The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[Saint Frankenstein]

The sun worship is seen very clearly right there in St Peter's Square.....
There is a Babylonian sun wheel with an obelisk in the centre that was imported from Egypt....a representation of the sun god Ra.

The origins of obelisks is stated here....in a quick Google search....
"The first obelisks were built by ancient Egyptians. They were carved from stone and placed in pairs at the entrance of temples as sacred objects that symbolized the sun god, Ra. It's believed that the shape symbolized a single sun ray. ... In fact, there are more Egyptian obelisks in Rome today than there are in Egypt."

Please explain.....

"Obelisk is from obeliscus - "in the shape of a spear". For pagans, the obelisk was a solar symbol that represented a vital flow between heaven and earth, a way of communicating to the divine.

As a pagan monument in the greatest Christian square, it is a symbol of humanity reaching out to Christ. Originally inscribed to "Divine Augustus" and "Divine Tiberius" and now dedicated to the Holy Cross - "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat. Christus ab omni malo plebem suam defendat." It is topped by a bronze cross containing a fragment of the true Cross."

"The east and west sides have exorcist formulas."
St. Peter's - The Obelisk

Wow, so very evil.

 

[cataway]

[QUOTE="metis, post: 6818591, member: 47735"]Now, stop and think for a minute: God tells Moses to put this copper serpent on his staff, and yet is that not a "graven image" according to JW teachings? The reality is that "graven image" is never defined in Torah, but what is clear is that we can't worship any such image-- thus we don't.

Secondly, your use of "extreme veneration" above is not conducive to Catholic teachings because it implies "idol worship", which is forbidden for us.

Again, with "extreme veneration" are your words. [see above]

He would be, but I think he'd be quite "impressed", but in a very negative way, when someone abandons honesty and adds words that change meanings, which you have done by adding the word "extreme".

It is "kosher" to question Catholic theology, which I do a lot, let me tell ya, but at least don't play disingenuous games by adding words and beliefs that we supposedly have that aren't really there. Being dishonest in the name of "Jehovah" isn't the most Christ-like thing to do, and if your JW masters tell you that doing as such is somehow moral, maybe look for a Christian denomination that teaches that the Truth is far more Christ-like than playing word games.[/QUOTE]

"extreme veneration" is not something that I coined . i looked for it in the archives of the WT . it was not there . " veneration" was ,and this foot note

The New Catholic Encyclopedia defines veneration as “a religious act, an act of worship.”

 

[metis]

"extreme veneration" is not something that I coined . i looked for it in the arrives of the WT . it was not there . " veneration" was ,and this foot note

I have no idea what you are saying with that wording.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia defines veneration as “a religious act, an act of worship.”

Could you please quote that with a link because I couldn't find it. So, let me quote from these sources links:

Definition
Honor paid to representations of Christ and the saints. Their purpose is to adorn, instruct, and excite to piety those who behold, wear, or carry images on their persons. According to the Council of Trent, images of Christ, of the Mother of God, and other canonized saints are to be kept in churches and due honor paid to them not because there is any divinity or power inherent in them as images, but because the honor shown to them is referred to the prototypes they represent. Through the worship and reverence so shown, the faithful really worship Christ and honor the saints whose likenesses they display. In other words, the veneration is relative, always being referred back to the original, never absolute as though the material object is being venerated in and for itself. -- Dictionary : IMAGES, VENERATION OF

From the 2nd source with a link:
Veneration is giving great respect and admiration to noted men and women who followed Christ in person, were relatives, or, over the years, showed great piety and devotion to our Lord.

People we venerate are often formally or informally recognized as saints—men and women whom the Church has doctrinal reasoning, teachings of Sacred Tradition or supernatural evidence to conclude that, not only are they in heaven, but also interceding for us on earth by passing on any communication we make to them to the Lord, who is the only one who can fulfill a desire or need.

Worship is the act of giving adoration, fealty and sacrifice to God. Only God, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is worshipped by Catholics.

Both veneration and worship are done through communication, directly to (in worship) and indirectly (to a saint that will pass on such communication during veneration to them) as prayer.

Prayer is NOT the same as “worship.” This point is often confused by, and incorrectly cited as “idolization” by non-Catholics. Prayer is simply communication. God provides the conduit and is the fulfillment of all prayer, but we and the saints are His ears.

Veneration is simply an extension of the earthly concept where your members of a church all make prayers directly to God for help in a situation, be for a single member, a non-member of that church, for one who has died, or one who lives. Catholics believe that death is not the end, and that those in heaven are alive in a real sense, given the ability to hear prayer (communication) to them, which they (because saints lack any power on their own to fulfill anything) pass on to God.

A person praying alone to God is powerful. Imagine if everyone, both on earth and heaven, pray to God for help.
-- What is the difference between “venerating” and “worshipping” inside the Catholic Church? - Quora

 

[exchemist]

"extreme veneration" is not something that I coined . i looked for it in the archives of the WT . it was not there . " veneration" was ,and this foot note

The New Catholic Encyclopedia defines veneration as “a religious act, an act of worship.”

So where did you find "extreme veneration", then?

 

[cataway]

So where did you find "extreme veneration", then?

yes that is interesting . ya take the word ,extreme, then add the word veneration and ya get ,extreme veneration .then ya ask what is that. then ya google or Bing it .

 

[cataway]

found this too “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them.”—Exodus 20:4, 5.
then i look at this picture

 

[savagewind]

Christians (non JW) generally believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and God himself, part of the trinity. But JW's as I know don't believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and they don't believe in the trinity as stipulated in the Athanasian Creed. They believe otherwise. Well, there will be many theological differences between the two faiths that one could not list in a post concisely.

The Nicene council in 325 as we all know was a repercussion of the divide between the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and the Arian view that he was a creation at some point though he was there before creation. Where do the JW's stand? As seen in probably all the faiths of significant numbers there are and were many theologies since the beginning, but the variance in this topic is of a curious nature where the difference is vast and stems from the same person, Jesus Christ who is a divine being considered the Son of God. Not just an adopted son or a title-given son like many in the Old Testament, but a begotten son.

Though Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves as such I have seen and heard JW's say that they are Christians or how Christians should be. But well, is not that what everyone says? Should all who call themselves Christians just be Christians anyway? Nevertheless, JW's call themselves by the divine name of God though they include the J in YHWH which some oppose to though they too had added J to Jesus's name though he is called Iesous or/and Yashua depending on the language you wish to pick. JW's don't like to call themselves protestants but they're Christians in a similar fashion to the Roman Catholics who are Christians but not protestants. Protestants are Christians but some of them deny that the others are Christians.

What is the primary question that JW's are answering in this division? Whats the Stumper? Can JW's and other Christians in the forum provide some insight?

That's a lot of words. Do you know where you are?

 

[Deeje]

"Obelisk is from obeliscus - "in the shape of a spear". For pagans, the obelisk was a solar symbol that represented a vital flow between heaven and earth, a way of communicating to the divine.

As a pagan monument in the greatest Christian square, it is a symbol of humanity reaching out to Christ. Originally inscribed to "Divine Augustus" and "Divine Tiberius" and now dedicated to the Holy Cross - "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat. Christus ab omni malo plebem suam defendat." It is topped by a bronze cross containing a fragment of the true Cross."

"The east and west sides have exorcist formulas."
St. Peter's - The Obelisk

Wow, so very evil.

According to the Bible, yes...it is evil. I see that you have changed sides again StF......are you yet defending Roman Catholicism?

But, you know this is somewhat typical of the RCC commandeering pagan beliefs and practices, and supposedly "christianizing" them. This is how Constantine united his divided empire....he fused the two into one "universal" faith.....except that there was nothing "Christian" about it.
There is a principle outlined by the apostle Paul against such a practice.....

2 Corinthians 6:14-18...
"Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? 15 What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

‘I will live in them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore come out from them,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch nothing unclean;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be your father,
and you shall be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.’" (NRSVA Catholic Edition)

You cannot fuse paganism and Christianity......you just end up paganizing the Christianity....making it completely unacceptable to God who told us to separate from those things...not embrace them under a different label.

Excursions into false religious practices, no matter what they called them, merited God's punishment in the days of ancient Israel. God does not change.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see that you have changed sides again StF......are you yet defending Roman Catholicism?

I am not defending Catholicism. I just cannot tolerate lies and misrepresentations about anything.

 

[firedragon]

That's a lot of words. Do you know where you are?

Please open a new topic to discuss "where I am" because its irrelevant to this one.

 

[Deeje]

I am not defending Catholicism. I just cannot tolerate lies and misrepresentations about anything.

Please tell me where I lied....or misrepresented anything. The history of the RCC is there for all to see.

 

[exchemist]

yes that is interesting . ya take the word ,extreme, then add the word veneration and ya get ,extreme veneration .then ya ask what is that. then ya google or Bing it .

So ya coined it, then.

Whereas ya said in post 762 it was not something ya coined.

Ya telling porkies? Or ya just unable to remember from one moment to the next what ya said?

 

[cataway]

So ya coined it, then.

Whereas ya said in post 762 it was not something ya coined.

Ya telling porkies? Or ya just unable to remember from one moment to the next what ya said?

no , not really. when i was looking up Mary worship, the words were all ready there. its been pointed out to you that the church is misleading you. what are you going to do about it ?
Rev. 18:4
"And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues."
if you are not one of his people,,,,,,,,stay right where you are.

 

[Muffled]

cataway Right you are: The Body of Jesus IS>>> "His Church it can only be the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!" The Body of Jesus will never fail.... He gave Peter the Keys to heaven, PETER The first shepherd!

I believe that is baloney.

The Churchi s the body of Christ but it is not limited to the RCC. The fact is that the RCC has had members that were not really a part of the body but just part of the institution. I would guess that there are thousands like that even today.

I don't suppose you ever tried to figure out what the keys were , did you?

Peter was just one of many shepherds. He was not even the founder of the Roman church and considering he wasn't the leader of the church in Jerusalem I believe it is safe to say he wasn't the leader of the church in Rome either.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please tell me where I lied....or misrepresented anything. The history of the RCC is there for all to see.

You do so most of the time you discuss it. Then when it's explained to you, you ignore it and keep on repeating your misinfo.

 

[metis]

Peter was just one of many shepherds. He was not even the founder of the Roman church

Correct-- Jesus was.

he wasn't the leader of the church in Jerusalem

Well, he was the spiritual leader of the Church after Jesus was crucified, but James was the administrative head and Judas the treasurer.

I believe it is safe to say he wasn't the leader of the church in Rome either.

No, it's not "safe to say" as he [Peter] was the Bishop of Rome, which Clement, Ignatius and others chimed in on with their letters near the beginning of the 2nd century. However, the title of "Pope" would not be used for several centuries.

The real importance here is that Peter was only one figure, albeit an important one, whereas its's really all of the apostles, minus Judas of course, who ran the Church and appointed others to replace them and to spread the Word, such as we read in Acts and the epistles.

 

[metis]

You do so most of the time you discuss it. Then when it's explained to you, you ignore it and keep on repeating your misinfo.

Yes.

And what is so frustrating is I linked that person several times to official Catholic sources to show that this same person is not telling the truth, and yet that person would come back and post the same old "misinfo". Thus, it begs the question "Since when is repeatedly lying reflecting Christ's teachings on Truth?".

 

[cataway]

Correct-- Jesus was.

Well, he was the spiritual leader of the Church after Jesus was crucified, but James was the administrative head and Judas the treasurer.

.

Judas the treasurer.?

 

[metis]

Judas the treasurer.?

Yep: Always the last on the list of the Apostles, he was their treasurer. John 12:6 introduces Judas’ thievery by saying, “. . . as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.” -- Judas Iscariot | Apostle

 

[Deeje]

You do so most of the time you discuss it. Then when it's explained to you, you ignore it and keep on repeating your misinfo.

Can you be more explicit StF? What specifically is the misinfo?
I am a stickler for the truth and it has to gel with scripture....not a vague verse, but the entirety of what the Bible teaches.
As the RCC does not adhere to scripture in the majority of its doctrines, we have a problem with how one measures truth....

And just because an excuse is offered for why they do or believe something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is correct according to scripture.