by jay88 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
When I came to this site and read books like those by Bart Ehrman, I realized that Christianity is just a lie many people want to believe. I had felt that way for many years, but then I saw proof of it.
To answer your question, both claims are equally false.
When I came to this site and read books like those by Bart Ehrman, I realized that Christianity is just a lie many people want to believe. I had felt that way for many years, but then I saw proof of it.
To answer your question, both claims are equally false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither one has legitamcy in my book, but I can a least say that the RCC has at least tried to tie their Authority to an idea, that would appear more real than some invisible return of Christ
If you don't belief in Christ than it sounds even more absurd.
Since you mention Clement, here he speaks with authority....
Oh, I have no doubt he speaks with authority. And he may have well been a bishop. But he never identifies himself as an apostle. His statement to the effect of things "which have been said by [God] through us" may well have been a reference to things previously said or things said to the church had already established. He never, to my knowledge, ever claimed that God's will came through him as a senior apostle.
After Peter, Linus held the bishopric from 67-79 A.D. Then Cletus, who served from 79-91. He was succeeded by Clement I, who presided from the 91-100. These men were most likely were legitimate bishops of Rome, but nowhere do we read of any revelations they received, nor that they were apostles. John, on Patmos, had previously been promised by Christ that he would live to see the Second Coming of Christ (John 21:20-23), so he would have been the senior apostle until he was removed from his terrestrial duties. According to "guesstimates," he wrote the Apocalypse around 90 A.D., which means he was very old, and would easily have been the senior apostle by that time. (Note: John was not told he would not die, but that he would "live" or "tarry til I come." All men die, but Elijah and John were given extended lives.)
From the Shepherd of Hermas: "Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
There is much of value in the Shepherd of Hermas, but little is known of its authorship and it was never canonical. We also don't know to the extent it was tampered with. It is said to have been written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, who served as bishop beginning in 142 A.D. A.D. Howell-Smith wrote of it: "The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us." (Jesus Is Not a Myth, ppgs. 120-121) Pius is considered by many to be the first "pope," and The Shepherd is an allegory, not a history.
You also quote Tertullian's view of the keys of the kingdom: "For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
But what does he mean "though you think that heaven is still shut up"? To me, it proves what I've been saying. The gifts of the Spirit get lost as the church goes deeper into apostasy. The opinion he's addressing is those who have realized that revelation has ceased, and he's saying, "Hey, no, we've still got the keys of the Kingdom if nothing else!" But by that time the apostasy, in my view, had set in. The body was still warm, but people had begun noticeing that something wasn't right with the church. There were no more visions. God had apparantly ceased speaking to it. And as Origen said, "Where there is no revelation, there is no certitude." As Dr. Hugh Nibley, admittedly a proponent of the apostasy, said: "The formal ecstasies and intellectual insights of the schoolmen are not real revelation, and Augustine knew it. In all fairness to him we must report that he would infinitely have preferred revelation to philosophy. Not only did he feel guilty about what he was doing, but it was only after long years of agonizing struggle and indecision that he at last, painfully and with heartbreaking reluctance, closed the book on revelation or recognized that he could not open it. What a difference there is, he cries in the City of God, between the ambiguities of the academicians and the certainty of the Christian faith!" (World and the Prophets, 3rd Ed., ppgs 91-92, citing Augustine, The City of God XIX, 18, in PL 41:646).
He goes on to say, "In the 270 letters of Augustine that have survived, we see the man at work trying to answer the great questions of doctrine and administration that should have been answered by the head of the church. Letters pour in to him from all over the Christian world, and he answers them as best he can: He never refers the questioners to any higher authority, even though the cases are sometimes very serious and have nothing at all to do with his diocese; nor does he personally ever appeal to any higher authority, either in administrational or in doctrinal matters, however important they may be. This is not surprising if one knows the situation. 'If there had been, in the Church of the 4th century, a central authority recognized and active, it would have offered a means of solution. But it was not so.' Thus wrote Monsignor Duchesne, speaking of the administrative solution." (Citing The Early History of the Church (London: J. Murray, 1931), 2:521)
Oh, and by the way, Roman Catholics aren't the only church with Apostolic lineage.
Yes, I've taken the Orthodox orientation and to be honest, the Father teaching the course was even more critical than I am. Unfortunately, where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)
What is commonly thought of as early christianity is really from the letters of the only "apostle" who never actually met Jesus in the flesh and who apparently knew very little about him, his life or ministry: Saul of Taursus (aka Paul.)
Upon what do you base this? You're talking about something that happened two thousand years ago. True, if the gospels are correct, then Peter knew Jesus best of all, and John was often called "the beloved." These men sojourned with Jesus during his entire ministry and, unlike Paul, were schooled by the Master for 40 days in the "Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven" -- doctrines and teachings which have since vanished. But...Paul was subsequently schooled and taught by the apostles. He also may have been taught by visions and other revelations, as was Moses, Enoch and Abraham, just to name three.
The so-called "Twelve" which included Peter (the first Pope) were clueless about Jesus' purpose and his ministry and prophesy.
How in the world did you arrive at this conclusion?
JW doctrine continues to change and prophetic utterances are watered down to the point of absurdity. Go back and read the gloom and doom pronouncements of the Watchtower Society in 1968 leading up to the ill-fated 1975 and you can plainly view the empty nonsense they claim is under the direction and guidance of Jesus Christ!
Well of course. That's not being debated! I find most JWs here do hit and runs, and you can't actually engage them in anything. The JW eschatology is based largely on William Miller's calculation-mode theology. Jesus came in 1914 invisibly to rule in the heavens. Of course the greatest evidence of this is that you can't see it. If you could see it, it wouldn't be invisible, would it? Then in 1925, he came to the Earth to judge all the religions. He ended up choosing Jehovah's Christian Witnesses and this was communicated to the Governing Body by...er...well...it was communicated to the Governing Body. From what I hear, it came by way of letter, which floated gently down from the Heavens signed by God...er...Jehovah God asking for 144,000 copies, bound and stitched. This letter is in a safe and will be displayed during the Millennium.
The gifts of the Spirit get lost as the church goes deeper into apostasy.
So the Church is allowed to go become apostate? Really? And where do you get this idea from?
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
BTS
Catholicism doesn't wash because it's based on scripture and tradition
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
You raise too many points for me to answer here, so I will just leave you with that.
BTS
Before we burn the ships, BTS, we cannot conclude that all traditions are worth holding onto. Jesus spent his entire ministry fighting the traditions of the Jews. So, too, we look at the modern Roman church and we see the pointed hats and outer vestments, the lavish buildings and the royal furnishings. Where did those come from?? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, and so they wouldn't. But John saw the woman driven into the wilderness. We, too, read of grevious wolves not sparing the flock and the end of prophecy. As stated in the parable of the woman and the jar, the loss of the spiritual gifts would eventually leave only the form and not the substance.
The "rock" upon which the church would be based is that of revelation, for Peter had just told Jesus that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus said, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my father in heaven." That was the rock. To think the church would be based on anyone but Christ itself is an apostate notion, for the church was built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.
The apostasy is self evident, for seeing the churches, the saints, the candles, the mitres and purple robes. As I said, where did those come from? Besides, if one is familiar with Daniel's prophecies, it would be in the days of the "kings" (ten kings following the Roman Empire) that the Kingdom of God would be established, and it would roll forth into all the earth, breaking up the nations until it filled it. That's in Daniel 2. If that kingdom were set up in the days of the "iron" kingdom, then Daniel would have said so.
