The Letter from my Mom to my new wife. (page 3)

rocketman

We sure have been seeing some ridiculous letters being written by jws lately. Their self-righteousness knows no bounds.

jgnat

Her ignorance and bigotry against "christendom's churches" is blatantly obvious. There is barely a church in existence that does not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (trinity).

http://www.methodist.org.uk/news/fs_baptism.htm

Mary

ROFLMAO at Ravyn!!!

Yep, I say the new wife should write a letter like this back to her new mother-in-law..........

Isn't it funny how the Pharisees condemned Jesus for eating with people that no one else would talk to? Jesus Himself never ever condoned shunning; it was Paul that started that crap.

Thanks Paul.......your bigoted views on shunning and other topics (like how husbands can treat their wives) have caused millions of people misery for the last 2,000 years.

Somehow, I don't think this is what Jesus was after...........

berylblue

Thanks Paul.......your bigoted views on shunning and other topics (like how husbands can treat their wives) have caused millions of people misery for the last 2,000 years.
Somehow, I don't think this is what Jesus was after...........

Thought I was the only person who felt that way about Paul...

Did Jesus REALLY need someone to come after him and clarify things?

JMHO

Rosemarie

little witch

Good point mouthy, and I will say again,

The org is preaching different ''gospels'' according to where you live. I intend to check into this, although it will be difficult to obtain the watchtower and other publications in different languages, AND have them interpreted. However, I live real close to Indiana University, and can maybe get some help...

Anyone who can send WT publications to me, in foreign languages, please help.

I still say, the world is too diverse to swallow something so American in nature.

Soledad

Thanks Paul.......your bigoted views on shunning and other topics (like how husbands can treat their wives) have caused millions of people misery for the last 2,000 years.
Somehow, I don't think this is what Jesus was after...........

I thought that I was the only one too that had many many questions about Paul. I remember clearly that some of my earliest doubts had to do with his letters. I had asked many different elders over the years.

bluesapphire

Paul's letters are only in the bible because the catholic church said they were inspired. They weren't even written by one of the chosen apostles of Jesus. They were written by a self-proclaimed apostle.

Also in 2 Corinthians 1:9 paul says that the reason he had instructed the congregation to shun was "to see if [they] would stand the test and be obedient in everything."

Pretty darn sick in my opinion! Talk about a short man's syndrome!

Mary

in 2 Corinthians 1:9 paul says that the reason he had instructed the congregation to shun was "to see if [they] would stand the test and be obedient in everything."

I'm wondering if Paul actually meant "be obedient to ME." And isn't there some scripture where he's preaching to the congregations and he say "......also, I say, not the Lord...." showing that much of his writings were not inspired, but were his own personal opinion??

Ravyn

In all fairness to the early xtians---there were very few who accepted Paul or his writings back in the day. James was a prominent leader in Antioch and John was also popular. The early xtians were NOT an ORGANIZED group by any stretch of the imagination and that was the way Jesus left them. (Peter was of course also a contender.)

Paul does not make any reference to any of Jesus alleged history, or quote any of his sayings or teachings. Maybe because Paul did not have the manuscripts to plagarize? Paul was a looney IMHO. He was a vicious persecutor-turned born again. It is a clear case of a schizophrenic break. He was suspect everywhere he went, had a persecution complex and didn't get along with the others. He was either idolized or hated in the congregations. He turned it into big business.

One note, JWs hate the Catholic Church so much, that it is unfair to automatically assume that what the JWs have claimed against it(and to some extent the whole Protestant movement has claimed--altho after 500 years it has lost some of the sharper edges). The Church who's Council put together the Bible was just as much a part of the Protestants as it was of Catholics, since the Protestants came FROM the Catholics. Don't fall into the same trap JWs set of changing history...the Protestants did not always exist as an oppositional force to the Catholics. In the beginning of the Church it was all Catholic--the word meaning Universal. And in the beginning of the protest, Martin Luther did not intend to create a new sect of xtianity either--he merely wanted to reform Catholicism. It was after his death that it became the runaway train of revolution. But in the case of the Bible being constructed---it was constructed by the Church-the only one- about 1200 years before Protestants even existed. And incidentally for the sake of this thread--there was much controversy in the Church for hundreds of years and even still to some extent today about the proper place of Paul. While Catholics call him an apostle, they also consider him a 'Doctor' of the Church rather than one of the Twelve who have greater honor. and you will rarely find Paul singled out, he is usually part of the Peter-and-Paul partnership. Catholics do not consider the Bible to be any more or less important than tradition or the Church itself. So you can't look at it from the Protestant viewpoint of SOLA SCRIPTURA.

http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

this ^ is an EXCELLENT debate on SOLA SCRIPTURA and it is on an anti-Catholic website. I HIGHLY recommend this page. It will take a few minutes to read---but it makes the point of the difference between how the Protestants and Catholics view the Bible veyr clearly. I found it invaluable in my post-JW deprogramming.

Ravyn

bluesapphire

Ravyn, your points are exactly true. To put it further, the bible is a PRODUCT of the Catholic Church. First came the Tradition and then the bible. And according to the church, the bible cannot be understood without the light of the Tradition. That's because not everything could be put down in writing. I remember reading somewhere that it was only in the 19th century that the Catholic Church claimed the bible as infallible. I could be wrong or confused but I will check into it again.

Also, people tend to forget that the only reason we have the bible is because the Catholic church took the time to preserve it, translate it, copy it, etc. Otherwise, it would have died long before the Protestant reformation. The church could have just had the Tradition alone, but instead it canonised the New Testament.

Anyway, for the purpose of this thread, this woman needs to learn her history. She is interpreting Paul's letters in an untraditional way. Like my brother said to my JW sister not too long ago, "I value Jesus' words more than Paul's .... by the way, why do you value Paul's letters since the only reason they're in the bible is because the RCC put them there?"

The Letter from my Mom to my new wife.

Share this