Ideas concerning the cross. || JESUS ADHERENTS ONLY.

[Faithofchristian]

God gave Solomon the go-ahead to build the Temple, but 1 Kings 5:5 doesn't mention any account of God telling Solomon how to build the Temple.

So what your saying is that you gave people the permission to build your house, but you don't tell them how you want it built.
So how would Solomon know how to build God's house if God did not let Solomon know how he wants it built?

So what your saying is all Solomon did is guessing how God house was to be built.

So how would Solomon know about how the walls and the Cherub's were to be made, if God did not let Solomon know.
Even king David wanted to build God's house.

 

[Shiranui117]

So what your saying is that you gave people the permission to build your house, but you don't tell them how you want it built.
So how would Solomon know how to build God's house if God did not let Solomon know how he wants it built?

So what your saying is all Solomon did is guessing how God house was to be built.

I'm saying that God only gave strict commandments for the things in Exodus that were to go inside the Temple. Solomon was at liberty to adorn the temple as he saw fit (he did, after all, receive wisdom and discernment from God), and God let him do it.

Have you watched Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, or Home Free? The people who receive those homes don't give specific instructions for how they want the houses built or remodeled. But they're always thrilled with the results.

So how would Solomon know about how the walls and the Cherub's were to be made, if God did not let Solomon know.
Even king David wanted to build God's house.

Simple: God never gave specific instructions. Solomon was to build a beautiful temple for the things of the Lord, and that was it.

 

[Deeje]

Alright then, tell me where it is in the Bible that God gave King Solomon the blueprints and the design plan for the Temple. God didn't tell King Solomon to build two massive statues of cherubim ten cubits high whose wingspans spread across the entire wall of the Temple. God didn't tell King Solomon to carve the walls of the Temple with cherubim, plants and flowers. And yet God saw fit to bless the Temple and dwell within it.

At 1 Chronicles 28:10-12: King David said to his son Solomon.....
"See, now, for Jehovah has chosen you to build a house as a sanctuary. Be courageous and go to work.”

11 David then gave to his son Solʹo·mon the architectural plan of the porch and of its houses, its storerooms, its roof chambers, its inner rooms, and the house of the propitiatory cover 12 He gave him the architectural plan of everything that had been conveyed to him through inspiration for the courtyards of Jehovah’s house, for all the dining rooms around it, for the treasuries of the house of the true God, and for the treasuries of the things made holy"

1 Chronicles 28:18-19:
"He also gave the weight for the refined gold for the incense altar and for the representation of the chariot, namely, the cherubs of gold that spread their wings out and overshadow the ark of the covenant of Jehovah. 19 David said: “The hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he gave me insight to put all the details of the architectural plan in writing."

 

[Deeje]

This goes back to the times where Christians would have to celebrate the Liturgy in the catacombs or else risk being found out, especially once the imperial persecutions began. You can learn more about it here.

From a Catholic website I found this admission rather interesting....

"II. THE ORIGIN OF THE LITURGY
At the outset of this discussion we are confronted by three of the most difficult questions of Christian archaeology, namely: From what date was there a fixed and regulated service such as we can describe as a formal Liturgy? How far was this service uniform in various Churches? How far are we able to reconstruct its forms and arrangement?

With regard to the first question it must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to be done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches."

Liturgy | Catholic Answers

So how much of original "Christian" religious services even remotely resembled the ritual of Catholic liturgy?

It seems as if Catholic ritual was formulated by themselves, not modeled after the early Christians at all. It is clear that there were no set rituals. Christianity was not to mimic Judaism in its formalistic temple worship and ceremonies or in its priesthood.

 

[Deeje]

Very reliable. These are, after all, the students of the Apostles, and their students' students. So either the Apostles were incompetent teachers and Jesus failed to deliver in His promise to have the Holy Spirit guide the Church into all truth, or the writings of the Fathers are worth reading to see just what it was that the first Christians taught.

Since the apostasy was already foretold and apostates were snapping at the heels of the apostles even when they were still alive, it is clear to see how Christianity was corrupted in exactly the same way as Judaism was. Human tradition supplanted the word of God. The students of the apostles failed to keep the apostasy from gaining momentum. It was foretold and it happened just as they said. (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3)

The Orthodox Church continues in its teaching that revealed truth is incorporated in the apostolic tradition, in the decisions of the ecumenical councils, in the theological consensus of the church fathers, and in the sacramental life and worship of the church. The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book. Nevertheless, all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of the scriptures. Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture.

This part worries me....."The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book. Nevertheless, all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of the scriptures. Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture."

IMO, it would perhaps be more correct to say that "all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of apostates" rather than the apostles. Suffice it to say, I see no apostolic tradition at all in Catholicism.

Jesus said in prayer to his Father...."I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."

Where in original Christianity or in Christian scripture will I find a trinity? Devotion to Mary? The use of images? A liturgy? Ritual? Repetitious prayers? Monks? Nuns? A Pope? Mass? Confessionals? Rosary beads? Baptism of infants? An immortal soul? The teaching that the wicked go to hell or purgatory?

'Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture'.......? Seriously? I would say that that they disagree with scripture in every case.

It seems to me that everything Jesus taught, the church found a way to teach the opposite.

 

[Deeje]

Despite your enormous differences with the Church Fathers in terms of theology and eschatology, you owe a great deal to the Church Fathers for how you interpret the Bible.

I'm afraid we don't. We owe nothing to anyone but Jehovah and his son.
According to Daniel, "the time of the end" would see God making knowledge available to cleanse and refine his people. (Daniel 12:9-10) We took the bath and washed all the filth away. There is nothing left of Christendom's doctrines in our practices or beliefs.

Do you view anything in the Old Testament as a typology for something in the New Testament? You owe that to the Fathers.

What Catholicism did with typology was nothing close to what it really typified. The whole typical and anti-typical meaning of the Jewish religious system was a reflection of the heavenly arrangement, not justification to copy the old and graft it over the new. Christianity did not have an earthly priesthood or temple. It was promised to them on gaining entry to heaven (Revelation 20:6) ....in the great spiritual Temple of Jehovah. Our High Priest is already officiating there where he has placed his own blood on the alter to forgive our sins.

Do you look at the creation stories of Genesis and see great spiritual wisdom hidden below the literal physical meaning? You owe that to the Fathers.

What hidden spiritual wisdom would that be Shiranui? Please share that.

I'm willing to bet cash money and my right ear that if you read St. John Chrysostom's commentaries on various books in the Old Testament, you would find yourself nodding in agreement at just about every word.

I am not a gambling person, but I can almost guarantee you that I would be shaking my head like I do with all Catholic beliefs.

This was a head shaker.... Pascha

The Bible and the life of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

If that is the case, then why did the church depart from scripture to the extent that Catholic belief is not found there? No primary doctrine of Catholicism is based on scripture.

And despite the overwhelming odds, the Church Fathers all agree with one another about Who Christ is, how to worship, how the Church should be structured, what the place of baptism is, the nature of the Eucharist, and the place of the Bible in the Church. They may have quibbled a bit about a few issues of church discipline, such as how to receive apostate Christians back into the Church, but in terms of doctrine, they are all of one accord.

So there are no schisms in Catholicism? All speak in agreement? What if you all agree on things that are not true? What if you were all victims of the same apostasy? Would you know?

If you want to make the hill you're standing more defensible, you cut down the surrounding trees and use the wood to create fortifications. That's what Christians did by adapting our apologetics to the intellectual vocabulary of the day. I can almost guarantee without even knowing that the Jehovah's Witnesses also adapt their presentation of the Bible to use terminology with which people would be familiar, rather than using your own set of lingo which no one but you understands. That is, assuming you guys know the first thing about public speaking.

We speak the same language as the modern translations of the Bible. We rely on the skills of linguistic scholars to translate the scriptures accurately. Since all our elders (the entire body in each congregation) are public speakers, I guess we know how to address people. And since all in the congregation engage in public witnessing, we are all trained to do that too from childhood. We allow the Bible to speak for itself....and to interpret itself.

The Fathers were asking the very same question and making the very same points. This is exactly why they worked to educate lay Christians in the truth of the matter.

If the apostles taught that baptism was a dedication to God as a disciple of Christ, and obligated them to live as Christ lived, then how did they lose sight of that?
How can anyone imagine that the mindless performance of a ritual could in any way win Brownie points with God if their heart was not in it? Actions mean nothing if the heart is disengaged.
As the scripture stated, if you know what is right and you do not do it, it is a sin worse than one committed in ignorance.

So wait, are you saying that it IS possible to defile your baptism and screw yourself permanently out of salvation without hope of recovery, or that it isn't? I'm confused. Because the teaching of the Church is that there is forgiveness of sins, as many times as we return to God in repentance, baptized or not.

You cannot use Christ's sacrifice as an excuse to sin, presuming on that forgiveness by confessing to a bloke in a box. Seriously....genuine repentance is needed....and along with repentance is what Jesus commanded when he said "go and sin no more". If the repentance was not genuine, forgiveness never happened. Who can fool God?

 

[Deeje]

…So your opposition to Jesus being crucified on a cross is due to fears that Jesus was crucified on something which you view as purely a pagan symbol, and not due to any archaeological or historical evidence that He was, in fact, crucified on a stake. Duly noted.

Oh please. Our opposition is to the image of anything...cross, gallows, pole. It is just especially offensive to God to use something with such grubby origins. You can't 'Christianize' something pagan....you just end up 'paganizing' the Christianity.

No, that describes idols, things that are worshipped. We never worship icons, not even icons of Christ.

I think you are not fooling anyone.

The Tabernacle was built to His specifications. The Temple in 1 Kings wasn't. There is a big difference there.

Already covered.

 

[metis]

If the apostles taught that baptism was a dedication to God as a disciple of Christ, and obligated them to live as Christ lived, then how did they lose sight of that?

"Nice" stereotype. So, should you not complain if we negatively stereotyped JW's?

How can anyone imagine that the mindless performance of a ritual could in any way win Brownie points with God if their heart was not in it?

Like when you celebrate Passover, Deeje? Also, do you believe in baptism, which is a ritual, or not? Are the commands to baptize as found in the N.T. considered bogus to you? Or is it just another variation of the fact that you believe that if the JW's do it that's all fine & dandy, but if another denomination does it it's evil?

 

[Shiranui117]

From a Catholic website I found this admission rather interesting....

Liturgy | Catholic Answers

So how much of original "Christian" religious services even remotely resembled the ritual of Catholic liturgy?

In its basic structure of singing hymns/Psalms, praying to God, reading Scripture and celebrating the Eucharist? A great deal. The earliest Christian worship, if not liturgical, was proto-liturgical. Soon, traditions began developing among each region as the faithful naturally started to standardize their weekly worship. Note what the article said: "in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies", the Liturgy did not yet exist, because it was not yet standardized and written down.

Even though you Jehovah's Witnesses rail against liturgical worship, I wonder, how much basic uniformity would I find in your weekly Kingdom Hall services in terms of what gets done when, when songs are sung, when the Bible is read, when the Watchtower magazines are studied, when preaching happens?

It seems as if Catholic ritual was formulated by themselves, not modeled after the early Christians at all. It is clear that there were no set rituals. Christianity was not to mimic Judaism in its formalistic temple worship and ceremonies or in its priesthood.

No, we did not use Temple worship as our template. However, almost all of the Jewish Christians were accustomed to synagogue worship, and this formed a very convenient template for Christians to use. For example, the prevailing theory is that Christian singing of the Psalms is derived from how the Jews would practice it either in the Temple or in synagogue worship.

Since the apostasy was already foretold and apostates were snapping at the heels of the apostles even when they were still alive, it is clear to see how Christianity was corrupted in exactly the same way as Judaism was. Human tradition supplanted the word of God. The students of the apostles failed to keep the apostasy from gaining momentum. It was foretold and it happened just as they said. (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3)

We've been down this rabbit hole. You cannot in any way prove that the apostasy was complete. We have evidence of a sect called the Nicolaitans, who... shall we say, gave into some of their more carnal urges on a regular basis, and ate food sacrificed to idols. This description matches Jude 4-16.

This part worries me....."The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book. Nevertheless, all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of the scriptures. Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture."

Why does that bother you? Romans 1:19-20 says that God's truth is also revealed through His creation.

IMO, it would perhaps be more correct to say that "all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of apostates" rather than the apostles. Suffice it to say, I see no apostolic tradition at all in Catholicism.

Jesus said in prayer to his Father...."I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."

Where in original Christianity or in Christians scripture will I find a trinity?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome, all three of whom were handpicked by the Apostles. There is also the text of John 1:1. It doesn't matter how you want to translate that into English, the fact remains that Greek-speaking Christians were using this Greek verse to make arguments in Greek that Jesus is God. If this was a grammatically open-and-shut case in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses' position, then Greek-speaking Trinitarians would have been laughed out of the room for not knowing basic grammar of their own native language.

Devotion to Mary?

This hymn, still used in Orthodox prayers to this day: Sub tuum praesidium - Wikipedia

The use of images?

We have evidence of it as early as the 200's. The fish, the anchor, the Lamb of God Christians just didn't have the capital necessary. Even when comparing the Dura Europos church to the Dura Europos synagogue, we can see that the imagery in the church is far more crudely done, showing a lack of skill, money or both on the part of the Christian community as compared to the Jews.

A liturgy?

Already covered.

Ritual?

What do you call baptism, the Lord's Supper, funerals and communal prayer?

Repetitious prayers?

The Didache (a work dating back to the middle of the first century, well within the lifetime of the Apostles) advises that Christians say the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day as a prayer rule.

Monks? Nuns?

Tradition and the existence of the city of Ma'aloula in Syria say that this goes back to St. Tekla, a woman converted by St. Paul to the Faith. Monasticism in its current form originated with St. Antony the Great.

A Pope?

St. Clement of Rome, mentioned by name by St. Paul, was bishop of Rome.

Mass?

A Mass is a Liturgy, dude. And I've already covered that one.

Confessionals?

I've already explained the development of private confession out of public confession in another thread.

Rosary beads?

Prayer beads or prayer ropes go back to St. Antony the Great.

Baptism of infants?

Goes back to the New Testament witness of entire households being baptized.

An immortal soul?

Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Revelations 6:9. Hebrews 11:1-12:1.

The teaching that the wicked go to hell or purgatory?

Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Literally any passage talking about the Judgement.

'Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture'.......? Seriously? I would say that that they disagree with scripture in every case.

It seems to me that everything Jesus taught, the church found a way to teach the opposite.

Looks like Jesus and the Holy Spirit did a real good job living up to their end of the bargain. Maybe they should have mentioned that it'd take them 1800 years to warm up and stretch before they started doing all the things they promised the Church.

 

[Shiranui117]

What Catholicism did with typology was nothing close to what it really typified. The whole typical and anti-typical meaning of the Jewish religious system was a reflection of the heavenly arrangement, not justification to copy the old and graft it over the new. Christianity did not have an earthly priesthood or temple. It was promised to them on gaining entry to heaven (Revelation 20:6) ....in the great spiritual Temple of Jehovah. Our High Priest is already officiating there where he has placed his own blood on the alter to forgive our sins.

So you don't see the journey of the people of Israel through the desert after being freed from slavery in Egypt, finally entering the Holy Land through the Jordan as a typology for the Christian's earthly life of spiritual struggle and obedience to God after being freed from slavery to sin and death? That's one of many typologies that St. John Chrysostom elucidates in his homilies, among other Fathers.

What hidden spiritual wisdom would that be Shiranui? Please share that.

I have a hunch you might already be aware of this, but I'll explain anyway...

Why was it said that there was light, darkness and the passage of time without the sun, moon and stars? Because it is God Who gives order to the universe, not the sun, moon or stars.
Why was there plant life before the creation of the Sun? Because God is the source of life, not the sun.
Why was mankind created first in one creation story, and last in the other creation story? To show in both cases the importance of man--important enough to God that He either created mankind first, so he could name all of creation, or that He created mankind last, as the crowning jewel of His creation.
Why was it said that mankind was created, not just from the earth, but from the dust of the earth? To signify to us that we should be humble before God and in dealing with creation. We, the prize of His creation, were created from the lowliest thing in all of creation. This also ties in beautifully with God's choice of Israel, the lowest and smallest of nations, to be His chosen people. It also ties in with Christ's promise that the first will be last, and the last will be first.

St. John Chrysostom explains all this and more in his Homilies on Genesis. He really makes the Scriptures come alive for the reader (or in his days, the listener). Or if you like listening to stuff like me, you could start with a series of Bible study podcasts that cover a lot of this in much, much more detail.

If that is the case, then why did the church depart from scripture to the extent that Catholic belief is not found there? No primary doctrine of Catholicism is based on scripture.

There's a difference between "Scripture" and "Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretations of Scripture".

So there are no schisms in Catholicism? All speak in agreement?

We are all one in our belief about Who God is. There is a clear consensus among the Church Fathers throughout history. All are unanimous in their testimony of Who Jesus Christ is.

What if you all agree on things that are not true? What if you were all victims of the same apostasy? Would you know?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and we take that seriously. Apparently you disagree with St. Paul on this matter. Apparently you also disagree with Jesus Christ about His promises to defend the Church and for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

We speak the same language as the modern translations of the Bible. We rely on the skills of linguistic scholars to translate the scriptures accurately. Since all our elders (the entire body in each congregation) are public speakers, I guess we know how to address people. And since all in the congregation engage in public witnessing, we are all trained to do that too from childhood. We allow the Bible to speak for itself....and to interpret itself.

You can't use something to interpret itself. This notion is the reason that Protestantism has been the most fractious element within Christianity ever since its birth--they got rid of the measuring stick. Sola Scriptura makes the interpretation of the Bible anyone's game. Anyone can arbitrarily decide which passages of Scripture are the ones which should be used to interpret the rest of the books.

How can anyone imagine that the mindless performance of a ritual could in any way win Brownie points with God if their heart was not in it? Actions mean nothing if the heart is disengaged.

So what do you call your observance of the Lord's Supper?

You cannot use Christ's sacrifice as an excuse to sin, presuming on that forgiveness by confessing to a bloke in a box. Seriously....genuine repentance is needed....and along with repentance is what Jesus commanded when he said "go and sin no more". If the repentance was not genuine, forgiveness never happened. Who can fool God?

Congratulations, you agree with Catholics and Orthodox.

Oh please. Our opposition is to the image of anything...cross, gallows, pole.

So there's nothing wrong with going along with the body of evidence and saying that Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than a stake, right?

I think you are not fooling anyone.

I will see your canned fable that has been disproven over and over throughout the centuries to try and disprove the Catholic Church, and raise you one article straight from the horse's mouth. Do Catholics Worship Statues? | Catholic Answers

Already covered.

Duly noted. I'll concede the point about 1 Kings 6. Looks like I learned something new today.

 

[Deeje]

"Nice" stereotype. So, should you not complain if we negatively stereotyped JW's?

C'mon metis.....stereotyping?

Since when is telling it like it is stereotyping? If "the Church" had been guided by Christ, then they would have lost none of the impetus of his teachings. The importance of baptism was replaced by inventing loopholes in God's laws. If people are taught that mere performance of a ritual or mindless repetition of a prayer is somehow acceptable to God, then I have news for you. God does not look at actions, but at what motivates them.

And if you have blood on your hands, God does not hear your prayers anyway. How much blood was spilled by the early church in their witch hunts for heretics who were brave enough to speak up or to dare to possess a Bible....and what about the forced confessions by torture, followed by murder? You've got to be kidding me. (Isaiah 1:15) History condemns the Catholic church, not me.

Like when you celebrate Passover, Deeje?

We don't celebrate Passover metis. We observe the only celebration commanded for Christians....the Lord's Supper. It is an annual commemoration of the death of Christ on the actual anniversary, not the nearest weekend so that even atheists can have a holiday and eat chocolate eggs delivered by the Easter bunny.

It is not a mindless ritual, but a solemn remembrance as Jesus commanded..."keep doing this in remembrance of me".

Also, do you believe in baptism, which is a ritual, or not?

Not a ritual, but again obedience to a command that is undertaken by all who take their dedication to Christ seriously.
The symbolism is a 'death and resurrection' so it involves full immersion of a disciple (a student) under the water, not the sprinkling of a bit of water on the head of a screaming baby.

Are the commands to baptize as found in the N.T. considered bogus to you? Or is it just another variation of the fact that you believe that if the JW's do it that's all fine & dandy, but if another denomination does it it's evil?

It is the difference between obedience to the Christ and obedience to the rituals concocted by the church. I know which one is which...do you? I will venture to say that most people raised in the Catholic church would not know that the majority of their beliefs and practices are not Biblical. This has been my experience when studying the Bible with Catholic people over many years.

 

[metis]

If "the Church" had been guided by Christ, then they would have lost none of the impetus of his teachings.

Who said they lost it, especially since they've been teaching it for almost 2000 years now? How long have the JW's been teaching it? Specifically, cite exactly when and how they supposedly lost it, plus where your information comes from. Documentation please?

The importance of baptism was replaced by inventing loopholes in God's laws. If people are taught that mere performance of a ritual or mindless repetition of a prayer is somehow acceptable to God, then I have news for you.

I don't believe that nor does the CC teach that.

And if you have blood on your hands, God does not hear your prayers anyway.

It's amazing that you supposedly know who's prayers God supposedly hears and who's He doesn't. And what about "repentance" and "forgiveness"?

History condemns the Catholic church, not me.

How can an entire church, including the JW's as well, be "condemned"?

Again, you are violating what Jesus said in terms of "judge ye not". If there are specific points you disagree with, that's fair game, imo, but condemning an entire church is well beyond my pay grade and yours. It's rather bizarre that you do this while chafing when some other Christians say they don't consider JW's to actually be "Christian". BTW, I certainly don't agree that they should so this either.

We don't celebrate Passover metis. We observe the only celebration commanded for Christians....the Lord's Supper.

Oh, so your's is not a "ritual" but a "celebration". Aren't you aware how shallow that is?

It is not a mindless ritual, but a solemn remembrance as Jesus commanded..."keep doing this in remembrance of me".

Again, others perform "mindless rituals" while your JW's do "solemn remembrance". See above.

Not a ritual, but again obedience to a command that is undertaken by all who take their dedication to Christ seriously.

Again, I can't help but to notice the hypocrisy on this, namely theirs is "ritual", yours is "obedience".

I will venture to say that most people raised in the Catholic church would not know that the majority of their beliefs and practices are not Biblical.

So you say, but when I go to mass that is not at all what I hear. About 2/3 of a given service are prayers to God, with many dealing with praise, some with petition, and most of the rest with preparing for communion. So, which of these is/are "not Biblical"? Ever look at a missal? You probably can find one on-line, so maybe give it a go.

This has been my experience when studying the Bible with Catholic people over many years.

And my experience over 50 years says differently. Plus at least they no longer, at least, go around judging other denominations or people. So, which actually believes in Jesus whereas he taught "judge ye not": they or your fellow JW's? If one judges people or other Christian denominations, they're certainly not following Jesus, no matter what they may state.

 

[Deeje]

In its basic structure of singing hymns/Psalms, praying to God, reading Scripture and celebrating the Eucharist?

We have a very different take on what you call the "Eucharist".....who is to partake of the emblems and what that signifies is also very different to your church.
And why there is only the bread offered at many Catholic services is a mystery to me. The wine is an equally necessary component in the Lord's Supper.

The earliest Christian worship, if not liturgical, was proto-liturgical. Soon, traditions began developing among each region as the faithful naturally started to standardize their weekly worship. Note what the article said: "in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies", the Liturgy did not yet exist, because it was not yet standardized and written down.

Even though you Jehovah's Witnesses rail against liturgical worship, I wonder, how much basic uniformity would I find in your weekly Kingdom Hall services in terms of what gets done when, when songs are sung, when the Bible is read, when the Watchtower magazines are studied, when preaching happens?

We have no rituals. On the rare occasions when I have had to sit through a Catholic church service, (wedding or funeral) or in speaking to Catholic people about the way they perceive worship, I see people going through the motions of a ritual activity that does not alter from week to week. I see boredom and mindless repetition of words and actions that I cannot find anywhere in Christian scripture.

At our weekly meetings, we study the Bible in a variety of ways with different topics at each meeting. Because the study material is pre-arranged, we have opportunity to do research on the subject and to contribute to the meeting with our comments. Singing songs of praise to God was the custom in both Jewish and Christian religions. It is virtual prayer in song. The Watchtower magazine contains topics for discussion in our weekly meetings. The same topic is discussed in all congregations around the world, meaning that we are all receiving the same instruction from the same source at the same time. This is what creates our unity. No JW believes differently to another JW, so there is no room for disunity or dissension. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

No, we did not use Temple worship as our template. However, almost all of the Jewish Christians were accustomed to synagogue worship, and this formed a very convenient template for Christians to use. For example, the prevailing theory is that Christian singing of the Psalms is derived from how the Jews would practice it either in the Temple or in synagogue worship.

How did the Jews graduate from temple worship to meetings at a synagogue? Three times in the year, Jewish males (often with their whole family) would travel to Jerusalem for the festivals held at the temple there. But for their day-to-day worship, the local synagogue served their needs, whether they lived in Palestine or in one of the many Jewish colonies that were established abroad. No longer living in their "Promised Land" it was wasn't reasonable to worship only at the temple as their ancestors had done, though they traveled long distances to attend the Festivals as commanded.

Originally, the word for “synagogue” simply meant “assembly” or “congregation.” It was used that way in the Septuagint.
In time, though, the word came to refer to the building where people assembled for worship. By the first century C.E., virtually every town Jesus visited had its own synagogue; cities had several; Jerusalem had many. So just like the word "church" leads people to think of a building, so it was with the synagogue. Unlike the temple, the synagogue was a relatively simple building, mostly unadorned where the people gathered for prayer, singing praises to God and instruction in God's word.

This was indeed the pattern for the 'churches' of the first century, but it was not adhered to by apostate Christians.
Jesus said that 'all are brothers', indicating an equality among the teachers. There was never one priest or minister, but a body of older men who had oversight of all the procedures to make sure that order was maintained and inflated egos and false ideas stayed out. That of course, gave way to the growing apostasy as it was foretold.

We've been down this rabbit hole. You cannot in any way prove that the apostasy was complete. We have evidence of a sect called the Nicolaitans, who... shall we say, gave into some of their more carnal urges on a regular basis, and ate food sacrificed to idols. This description matches Jude 4-16.

Let's read those verse and see who fits the description there.....

"My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5 Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those not showing faith. 6 And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7 In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.

8 Despite this, these men too are indulging in dreams, defiling the flesh, despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones. 9 But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” 10 But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.

11 Too bad for them, for they have followed the path of Cain and have rushed into the erroneous course of Baʹlaam for reward, and they have perished in the rebellious talk of Korʹah! 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear, waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

14 Yes, the seventh one in line from Adam, Eʹnoch, also prophesied about them when he said: “Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads 15 to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.”

16 These men are murmurers, complainers about their lot in life, following their own desires, and their mouths make grandiose boasts, while they are flattering others for their own benefit."

The apostasy was complete all right.

Why does that bother you? Romans 1:19-20 says that God's truth is also revealed through His creation.

Whenever Jesus Christ answered a question he never spoke out of his own opinion, he always alluded to the scriptures....he NEVER spoke on his own behalf when teaching the people. He said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.”.....“He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory.” (John 17:16, 19)

This is why Jesus answered the devil's temptations with "it is written".....he was not seeking his own glory even as the son of God, but gave all glory to his Father and the scriptures he had inspired. Men do not have authority to teach what does not come from scripture.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome, all three of whom were handpicked by the Apostles. There is also the text of John 1:1. It doesn't matter how you want to translate that into English, the fact remains that Greek-speaking Christians were using this Greek verse to make arguments in Greek that Jesus is God. If this was a grammatically open-and-shut case in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses' position, then Greek-speaking Trinitarians would have been laughed out of the room for not knowing basic grammar of their own native language.

None of these men wrote a word of scripture Shiranui. And as for the translation of John 1:1, Greek speaking people know that Hellenic culture was polytheistic....they had no word for a singular deity unless it had a name. Collectively the gods were simply called "the gods". The thought of one monotheistic god was not even in their vocabulary.

The word for "god" was simply "theos" and it meant "a divine mighty one" which adequately described all their deities. It described Jehovah and Jesus Christ as well, yet they were not equals.

In the first century, the Jews had long since stopped pronouncing the divine name and had substituted the title Adonai (Lord) for YHWH. The correct pronunciation of divine name was lost over time. When describing the "Lord" Jehovah and the "Lord" Jesus Christ, there was a difficulty distinguishing which "Lord" was being spoken about because in Greek, any 'divine mighty one' was described as a "god". (theos). Hence the Jews were instrumental in confusing the two "divine mighty ones" so that hundreds of years later the trinity was officially adopted out of that confusion. It's still with us, a clear breach of the first Commandment, putting the son in equal place with the Father. (Exodus 20:3)

In Greek, the only way to distinguish which "Lord" was the superior one, was the addition of the definite article (the). So in John 1:1 we see that "the Word was with (the) God (ho theos) and the Word was god" (theos). The definite article is before "THE God" first mentioned, but it is missing from the second "theos", making the Word a "divine mighty one, who was "with THE god", but was not THE God.

 

[Deeje]

Who said they lost it, especially since they've been teaching it for almost 2000 years now? How long have the JW's been teaching it? Specifically, cite exactly when and how they supposedly lost it, plus where your information comes from. Documentation please?

Will the scriptures suffice metis? Its the best documentation I have....

First of all it helps to know what "apostasy" is......It means abandoning or deserting the worship and service of God, actually a rebellion against God and a stepping away from his teachings as outlined in scripture. Some apostates profess to know and serve God but reject or ignore teachings or requirements set out in his Word that are inconvenient. Others claim to believe the Bible but reject the notion of belonging to one united spiritual nation set apart by God.

Take a look at history.......it repeats because we fail to learn from it.

The Jews were a nation dedicated to the service of their God by birth. They had no choice in the matter and if they broke God's laws, there was a penalty administered often without mercy if there was no repentance. Even so, a murderer forfeited his own life to pay for the one(s) he took. If pre-meditation could be proven, no last minute confession or remorse was going to get him off the hook. Justice demanded a "life for a life". If the crime was not considered murder, but accidental manslaughter, even then a penalty still applied.

One could not become a Jew except by birth....but Gentiles could join themselves to God's nation as long as they abided by God's laws and accepted Jewish worship wholeheartedly. No one could bring their false religious beliefs with them. God recognized only one nation as his own.

In Christianity, we have the same rules apply....except that becoming a disciple of Christ was purely voluntary. Accepting all that it meant to be a follower of Christ, meant public baptism, abiding by all of his teachings, and joining oneself to the Christian congregation. (same rules applied for both Jews and Gentiles) It obligated one to follow Jesus teachings exactly, again not bringing any vestige of false worship into the congregation...not even hanging onto the things of the old law covenant. (Romans 10:4; 2 John 10-11)

Jewish Christians eventually left that old covenant worship behind because the Jews had become hopelessly entangled in apostasy because of bad leadership, and were cast off. (Matthew 23:37-39) Their history is all recorded in God's word for a warning to all of us, not to emulate their behavior.

Romans 15:4:
"For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope."

1 Corinthians 10:5-11, in speaking about faithless Jews....Paul said:
"Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the wilderness.

6 Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did.....Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents.10 Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come."

The warning was about a great apostasy to come upon Christianity. What was to happen?

Acts 20:30: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”

2 Pet. 2:1, 3: “There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them . . . Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit words.”

Jesus asked....Luke 6:46: “Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say?”

2 Pet. 2:1: “These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.”

That "speedy destruction" was not the elimination of false Christianity, but the destruction of their relationship with Christ.
When the final judgment comes, it is the reason why Christ says "I never knew you".....he has never recognized the apostate church as his own. (Matthew 7:21-23)

It is clear that what was expected to come, actually happened...as Jesus warned....

Matthew 13:24-30:
“The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”

Notice when the seeds of the devil's weeds were to be sown? "While men were sleeping". This is the spiritual slumber that allowed apostate ideas to infiltrate and contaminate the whole church. You will also notice that firstfruits had already been produced....the first Christians taught by Jesus and his apostles. Then the weeds sprouted. It is not a recent event. Both were to be allowed "to grow together until the harvest" (some 1500 years) because only at the "end times" (the harvest season) would a clear difference be seen. The wheat and the weeds would not resemble one another at all.

It was at this "time of the end" that a 'cleansing and refining' of God's people would take place. God would make an abundance of knowledge available at this time. (Daniel 12:9-10) The very fact that a 'cleansing and refining' were necessary is an indication of the state of God's worship. God said that the wicked would understand nothing.

This is as clear an explanation as I can give metis. I am not expecting an overwhelming response to it but there it is.

It isn't 'judging' to warn people of a clever deception of mammoth proportions that has been perpetuated for many centuries. It is my Christian duty to tell the truth. Even if only one person "gets it"....I will have done my job.

I wish it was you.

 

[Deeje]

So you don't see the journey of the people of Israel through the desert after being freed from slavery in Egypt, finally entering the Holy Land through the Jordan as a typology for the Christian's earthly life of spiritual struggle and obedience to God after being freed from slavery to sin and death? That's one of many typologies that St. John Chrysostom elucidates in his homilies, among other Fathers.

I see types in these events too, but a little different from the one you mention. I see Jesus as "the prophet greater than Moses", leading us through a spiritual wilderness, being supplied with nourishment and sustained by the promise of a better life in a beautiful land....but it isn't heaven. (2 Peter 3:13)
Why was Israel sentenced to wander in the wilderness for 40 years? What was the significance of the number 40 in that instance? What happened when rebels challenged Moses' leadership? There is so much. I don't need John Chrysostom to explain anything.

I have a hunch you might already be aware of this, but I'll explain anyway...

Why was it said that there was light, darkness and the passage of time without the sun, moon and stars? Because it is God Who gives order to the universe, not the sun, moon or stars.

Where will I find that? What is this passage of time without sun, moon and stars? From the scriptures only please.
I see Genesis as stating that God created the heavens and the earth in one powerful act of creation....that would include everything in the heavens....sun, moon, earth, stars.....

Why was there plant life before the creation of the Sun? Because God is the source of life, not the sun.

There wasn't. Read Genesis. "Let there be light" came first. Then a division between day and night. Where do you suppose the light on earth came from at that point? How do we normally tell night from day?

Why was mankind created first in one creation story, and last in the other creation story? To show in both cases the importance of man--important enough to God that He either created mankind first, so he could name all of creation, or that He created mankind last, as the crowning jewel of His creation.

Genesis 1 is the order of all creation.....Genesis 2 is the "history" of man's creation. Not necessarily stated in chronological order.

Why was it said that mankind was created, not just from the earth, but from the dust of the earth? To signify to us that we should be humble before God and in dealing with creation. We, the prize of His creation, were created from the lowliest thing in all of creation. This also ties in beautifully with God's choice of Israel, the lowest and smallest of nations, to be His chosen people. It also ties in with Christ's promise that the first will be last, and the last will be first.

The dust of the earth is the destination of the dead. Humans came from the dust and return there. (Genesis 3:19)
It is a fitting representation of our frailty in our mortal state. (Psalm 103:14) But God designed us to be mortal, making sure that everything we needed to live forever and enjoy this life was supplied in abundance.

God's choice of Israel however, had nothing to do with it being a small nation. It had everything to do with being the descendants of Abraham, through whom the promised seed was to come. By maneuvering Jacob and his entire family into Egypt during a severe famine, (sending Joseph ahead of them,) he ensured that Abraham's descendants would remain in one place and true to their genetic inheritance as Abraham's direct descendants. (Galatians 3:8-9; Genesis 22:18)

There's a difference between "Scripture" and "Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretations of Scripture".

There is also a vast difference between scripture and the Catholic interpretation of it. Having studied the Bible extensively over many years, I know which interpretation fits the big picture.

We are all one in our belief about Who God is. There is a clear consensus among the Church Fathers throughout history. All are unanimous in their testimony of Who Jesus Christ is.

Your god is not my God Shiranui. You worship a trinity of three.....I worship the same God that Jesus worshiped and still worships to this day, even in heaven.

How do you fit three separate entities into one God? The Jews never worshiped such a God. (Deuteronomy 6:4) The other Abrahamic religion (Islam) through Ishmael, does not either.

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and we take that seriously. Apparently you disagree with St. Paul on this matter. Apparently you also disagree with Jesus Christ about His promises to defend the Church and for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

Since it is clear that "many" who identify Jesus as their "Lord" are rejected on judgment day as those that Christ "never knew", I believe that there are many walking around deluded. (Matthew 7:21-23) "Few" he said were on the cramped road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14) Its hard to imagine a cramped and narrow road leading to a gold inlaid palace.

You can't use something to interpret itself.

Oh, but the Bible does it beautifully. Scripture interprets scripture. It proves it is from God, not men.

This notion is the reason that Protestantism has been the most fractious element within Christianity ever since its birth--they got rid of the measuring stick. Sola Scriptura makes the interpretation of the Bible anyone's game. Anyone can arbitrarily decide which passages of Scripture are the ones which should be used to interpret the rest of the books.

The Reformation accomplished one very important thing.....It put God's word back into hands of the people. It broke the power of the Roman Church and allowed people to read the Bible for themselves. The fact that it fractured Christianity into more and more pieces is irrelevant.....it was already broken....and like apostate Judaism before it, nothing was going to fix it. But God's word could now guide the wheat dwelling among the weeds.

So what do you call your observance of the Lord's Supper?

It is an observance of the only command given to Christians. It is not a weekly or daily ritual, it is a commemoration of the most important event in the history of the world. Jesus told us to "keep doing this in remembrance of me". Since it replaced the Passover, we keep it as an annual event, celebrated on the correct date, like an anniversary should be. No Easter bunnies or chocolate eggs, originating in pagan festivals.

Congratulations, you agree with Catholics and Orthodox.

Well, when I have spoken to many Catholic people, it seems as if the church has given them the impression that once absolution is given by the priest, forgiveness is granted and they can pretty much do whatever they like as long as they go to confession and get forgiven again. There seems to be no limit on that. If that is not the case, then why has the church not corrected them?

So there's nothing wrong with going along with the body of evidence and saying that Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than a stake, right?

I know that the cross is ingrained in the psyche of Christendom's churches, but it means nothing to us. Like I have already mentioned, the instrument used is of little consequence.....it was Jesus' blood that gave us the basis for salvation, not the instrument used to murder him. If no images are made in obedience to God's command, then no one has to worry about any of it...do they?

I will see your canned fable that has been disproven over and over throughout the centuries to try and disprove the Catholic Church, and raise you one article straight from the horse's mouth.

What is 'said' and what is 'done' are two entirely different things. An image is an image, whether two or three dimensions. Adoration is worship.....bowing before an idol is idolatry.....the pics say it all. You can deny it all you like...

Duly noted. I'll concede the point about 1 Kings 6. Looks like I learned something new today.

Thank you... I am grateful for small mercies.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ideas concerning the cross, Jesus Adherents only.

Most if not alot of people, especially in Christian churches are taught that the cross came by,started by the Romans,
Which is false, If they go by what is Written in the bible, Scriptures, Christians would find the cross was established back at the time of Abraham and Isaac.

Notice in Genesis 22:7-9, We find Abraham and his son Isaac, We find Isaac saying, the fire and the wood, but where is the Lamb for a burnt offering?

Notice in Verse 9--"And they came to the place which God had told him of, and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood"

Notice in the book of Leviticus 1:7 the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire.

The question is, what is the order in which the wood is to be laid upon the altar , that Abraham put wood in order and the sons of Aaron the priest put the wood in order upon the altar?

In Leviticus 1:8-13,
Note in verse 8-"And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts , the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar.

Note verse 9-"But his inwards and his legs shall be wash in water.

Verse 10-"And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice, he shall bring it a male without blemish.

Verse 11-"and he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord, and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar"

Verse 12-"And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat, and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar"

Verse 13-"But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water, and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar, it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord"

Note that everything being done, both by Abraham and Isaac and the sons of Aaron, are in representing Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God.
Note that the sons of Aaron the priest, wash the inwards and legs with water,

Notice here in John 19:34-"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and out came blood and water"

Note that when Abraham and Isaac went upon the mount, that has Isaac carried the wood on his back, as Jesus carried the cross on his back.
As Abraham gave his son Isaac, God the Father would give his Son Christ Jesus on the cross.

Now as Abraham laid the wood in order and laid Isaac upon the wood and as the sons of Aaron the priest laid the wood in order and laid the lamb on the wood.

Look both the wood and the Lamb and Issac was in representing Christ Jesus laid upon the cross.
Therefore the wood that was laid in order, representing how Christ Jesus was laid upon the cross.
Therefore the wood laid in order to represent the cross of Christ Jesus.

Picture in your mind Christ Jesus on the cross, now look at Isaac on the wood and the sons of Aaron the priest laid the lamb on the wood, which the wood was laid in order like the cross and Isaac and the Lamb was laid upon the wood.

So it was not the Romans who first had the cross, but we can go as far back to Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Aaron the priest who was the first to have the cross.
So the order of the wood was in representing the cross of Christ Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

Picture in your mind Christ Jesus on the cross, now look at Isaac on the wood and the sons of Aaron the priest laid the lamb on the wood, which the wood was laid in order like the cross and Isaac and the Lamb was laid upon the wood.

So it was not the Romans who first had the cross, but we can go as far back to Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Aaron the priest who was the first to have the cross.
So the order of the wood was in representing the cross of Christ Jesus.

You are allowing your imagination to run away with you here.....

It would have been more like this.....

or this as the ram is offered instead

 

[Faithofchristian]

If you notice in Genesis 1:1-"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
It does not say when God created the heaven and the earth, all we see is that in the beginning, So when was the beginning?

Many people will say at creation, but this is not right.
In Verse 2, and the earth was without form,
Notice the word ( was ) this being translated in Greek, means ( became )

So the earth was already there, so what happened that the earth became without form?
You really don't believe that and all powerful God would create the earth without form and void.and Note also that water covered the whole earth. Now why would an all powerful God create the earth and cover it with water.
Since God created the earth, why not just put the water in it's rightful place as it is now,Why go through all the trouble of creating the earth and cover it with water, then have the water recede to bring forth the dry land up out of the water?
Why not just do it in the first place and have it done with, then create the earth and then cover it with water, then have the land come up out of water. Which the land was already there in the first place.

If you notice in Verse 3, God said let there be light, and there was light"

Verse 4-"And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness"

Notice that the sun nor the moon or stars was not created until the fourth day,
Verses 14-19.

So what was this light and darkness in Verse's 3 & 4?
Look light Represents God, and darkness Represents Satan.
God's children are Represented as the children of light and Satan's children are Represented as the children of darkness,night.

Now for the creation of man.
Notice in Genesis 1:26-31,
Note a male and female being created on the 6th day and then God rested on the 7th day Genesis 2:2, then after the 7th day had pass, and then on the day following the 7th day, God created another male and female.
Which is Adam and Eve.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You are allowing your imagination to run away with you here.....

It would have been more like this.....

or this as the ram is offered instead

Your going to have to come up more than what your showing, the wood that your showing has no order to it, only that it's just laid out.
Abraham laid the wood in order. And the sons of Aaron the priest laid the wood in order.
Furthermore Christ Jesus was not just laid on wood as your showing, Christ Jesus was laid on wood, which was in order of the cross.
As was Isaac and the Lamb which was laid on the wood which was laid in order of the cross.
You want people to believe that Jesus was laid out on wood as you show in those pictures, No, Jesus was laid out on the wood of the cross, was Isaac and the Lamb was laid out on the wood like the cross.
You have in your mind what you were taught by man's teachings and not what God teaches in his word the scriptures.

 

[metis]

Will the scriptures suffice metis? Its the best documentation I have....

But the scriptures do not cover the supposed "apostasy" that you say took place by around the end of the 1st century. So, again, where is your supposed source? Like with your position dealing with why "micro-evolution" supposedly cannot evolve into "macro-evolution" that you cannot produce one source for after being asked about four times, please produce your evidence that the church evolved into apostasy, citing sources from that time period-- not just your JW opinion.

Plus, your position makes a liar out of Jesus because he said the church would be guided until the end of time.

First of all it helps to know what "apostasy" is......It means abandoning or deserting the worship and service of God, actually a rebellion against God and a stepping away from his teachings as outlined in scripture.

So, the JW's shouldn't do that. Also, just a reminder that it is the CC that you think is so evil that actually chose the canon of your Bible. It's just one of those "inconvenient facts" you ignore that blows holes in the JW position. If the CC was so much into "apostasy", then why do you use the canon they selected?

Also, the fact is, which you also avoid, is that a typical mass involves prayers to God throughout it, but you say that's not good enough? No prayers to other gods from them. nor the sun. nor to statues. nor to idols. So, apparently John 3[16] simply is wrong-headed to the JW's? Hey, you can't say your believe in the Bible but then ignore what it says on this and also not judging others.

One could not become a Jew except by birth....

Absolutely false, as conversion into Judaism has always been allowed, and by doing so one becomes part of the "family" as if they were born into it. Maybe read the "OT" and see that there are allowances for conversions.

Jewish Christians eventually left that old covenant worship behind because the Jews had become hopelessly entangled in apostasy because of bad leadership, and were cast off.

Oh, so thousands upon thousands of Jews all had sudden brain-farts and forgot about God and worship? There goes your use of stereotypes again, much like you have stereotyped the Catholic church, posting untruths about them and what they supposedly do.

It isn't 'judging' to warn people of a clever deception of mammoth proportions that has been perpetuated for many centuries. It is my Christian duty to tell the truth. Even if only one person "gets it"....I will have done my job.

I wish it was you.

Nice try, but I do think it's very obvious to all reading posts that you have continuously judged different Christian denominations and people, including myself as we see you do above. Obviously, you do not take what Jesus said on this seriously. Maybe take an oath to discuss specific points of disagreement with other denominations and religions, but then maybe leave the judging to God.