ministerial Servants" who are usually Elders in training.

    The sad thing is, that most people think of the building when you mention the word "church". The buildings that the first century Christians used were modest....often the homes of their brothers. Nowhere were Christians instructed to build elaborate "temples" as if God's temple somehow remained on earth after Christ's death. Once the Christ was sacrificed, the physical significance of the temple sacrifices ceased. That is why it was never rebuilt. The true temple was in heaven, where our High Priest is already serving.

    According to Jesus, the true Christian "wheat" never went completely out of existence, but were swallowed up to a large extent by the "weeds" who gained ridiculous amounts of power over earth's kings and their subjects. We can see all through the church's history, that those who dared to rise up and speak the truth were silenced with death, like Jesus was. Heretics, you know...:rolleyes:

    Right on time, according to Daniel, at "the time of the end" we would see God 'cleanse and refine' his worshippers. (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) He would make an 'abundance of knowledge' available at this time, but not all would accept the cleansing, preferring to stick with their old ways. Only those who accepted the cleansing would be given "insight" and understanding.

    A group of men from different denominations were brought together with a common goal...to study the scriptures deeply and prayerfully to discover the truth from God's word about many issues. They could see that the churches had lost the plot and were teaching things that they could not find in the scriptures....so they decided to start from scratch and allow the Bible to tell its own story. What they uncovered was shocking! None of Christendom's doctrines, formulated mostly by Roman Catholicism were biblical in origin. They discovered so much of Catholic doctrine was adopted from pagan Roman sun worship fused with weakened apostate Christianity. This was presented to the people as true Christianity for centuries disguising pagan festivals under "Christian" labels, and introducing doctrines that were never taught by the Master.....and we know what happened to any who dared to challenge those doctrines. :( Not until Luther nailed his list of demands to the door of the church, was the power of the Roman church challenged and weakened. It was time for the people to once again gain access to the word of God for themselves, wrenching it out of the hands of those who tried to keep its truths to themselves. And the rest, as they say...is history.

    We see those men as the start of Jehovah's modern day Witnesses, although Jehovah has always had his witnesses all through history. (Hebrews 12:1) ;)
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    In the Bible, the colors of royalty are purple and scarlet.The cloak give to Jesus by the Romans to mock him was the color of royalty....the so-called "king of the Jews". (Mark 15:17, 20; John 19:2) The colors worn by Babylon the great indicate her assumed status as a "queen". (Revelation 17:3-6)

    I have little interest in anything written after the end of the first century, because the apostles indicated that apostates were entering the church even before they passed off the earthly scene. Acting as a restraint for this apostasy, once the apostles were gone, nothing was going to stop the 'weeds' from taking over. (2 Thessalonians 2:7) I accept scripture as the only inspired writings.

    Since the Lord's Supper replaced the Jewish Passover, we believe that it too was to be held annually. Since it has been almost 2,000 years since its institution, Christians have indeed 'been proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes'. We believe that his coming is now immanent. Do Catholic people share this belief that Jesus will soon come to judge this world and pass sentence on those who take the devil's side on the issue of God's universal sovereignty? When he told his disciples to be "no part of this world", how seriously did the church take that command?

    Can you tell me why the Pope is called "the Pontiff"? And what the title "Pontifex Maximus" means and who had it before the Pope did? Since even in English a father can still be called 'papa' why is the word "pope" even used? Why only in Catholicism?

    If the church teaches that Peter was the first pope, I would like to see evidence that does not involve the mistranslation of Matthew 16:18.

    Paul wrote...."And you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone."

    So the foundation upon which Christ built his "church", is himself and the 12 apostles....not just Peter.

    Since there was a body of elders in the early congregations, assisted by the di·aʹko·nos, (other servants) there was no room for 'cults of personality'. No one man should ever shepherd God's flock. No one man should ever be in a position that carried that much power....it is corrupting, not to mention, an enormous responsibility. Having a body of older men kept them all humble and prayerfully seeking consensus among the body for each decision. The church was founded on all 12 apostles so that no individual was more important than the others, regardless of how God used their individual talents.
     
  5. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,996
    Ratings:
    +6,541
    Religion:
    ecumenical/unaffiliated/attend wife's Catholic church
    Sharianu, sorry to interject here
    And there you go again. What difference does it make where they meet? If you don't like meditating in a monastery, then let me recommend you not go to one. If they do, what's it to you?

    Also, aren't you aware that people go to monasteries to pray and learn from the monks?

    Monks take a vow of poverty for reasons of the above, so let me ask if your JW leaders take such a vow? Betcha they don't.

    If the only thing you can do to make your JW's look good is to tear other denominations down, then maybe your JW's really have nothing to offer.
     
  6. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    19,996
    Ratings:
    +6,541
    Religion:
    ecumenical/unaffiliated/attend wife's Catholic church
    OK, let's check this out:

    Matthew 16[13]Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
    [14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    [15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
    [16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    [17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
    [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.


    OK, let's examine this a bit more carefully.

    The above translation comes from Koine Greek and into English and not from the Aramaic that was spoken in eretz Israel back then. In Aramaic, both "Peter" and "rock" would be of the same word "kephas" (or "Cephas"). But going into Greek presented a problem because it is not gender neutral.

    Secondly, what we are reading here is a play on words that Jesus was using, and a reminder that it is Jesus who changed "Simon" to "Cephas" (I prefer that spelling), and Jesus must have done that for a reason as names often have attached meanings. Notice that Jesus says "you are Peter", so two points should be noted, with one being that certainly Peter must know who he is and, secondly that he is addressing Peter and not the others at this point.

    In the NT, when the apostles are mentioned by name, Peter is almost always first. Sometimes it's rendered "Peter and the others". Also, it is Jesus who tells Peter to "Feed my sheep...".

    Also, the early church recognized Peter's position vis-a-vis the Twelve as being what we might call the "spiritual leader" with Jesus being gone, whereas James was the administrative head of "the Way", and Judas the treasurer.
     
  7. Yohanan ben Yaaqov

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Ratings:
    +52
    Religion:
    Orthodox Jewish
    This is really amusing, chr-stians arguing with other chr-stians arguing with other chr-stians about chr-stianity. It is not at all unlike a Winesap apple arguing with a Macintosh apple arguing with a Granny Smith apple about who is really an apple.

    Newsflash, if you slice them up, pour them into a pastry, dump sugar over them and bake them they all become an apple pie. And afterward Gordon Ramsay is probably the only person on earth who could tell the difference. This is hysterically funny.

    Although I do have to admit that I do know a few JW’s, and out of all of the 44,000 plus sects of chr-stianity, they are the most tolerable. At least they’re not idolaters like the other 2 billion. In fact they are only one or two pagan beliefs away from being righteous Noaḥides. And considering that HaShem is very merciful, He might just give them the benefit of the doubt on those. But, who’s to say? That’s up to Him.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    Don't you get that this is the point of monasticism? And didn't you get the memo that the point of monasticism is to purify yourself so that God can use you for His own glory, as a means to speak to others and show an example of what true, selfless faith in Christ is like?

    Yeah, no. I'm still angry at St. Boniface and the Conquistadors especially over their shenanigans. >_> Mistakes have been MADE over the course of history.

    Tell me, do you own any possessions? Do you own a house, a car, a computer, anything? The most possessions a monastic has is a copy of the Bible, eyeglasses for seeing if they need them, a prayer rope or a rosary, and perhaps a few icons. Maybe possibly a few other personal items that you could count on one hand. Monks take Jesus' command and follow it fully.

    Taking up our cross is also taking up the call to fight against our passions and submit them to Christ's healing light.

    Again, monasticism isn't about your own personal gain. It's about emptying yourself and orienting yourself wholly to the will of God, that the light of Christ may shine through you unto others. Monastics pray for the whole world, and give counsel to those who come to them for aid.

    If you have an "overseer", you have a leader. A leader by example, a leader in humility, but a leader nonetheless.

    St. Tekla, for one.

    A monk's "distinctive clothing" today was the same as the everyday clothing back in the early centuries AD. Compare traditional Arabian dress to Orthodox monastic garb, and you'll note the similarity.

    You absolutely can, which is why Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox spirituality is modeled after the monastic version.

    Got a reference for that?

    And this is what monastics do.
     
  9. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    And this is what deacons do in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Deacons also assist in worship, and help to lead the congregation in prayer.

    You ever tried fitting 2000 people in someone's house? Neither have I, because we both know it's a stupid idea. That's why we began building church buildings.

    To most people, the word "church" means both the building, and the community of believers, because within each community of believers is also the fullness of the Church. Remember what St. Ignatius said? "Wherever the bishop is, there also is the Church." And the bishop has priests appointed to be his delegates to each congregation, since a man can't be in 30 places at once. So, wherever the bishop is (and by extension a priest), there is the Catholic Church.

    By that logic we should see a steady, 2000-year-long train of people who all said that we should only ever use the Bible, smashed icons, denied the divinity of Christ, told everyone they're bad and should feel bad for having liturgical worship, and tried to eradicate any hint of local culture to be found within the congregations. Can you show me the Jehovah's Witnesses before the 1800's? Can you show me any shred of archaeological, anthropological evidence that this sort of Christianity existed? As you said, we all know what happened to those who opposed the Church, so we should be able to very easily find records of these people throughout the last 2000 years, right?

    I'll be waiting.

    Just answer me this: Do you honestly think the Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible, understand Christianity better than the congregations and individuals who were taught personally by the Apostles for decades? How is it possible that God failed so miserably in leading His Church into all truth? (John 16:13) How is it that the Holy Spirit didn't decide to teach the flock until 1800's America? How is it possible that literally every single Christian fell away from the Truth, after being taught personally by the Apostles and their students? Heck, how is it that the Apostles handpicked people who were so incompetent so as to COMPLETELY change the Christian faith? How is it that the Church, the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) fell away so easily?

    The entirety of the Jehovah's Witness reading of history hinges on the premise that God, the Apostles and the primitive Church were completely, utterly incompetent. It relies on the premise that Jesus broke His promise and allowed the Gates of Hades to prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18).


    And they did all of this without having any of the cultural, linguistic, political, theological context that the Bible was written in, I suppose.

    The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it is utterly impossible to read the Bible without any sort of bias. There's a reason that Protestant Christianity is the most fractious: By claiming to rely on "just the Bible" (which by the way is something that not even the Bible advises, just see 2 Thessalonians 2:15), you lose any ability to have a standard rule for interpreting the Bible. Which is why your Watchtower writes its magazines and its pamphlets telling people how they should interpret the Bible. Even in your worship services you spend time studying these magazines. And that doesn't remind you at all of Catholic and Orthodox Apostolic Tradition?

    Again, I sincerely hope you don't own anything scarlet or purple.

    What tells you that that verse is referring to the Apostles as being the ones who were acting as a restraint? What tells you that this apostasy was an utter and complete apostasy of the entirety of the Church? If you only accept the Bible as authoritative, then show me from the Bible. Since you yourself reject historical writings on this matter, show me solely from the Bible how such a conclusion is even possible. Don't read anything in, don't say "Well we can infer..." or "We can see from history..." Show me from. the. Bible.

    I'll be waiting.

    Yup. Ever been to a Catholic Mass? Ever looked at a writing of a Catholic Saint? It's all encouragements to be in a state of grace when God comes, so that we might not be found guilty of any sin at the Judgement.


    In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it is taught that we are mere pilgrims on this Earth. We do what good we can for the poor and those in need (which, the answer is we can always do more).

    In any case, I doubt your church can claim to take that command more seriously than the monks.

    The Pope is called a Pontiff because of the Renaissance. It has never been an official title of the Pope. "Pontifex Maximus" means the chief bridge-builder, and it was the office held by the highest cleric in the Roman Empire.
    The same reason that we pronounce "Jesus" as "Dzhee-zus" and not as "Yeh-soos." Sound changes between languages.

    Actually, it's not only in Catholicism. The Coptic Orthodox Church has had a Pope since even before the Bishop of Rome was given that title, and Coptic Orthodox Christians still have a Pope to this day. Nowadays, the man with the title is Pope Tawadros II.

    [/QUOTE]So the foundation upon which Christ built his "church", is himself and the 12 apostles....not just Peter.[/QUOTE]

    Naturally. Peter served as a symbol of the Church's unity.

    The Orthodox would agree with you. I could start another thread and literally have a heated, scholarly argument entirely by myself about Catholic and Orthodox views on the Pope and ecclesiology, arguing both sides of the issue with equal vigor and persuasiveness. Which is a project I REALLY don't want to do...
     
    #9 Shiranui117, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  10. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    Everybody knows Granny Smiths are the best. And that apple pie is a crime against humanity.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Just alerting people to the fact that monasteries were not used or endorsed by Jesus or the first Christians. They were a later adoption from unbalanced "Christians" in an apostate church, who decided to become hermits and take everything Jesus said to the nth degree of ridiculous.:rolleyes:

    Balance is what we see in the model left by Jesus and the apostles. There was only one brief period where Jesus communed with his Father in seclusion....and that was for only 40 days to prepare him for the greatest role any human could ever be asked to fulfill. Never do we see the apostles doing that......it would have been the furthest thing from their minds. Meditating on God's word did not require a building or years to accomplish in seclusion.

    According to Wiki, "Christian" hermits who chose to seclude themselves away from the rest of humanity did not manifest until the 3rd century CE. Never were Jesus disciples instructed to stay away from people. On the contrary, they had to be active preachers and teachers....seeking people out in towns and villages with the good news. (Matthew 10:11-15) How do you do that in seclusion? Or with a vow of silence?
    And there is no point in mentioning the Essenes because Jesus never did. The traditions adopted by the Jewish religious leaders of his day, he said invalidated the word of God back then, just as they do today. (Mark 7:6-9)

    Where will I find "monks" or "nuns" in first century Christianity?
    Being shut up in a monastery is exactly the opposite of what Christ instructed his disciples to do. They were to go out to the people, not make the people come in to them. We are supposed to preach to unbelievers, not those already converted. We are to "search" for these ones like the first Christians did. (Acts 20:20) We were not told to sit in an ornate building and wait for people to come to us.....do you know why?

    Actually some do, but it isn't mandatory. It is a protection from the snare of materialism. Some are very aware that they have a weakness in that area. Taking a vow of poverty is a personal thing between that person and God. It never meant becoming destitute or homeless for the sake of it, however. (Proverbs 30:8-9)

    Please metis, let's not pretend that Jesus and the apostles never tore down the Pharisees and their teachings. Christ castigated them most severely. (Matthew 23:13-23) Truth exposes error and we are under obligation to tell the truth.....an unpopular one, following Jesus example.

    Even John the Baptist had nothing good to say about those hypocrites. (Matthew 3:7-12) How were people going to be made aware that what they had been taught by these Jewish Leaders all their lives was corrupted, unless the truth was told? It wasn't a popular truth, but it was the truth nonetheless. Jesus disciples copped a lot of flack for exposing the errors of the majority.....but the old saying is "if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen"....:eek: They stayed in the kitchen.

    No one has anything to fear from the truth. Honest hearts will respond to it because God will reveal it to them, just like he did in the first century. (John 6:44)
     
  12. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    @metis Was Peter the First Pope?

    The 1870 Vatican Council’s decree was based primarily on its interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 and John 21:15-17. The conversations between Jesus and Peter that we read in these passages as well as other Bible accounts show that the apostle Peter had an important role in the history of early Christianity. In fact, the first time they met, Jesus predicted that Peter would display rocklike qualities in his life. (John 1:42) But did Christ give Peter primacy?

    At Matthew 16:17, 18, we find Jesus’ words to Peter: “I say to you, you are Peter [whose name means “A Piece of Rock”], and upon this rock I will build my church.” Was Jesus saying that his “church,” or congregation, would be built upon Peter, a man? Was Peter to be the head of all other followers of Jesus? How did the other apostles present at that conversation understand Jesus’ words? The Gospels reveal that later, on a number of occasions, they argued about who was the greatest among them. (Matthew 20:20-27; Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26) If Jesus had already given Peter primacy, or superiority, could there have been any question as to who was the greatest among the apostles?

    How did Peter himself understand Jesus’ words? Growing up an Israelite, Peter would have been familiar with various Hebrew prophecies speaking of a “stone” or a “cornerstone.” (Isaiah 8:13, 14; 28:16; Zechariah 3:9) When he quoted one of them in a letter to his fellow believers, Peter explained that the prophesied “cornerstone” was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Peter used the Greek term pe’tra (the same word found in Jesus’ statement at Matthew 16:18) for Christ alone.—1 Peter 2:4-8.

    The apostle Paul was another faithful follower of Jesus. Did Paul believe that Jesus had given Peter primacy? Acknowledging Peter’s position in the early Christian congregation, Paul wrote that Peter was among those “reputed to be pillars.” For Paul, there was more than just one ‘pillar.’ (Galatians 2:9) Moreover, if Peter had been appointed by Jesus as the head of the congregation, how could he simply be reputed, that is to say, supposed or thought by his fellow believers, to be a pillar?

    When writing regarding certain inconsistencies in the way Peter treated people, Paul respectfully but frankly stated: “I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.” (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul did not think that Christ had built his church, or congregation, upon Peter or any other imperfect man. On the contrary, he believed that the congregation was built on Jesus Christ as the foundation. For Paul, “the rock was the Christ.”—1 Corinthians 3:9-11; 10:4.

    “YOU ARE PETER . . .”
    So how are we to understand the words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”? To understand an excerpt correctly, we need to read its context. What were Jesus and Peter speaking about? Jesus had just asked his disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” Without hesitation, Peter answered: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” With that, Jesus commended Peter and then added that he would build his “church,” or congregation, on an even more solid “rock,” the one in whom Peter had just expressed faith—Jesus himself.—Matthew 16:15-18.

    How are we to understand Jesus’ words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”?

    Consistent with this, many of the “Church Fathers” wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18is Christ. For example, Augustine in the fifth century wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock (Petra) was Christ.”

    Augustine and others would be considered heretics if judged according to current Catholic doctrine. In fact, according to Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz, the consensus of opinion on this subject among Bible scholars today would have been condemned by the 1870 Vatican Council as heresy.

    THE POPE—PETER’S SUCCESSOR?
    The title “pope” was unknown to the apostle Peter. In fact, until the ninth century, many non-Roman bishops applied the title to themselves. Even so, the term was rarely applied as an official title until the late 11th century. Moreover, no early Christian thought that a primacy supposedly given to Peter had been transmitted to any successors. Hence, German scholar Martin Hengel concluded that there is “no demonstrable historical and theological way to arrive at what later became papal ‘primacy.’”

    In conclusion: Was Peter the first pope? Did he have any successors? Is the Catholic dogma of papal primacy Scripturally valid? The only correct answer to each question is a simple no. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jesus unquestionably did build his church, his true congregation, upon himself. (Ephesians 2:20)

    Was Peter the First Pope? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
     
  13. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Please see my reply to metis. (above)

    Is this what Jesus commanded his disciples to do....?

    [​IMG] Good grief! [​IMG] This is more like it.

    [​IMG]

    Congregations were formed through the preaching work that Christ commissioned. (Matthew 10:11-15)

    At 2 Cor 8:12-15, Paul makes clear the balanced view of Christian living....

    "For if the readiness is there first, it is especially acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have. 13 For I do not want to make it easy for others, but difficult for you; 14 but that by means of an equalizing, your surplus at the present time might offset their need, so that their surplus might also offset your deficiency, that there may be an equalizing. 15 Just as it is written: “The person with much did not have too much, and the person with little did not have too little.

    Where does it say in the Bible that "passion" is something God wants to squash out of us? Passion has legitimate expression in God's arrangement.....as long as our 'passions' do not transgress God's moral laws, or take time away from the doing of God's will, we have a right to express them....they are God-given.

    How does one "do the will of God" if they are so busy "orienting themselves" that they never get around to doing what Christ commanded? What light are they shining really, if they are not promoting the most important work that Jesus commissioned? (Matthew 28:19-20)
    Have their prayers for the whole world ever been answered? What are they praying for exactly? Could it be that they have blood on their hands? (Isaiah 1:15) [​IMG]

    We have no Leader. There is no "head" of our organization. It is led by a body of men whom we believe fulfill the role of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" appointed by Jesus in this time of the end to "feed" his sheep their "food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45)

    So why did they retain the distinctive garb when no else dresses like that anymore? Doesn't the fabric and the decoration give it away? Do you see Christian modesty in that clothing?...or do you see someone who wants to stand out from the flock?

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    1 Timothy 4:1-3:
    " Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,
    Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth."
    (Douay)

    No one should forbid God ordained marriage. A person can choose singleness so as to serve God "undistracted", but its a choice, not a law. Who introduced it into Catholicism, when it was never commanded as a requirement to serve God? How much damage has that requirement caused for those who want to do both. Who said you can't do both?
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Modest little numbers like this, you mean?.......:eek: Overkill anyone? What about the poor?

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Did you know that that the congregations were deliberately kept small in the first century? That is because the shepherds had to know their flock personally in order to care for them appropriately. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) How can a shepherd know 2,000 sheep on a personal level? Today's mega-churches have the same problem.

    I don't recognize your saints...sorry. [​IMG]

    No actually, they were the small voices that were silenced over many centuries. God did not interfere with apostate Christianity any more than he did in Judaism before Christ made his earthly appearance as Messiah. It had been some 400 years since God's last prophet had tried to correct Israel, but God said that they were a "stiff-necked people" who were beyond redemption. Jesus agreed (Matthew 23:37-39) When Christ came, it was not to the religious leaders that he was sent, but to the "lost sheep" who had been seriously neglected by those arrogant shepherds. They were already a lost cause, but the people weren't. It was they who gained the opportunity to be saved out of that "crooked generation". (Acts 2:38-41) Just the same as today.

    It was prophesied in Daniel that only at "the time of the end" would God 'cleanse and refine' his worshippers. (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) Why was a cleansing and refining necessary at this time? I think the answer is obvious.

    So God allowed the natural consequences of adhering to the traditions of men to play out naturally as he knew they would. Only in 'the time of the end' would they stand out so prominently from the true wheat that were to be revealed at this time. The separation is total.....the 'wheat' have nothing in common with the 'weeds' of "Babylon the great" at all, having removed themselves from that apostate system, just as Jesus' first century disciples had to remove themselves from apostate Judaism. (Revelation 18:4-5) It is all pictorial.
     
  15. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    No incompetence....just enough time to see a clear distinction between Christ's true disciples and the ones who just wear a label and do their own thing. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus never broke his promise because he said he would be with his disciples "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things" (Matthew 28:20)......and he has. We will all get to witness how the 'gates of hades' have never prevailed against God's eternal purpose.

    Did the men who wrote the Bible need "cultural, linguistic, political" abilities at all? What theological context are we talking about?
    The same power that inspired scripture is the same power that preserved its message and gave it to those who were searching for God....and Jesus told us to go and search for them.....when was the last time a Catholic came to my door with "the good news of God's kingdom"? How about never...? [​IMG]

    Our magazines are studies in the scriptures, not the words of men. We see them as "spiritual food" provided by the Master through his 'faithful slave'.
    We understand completely why Christendom is fractured into so many bickering fragments.....all with their own ideas. This is part of the devil's world empire of false religion. All religion that is out of harmony with God's teachings and standards is part of Babylon the great. You can trace all their doctrines back to original Babylon. But this Babylon is "greater" because it encompasses the whole world. (1 John 5:19)

    I do actually, but since I make no claim to royalty or want to stand out as superior to anyone else, they are just colors. Look at the flowers and see that God likes scarlet and purple too.....he just doesn't like it when humans want to big note themselves by using color to give a false impression.

    No problem.....

    Paul warned the Christian overseers of Ephesus..."I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." So not just making disciples for themselves but trying to draw away the disciples.....Christ’s disciples. (Acts 20:29, 30)

    He wrote, at 1 Timothy 4:1-3: However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving.”

    Paul later wrote to Timothy again that “there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

    The apostle Peter drew a parallel between the apostasy from Christianity and that which occurred in the natural house of Israel. He said:However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” Peter goes on to point out that these would exploit the congregation but that “the destruction of them is not slumbering.” (2 Peter 2:1-3)

    Yes, I went to a wedding mass once...it was the funniest thing I have ever seen. The priest swigged so much wine during the ceremony, (which was incredibly long and boring [​IMG] ), that he was a bit tipsy at the end. [​IMG] It was some time ago, before I became a Witness. I have been in a High Church of England (a funeral) as well....it might as well have been Catholic...I couldn't tell the difference.

    I don't need to read the writings of Catholic saints, since I do not recognize them as such. It is God who chooses his "saints", so no human needs to lobby God in order to be made one. Such a bizarre process and completely unscriptural.
    Very Catholic though.....

    I guess that is one of the more important points of difference between us.....we see ourselves as permanent residents of this earth. I have no desire to go to heaven and I don't think the majority of humans do either. Our desire is for life in paradise, which, if you remember was originally right here on earth in the garden of Eden where God put humans in the first place. There is not a single reference to humans going to heaven until Jesus came. That was because he was going to choose his assistants who would become "kings and priests" in heaven with him. (Revelation 20:6) Prior to that, Jewish hopes for God's kingdom had been entirely earthly. It took a while before the penny dropped and holy spirit convicted them of a future life in heaven. The foundations of God's kingdom were the 12 apostles. No one else was promised life in heaven except those specifically chosen by God to go there. They are a finite number.

    You neglected to mention that it was the position of "the highest cleric in the PAGAN Roman Empire". :p It never was a "Christian" title. It still isn't.

    Peter had abilities that were used by Jesus to further the good news. He illustrated this with his parable about the talents.
    But nowhere are we told that Peter was elevated above the other apostles. If you remember they were always arguing among themselves who was the greatest, but Jesus reminded them time and again that none of them was greater than the others, no matter how talented they were. (Matthew 25:14-30)

    [​IMG] yes I know......one truth, right? :rolleyes:
     
    #15 Deeje, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Strange that Paul never mentioned her.....in fact there is not a single scriptural reference to her in that whole article. [​IMG] I wonder why?
     
  17. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    It's rare that you have only one priest for 2,000 people. Parishes of this size have multiple priests and several deacons. It's also not uncommon for large parishes to be split up into several smaller parishes for the very reason that you mentioned. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes in particular do this rather frequently.

    And I don't recognize your Watchtower, so I guess that makes us even.

    So God waited for almost two millennia before deciding "Ehh, I've slept in long enough, time to set the record straight". Why would He let 1800 years' worth of Christians be resigned to eternal damnation? You cannot show me evidence of any Christian prior to your organization who believed the things that you do. If there were any who did, you would be able to show me evidence of these people from the writings of the great Christian apologists and historians like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius or others, who wrote extensively about heretical groups' claims and refuted them. Especially if these people were once the majority of the Church.

    And apparently, in your view, the distinction between "Christ's true disciples" and the "ones who just wear a label and do their own thing" was that Christ's true disciples were entirely made up of dead people from only the 1st century until the 1800's.

    Abilities? No. But the men who wrote the books of the New Testament and those to whom these books were addressed shared the same culture, the same language, the same political environment, and the same contemporary events that were shaping their lives. They shared the same interpretive lens through which they all read the Bible, which was made up of the events, customs, unspoken rules, language patterns, dialects, euphemisms and metaphors of the day. These all combined to form an environment in which these people lived and through which they saw the world and everything they saw and read. Despite the great advances made by archaeology, anthropology, Patristics and classical studies, we don't have even close to the amount of information we would need to immerse ourselves in the text and come away with the same reading as did the first-century Christians. This is why we need to seriously look at the other writings of the first Christians, as well as their art, places of worship and the artifacts they left behind to give us a better idea of how they read the Bible.

    The fact that you can't answer this question yourself should give you serious pause when you consider yourself or the Watchtower capable of reading the Bible in the same way as did the first-century Christians. If you don't know about other groups such as the Judaizers, the Donatists, the Docetists or the Nicolatians, or about how Roman society was structured, then you should go and educate yourself about the world which the first Christians inhabited.

    For starters, this is a great YouTube series on early Church history done by Dr. Ryan Reeves, who has a Ph.D in theology from Cambridge.

    Perhaps because door-to-door evangelism doesn't work, at least not very well. One would think that you guys of all people would have figured that out by now… Catholics and Orthodox prefer to do outreach programs such as prison ministries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, schools, home-building programs and things like this. We put our money and effort where our mouth is, and we take seriously Christ's command to help "the least of these". The first Christians won people over to the faith by exemplary conduct and taking care of others. Pagans and Jews were asking, "What is it that makes these people act so decently to everyone, without exception? Why are they so joyful? Who is this Christ that they are willing to even die for?"

    I fail to see the difference between what you say of your magazines and our Apostolic Tradition, other than the fact that our Tradition comes from the Apostles and those they taught. The Bible is one part of that Tradition. You have our Church to thank for the very Bible that you study and whose purity you claim to defend so ardently.

    I noticed that you conveniently avoided my point. Your denomination doesn't rely on "just the Bible". Your Watchtower interprets the Bible for you, and that's how you all keep the same opinion--you accept that whatever the Watchtower says as being the correct interpretation. You need a means of interpretation outside the Bible to interpret it the same way.

    It seems you don't know why red and purple are used as vestment colors for cardinals. Here it is from EWTN, a Catholic database:
    "Thus, white, the symbol of light and purity, and gold and silver are festive colors. Red expresses both the fire of the Holy Spirit and the blood of the Passion and of martyrdom. Green is the symbolic color of hope and serenity.
    Violet, recalling somberness and penance, has also largely replaced black for funerals although this latter color may still be used."

    And there have been many heretics, such as the Montanists, the Docetists, the Sabellians, Arians, Semi-Arians, Pelagians, Adoptionists, Monophysites, Monothelites, Nestorians, the Donatists, the Nicolatians, the Judaizers… But the Church always prevailed, and we can see that today.

    And, more importantly, nowhere do any of your verses say that the entirety of the Church fell away.

    You mean the Blood of Christ. And the priest wasn't just "swigging" it, he was beginning the process of ablution.

    You don't seem to understand how Saints are recognized as such. The Catholic Church doesn't just arbitrarily decide "This person's a Saint now".

    This is also the teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We will inhabit the earth after it is made anew.

    Hence, again, why it isn't an official Papal title, and only came into use starting with the Renaissance.
     
  18. Shiranui117

    Shiranui117 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    3,603
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Byzantine Christian
    Probably because the Bible was never meant to be the sole document used by Christians, but is simply the written part of the Apostolic Tradition. It wasn't until Marcion started doing his pseudo-Gnostic thing in the late second century that the Church even thought about creating a standardized New Testament. From that point onward, it took more time than the Jehovah's Witnesses' have existed for the Church to decide roughly what books should go in. The existence of the city of Ma'loula in Syria is testimony to St. Thekla's life.
     
  19. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Yep. ;)

    You should realize by now that God operates in universal time, not in earth years. It took about 2,000 years for the seed of Genesis 3:15 to make his appearance....and its taken another 2,000 years for him to make his return. Everything is right on schedule actually. [​IMG]

    Simple.....There is no eternal damnation. The only two options held out to all of God's worshippers was either life or death.

    Heaven or hell was never in the original scenario as opposite destinations. Where did God tell Adam that he would end up? (Genesis 3:19) He was to go back to where he came from......where was Adam before God created him?

    [​IMG] Ah, but you cannot show me evidence of any Christian who believed what you do, prior to the formation of the Catholic Church. We abandoned your adopted beliefs to reclaim the ones Christ taught.
    There is no trinity....no immortal soul....no hell of eternal torment....no purgatory....no graven images.....no genuflecting....no mother goddess worship....no infant baptism.....no holy water or incense....no earthly priesthood.....no repetitive prayers with rosary beads...no "hail Mary's" or "Our Father's" as a penance for sin.....no absolution or indulgences....no grand inquisitor.....no conversion or confession at the point of a sword.....no ornate cathedrals.....no fancy distinguishing garb or funny hats....no transubstantiation.....no Sabbath.....
    heck....its a long list... [​IMG]

    Since Christ had no disciples up until he was baptized in the Jordan River, then there was no such thing as a "Christian" until around the middle of the first century.....and seeing as how the rulers in the Kingdom of God only began to be chosen after Jesus became the Christ, and instituted the new covenant with them, then I believe its safe to say that the real Christian "wheat" were only in existence from the first century, and shortly after their establishment, they were swallowed up by the "weeds" that Jesus and his apostles spoke about. History tells the story better than me.

    According to the apostle Paul, all the dead in Christ were to "sleep" in death until his return. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) They didn't go anywhere.

    If you understand that the Bible is not a book about times or customs or cultures or languages, but a book about human nature, and God's dealings with human beings, then all one needs to understand the Bible, is what the original Bible writers had to tell the original story....God's holy spirit.

    It was God through his prophet Daniel who told us about the "time of the end" and the cleansing and refining that was to take place....but it seems as if the RCC prefers not to talk about that.

    All you have to do is look at the Bible and see what the first century Christians believed. They had to abandon apostate Judaism and its nit picking attitude towards the law, to return to the truths taught by Jesus Christ. He said that they 'strained out gnats whilst gulping down camels'....I see the RCC as doing the same thing today. Those who stubbornly refused to listen to Jesus, but clung to the teachings of their religious leaders, missed out on becoming that "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" that was set before them as the descendants of Abraham. Their places in the kingdom were taken by others.
    Unless one is "doing the will of the Father" they will not pass muster. (Matthew 7:21-23)

    [​IMG] It did for Jesus and his apostles (Acts 20:20)....and its worked very well for us....maybe that's because we have something to tell people that makes sense. Our message is reaching so many people today who want answers that the church cannot provide. The churches are losing relevance in people's lives and the secular world is swallowing up the youth by telling them there is no God...we all got here through evolution. No Creator required. Religion is dying and most of the population is happy to see it go. I think God is too.

    So do we. But we have a different take on the scripture you mentioned.

    In Jesus parable of the "sheep and the goats" he tells the "sheep" that they have taken care of his "brothers", sometimes without being aware of it. (Matthew 25:40) So we see Jesus, his 'brothers' and the 'sheep' in this scenario. His brothers are not random homeless people or unbelievers....they are in need and suffering because of being disciples of Christ. As I have already mentioned, there was no charity available for those who were not members of the congregation in good standing back in the first century. There was even an age limit. It was for fellow believers.

    1 Timothy 5:9-10
    "A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband, 10 having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, if she assisted the afflicted, if she devoted herself to every good work."
     
    #19 Deeje, Aug 12, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  20. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,800
    Ratings:
    +1,354
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Do you know anything about the experience of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Nazi concentration camps? Many of the Jews and even some of the SS guards were so impressed by their conduct under Nazi assault, that they sought out JW's after the war and joined our ranks. They saw the Catholic clergy supporting Hitler. We refused, so many of our brothers and sisters were murdered. Hitler vowed to 'exterminate this brood', but it was he who exterminated himself. [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    JW's are among the most sought after employees because of their honesty.
    You really don't know much about us do you?

    [​IMG] You want to know something interesting....? There is not one word of scripture that was written by a Catholic. [​IMG]

    God was the one who determined what he wanted included in the finished product. You guys got it wrong.

    I have already told you about the "faithful and discreet slave".....Jesus appointment of him was part of the sign of the end times....you know, the one where Jesus said "the good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come". (Matthew 24:3-14)

    How many people will ever hear that message if we have to rely on members of the Catholic church to deliver it? [​IMG]

    Regardless of how the church interprets color, that is not what the Bible says regarding the purple and scarlet.

    I never said the entirety of the church fell away...just the majority...like the Jews, it was due to appalling leadership. There was always a minority down through history who dared to speak up.....they got either excommunicated or murdered. Seems to me that Jesus said the Pharisees did the same thing. (Matthew 23:37-38)

    No, I mean he swigged that wine down so many times that it was embarrassing. His speech was slurred and he was tipsy by the end of it. It is against God's law to drink blood. It is wine that symbolizes Jesus blood.

    What is the criteria for a saint in Catholicism? I have seen people lobbying to have someone made a saint as if it is man's choice or they can somehow solicit God for a favor. Isn't there something about a requirement for miracles?

    When do you see that happening? Any time soon? What are you expecting to take place to bring about this "new earth"?
    I have never heard a Catholic talk about such things.....especially not the end times. They normally remain silent on this topic. Why?
     
Loading...