the pope has died

by stan livedeath 46 Replies latest social current

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Catholic doctrine ossified long before our era but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t shaped by individuals at crucial junctures, it’s just that the crucial pivots where politics shaped doctrine in the case of the Catholic Church occurred much earlier, in decades such as the 360s (when the Trinity doctrine took shape), rather than the 1960s when Franz promoted 1975.

    If you ask ChatGPT a more open question such as “was Catholic doctrine shaped by politics and influential individuals in the history of the church” you’ll get a different answer than, say, a prompt that says, “give me a cogent refutation of these points from a Catholic perspective” along with pasting others’ posts into the machine.

  • Duran
    Duran

    AAH aqwsed, I love that you take the time to read what I write. You're a swell guy! xoxo

    Christ Himself, who knew better than anyone the reality of resurrection, wept at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:35). Was Jesus confused? Emotionally inconsistent?

    [ 34 He said: “Where have you laid him?” They said to him: “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus gave way to tears. 36 At that the Jews began to say: “See, what affection he had for him!” 37 But some of them said: “Could not this man who opened the eyes of the blind man prevent this one from dying?]

    Was Jesus crying because of Lazarus or was it the Jews that made it about him. Jesus knew he was about to resurrect Lazarus. He was not dead in Jesus' emotional view; he considered him as just sleeping and he was going to wake him up. Not really something for him to cry about there, is it?

    Why was Jesus emotional and crying at the tomb then?

    [ 32 When Mary arrived where Jesus was and caught sight of him, she fell at his feet and said to him: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he groaned within himself and became troubled.]

    He was emotional at the tomb because he felt pity for those that were grieving Lazarus. They felt the true emotional pain that humans feel over the loss of a loved one in death. And Jesus felt troubled over knowing what they felt and knowing that they don't know what he is about to do and what joy they are about to have when he brings Lazarus back.

    [11 After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.12 The disciples then said to him: “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well.” 13 Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly: “Lazʹa·rus has died, 15 and I rejoice for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”]

    I so look forward to your reply back. you wise, wise, man you! xoxo


  • vienne
    vienne

    Slim,

    You can follow that chain yourself. Franz wasn't the ghostwriter for Rutherford. JFR's legalese marked a distinctive writing style. Though the name Jehovah is used in the Russell era, Russell himself almost always used Lord or God.

    Starting with the first edition of Harp of God [Not the revised edition of 1928] Rutherford emphasized God's name. A searchable edition is online somewhere. But any pdf will do. Go to page 12 starting with the subheading "Who is God." Rutherford emphasized the name Jehovah: Starting with page 14, he identifies God as Jehovah, his distinctive name. Though one can find "Jehovah" in Watch Tower articles between 1917 and 1921, this marked the start of its regular use in articles we can identify as Rutherford's through his legalistic style. ('to wit' and similar usages.) This is true of Rutherford's books as well. You can trace it book by book. And in the booklet Who is God? Also, note the 1934 book "Jehovah."

    I suspect, but cannot prove, that Rutherford was influenced by the American Standard Version Bible.

    The adoption of the name "Jehovah's witnesses" (no capital on the W until much later) was prompted by Rutherford's insistence on using the name. And the resolution adopting the 'new name' is in Rutherford's style.

    I don't want to emulate our neighborhood Catholic troll and write an essay, and this is hijacking this thread.. I'll leave the rest to your personal research.

  • vienne
    vienne

    Dear Aqw,

    Yawn.

  • Bribie
    Bribie

    Oh my goodness! The Pope has died

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    The notion that Catholic doctrine was rigidly fixed by the fourth century and is merely the product of early political machinations reflects a reductionist historiography often found in Enlightenment-era polemics rather than contemporary ecclesiology. While it is true that ecumenical councils such as Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) were influenced by political contexts—what council in human history is free of context?—the doctrine of the Trinity did not originate there. It was defined more precisely in response to heretical distortions, such as Arianism, but its roots are profoundly biblical and already articulated in the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers, such as Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus. The development of doctrine in Catholicism is not the arbitrary imposition of politics onto theology, but the organic unfolding of apostolic faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This understanding is most classically expressed by John Henry Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, where he argues persuasively that true doctrinal development, unlike innovation, preserves the essential identity of the original deposit of faith.

    The comparison between Fred Franz and the early Church Fathers or Catholic theologians falters precisely here. Franz was not merely a voice within a larger interpretive tradition; he was part of a governing body whose teachings were not open to peer review or conciliar correction. There was no ecumenical or doctrinal process of discernment through which the 1975 prediction, or other eschatological expectations, could be tested against the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). In Catholicism, even a pope is subject to the faith—non est supra Verbum Dei. If a pope were to teach something contrary to Scripture and Tradition, he could be resisted and his teaching clarified or corrected, as history indeed shows (e.g., Honorius I and the Sixth Ecumenical Council). The magisterium is a servus Verbi, not its originator.

    Moreover, the comments about Rutherford’s use of the divine name “Jehovah” and its adoption as the organization's identifier highlight something quite telling: the centrality of idiosyncratic decision-making in shaping core Witness identity. Whether or not Franz was the “ghostwriter” is immaterial to the broader ecclesiological critique. The issue is not literary authorship but the absence of a theological framework that safeguards against the elevation of private judgment to dogmatic authority. Catholicism, by contrast, insists on the regula fidei—faith as received, not fabricated. It guards against precisely the kind of theological volatility seen in the multiple reconfigurations of Watch Tower eschatology and identity from Russell through Rutherford to Franz.

    Regarding your concern that AI responses are shaped by the prompt, this is undoubtedly true. However, this observation cuts both ways. A prompt inviting a Catholic refutation will naturally yield a Catholic response, just as a prompt from a Unitarian, Muslim, or Jehovah’s Witness perspective would shape the response accordingly. The difference lies in the intellectual integrity of the argument and its fidelity to historical and theological sources, not in whether it affirms the user’s priors.

    Ultimately, the issue is not whether human beings shape religious institutions—of course they do. The question is how this shaping occurs, and whether the institution has internal mechanisms to prevent the solidification of error. Catholicism, for all its failures, has a structure of doctrinal accountability rooted not in personality or institutional convenience, but in apostolic succession and ecclesial discernment. It does not place eschatology at the mercy of speculative arithmetic or organizational fiat. The enduring legacy of figures like Augustine and Aquinas stands in marked contrast to the shifting doctrinal sands of successive Watchtower administrations, where corrections are often presented as "new light" rather than the honest acknowledgment of past theological missteps.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @Duran

    The objection misunderstands both the purpose of Christ’s tears at Lazarus’s tomb and the meaning of “sleep” as applied to death in biblical language. It assumes that if Christ truly believed Lazarus was merely “unconscious,” there would be no cause for emotion. But this is a reductive, almost mechanical understanding of both the Incarnation and of grief itself. Jesus, fully divine yet fully human, experiences sorrow not because He is confused or misinformed, but because He is compassionate. He is moved not by theological uncertainty, but by love — a perfect love that does not negate knowledge but exists in harmony with it. The passage says He was “troubled” and that He “groaned within Himself” not because He questioned the reality of resurrection, but because He entered fully into the suffering of those around Him. Christ wept because those He loved were weeping. To suggest that He cried only because of their ignorance about what was about to happen is to reduce His empathy to mere performance or condescension. But the text makes clear: He loved Lazarus. He loved Mary. He loved Martha. And love mourns, even when it hopes.

    As for the term “fallen asleep,” it is a phenomenological description of the body and a metaphor — one common in both Scripture and Second Temple Jewish literature — used to describe death from the perspective of the living. It does not imply unconsciousness in a modern or materialist sense, and certainly not annihilation. Paul, for instance, uses “sleep” to describe death in 1 Thessalonians 4, but goes on to affirm that the dead in Christ will rise — not from non-existence, but from death, which is temporary precisely because of the resurrection. Moreover, Paul also says in Philippians 1:23 that he “desires to depart and be with Christ,” which is “far better.” How can that be squared with the idea of soul sleep or unconscious oblivion? It cannot. Nor can 2 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul says he would “prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” This implies immediate fellowship — not suspended animation.

    The attempt to read John 11 through an annihilationist lens also ignores Christ’s own words in John 11:26: “Everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” This is not a promise of mere future resurrection but a present participation in life — eternal life — that begins even now and continues, uninterrupted, through physical death. The Catholic Church teaches that while the body dies, the soul lives on. The saints are not inert, unconscious corpses waiting for reassembly. They are alive in Christ, as He Himself said: “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive” (Luke 20:38). That is why Moses and Elijah appear and speak with Christ at the Transfiguration. That is why the souls under the altar in Revelation cry out with longing for justice. And that is why Jesus can say to the good thief, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” — because Paradise was then the abode of the righteous dead, awaiting redemption, and Christ’s descent into Sheol (not the grave, but the realm of the dead) was the prelude to His harrowing of it, His liberation of the captives.

    The claim that “sleep” = “unconsciousness” as an ontological state is not only exegetically shallow but collapses in the face of the full biblical witness. “Sleep” as a metaphor allows for the continuation of personal identity, memory, and even intercession — as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man shows, where both characters speak, see, and remember. If that is only a parable, then it must still communicate something true about reality — and it does: that the soul does not cease.

    So, yes, Jesus wept. Not out of ignorance. Not because He thought Lazarus was gone forever. But because love mourns, and God incarnate chose not only to redeem us from death, but to feel its sting alongside us. That is the scandal and the beauty of the Cross — not that Christ avoided death, but that He embraced its full weight. And yet even in weeping, He declared: “I am the resurrection and the life.”

    You may claim to know what Jesus felt. But we have His words. And they say otherwise.

  • Duran
    Duran
    You may claim to know what Jesus felt. But we have His words. And they say otherwise.

    Can you comprehend what you read?

    You respond to me with:

    The passage says He was “troubled” and that He “groaned within Himself” not because He questioned the reality of resurrection, but because He entered fully into the suffering of those around Him. Christ wept because those He loved were weeping. To suggest that He cried only because of their ignorance about what was about to happen is to reduce His empathy to mere performance or condescension.

    I know the above, I cited the verse showing why he was troubled, and I acknowledged that he wept because he felt pity for those that were grieving. All you are doing is repeating back to me what I said:

    Why was Jesus emotional and crying at the tomb then?

    [ 32 When Mary arrived where Jesus was and caught sight of him, she fell at his feet and said to him: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he groaned within himself and became troubled.]

    He was emotional at the tomb because he felt pity for those that were grieving Lazarus. They felt the true emotional pain that humans feel over the loss of a loved one in death. And Jesus felt troubled over knowing what they felt


  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    in decades such as the 360s (when the Trinity doctrine took shape)

    @SBF

    This Watchtower doctrine has been refutted over and over and over on this forumn. Why do you continue to say something that you have repeatedly been proven wrong on?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Thanks for the response, vienne, I didn’t realise that Russell himself rarely used the name Jehovah. Yes Rutherford definitely had his own style (to wit, and so on). I find it quite difficult to read. I wonder if Franz did have some input on some of the later books that got into the weeds of typology and so on, and perhaps had a more dense writing style characteristic of Franz.

    Out of interest I compiled a graph of the frequency of the name Jehovah in the Watchtower magazine per decade. There was a dramatic increase after the 1940s.

    (As you say, if I wish to pursue this topic further I should start another thread.)


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit