The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing 93 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Isidore
    Isidore

    "The proof texts for infant baptism have nothing to do with that. Far more explicit texts support believer's baptism by immersion for disciples. Unique RC doctrine relies on tradition/later papal decree and a few prooftexts out of context if lucky. We agree to disagree, but I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

    So, can I go to heaven and be right with God despite rejecting Catholic Church/distinctives? I believe you can despite the errors of Catholicism (individual issue vs automatic)."

    The Catholic Church's doctrines was what was believed by the early Christians from the beginning and developed over time. If you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, this would bear this out.

    Again, where in the bible does it say that all doctrine must be in the bible? Book, chapter and verse please. Christ started a Church, and did not write a book. He relied upon oral tradition to teach others, and the Apostles in turn taught by word of mouth as well, in addtion to their writings. That's how Christianity spread so quickly. As far as papal decree's....

    Matthew 16:19

    "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

    John 16:12-13 (emphasis mine)

    12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

    So who has the final authority to correctly interpret scripture?

    In regards to salvation for non Catholic's, I'll cite these paragraphs from the Catechism:

    845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

    The Church considers those that have broken away from Her to be seperated brethren and do not have full access to God's grace through the sacraments.

    Peace be with you

  • godrulz
    godrulz

    So, if I am a separated brethren without sacramental grace (grace comes from a relationship with Christ through the power of the Spirit, not through ritual or external symbols....many Catholics practice ritual, but remain unregenerate and without relationship with Christ), do I go to heaven, hell, or purgatory?

  • Isidore
    Isidore

    Godrulz, what do you think first century worship looked like? Do you think it was only a sermon and reading from Sacred Scripture?

    Acts 2:42

    42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

    Acts 20:7

    7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

    Mark 14:22 (emphasis mine)

    22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

    1 Corinthians 10:16-17

    16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

    John 6:47-58 (emphasis mine)

    47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

    Have you been to a Mass? I think you'll find that it is absolutely soaked in scripture.

  • godrulz
    godrulz

    Jn. 6 is a metaphor, not a wooden literalism. Salvation is based on faith in the person and work of Christ, not external rituals. It is one thing to quote a verse, but another to interpret it in context and in light of other verses.

  • Isidore
    Isidore

    "So, if I am a separated brethren without sacramental grace (grace comes from a relationship with Christ through the power of the Spirit, not through ritual or external symbols....many Catholics practice ritual, but remain unregenerate and without relationship with Christ), do I go to heaven, hell, or purgatory?"

    You are correct, we do have a relationship with Christ thorugh the power of the Spirit, but it is perfected in the power of the sacraments dispensed by His Church.

    John 3:5 (emphasis mine)

    5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

    The notion of Baptism being merely symbolic was totally unkown to the early Christians. Baptism is regenerative to our souls.

    As you can see from my last post, in John 6 Christ states we have no life in us if we do not eat of the bread (His flesh) and drink of the wine (His blood). These are just two examples in scripture that show how we receive God's Grace in these 2 sacraments.

    The Church does not presume judgement on anyone. That is Christ's authority alone.

  • Liberty93
    Liberty93

    You people chopping scriptural logic are why I became a Buddhist. I prefer realizing, for myself and in this very life, the things that are promised, rather than hoping, praying, and chopping bible-logic like a sushi chef.

  • Isidore
    Isidore

    "Jn. 6 is a metaphor, not a wooden literalism. Salvation is based on faith in the person and work of Christ, not external rituals. It is one thing to quote a verse, but another to interpret it in context and in light of other verses."

    My friend, even the Gnostics believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist. Not one of the early fathers believed as you do.

    From Ignatius of Antioch:

    "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God...

    "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Epistle to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    From Justin Martyr:

    "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined.

    "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

    From Irenaeus of Lyons:

    "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 148]).

    "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies.

    "When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life--flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 148]).

    From Cyril of Jerusalem:

    "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses, Mystagogic 1, 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

    "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.

    "Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ...[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,...partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (Catechetical Discourses; Mystagogic 4, 22:9 [A.D. 350]).

    What does Christ's words "my flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed" mean? Why do you think the 5000 he had just fed left Him when hearing this? If it was a metaphor, why didn't he say, "Wait! Come back! You missed understood me. I was speaking metaphorically." He turned to His Apostles and said, "Do you want to leave me as well?" No, it was always understood to be the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, even by Luther and Calvin. It wasn't until the last couple of centuries has the True Presence been denied. I'm sorry, but history is not on your side here.

  • Liberty93
    Liberty93

    While y'all go back and forth arguing about the truth of things which you have never experienced, I'll post some words from a certain sage who realized how pointless such disputes are:

    `Just, Vàseññha, as if a man should say, "How I long for, how I love the most beautiful woman in this land!"'

    `And people should ask him, "Well! good friend! this most beautiful woman in the land, whom you thus love and long for, do you know whether that beautiful woman is a noble lady or a Brahman woman, or of the trader class, or a Sådra?"'

    `But when so asked, he should answer: "No."

    `And when people should ask him, "Well! good friend! this most beautiful woman in all the land, whom you so love and long for, do you know what the name of that most beautiful woman is, or what is her family name, whether she be tall or short or of medium height, dark or brunette or golden in colour, or in what village or town or city she dwells?"'

    `But when so asked, he should answer: "No".'

    `And then people should say to him, So then, good friend, whom you know not, neither have seen, her do you love and long for?

    `And then when so asked, he should answer: "Yes."

    `Now what think you, Vàseññha? Would it not turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk?'

    `In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk!'

    ...

    `Very good, Vàseññha. Verily then, Vàseññha, that Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen,such a condition of things can in no wise be.'

    `Just, Vàseññha, as if a man should make a staircase in the place where four roads cross, to mount up into a mansion. And people should say to him, "Well, good friend, this mansion, to mount up into which you are making this staircase, do you know whether it is in the east, or in the south, or in the west, or in the north? whether it is high or low or of medium size?"'

    `And when so asked, he should answer: "No".'

    `And people should say to him, "But then, good friend, you are making a staircase to mount up into something,taking it for a mansion,which, all the while, you know not, neither have seen!"'

    `And when so asked, he should answer: "Yes".'

    `Now what think you, Vàseññha? Would it not turn out. that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk?'

    `In sooth, Gotama, it would turn out, that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk!'

    `And just even so, Vàseññha, though you say that the Brahmans are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen, and you further say that neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmà. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmà is. Yet these Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth, that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen! Now what think you, Vàseññha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk?'

    `In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!'

  • Isidore
    Isidore

    "You people chopping scriptural logic are why I became a Buddhist. I prefer realizing, for myself and in this very life, the things that are promised, rather than hoping, praying, and chopping bible-logic like a sushi chef."

    After examining Buddhism and it's relativism, it confirmed my belief in Christianity. There are absolute truths my friend. My brother was a devout Buddhist. He is now entering the Catholic Church next year. Peace be with you.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    Nice thread hijack. JWs dependence on BorgLit thread turns into Northern Freaking Ireland. Get a room you two!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit