Posts by Drearyweather

Following are the differences:

1. COVID-19 restrictions are put on everyone, Russian ban is only on JW's.

2. COVID-19 restrictions are restrictions, Russian restrictions are more than that- it's the criminalization of a faith.

3. During COVID, you can meet, preach and sing on Zoom or online, but in Russia, even doing that can being criminal charges.

4. COVID is a restriction on your physical activity. not faith; the Russian ban is the opposite.

Restrictions make sense to follow or not when they are imposed on everyone indiscriminately, but if they are imposed on only one person or only one group,or on one activity, then that becomes discrimination.

the Russian ban on JW's doesn't make sense, when other groups equally or more dangerous are allowed to remain legal.

People here wholeheartedly supported the COVID lockdown, but do you remember how people here got angry when governments started allowing churches to open up, when other group activities were still restricted? That's what I am talking about.

own personal address

It seems that this sentence uses the term God's children in a casual way, as cofty told, rather than alluding it to the anointed ones.

This term is also used in the songbook, Song "Life Everlasting is Promised"

Paradise brought to perfection;

All of God’s children set free.

Under Jehovah’s direction,

Peace on earth we will see

It has also been used in the Watchtower for the JW's living now. For e.g. w15 9/15, "As God’s children, we feel truly loved because Jehovah has promised us a wonderful future. That gives genuine meaning and purpose to our life."

Joey, Thanks for bringing the point about the word 'Catholic'. I agree with you that the word has been used even before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence. I agree with you on that one.

The word Catholic comes from the Greek word, katholikos which means 'whole'. Ignatius used this word in 107 AD. In fact, the form of the word katholikos also appears in the Bible in Acts 9:31: "ekklesia kath holos".

Luke and Ignatius used the word katholikos or a form of it to indicate all the churches across the world or what we call as the universal church, or the congregations of the first century, based on what you translate it.

At that time, this name had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, even though it was later used for its formation. In fact, many Christian groups have taken names or form of names from the Scriptures for their denominations and have tied them back to their origins.

Regarding the canon, I don't believe that Roman Catholic Church compiled the canon of the NT. These books were already considered as canonical and used by the early Christian Church of the first and second centuries before heretical people like Marcion came up with their lists.

FF Bruce, writes in his essay, The Canon of the New Testament:

"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."

Apart from Eusebius, all the other three died 100-150 years before the formation of Roman Catholic Church. I'm doubtful any of their contemporaries were catholic bishops. I stand corrected if concrete data is present to prove otherwise.

However, my point was just to point out that Papias, Irenaeus, and Polycarp were not Catholics and hence we can't say that the JW writer has used deception in their article regarding these men.

Regarding using the term 'Apostolic Fathers', even if the writer has not used it in this specific article, the writer has referred to them as 'early writers', 'Historians', and 'Second-century Christians', which they actually were. So I am not sure if we can say that their roles have been tampered with.

I am happy for you to disagree with me.

Joey Jojo, I get what you are saying.

The problem is, whenever we hear or read the word bishop, we connect it with the Roman Catholic Church.

The word bishop is an English word that was not used in the first century. At that time, the language was Greek, and hence these men would have been referred to as the epískopos, which is translated as 'overseer'. These men were epískopos of different cities (bishops according to the RC church, and overseers as per the JW's, depends on what you translate it)

These men belonged to the early church of the first century, and some were even contemporaries of the apostles of Jesus Christ. They did not have any denomination, and hence every Christian group can lay their claim on them, and can freely quote from their writings.

It is incorrect to say that the WT simply refers to them as historians or commentators. In many of their publications, the WT refers to them as the 'Apostolic Fathers', which they actually were.

Smiddy3:

Some of the men named above lived long before the Roman Catholic Church, or for that matter any other denomination we know now was formally established. That's the reason many denominations recognize them as their saints.

Polycarp: 69 AD

Papias: 70 AD

Irenaeus: 130 AD

Telling that these men were the bishops of the Catholic Church is like telling that Abel, Moses, CT Russell were Jehovah's Witnesses.