In a discussion about doctrinal flip-flops, my JW friend used the "old light/new light" parachute. I then asked, "So as it stands now, does the Society have the complete truth, or the incomplete truth?" After much umming and awwing he had to admit "incomplete truth", for if they had the complete truth, there would be no more Scripture research necessary up at HQ nor any "new light" for any future doctrine change. He had to then internalize the realization that they in fact don't have the truth that they proclaim. Then ask, "Why would you knowingly belong to and spread a religion to which you ascribe partial truth to?"
The Firm
JoinedPosts by The Firm
-
27
When You Hear Someone Say "The Truth"...
by minimus inwhen a witness talks about a person not being "in the truth", does that get to you?
or if they self-righteously proclaim that "at least, they're in the truth and not worldly", does that push any buttons?
-
-
-
33
Reformed Episcopal View of Christ
by thepreacher innecessity of the old testament in understanding the work of christ
by curtis i. crenshaw .
i n the volume of the book, it is written of christ (
-
-
The Firm
Hello again Undf'ed. There's a volumous collection of the early church father's writings that I got those quotes from. Basically they were the first few actual witnesses to the early church. Polycarp was a desciple of John, for example, and was the bishop of Smyrna in the 2nd century. His and countless others testify to the CC in the first thru 20th centuries. Not sure how those can be quickly dismissed as evidence as accurate historical accounts.
The Apostle Paul taught that you should check with the Scriptures, and if the Church's teachings did not agree with the Scriptures, then the Church would be accursed, and you should not believe the Church.
He said the opposite in Matt 18:17. Otherwise, he would have said "If he then not hear the Bible which by the way, won't even be around for a few hundred years, let them be as the publican and the heathen". St. Paul declared the church as the pillar and foundation of truth in 1Tim 3:15, and exhorted us to hold fast the traditions either in written form or oral trasmission (2Thess 2:15; also 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2). The NT is as example of the CC's written form of transmission.
Amazingly, your acknowledgement of the CC as having compiled the cannon = implicit trust in her magisterium in truth of teaching, but your overall rejection of the CC contradicts your own basis. What benefit is pick-n-choose-cafeteria-style Christianity?
From all of my research into the Catholic Church, I am completely 100% sure that the Catholic Church is NOT Jesus Christ's Church, and really they never were.
Well, I'm sure you're being very honest here. Perhaps as a fruit of these discussions may be further investigation, particularly on where the Bible came from. If Jesus did not establish the CC and promise it to last until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18-19) then He is either a false prophet OR the CC is that church. It's either/or. Which is it?
The Catholic Church has lifted itself up (and lifted the Pope up) higher than Christ Himself, and higher than Christ's Holy Scriptures.
It would be different if the Pope self-arrogated his position. Rather, Christ did it himiself by giving Peter--a man--the responsibility to feed Christ's sheep. The Holy Scriptures, again, is a fruit of the CC which is inextricable from Holy Tradition. By contrast, man extracting the Holy Scriptures from the Holy Church and basing their beliefs on the fruit of our chruch is a modern human tradition. So no, the CC hasn't lifted itself up higher than Christ, He raised it up that way and still does.
The Catholic Church condemned, persecuted, tortured, tormented, and murdered fellow Christians, simply because they had their own copy of the Scriptures, or because they were translating their own copy.
Some of this sentiment is fabulous. Again, the case has yet to be effectively made as to why you feel it was necessary that the Bible be stolen and copied for individuals. Any takers?
Somebody stealing a Bible, which is used for the Liturgy in the Mass, cost $$ and months to make copies. How is it that it seems ok by you? Also, how beneficial is it for those illiterate to have a Bible? Beyond that, there is nothing--NOTHING--anyone can gain from reading the Bible independently that you cannot gain at Mass. However, going to Mass you get both the precious body and blood of our Lord and His sacred scripture. Outside of the confines of Christ's church, there is no guarantee that what one learns from independent reading wouldn't result in independent interpretation. That's why St. Peter (2 Pet 1:20; 3:35-16) exhorted people not to resort to "wrestling with the Scriptures". Said "wrestling" has divided Christianity from one church to over 30,000. Is that ok by your standards?
I will never, ever be a follower of MAN, that includes the Catholic Church.
Nobody wants you to follow a man, and that includes following yourself. In the CC, you only follow a man if you consider Jesus Christ to be merely a "man". See, when one leaves the CC, they make themselves Pope and feed themselves rather than have Christ's shepherd feed them. Or they make Pastor Bob down the street their own Pope. That's why Christ says in Matt 23:9 "call no man on earth father". In context, He was speaking with the Pharisies who wanted applause and attention, and who longed to be called "abba", "teacher", "rabbi". "Pastors" today, without apastolic authority, self-arrogate their authority, which makes a follower "twice the child of hell as themselves" (vs. 15). The difference is that in the CC, Christ specifically gave Peter and the apostles authority, and to hand it down over the generations (just as Judas was replaced by Mathias, for example).
I'm sure your Church teaches that I will be burning in Hell for eternity because I follow Jesus and the Bible and not the Church.
Ha ha, Undf'ed no you will not burn in hell for this one . God's not like your average highway patrol officer: ignorance IS an excuse (and believe me, it's often bliss). Besides questioning your CC IQ (cuz this charge is off like some of the others), I'd certainly say that you are very sincere in your quest to know Jesus Chrsit. God nor the CC condemns anyone to hell; people condemn themselves. By saying "I know that Jesus Chrsit founded and heads the CC and is truly present in the blessed Eucharist, but I want nothing to do with His establishment or him at all", then at death God simply grants them their wish. Hell is eternal separation from God that comes when we separate ourselves from his grace via mortal sin. Hope that explanation helps.
Undf'ed it has been a pleasure discussing with you! I appreciate your spiritual hospitality and look forward to seeing you on other threads (I've got your back on the Trinity thread ).
-
33
Reformed Episcopal View of Christ
by thepreacher innecessity of the old testament in understanding the work of christ
by curtis i. crenshaw .
i n the volume of the book, it is written of christ (
-
-
The Firm
We know this via sacred tradition, and it's proven by the historical timelines of all churches today who claim to be "Christian". We know that the early Christians weren't Lutherans, for example, because Luther didn't start his church until 1517-ish. That's an obvious one, but in the same manner, trace all 30,000+ protestant religions backwards throughout time and they all disappear by the time you hit 1500, which is about 1500 years to late to be qualified as Christ's Church. The process of elimintation leaves only one Christian church: the CC. Jesus founded one church and one church only. There are other ways to establish the CC as Christ's church, but tracing history alone is sufficient (and simplest ).
As far as the first-century Christians being Catholic, we know this through sacred tradition (of which the NT is a form of). First of all, the word "catholic" is derived from the greek for "universal". Salvation history in the OT was not universal, but built up to it. The first covenant between God and man was between a couple (Adam & Eve). Then it grew to a family (Noah). Then to a tribe (Moses). Then to a nation (Abraham), but was not yet universal. Even Isaiah longed for the Messiah to establish a covenant for all nations (Isaiah 2:2-4) Since Jesus then founded one church for all mankind, by its nature it is universal, and so a proper name for it is "Catholic Church". The early church fathers testify to the beauty and necessity of the early church, which was most definitely Catholic:
Interestingly, St. Augustine (as quoted above) was Pope at the council of Hippo in 393 AD which presented the 27 books of the NT as canonical (to the exclusion of hundreds of other scriptures circulating at the time).Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long agoin the reign of Antonius for the most partand that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).
Augustine
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]). (quotes taken from http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp)
-
33
Reformed Episcopal View of Christ
by thepreacher innecessity of the old testament in understanding the work of christ
by curtis i. crenshaw .
i n the volume of the book, it is written of christ (
-
-
The Firm
Hello and peace be with you clash. You certainly spare no effort in trying to lead someone to Christ, and I consider myself priveledged to be the object of your efforts. I suppose that's what we're all trying to do here on this forum, right?
Is there any way to condense matters a little? I know I get going on my posts too, but man... Anyway I'm used to getting barraged by a hundred+ accusations. That's an all-too common tactic: to fire away with questions, and then not give sufficient opportunity to answer them. It was wearisome trying to answer Undf'ed's post; there's no way I can take 4 hours to answer yours, I'm sorry. I can attempt them one at a time, that is, if the quest for knowledge is sincere, or if you'll accept my charity in answering them.
I will answer your first question, though. 2Tim3:15-17, the "all scripture is inspired" verse, talks about the Old Testament, which you and I would agree is not "sufficient". Verse 15 qualifies the scriptures as having been learned from the peep's infancy. Since the letter to Timothy (who was the Catholic Bishop of Ephesus, by the way ) was written around 67AD, Paul certainly couldn't be referring to the New Testament because he was in the process of writing some of it. Clash, even if he was including the NT in this verse, then he was excluding books not written yet, such as Gospel of John and Revelation. Also, the key word is "beneficial", not "sufficient". Water is beneficial to our lives, but certainly not sufficient.
No one argues that the Bible is inspired and certainly beneficial. But nowhere in the NT (or OT) will you or anyone find exclusivity of Scripture. It's not in 2 Tim 3:15, and making that verse say something it doesn't simply does violence to the text.
Thanks for the spiritual hospitality and I look forward to your reply.
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
The Firm
The WTS publications teach that Satan spoke through a serpent, much like a ventriloquist and his dummy.
ozziepost: thanks for the clarification. Now that I think about it, I do remember my JW friend mention something similar. She said that JW's don't believe that the Serpent was Satan. So then I jokingly asked, "So did Satan send his only-begotten serpent to earth? Is that it?".
Revelation 12:9 identifies Satan as that serpent: "And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world;..." There it is, 2 (if not all 3) parts of the trinity as revealed by Satan.
Any thoughts? Thanks and peace be with all of you.
-
37
Other religions are abusive too.,
by wednesday ini know jw's are abusive psychologicaly to their members, however so are other churches.
case in point, i knew a woman who would not marry b/c the pope said not to use birth control.
she did not want children, and she could not find it within herself to go against the pope.
-
-
The Firm
Thanks for that insight, Stephanus. Wow, didn't know that certain folks were classified as "trolls". Gee, hope I haven't turned into one of those!
-
6
What is the Watchtower Foundation, Inc.?
by GermanXJW inin german xjw-forum infolink we are discussing barbara anderson's sueing of the watchtower corporations.
we notices a watchtower foundation, inc.. does anybody know what is about this foundation?
what is the purpose of foundations in american law?
-
-
The Firm
What is the WatchTower Foundation?
SAND.
-
7
Ten Reasons Why Christians And Catholics Disagree
by clash_city_rockers in"but we will burn incense unto the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and ours princes... jeremiah 44:17 .
there is but one christ jesus who is the king of kings and lord of lords.
"as it is written, there is none righteous, no not one.
-
-
The Firm
Hello again clash. The double-barrel weapons & ammo belongs over in the "friends" forum.
Your hatred for Catholicism has been evident here and in other fun posts. Perhaps you are a baptized Catholic?? Anyway, I suspect that the above post was a cut-n-paste job. The very first reference to the Catechism was erroneous: I had to find it on my own. So somebody didn't really double-check their homework. FYI.
Edited by - The Firm on 26 November 2002 21:12:44
-
740
The Trinity
by meadow77 intop reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.
their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.
the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.
-
-
The Firm
How can the WBTS acknowledge that Satan--the Father of lies--had the power to manifest himself in the flesh (as the Serpent), but God didn't take the fleshly form of Jesus Christ? Did Satan demonstrate more biblical power than Jehovah?
If we hold God to be more almighty than Satan, then Satan can't one-up our Lord. So if the devil can reveal himself in a trinitarian nature: as Satan, serpent(devil incarnate), and evil spirit (that entered Judas at the last supper; rebuked by Christ in Lk), God must likewise AT LEAST exist in an equivalent nature: Almighty Father, Jesus Christ (God incarnate), and the Holy Spirit (paraclete). To expect or acknowledge anything less of our lord than demonstrated by Satan would make God to be less than Satan.
-
37
Other religions are abusive too.,
by wednesday ini know jw's are abusive psychologicaly to their members, however so are other churches.
case in point, i knew a woman who would not marry b/c the pope said not to use birth control.
she did not want children, and she could not find it within herself to go against the pope.
-
-
The Firm
You seem to be equating the Catholic Church as the church of Jesus. Sorry, that just doesn't hold up. Jesus also said, "By their fuits shall ye know them".
Hello Navigator.
The verse you mention is the very verse following my signature post. Thus, the "fruits" in that verse equate to those of false prophets, not to those of christ's church. And yes, the Catholic Church = Christ's church does hold up. If Christ did not establish the CC, then He set up no church. Just look at history alone: no other church--not even the JW's-- can even remotely claim roots dating back to the time of Jesus Christ. Just because you/others carry fanciful versions of our history doesn't change the CC's unbroken line-- a line which Christ promised would last until the end of time (Matt 16:18). He also promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. So, to imply that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the CC, then Jesus is a liar. So either Jesus was just flappin' his gums, or the CC is His church. He and we eagerly await your arrival!
But if you insist on knowing the "fruits" of the Catholic Church, how about The Bible?