Posts by a Christian

44

Greg Stafford rejects Watchower and start a new religion

by TJ Curioso in

christian witnesses of jah .

come now the christian witnesses of jah.

that is why it must be our purpose to not serve jah or jesus by pleasing men.

a Christian

Stafford is just as wrong as the Watchtower Society in his continuing to support some form of the name "Jehovah".

They both feel it is acceptable to insert the name "Jehovah" many times into the text of the New Testament even though the Watchtower admits that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society, and apparently Stafford, believes that the writers of the New Testament used the Old Testament's personal name of God in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Watchtower Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Stafford and Jehovah's Witnesses have no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. Why did God allow this to happen? By allowing the Old Testament's personal name of God to effectively be banned from use, and the knowledge of its proper pronunciation to be lost, God cleared the way for Christians to begin promoting the name of Jesus above every other name, as the New Testament tells us we should be doing. (Phil. 2:9) Stafford and Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Instead they wrongly insert the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament and promote that name above the name of Jesus, contrary to the teachings of scripture.

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

a Christian

You asked: If the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is Jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks? 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ We explain them as 70 years of Babylonian supremacy in the region. The words "70 years at Babylon" which you have quoted from the NWT or the KJV should be translated "70 years for Babylon" - as they are translated in most modern Bible translations. In other words, after the 70 years which God allowed Babylon to dominate and control its neighboring nations had passed God would see to it that the Jews would be allowed to return home. Historians tell us that those 70 years of Babylonian supremacy in the ancient Near East began when Babylon replaced Assyria as the dominant power in the region in the year 609. They ended when Cyrus overthrew Babylon in 539.

You asked: Also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations? All nations in the ancient Near East fell under the control of Babylon at some time during its 70 years of supremacy. However not all nations in the region fell under Babylonian control at the exact same time. And not all nations in the region remained under Babylon's control until the end of its 70 years of dominance.

7

Babylon the Great, is it religion or not?

by avidbiblereader in

jw
friends

in a recent thread about could the wts be right about religion coming to their end, i find this thought very interesting, is babylon the great really the world empire of religion or is it something else, not saying i am right but would love your thoughts on it.. .

i am not saying that i am right, but i have been reading rev and especially 17-19 over and over again doing research with cross references with various bible translations, i actually want to do a small paper on it for my own.

i really think this is one that the wts has wrong again, in reading and praying and researching, it could be that babylon the great is not religion but rather the entire commerical or commerce of the world in which the political leaders throughout history have had immoral relations with and religion (which many agree, has become big business) is just a part of.. in looking at rev 17-19 take a slow look at yourself, get out of wt mindset and actually look at the scriptures and ponder with cross references, you wont get religion as babylon the great, read the context and ask yourself, .

a Christian

Babylon was the nation which enslaved the Jews, God's people. Who enslaves God's people, the Christians, today? A former JW should have no trouble answering such a question. The obvious answer is the thousands of legalistic so-called "Christian" sects which now make up organized "Christianity." And they do so on a grand (make that "Great") scale. They now enslave the hearts and minds, to a greater or lesser degree, of some two billion people. And they do so, to a greater or lesser degree, in every nation on earth.

Though the ancient nation of Babylon was primarily a political entity, and the bondage it imposed upon the Jewish people was primarily one of physical and geographical restraint, organized Christianity now binds God's modern people in a different way. It robs them of their Christian freedom. By telling Christians what we must think, what we must do, what we must believe, how we must act, where, how and when we must worship God, etc., etc., the "Christian" Churches of this world now enslave God's people, the Christians, just as effectively as the nation of Babylon enslaved God's people, the Jews, in the 6th Century BC. It is largely for this reason, "Babylon" being an entity which was synonymous with the enslavement of God's people, that leads me to believe "Babylon the Great" was meant to picture organized Christianity as it now exists, or at least as it will exist shortly before the time of Christ's return. Of course there are also several allusions to the trappings of organized Christianity contained in Rev. 18, such as the musicians which regularly perform during church services and the voices of brides and grooms which are often heard in churches during wedding ceremonies.

15

Nine JW assumptions about 1914 and Daniel 4

by a Christian in

jw
friends

i just sent this letter to a jw who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. i doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it.

first, you assume that when christ spoke of the the times of the gentiles he was referring to a period of time which began when jerusalem was destroyed by babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven.

), the year in which the bible tells us that he destroyed jerusalem.

a Christian

Starting Over,

You asked: Do you happen to know what month in 1943 they changed the 1874 to 1914?

I don't know about the month. I would guess early summer. Because that's when they have always released their new books at the district assemblies.

The book to which I refer was entitled "The Truth Shall Make You Free". It was published in 1943.

I don't have a copy of that book. But I have another of the Society's books which refers back to that book and its doing away with "1874". The following quote is from "God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached" published by the Watch Tower Society in 1973:

In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book "TheTruthShallMakeYouFree." In its chapter 11, entitled "The Count of Time," it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: "The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914." Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: " . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence."

Odd that this book refers to a 1949 Watchtower as teaching that Christ's return took place in 1914. Is this indicating that it wasn't until 1949 that the Watchtower magazine taught that Christ's "parousia" began in 1914?

I have not been a JW since about 1980. I believe the Society published a somewhat candid/somewhat whitewashed history of the organization in 1993 entitled Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. I don't have a copy. But I remember hearing that this book also admits to the 1874 doctrine being taught up until 1943.

Hey guys and gals, thanks to all for the kind words about my letters. Like I said, I thought I'd post them here so someone might read them. Because I doubt their intended recipient will.

Mike

15

Nine JW assumptions about 1914 and Daniel 4

by a Christian in

jw
friends

i just sent this letter to a jw who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. i doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it.

first, you assume that when christ spoke of the the times of the gentiles he was referring to a period of time which began when jerusalem was destroyed by babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven.

), the year in which the bible tells us that he destroyed jerusalem.

a Christian

I just gave Terry a phone call asking him if he would like to meet again to continue our discussion. He said he is still "reseaching" answers to my questions and will get back to me. Very abrupt. I've just written the following to fire off to him and keep him busy "researching." Dear Terry, Due to my doubts about your book’s “1914” teaching I decided to do some research on the history of this doctrine. I’ll tell you what I found. Many years ago Jehovah’s Witnesses were called “Bible Students.” Before 1914 their literature predicted that something very important was going to take place in 1914. But they were not then predicting that Christ was going to be enthroned in 1914. Because before 1914 the Bible Students taught that Christ had then already been enthroned in the year 1874, and that in the year 1914 Christ would bring an end to all worldly governments, false religions, and all other enemies of God. As the Watchtower of July 15, 1894 wrote, "We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." But when 1914 came and went without seeing the end of this world, as the Bible Students had predicted, “the end” was pushed back by them to 1915, and then again to 1925. In the few years leading up to 1925 the Bible Students very strongly and very often promoted their understanding that the year 1925 would be the year that this world would see its end. For instance the 9/1/1922 issue of the Watchtower said that, “1914 ended the Gentile times. The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures. By then the great crisis will be reached and probably passed." The 7/15/1924 issue of the Watchtower repeated that same thought by saying, "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914." Of course we know that the end of this world did not come in 1925. So after 1925 the Bible Students gave up predicting dates for “the end” and admitted that they had simply misunderstood the scriptures on this matter. Unlike the date “1914” - which they continued to support by saying they had been “expecting the wrong thing at the right time”- they admitted that nothing of any great spiritual significance had taken place in the year 1925. For nearly two decades following their failed predictions about what would happen in 1925, the Bible Students taught that 1914 was the year Christ began judging this world, after he had been “enthroned” in 1874. The 1874 date for Christ’s enthronement was held onto until 1943. Then Watchtower publications began transferring everything they had previously taught about 1874 to the year 1914, tacitly admitting that all they had long taught about “1874” had been incorrect. Why have the leaders of the Watchtower Society admitted to making mistakes about the years 1925 and 1874 but not about the year 1914? After all, they once wrote that, “1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914.” Most who have studied the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it is because World War I broke out in 1914. And, since the pre-1914 Bible Students had been predicting that something very important was going to happen in 1914 (not a World War and not the enthronement of Christ, but the end of the world), by tossing out “1874” and “1925” but holding onto “1914” Watchtower leaders have been able to say that they correctly predicted that something very significant would happen in 1914. And it did. World War I. Holding onto “1914” also allows Watchtower leaders to suggest that World War I was likely the result of a “war in heaven” which Revelation indicates took place at the time of Christ’s enthronement, even though they taught for many years, both before and after 1914, that this “war in heaven” took place in “1874”. However, many believe that the main reason Watchtower leaders now continue to promote their “1914” doctrine is that if Christ was not enthroned in 1914, and if he did not then begin a three and a half year long “inspection” of all Christian denominations, he could not have appointed them “over all his belongings” at the end of that inspection in 1919, as they say that he did. (How they can possibly know that Christ did such a thing is another discussion altogether.) In other words, if Watchtower leaders were ever to admit that they might be wrong about 1914 they could no longer claim to be “God‘s sole channel for dispensing Biblical truth on the earth.” Terry, I guess at this point I have to ask you, with all the scriptural evidence I have presented that Jesus was fully enthroned at the time of his resurrection, and considering the fact that Watchtower leaders have been wrong about various dates they have promoted in the past, do you really believe that people must accept their “1914” teaching in order to be judged by God as true Christians? I’d really like an answer to this question. After you answer this question, hopefully we will never have to discuss “1914” again. For if you do not believe that accepting this “1914” doctrine is required by God in order for him to consider us to be true Christians then there is really no need for us to discuss “1914” any further. Mike

15

Nine JW assumptions about 1914 and Daniel 4

by a Christian in

jw
friends

i just sent this letter to a jw who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. i doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it.

first, you assume that when christ spoke of the the times of the gentiles he was referring to a period of time which began when jerusalem was destroyed by babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven.

), the year in which the bible tells us that he destroyed jerusalem.

a Christian

You are quite welcome. I'm glad someone has found this helpful. As I said, I doubt the JW I sent it to will even read it. He seemed totally unable or unwilling to question anything he has been taught.

Earlier I sent him the following and got no reply.

Dear Terry,

I have not heard from you in a couple weeks. So, I thought I would send you a letter.

You told me that you respected my attitude as one like that of the Bereans who “always examined the scriptures to make sure that all they were being taught was true.” (Acts 17:11) However, after I questioned your teaching that Jesus Christ was enthroned in the year 1914, and after I provided you with several scriptures which I believe clearly show that teaching must be based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible, you have failed to respond to my concerns. If you believe my understanding of this matter is incorrect I would like you to explain to me why you believe it is wrong. I guess I am now asking you to do what Peter said Christians should always be willing to do. He told Christians to “always be prepared to make a defense for your faith to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15)

In case you have misplaced the list of scriptures I gave you, here they are again.

Immediately following his resurrection Jesus told his apostles, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

Paul confirmed this fact by telling us that, “God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in his heavenly kingdom. There Christ sits far above all who rule and have authority. He also sits far above all powers and kings. He is above every title that can be given in this world and in the world to come.” (Eph. 1:20, 21)

Paul stated the same thing again later, this time using fewer words, when he wrote, “Christ is the head over every power and authority.” (Col. 2:10)

That Christ had already, in the First Century, been given all authority in heaven and on earth was also clear to the apostle John. For John wrote, “To the seven churches in the province of Asia: … Grace and peace to you from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1: 4, 5)

John no doubt had this fact in mind - that Jesus had already been appointed “King of kings” - when he heard Jesus Christ tell him that he had recently, “sat down with my Father on his throne.” (Rev. 3:21)

Also to be considered is the fact that Paul wrote that, “God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.” Since Paul wrote these words in the First Century it seems clear that God’s “kingdom” which was ruled by “the Son he loves” had already then been fully established. (Col. 3:21)

So again I ask you, since the scriptures clearly tell us that all power in heaven and on earth, over all kings in this world and in the world to come, had already been given to Jesus Christ in the First Century, when he then sat down on his Father’s throne, how could any further authority have been given to Christ in 1914? What Power was then left to give him?

Mike

15

Nine JW assumptions about 1914 and Daniel 4

by a Christian in

jw
friends

i just sent this letter to a jw who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. i doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it.

first, you assume that when christ spoke of the the times of the gentiles he was referring to a period of time which began when jerusalem was destroyed by babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven.

), the year in which the bible tells us that he destroyed jerusalem.

a Christian

I just sent this letter to a JW who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. I doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it. But I thought it might help someone here deal with this issue.

Dear Terry,

In our last conversation you took exception to my statement that “the 1914 date can only be arrived at after following a very complicated and highly questionable interpretation of several passages of scripture.” Here is what I meant.

You believe that Christ was enthroned in heaven in the year 1914. You believe this to be true based on several assumptions.

I’ll here list nine of those assumptions.

First, you assume that when Christ spoke of the “the times of the gentiles” he was referring to a period of time which began when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven. Why do you assume this? Most understand that Jesus was referring to a period of time in which God would allow non-Jewish peoples to severely persecute Jewish people, a period of time which began with Rome’s siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 66 and has continued ever since.

Second, you assume that this same period of time (from Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem until Christ’s enthronement) was also prophetically referred to in Daniel Chapter 4. Why do you assume this? Daniel chapter 4 does not need any interpretation by us today. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and asked Daniel to interpret it, which he did quite well in verses 20-28. The interpretation Daniel gave seemed quite thorough. Nothing written in the Bible indicates that Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was either incorrect or incomplete. Thus, there exists no reason to believe that God intended for us to understand Nebuchadnezzar's dream any differently than Daniel interpreted it.

Third, you assume that in Daniel chapter 4, the rule of Nebuchadnezzar was meant to represent God’s righteous rule on earth. Why do you assume this? The rule of a pagan king who enslaved God’s people pictured God’s righteous rule? If Daniel chapter 4 was meant to have a “larger fulfillment” it would make more sense if Nebuchadnezzar’s rule, along with the tree that was cut down, pictured the earthly rule of Satan the devil. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence now fills the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. Revelation describes Satan being bound with metal chains. That Nebuchadnezzar was used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a pagan king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. Revelation also tells us that after a long period of time has passed Satan will be released from his chains, just as the tree was unbanded. Then, just as Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God's right to rule after “7 times” had passed over him, Satan will be forced to bend his knee to God before he is finally destroyed. For as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow."

Fourth, you assume that the “7 times” which Daniel said Nebuchadnezzar would be removed from his throne actually meant 7 years. Why do you assume this is true? If the angel who appeared to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream telling him he would be removed from power for “seven times” actually meant “seven years” why did he not just say “seven years”? It seems to me that if this prophecy was meant to have a “larger fulfillment” the words “seven times” may have a far deeper meaning than just “seven years.“ The fact of the matter is that the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extra-biblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of seven years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" could have referred to a period of seven years.

Fifth, you assume that those seven years were not ordinary years but "prophetic years" of 360 days each, totaling 2,520 days. This assumption is based on the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are there equated with the “3 ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12:14. But this is not necessarily so. For instance, some Bible commentators understand that the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 refer to the time when Christianity was protected after the time of Christ's ascension and before the time the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the good news began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "“3 and ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "“3 and ½ times” are understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return. Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "“3 and ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12 do not refer to the same period of time, the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" may not even exist in the Bible.

Sixth, you assume that each of those 2,520 days was meant to picture an ordinary solar year of 365.24 days each. Why do you assume this? If, in this prophecy, days were meant to be understood as years, then it would follow that days in “prophetic years” having 360 days each should be understood as years having 360 days each - not years having 365.24 days each.

Seventh, you assume that from this prophecy we can determine the time of Christ’s enthronement. Why do you assume this? In Daniel chapter 4 the same person, Nebuchadnezzar, who was removed from his throne was returned to his throne at the end of “seven times.” Jesus Christ was never removed from his throne to later be returned. However, the Bible tells us Satan will be. Again, if Daniel chapter 4 was intended to have a “larger fulfillment” the rule of Satan the devil fits much better here than the rule of Jesus Christ.

Eighth, you assume that in order to determine the year of Christ’s enthronement we are to count forward in time beginning with the year when Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was removed from his throne. Why do you assume this? The tree that was cut down in Daniel chapter 4 “was visible to the ends of the earth and … from it every creature was fed.” (Dan. 4:11,12) Like this tree, Nebuchadnezzar’s rule extended to the ends of the then known world. All nations of the ancient Near East fell under his control. So this tree picturing Nebuchadnezzar’s vast rule makes sense. On the other hand, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, ruled over only one very small nation. So, to understand that the tree that was cut down pictured the termination of Zedekiah’s very limited rule makes little sense.

Ninth, you assume that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in the year 607 B.C.E. You assume this because that is what you have been told. But, as I informed you earlier, all modern historians now assure us that Babylon conquered Jerusalem in either 587 or 586 B.C.E., not in “607 B.C.E.” They do so partly with the help of an “astronomical diary” which records some thirty observations of the moon and the then known five planets during the “37 th year” of Nebuchadnezzar. This “astronomical diary” known as “VAT 4956” leaves no doubt as to when exactly Nebuchanezzar’s “37 th year” of rule took place (568 B.C.E.), and by way of extrapolation when exactly his “19 th year” of rule took place (586 B.C.E.), the year in which the Bible tells us that he destroyed Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8) The only reason historians have any doubt about the exact year of Jerusalem’s fall (some say 587 rather than 586 B.C.E.) is that the Bible seems to also give Nebuchadnezzar’s “18 th year” as the year of Jerusalem’s fall. (Jeremiah 52:29)

So, do you see why I called your “1914” interpretation “very complicated and highly questionable”? I did so because this understanding is based on at least nine assumptions. And if any one of them is wrong (and it seems to me they may all be wrong), then the whole interpretation is wrong.

Mike

63

Faith in God and the Church - Part 2 of 2 The Catholic Faith

by Amazing in

jw
friends

my story is sub-titled so you can skip ahead to parts that interest you most.. by way of reminder, my posting on "faith in god and the church" is not meant to convert anyone, because i have been out of the preaching business now for 14-years.

i am sharing my views given the questions i get when i do post about belief in god or my association with the catholic church.. why the catholic church?

protestants, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals have a hard spot with the roman catholic church.

a Christian

Hi Jim,

You wrote: in effect you only believe in part of the Bible, because the Bible was quite clear that there is a congregation order, there are Pastors (Priests, Presbyters, Elders) and there are Bishops (Overseers, Episkopoi,) and Deacons (Ministers) which have direct charge over the operation of the Church.

No, the Bible is quite clear on how the apostles wished that Christians who regularly meet together should order their associations. However, like most everything else taught by Christ and His apostles, after the deaths of the apostles, few Christians continued to pay attention to what the apostles taught pertaining to rules of church order.

This includes the men who developed what soon came to be known as the "Catholic Church." They greatly expanded upon an arrangement that the apostles said should include "elders" who would be qualified to teach along with "ministers" who would tend to the ordinary needs of people attending Christian meetings. They did so by creating a multi-level church hierarchy far beyond that created by the apostles. They also gave their "Priests" power to forgive sins, a power which the Bible tells us no man has and no man needs. For Christ is the only Priest we need and He constantly appears directly before the throne of God on our behalf, offering to God the value of His shed blood for the forgiveness of our sins. (Heb. 4 - 10)

You asked: Is there some "invisible" body of christians that have no identitiy in any denomination, but are scattered everywhere, and thus no cohesive congregation sturcture because of this scattering?

I say yes. But I'm not sure what you are saying. I take it you are saying, "No." But at the same time you seem to agree that there are true Christians, members of Christ's body - His church - in all denominations. I don't think you can have it both ways, Jim. Is the Roman Catholic Church Christ's one true Church or is it not?

You asked: Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit fail to protect the original Church, and thus it no longer exist today?

Jesus and the Holy Spirit failed to make certain that all Christians would follow Christ's own instructions to His followers and those of His apostles. In fact, they both said that they knew that after they left this earth that an "apostasy" ( aka a "rebellion" ) would take place against their teachings, including the apostles' teachings on how best Christians who regularly meet together should order their associations.

You asked: Or is there a cohesive Church with proper authority passed down and conferred upon each successive generation of Chrustians that we can point to as the one continuing Church?

No, there is not. For Christ gave such authority only to His apostles. And He did not give them authority to pass their authority to others, who in turn would then have the authority to pass their authority to others and so forth. If you disagree, please show me where in the Scriptures such a thing is clearly taught. Also, if you accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" why are you not submitting yourself to this supposed authority by rejecting several of their teachings?

You wrote: Next: I have put up a post about the Bible, not to promote Catholicism, but to point out some realities that those who accept the NT need to consider. I will next post about praying to the Holy Spirit, not to urge other to do the same, but to explain why I do. Last, I will deal with the Church as I see it ... and not to promote Catholicism to anyone.

No doubt you will be claiming that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. I hope someone else here will point out the fallacy of that argument. For I will soon have little time to read or respond to posts on this board.

Mike

63

Faith in God and the Church - Part 2 of 2 The Catholic Faith

by Amazing in

jw
friends

my story is sub-titled so you can skip ahead to parts that interest you most.. by way of reminder, my posting on "faith in god and the church" is not meant to convert anyone, because i have been out of the preaching business now for 14-years.

i am sharing my views given the questions i get when i do post about belief in god or my association with the catholic church.. why the catholic church?

protestants, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals have a hard spot with the roman catholic church.

a Christian

Little Toe,

You wrote: You do appear to be taking a very Protestant view of the "church", picking on details rather than enjoying the spirit of love and ecumenism.

Well maybe Simon, in the spirit of love and ecumenism, should shut down this board. For its primary purpose seems to be to point out the errors of men who most people here believe are falsely claiming to speak for God, after they say they were given by Him authority over all His possessions on earth.

When a JW comes on this board defending such malarkey, even if they say that they are just posting their "religious testimony" , they can expect to be "set straight" from many of this board's participants. And a Catholic posting his "religious testimony" supporting the claims of what most folks here consider to be a very similar organization in many ways should expect to be treated no differently.

So far as the Holy Spirit having a different position, or serving a different role ("position" may have been a bad choice of words), within the Godhead, I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that. Type in the words "Holy Spirit" and "role" into a Google search to find a ton of articles on the subject matter.

Font now changed to a "non-WTB&TS" font. : )

Mike

63

Faith in God and the Church - Part 2 of 2 The Catholic Faith

by Amazing in

jw
friends

my story is sub-titled so you can skip ahead to parts that interest you most.. by way of reminder, my posting on "faith in god and the church" is not meant to convert anyone, because i have been out of the preaching business now for 14-years.

i am sharing my views given the questions i get when i do post about belief in god or my association with the catholic church.. why the catholic church?

protestants, especially fundamentalists and evangelicals have a hard spot with the roman catholic church.

a Christian

Hi Jim, You wrote: Your claim as to what the apostles would do, or that the Church is all that much different today, has no basis in fact. You have no way of knowing what the Apostles would or would not do. I never said I did "know" what the Apostles would or would not do. I simply said that "Just because the 'Orthodox' church and the 'Roman Catholic' church can trace their histories back to the time of the apostles does not prove that either of these religious organizations is the same religious organization that was established by the apostles. Neither does it prove that either of these religious organizations would be approved of by the apostles, if the apostles were alive today."

You wrote: I myself never claimed anything about what the Apostles would approve of today.

You certainly implied such. Correct me where I am wrong. You maintain that the vast majority of the teachings and practices of the "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" churches were established by the apostles and have been passed down since the time of the apostles in a largely uncorrupted fashion. If that is the case, then certainly the apostles, if alive today would approve of the vast majority of the teachings and practices of today's "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" churches.

You wrote: There is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society.

I dare say that the vast majority of this board's readers will disagree with that statement. You wrote: The Watchtower Society started out as a publishing business, and today it is a fraud masking as a religion. Jim, are you really unaware of the fact that many people here and elsewhere see the Catholic Church no differently? They view it as nothing more than a very successful money making enterprise which has long masqueraded as "Christ's true Church." A business enterprise which was started by a bunch of men who enjoyed being thought of as something special by others and who also enjoyed exercising power over the lives those people, while using their self appointed "special" standing with God as a licence to take those people's money. You say: "There is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society."? Are you serious? If you are, you are truly "Amazing"! You wrote: It is barely 120 years old compared to nearly 2,000 years of Catholic history. To put it bluntly, a whore is a whore regardless of her age. You wrote: The Lord Jesus Christ promised that he would be with His Church all days unto the end of the world, and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail over it. As I and others in this thread have pointed out to you, and as I think you yourself have acknowledged, Christ's church is His entire body of believers worldwide. Christ's church has never been a religious organization. You asked: Did the Holy Spirit fall down on the job so badly that by the 15th through the 20th centuries, humans would have to figure out a way to rescue it? Can the Holy Spirit fail? No, the Holy Spirit did not fail. The Holy Spirit has always preserved Christ's church. From the time of the apostles, Christ's church ( people who believe that Jesus Christ's death paid the price for their sins and who have been moved by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ as their Lord ) has always had a very large number of members. However, that does not change the fact that Christ and His apostles prophesied that an apostasy would come and that it came. You and I only differ as to its size. You seem to believe the apostasy was relatively small and largely unsuccessful. I say that it was quite large and very successful - in corrupting the peripheral teachings and practices of Christianity. By the way, I do not believe that the apostasy ended with the Protestant Reformation. Certainly not. Many Protestant churches today are just as full of corruption as their "Mother" Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Though, thankfully, the Reformation did help bring an end to some of the especially egregious practices of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the selling of "Indulgences" (licences granting people official permission by the Church to commit sin).

You wrote: I have recommended nothing, so I cannot "seem" to be recommending anything. I posted an answer to a question I commonly get. I clearly stated at the outset that I am not preaching and that those days are over. You refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "the historic Church, continuing the Apostolic Tradition as no other can claim." You say, " She ... has renounced her wrongs and she continues to do what she has otherwise always done ... be the holy catholic church." That sounds like a recommendation to me. You call her "holy." While many here and elsewhere see her as being very far from "holy." You say she has been faithfully "continuing the Apostolic Tradition." What traditions are those? Siting on thrones, wearing purple robes and big pointy hats, having people kiss their feet, and calling them "Most Holy Father," when Jesus told His apostles to "call no man on earth you Father, for your Father is one, the heavenly one"? You wrote: I hardly consider anything discussed on Channel C as being definitive and absolute. I was not recommending "Channel C." I too was banned from that board, I think partly for taking issue with the way the Catholic controversy was handled. I thought Catholic issues should have been allowed to be freely discussed. I just was pointing out that I did not think it was necessary to debate Catholic doctrine with you, as that has all been done before, including not too long ago on Channel C. You wrote: I never stated that the RCC is the only true Church. You may not have stated that. But by your here serving as her apologist, while we all know she makes that claim whether you are willing to admit she does so or not, you are in effect giving credence to that claim. You wrote: the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the historic Church. These are historical facts. "Historic"? What does that mean? Old? There is no debating that the Catholic church organization and the Orthodox church organization have been around longer than any Protestant church organization. But as I said earlier. An old whore is still a whore. Christ and His apostles prophesied that an apostasy was coming. Paul said the seeds of it ware already taking root while the apostles were still on this earth. So just because the Catholic and Orthodox churches are old, even if you can date their existence to the time of the apostles or very shortly thereafter, does not do anything to prove they are not apostate religious organizations. You wrote: What the Apostle Paul [in 1 Tim. 4:1-5] was talking about was forbidding marriage altogether. Oh, really? Earlier you didn't seem to like it when you thought I was claiming to know what the apostles thought or might think. The Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry. Because they do, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of Protestants, not just JWs, Paul was here prophesying about the Catholic Church. I doubt Paul would have made an important prophecy about some tiny sect that existed ages ago for only a few years which forbid marriage altogether. You wrote: As for abstaining from certain foods, Catholics can eat anything they want. And how long has that been so? For how many centuries were Catholics forbidden to eat meat on Fridays? Y ou wrote: The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have carried forward the early traditions handed down by the Apostles ... According to who? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches tell us that many of their traditions, teachings, and practices which are nowhere recorded in the Scriptures were handed down to early "Church Fathers" by the apostles. But when those traditions, teachings, and practices conflict with the clear teachings of Scripture, isn't it more reasonable to believe that those traditions, teachings, and practices claimed to have been handed down to early "Church Fathers" by the apostles were actually the creations of those early "Church Fathers"? I think so. You wrote: and they have a continued line of authority. Again I ask, according to who? The Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is a false doctrine. If you believe it is a true doctrine then you had better stop disagreeing so much with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Because if apostolic succession is not a false doctrine you are now rejecting the authority of the apostles. You wrote: Further, your opening sentence in the above paragraph is not intellectually honest. I do not bow to any Holy Father as any substitute for Christ or need for a visible King. I have never bowed to the Pope in my life. Maybe you have not. But how many millions of Catholics have over the centuries. And has any Pope ever told them to "Stand up. I am only a man," as did Peter (supposedly the first Catholic Pope) in similar circumstances? (Acts 10:26) You wrote: This really comes across as pompous arrogance ... so in effect you are saying that you have the knowledge, the right, the authority and the right understanding of the scriptures, and anyone who dares reconcile with the Catholic Church is leaving the teachings of Christ ... because Mike S. says so. ... So, in effect, you raise yourself up a king to determine the conscience of other Christians, in this case Roman Catholics. I doubt anyone else here understood my words to you in that way. I gave you my opinion as you gave us yours. If I saw one of my Christian brothers going back to the JWs I would be concerned with his spiritual well being and would almost certainly out of my love for him strongly advise him against such a move. I view your return to what I and many others here consider to be a very similar spiritually harmful organization the same way. You wrote: Additionally, I do not pray to saints, but I do not judge those that do. However, this practice dates back to the very early Church ... Yes it does, and to an apostasy that, as Paul told us, had already begun in "the very early Church."

You wrote: You believe in a Duality and not a Trinity. You are wrong. I believe in the Trinity. One God in three persons. Co-equal. Co-eternal. Co-powerful. But a Trinity where not all have the same position. The Bible indicates that both Christ's Father and His Son, who is also our Father, receive our prayers. But it does not indicate that that is the role of the Holy Spirit. As Stephen laid dying he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Thus we have scriptural precedent for praying to Jesus. You speak of "inferences and interpretations we draw from scripture and tradition." As you have gathered, I have no respect for Catholic "tradition," as I highly doubt that most Catholic traditions were handed down to their Church's "Fathers" by the apostles, as they claim. You speak of, "the Tradition of the Apostles, ... a tradition that is specifically referred to in scripture ... a tradition that both Rome and Constantinople have carefully guarded for nearly 2,000 years." Or so they say. However, you have no proof that the "traditions" referred to in Scripture by the apostles are the any of the same traditions which now exist in Orthodox and Catholic Churches. As I said earlier, since many of those traditions conflict with the clear teachings of Scripture, to me it seems more reasonable to believe that Catholic traditions claimed to have been handed down to early "Church Fathers" by the apostles were actually the creations of those early "Church Fathers." You wrote: So, you are saying in effect that I should do what? Listen to Mike S. and follow his pure and perfect teachings? No, you are just a corrupt man. Should I follow my own teachings and be my own Church? Am I also not just a corrupt man like you or anyone else? No, I am saying you should follow Christ. I don't get it. Why is that so difficult? If you can't understand some of Christ's teachings (though I don't see that any of them are "rocket science" and you seem like a pretty intelligent man) why do you think that some Catholic Church leader's opinion of what Christ meant is any more valid than your own opinion? I guess it must be because your Church organization has been around since very shortly after the apostles died and because your Church's leaders claim to have been given your Church's teachings and traditions by the apostles and to have also been given their authority and the authority to pass that same authority, supposedly given to them, down to others. Jim, plain and simple, I believe you have been sold "a bill of goods."

You wrote: Jesus Christ clearly stated in John 14 that the Holy Spirit would teach and comfort us (the Church) ... it is the Holy Spirit that is in charge until Jesus returns. Agreed. You wrote: You make no case for anything ... you only attempt to tear down what I accept. I don't think that is the case. I'm sorry you see things that way. You asked: Who or what does the Holy Spirit lead? Every single member of Christ's body. Does that mean that we all understand every passage of Scripture in the same way? No, just the really important ones. As the apostle John told us in 1 John 2:27 "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know." (NLT) You wrote: Or in your case you consider the Holy Spirit to be a non-person and inanimate divine energy-like power called holy spirit. What gives you that idea? That's JW hogwash. It is not my understanding and I have no idea why you believe that it is. Christian love, Mike