Ideas concerning the cross. || JESUS ADHERENTS ONLY.

[metis]

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.

"... all Catholic beliefs"?! Oh, like worshiping God? like praising Jesus? like observing the "Lord's supper"? like baptism? like reading the Bible?

What utter bigotry.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

Baptism is, by definition, a ritual.

rit·u·al
ˈriCH(o͞o)əl/
noun
noun: ritual; plural noun: rituals

1. 1.
   a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.

Yeah, that's a ritual. Baptism is a ritual.

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

Then why does St. John Chrysostom admonish the faithful so adamantly to read the Bible? Why does he say that if Christians don't have the money to purchase an entire Bible, that they should at least purchase one book? Why does he say that if they don't have a Bible, they should go to someone who has it and read it with them? Why does he say that if a man is blind or illiterate, that he should have someone read the Bible to him?

The Roman Church's insistence that the Bible remain in Latin was an aberration of history. St. Jerome, who translated the Bible from Greek into Latin so people in the West could read it in their own language, would have been disgusted.

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.

This is something that the Roman Church has finally begun to correct after centuries of neglect. Multiple Popes and Catholic theologians have urged parishes to return to the normative practice of having both the bread and wine at Mass to be consecrated. The Eastern Churches have always had both.

I see boredom and mindless repetition of words and actions that I cannot find anywhere in Christian scripture.

This might help you see just how Biblically-rooted the Mass is: http://www.companionscross.org/sites/default/files/The Mass in Scripture.pdf

This was indeed the pattern for the 'churches' of the first century, but it was not adhered to by apostate Christians.

The overall format of worship has remained largely unchanged by Christians. Synagogues were, however, often decorated with frescoes of Biblical scenes. The synagogue at Dura Europos is a good example.

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.

And you cannot prove this from Scripture.

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

The apostasy was complete all right.

I'm not sure if you read this passage at all. If you read the passage, you would be able to see that this is specifically talking about Antinomians and Nicolaitans, i.e. people who thought that, because Jesus fulfilled the Law and "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" to quote St. Paul in Colossians 2:14-15, they were then free to do whatever they wanted.This is why St. Paul had to argue so adamantly in Romans 6 and 8 that, even though we were saved, we still had commandments to follow.

To draw out the phrases from Jude 1:4-16 that prove this:

For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. . . 10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.
16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.

IDK how you can read this and say "Yep, this is proof that every single Christian apostasized" or "Yep, this is definitely the Catholics they're talking about, 100%". I don't know about you, but I don't recall seeing Catholics engaging in orgies in church and calling it in line with the teachings of the Church. And I don't recall seeing historians at the time saying "Dude these Christians are pervy freaks, they never stop, even the temple prostitutes are telling these people to have some freaking decency".

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)

You mean except for the time when He gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, or the Parable of the Lost Coin, or the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant?

None of these men wrote a word of scripture Shiranui

But they were taught by those who did write Scripture.

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.

You mean aside from "theos".

Collectively the gods were simply called "the gods". The thought of one monotheistic god was not even in their vocabulary.

You've never read Plato, Socrates, Aristotle or the Stoics, have you? They spoke of only one "God" so often that many Muslims consider Socrates a Prophet sent by Allah to the Greeks.

The word for "god" was simply "theos" and it meant "a divine mighty one"

No, it means "god", not "a divine mighty one". You can't wiggle out of this. "Theology" means "knowledge/study of God/gods", not "knowledge/study of divine mighty ones".

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.

So tell me, how does your Bible translate Romans 8:33?

τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:

There's no article before either "Theos". Should this read "God" or "a god"? Why?

Or what about John 1:14--how do you translate "sarx"? Is it "flesh" or "a flesh"? Why?

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Simply put, the absence of the definite article before the noun does not automatically mean that the noun is indefinite. There are also plenty of cases where a noun without a definite article is qualitative--i.e. the subject has the qualities of the noun to which it is linked.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Shiranui117]

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?

They needed to learn to trust God. This is what we as Christians are learning every day.

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.....

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?

Allow me to refresh your memory:

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
. . . So the evening and the morning were the second day.
. . .
. . .13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19

As we clearly see, first God created night and day. And only three days later did He create the sun, moon and stars.

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.

I could say the exact same thing. The thing about Sola Scriptura is, there's no way to prove which one of us is right. Even Satan can quote Scripture.

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.

That passage says that God is one. We Trinitarians wholeheartedly agree.

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

"If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." You know what, I think that's a pretty clear-cut verse. I think I'll use this as the lens through which I should interpret the rest of the Bible. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, right? I feel led by the Holy Spirit to conclude that my interpretation is correct. You're not going to question the Holy Spirit, are you?

I'm feeling led by the Holy Spirit to also feel that maybe I should look at Revelation 20:12, where it says that the dead are judged by their works. This is a clear verse. This means that I save myself by virtue of my own actions. Fits right in with John 5:28, or all the times that God and Jesus tell us to be righteous, to be holy, to do good.

The worst part about Sola Scriptura is, you have literally no way to settle who is right. You cannot use Scripture to prove the above interpretations of Scripture wrong. If you take one verse or translation of a verse as your standard, you can explain away literally any verse that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible as being hyperbole, a conditional which doesn't always apply, or poetic language. This is why arguments about the Bible using only the Bible go nowhere, and have never gone anywhere. It's also why people in the Protestant world keep fracturing into smaller and smaller groups, because they can't settle who's really reading the Bible right, so they just split off and form new groups. It's for this reason that so many non-denominational churches have quasi-doctrinal positions of "don't ask, don't tell" and "let's agree to disagree".

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.

The Roman Church's practice of not translating the Bible into the common language was a historical anomaly that the earlier Roman Saints like Sts. Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose would have ripped the Church a new one for. We see in the East how the Bible was always translated into the language of the people. Sts. Cyril and Methodius, when converting the Slavs to Christianity, created a writing system for the Slavs by which they could translate the Bible and the Liturgy, since the Slavs had no writing system (this is the origin of the Cyrillic alphabet, by the way). When the Russians spread the Gospel across Asia and into Alaska, they always translated the Bible and the Liturgy into the language of the people as one of their first steps. If these people didn't have a writing system, they adapted Cyrillic to suit the local language (this is why we have regional variations of the Cyrillic alphabet). Within one generation, Aleutian priests were saying the Divine Liturgy in Aleutian, and the people were reading the Bible in Aleutian.

In addition, Christians in the Middle East have always worshipped in Arabic, Coptic, Syriac or Aramaic, according to the language spoken in the community. The Coptic Orthodox, when spreading Christianity to the Ethiopian Orthodox, made sure that the Ethiopian people had the Bible in Ge'ez or Amharic.

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.

rit·u·al
ˈriCH(o͞o)əl/
noun
noun: ritual; plural noun: rituals

1. 1.
   a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.

Yeah, that's a ritual. The Lord's Supper is a ritual.

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?

The priest will withhold absolution from a penitent if he perceives that there is no actual repentance for sins or no effort to improve. In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, we know that the road to virtue is long and hard, and that we have to die daily to our sins. There is none who is without sin, baptized or not. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is why St. James admonishes us to "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."

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?

So Jesus was crucified on a cross and you have no problem with this idea?

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...

So these people are worshipping each other and committing idolatry?

Spoiler: Big image

 

[Deeje]

Obviously you are in fierce defensive mode metis, and I understand your frustration....so I will just address your points.....for the sake of those people who may be interested.

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?

Since the writing of Christian scripture ceased at the end of the first century with the last apostle John's contribution, (no coincidence) there is no scripture covering the apostasy except as a future event. The only ones writing after that period were the apostates themselves.

And if you read the scriptures supplied to you, you will see that corruption was already beginning back in the apostolic period. After the death of the apostles the weeds took over. History shows us their atrocious descent into self-aggrandizement, disobedience and corruption. Perhaps these things are never told to those good folk attending mass?

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

"The church" is not Roman Catholicism, though I understand that Catholic people are told that. Apostolic succession is a myth. The "church" is the 'faithful' who clung to Christ's teachings, despite what what the church did, and Jesus made sure that the 'wheat' among the 'weeds' had a voice even in those times when they were silenced, like their Master. (John 15:20-21)
God remembers them even if history never names them.

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?

I'm sorry metis, but that is simply not true. The RCC uses a Bible with books that we do not acknowledge as canonical. It is obvious by their content that they do not belong in God's word. Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

Since there was no other "Christianity" in existence for 1500 years, Jehovah can use whomever he pleases to accomplish his will...even his enemies, as he has done in the past. I can assure you that not one word of scripture was written by a Catholic.

Just as Jesus called the faithful out of apostate Judaism, he can do the same with corrupt Christendom.

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus, so if you are part of that group whom Jesus rejects as those he "never knew", then their expectations will not be met. (Matthew 7:21-23) These are the ones who offer Jesus their excuses.....but there are none accepted. You can be a Christian 'legend in your own lunchbox', but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans with the judge of all. If you are happily part of Babylon the great, then God says you will share in her fate. (Revelation 18:4-5) All of the RCC's doctrines come from Babylon, not Christian scripture. That is what I have learned through research.

 

[Deeje]

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?

Repetitive prayers are meaningless. Just before the "Our Father" prayer, Jesus warns us not to say the same things over and over again. (Matthew 6:7)
Would you like your children to talk to you that way?

Or are simple words from the heart more precious?

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.

Read John 3:16 carefully metis.
"For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (Douay)

Those who "believe" in Jesus have to be "doing the will of God".....what does it mean to "believe"? (James 2:19) What is the will of God? (James 2:18; 26)

I am wondering where I will find a celebration of "mass" in the Christian scriptures? Where will I find a priest officiating in ritualistic worship with incense, or the Lord's supper being celebrated weekly among the first Christians?

Where will I find crucifixes or any other images used by the first Christians?

Straight after the prohibition on images Jehovah said.....
"5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:5-6 Douay)

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.

"All of a sudden"? Are you serious? The whole of the Hebrew scriptures are a history of Jewish excursions into false worship and God's punishment of them, starting with the golden calf incident. Chastened by the punishment, they repent and return to true worship, only to lose the plot again. How often is this repeated? The Jews stereotyped themselves as a nation under often corrupt leaders. They never learned from the mistakes of their forefathers, as Jesus said. (Matthew 23:37-39) They dealt with God's prophets by either ignoring or killing the ones sent to correct them. In these last days, Christendom has gone exactly down exactly the same path. And in the same manner as the people of Noah's day, just as Jesus said they would. (Matthew 24:37-39)
Only the "blind" will not see it. (2 Corinthians 4:4-5)

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.

I am telling the truth as I understand it metis. These are the conclusions I have reached after years of study and teaching. Jesus and his apostles exposed religious error whenever they encountered it. It is a Christian's duty to warn others who may be seen to be going down a wrong path. They are free to ignore the warning...but the consequences are clearly stated. Failure to sound a warning makes one culpable. (Ezekiel 3:20-21)

Today, we have access to so much information, it's mind boggling. But I believe that God will "draw" right hearted ones to his truth (John 6:44).....the rest can believe whatever they like. He will not chase after them.

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.

Anyone is free to discuss such points metis. The judging of who will gain salvation belongs to Jesus, but the judgment about what to accept as truth is all ours. Informed choice is what we all need to make. Its decision time. (James 1:5-8)

 

[Deeje]

Baptism is, by definition, a ritual.

Whose definition? Not ours. Our baptism is full immersion and has a different meaning to the sprinkling of a bit of water on an infant's head.

Then why does St. John Chrysostom admonish the faithful so adamantly to read the Bible? Why does he say that if Christians don't have the money to purchase an entire Bible, that they should at least purchase one book? Why does he say that if they don't have a Bible, they should go to someone who has it and read it with them? Why does he say that if a man is blind or illiterate, that he should have someone read the Bible to him?

The Roman Church's insistence that the Bible remain in Latin was an aberration of history.

It wasn't the Bible per se that was banned, but any "unauthorized" translation, particularly any that exposed the erroneous teachings of the church and was therefore considered "anti-Catholic".

Some of the rulings are here listed.....

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Men like Wycliffe and Tyndale are of course heroes in the eyes of those who recognize Catholic interpretation of scripture as erroneous. We have many translations of the Bible these days, and are free to make up our own minds about them, also having access to a lot of sites that delve into translation matters. There is no excuse for laziness or ignorance anymore.

This might help you see just how Biblically-rooted the Mass is: http://www.companionscross.org/sites/default/files/The Mass in Scripture.pdf

You do understand that this is a ritual recitation of all this stuff? What is it supposed to do for those who want Bible instruction and some spiritual stimulation. I can think of nothing more boring if this is all Catholic mass delivers, especially if you have the same person droning on every week. The Catholic people I have spoken to over the years seem to see it as some sort of duty to attend mass, not something they a actually enjoy.

Our meetings are varied and instructive and interactive......nothing repetitive and boring every week. We have a variety of speakers from different congregations who speak on a different Bible topic each week. We train for the ministry in our mid week meetings, but Bible instruction is always the basis for everything. We have to know what we believe and why we believe it if we are going to impart the Bible's message to others, as Jesus instructed. (Matthew 28:19-20).

The overall format of worship has remained largely unchanged by Christians. Synagogues were, however, often decorated with frescoes of Biblical scenes. The synagogue at Dura Europos is a good example.

LOL...The synagogue at Dura Europos is only one example.

There is nothing wrong with tasteful decoration, even of depicting Bible scenes....this is not however the same as images that are given devotion in worship, as seen in Roman Catholicism.

And you cannot prove this from Scripture.

LOL...I hate it when you say that because now I have to do exactly that....

When the divisive issue of circumcision was being debated in the congregations, Jewish Christians were trying to impose circumcision on Gentile believers. How did they solve this very emotive issue? They consulted the older men and the apostles in Jerusalem. The account is in Acts 15, but let me just isolate the point of a body of elders who were not priests.....

"Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to send chosen men from among them to Antioch, along with Paul and Barʹna·bas; they sent Judas who was called Barʹsab·bas and Silas, who were leading men among the brothers. 23 They wrote this and sent it through them:

“The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch,Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! (Acts 15:22-23)

Elders were the appointed teachers and shepherds in the congregations. They had to have spiritual qualifications, including being the husband of one wife. All Christians who were anointed with holy spirit anticipated becoming priests in God's heavenly kingdom, but not whilst they were in the flesh. It required a resurrection. (Revelation 20:6)

IDK how you can read this and say "Yep, this is proof that every single Christian apostasized" or "Yep, this is definitely the Catholics they're talking about, 100%". I don't know about you, but I don't recall seeing Catholics engaging in orgies in church and calling it in line with the teachings of the Church. And I don't recall seeing historians at the time saying "Dude these Christians are pervy freaks, they never stop, even the temple prostitutes are telling these people to have some freaking decency".

I don't think I ever said that. There were always "wheat" among the "weeds" as Jesus said. They were to grow together until the harvest when a separation was to be made and the weeds clearly identified and dispatched.

As far as the immorality is concerned you do not need me to tell you of the extent of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and even nuns, in Catholic churches and orphanages all over the world. My grandmother knew a nun in England who was told she was married to the church and this gave the bishop the right to have 'marital relations' with her. She was told about a lime pit out the back of the nunnery where unwanted babies born of this immorality were disposed of. It is apparent that some men of the cloth used scripture to justify their immoral leanings. Apparently, nun's habits were sometimes used to hide pregnant bellies.

Immorality is something that takes place in all organizations, but those who represent Christ are especially reprehensible, especially when it seemed to be endemic in the whole system, not just isolated incidents. The priesthood became a haunt for homosexuals and pedophiles because they had access to children and other men with the same leanings....and the church turned a blind eye.

You mean except for the time when He gave the Parable of the Good Samaritan, or the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, or the Parable of the Lost Coin, or the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant?

He said that ALL of his teachings came from his Father.....including his illustrations.

But they were taught by those who did write Scripture.

And deviated from them as it was foretold. A little at first, then a little more and a little more and before long, you had nothing resembling anything Christ taught.

You mean aside from "theos".

They had one word. It meant a deity. The equivalent in Hebrew was "Lord"...a title they used for both God and Christ. There was no way to distinguish which was which except by the use of the definite article. In John 1:1 both Jehovah and Jesus were differentiated because they were both mentioned in one verse.

You've never read Plato, Socrates, Aristotle or the Stoics, have you? They spoke of only one "God" so often that many Muslims consider Socrates a Prophet sent by Allah to the Greeks.

Not the same.

No, it means "god", not "a divine mighty one". You can't wiggle out of this. "Theology" means "knowledge/study of God/gods", not "knowledge/study of divine mighty ones".

So tell me, how does your Bible translate Romans 8:33?

τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:

There's no article before either "Theos". Should this read "God" or "a god"? Why?

Or what about John 1:14--how do you translate "sarx"? Is it "flesh" or "a flesh"? Why?

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Simply put, the absence of the definite article before the noun does not automatically mean that the noun is indefinite. There are also plenty of cases where a noun without a definite article is qualitative--i.e. the subject has the qualities of the noun to which it is linked

When there needs to be a differentiation, the article is used.
In John 1:14...."So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth."

This is in keeping with John 1:1 where it says that the Word was "with" (the) God. It was the Word who became flesh, not (the) God.

John 1:18 backs this up even further...."No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god (theos) who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." Since the true God, is an eternal being, he cannot be "begotten" (needing a begetter) so the son is an "only begotten theos". (Revelation 3:12) But he is not God Almighty.

 

[Shiranui117]

Whose definition? Not ours. Our baptism is full immersion and has a different meaning to the sprinkling of a bit of water on an infant's head.

Did you even read the definition that I posted? Here it is again, from Oxford Dictionary:

"A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order."

Look at the definition above. Look at the practice of baptism. Now look at the definition again. The practice of baptism (yes, even when you guys do it) is a ritual. Ritual doesn't mean "meaningless going-through-the-pagan-apostate-motions". Ritual means "A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order." And baptism falls completely under that definition.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

This was only a thing because of the Albigensians, a neo-Gnostic group in the area at the time who preached (among other things) that both the material universe and marriage are evil, and made biased, dishonest translations of the Bible to try and bolster their arguments.

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

I just searched the entirety of the decrees of the Council of Constance, and nowhere is John Wycliffe condemned for translating the Bible into the language of the common man. He is, however, condemned for having taught a variety of things, such as the notion that every creature and everything is God, that every single one of us is running on a pre-determined script and therefore we have no free will--those who are scheduled to be damned are going to be damned without a chance to repent or change their destiny, that universities and schools are as helpful to the Church as is Satan (i.e. not at all), that God cannot destroy anything or increase or diminish the world and can only create a certain number of souls, and that every being is everywhere, because every being is God.

You do understand that this is a ritual recitation of all this stuff? What is it supposed to do for those who want Bible instruction and some spiritual stimulation.

Did you even read the link where literally almost every line and action of the Mass is linked to Scripture?

I can think of nothing more boring if this is all Catholic mass delivers, especially if you have the same person droning on every week.

The Mass offers the faithful the very Body and Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11), and participation in the heavenly Liturgy that Christ presides over as the true High Priest in Heaven.

The Catholic people I have spoken to over the years seem to see it as some sort of duty to attend mass, not something they a actually enjoy

Of course it's our duty to worship God. Even you must admit that. There are certainly many who also don't place their faith at the top of their priority list, but this is to be expected. Even you guys probably see the same issue.

Our meetings are varied and instructive and interactive......nothing repetitive and boring every week. We have a variety of speakers from different congregations who speak on a different Bible topic each week. We train for the ministry in our mid week meetings, but Bible instruction is always the basis for everything. We have to know what we believe and why we believe it if we are going to impart the Bible's message to others, as Jesus instructed. (Matthew 28:19-20).

So how much praying, singing and worshipping do you actually do? Isn't worship the whole point of coming together as a community in Christ? It seems you view Bible study as more important than worshiping God.

There is nothing wrong with tasteful decoration, even of depicting Bible scenes....this is not however the same as images that are given devotion in worship, as seen in Roman Catholicism.

So do you view the Jewish reverence for the Torah as worshiping the Torah? Do you view two judoka bowing to each other before a match as them worshiping each other? If not, then why on God's green earth do you insist that Catholics worship statues and icons when we insist very clearly that we don't worship them, that worshiping anything but God is idolatry, and that we're merely showing respect to these things as a show of respect to the people depicted?

LOL...I hate it when you say that because now I have to do exactly that....

When the divisive issue of circumcision was being debated in the congregations, Jewish Christians were trying to impose circumcision on Gentile believers. How did they solve this very emotive issue? They consulted the older men and the apostles in Jerusalem. The account is in Acts 15, but let me just isolate the point of a body of elders who were not priests.....

"Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to send chosen men from among them to Antioch, along with Paul and Barʹna·bas; they sent Judas who was called Barʹsab·bas and Silas, who were leading men among the brothers. 23 They wrote this and sent it through them:

“The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch,Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! (Acts 15:22-23)

Elders were the appointed teachers and shepherds in the congregations. They had to have spiritual qualifications, including being the husband of one wife. All Christians who were anointed with holy spirit anticipated becoming priests in God's heavenly kingdom, but not whilst they were in the flesh. It required a resurrection. (Revelation 20:6)

Yes, and this pattern of having a council to decide important matters is used by the Catholics and the Orthodox to this day.

You STILL haven't shown me one single verse of Scripture which one can logically take to conclude that the whole entire Church fell away and became utterly overrun with apostasy. You can't, because that verse doesn't exist.

I don't think I ever said that. There were always "wheat" among the "weeds" as Jesus said. They were to grow together until the harvest when a separation was to be made and the weeds clearly identified and dispatched.

But they never wrote or said anything, and nobody ever commented on these strange folk who didn't have liturgy, refused to give any sign of societal respect, and insisted that Christians should use the Bible alone, and claimed that the Trinity is an apostate belief.

As far as the immorality is concerned you do not need me to tell you of the extent of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and even nuns, in Catholic churches and orphanages all over the world. My grandmother knew a nun in England who was told she was married to the church and this gave the bishop the right to have 'marital relations' with her. She was told about a lime pit out the back of the nunnery where unwanted babies born of this immorality were disposed of. It is apparent that some men of the cloth used scripture to justify their immoral leanings. Apparently, nun's habits were sometimes used to hide pregnant bellies.

Immorality is something that takes place in all organizations, but those who represent Christ are especially reprehensible, especially when it seemed to be endemic in the whole system, not just isolated incidents. The priesthood became a haunt for homosexuals and pedophiles because they had access to children and other men with the same leanings....and the church turned a blind eye.

Obviously, abuses can and do happen. The Church is full of sinners. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have these same issues--every organization on the face of the planet does, as you said. The difference is that the Nicolaitans who are being warned against in Jude 1:4-16 believed that adultery, fornication, sexual perversion and every bodily appetite were A-OK for all Christians to do, because Jesus got rid of the Law.

Yes, there were mistakes made by the hierarchy regarding the abuse scandals. The Popes have been making mea culpa speeches ever since on behalf of the Church, and necessary adjustments have been made to church bylaws to help ensure that this travesty never repeats itself

He said that ALL of his teachings came from his Father.....including his illustrations.

That wasn't your claim. You said that all of Jesus' teachings came from the Scriptures. Don't move the goalposts on me, now.

 

[Shiranui117]

And deviated from them as it was foretold. A little at first, then a little more and a little more and before long, you had nothing resembling anything Christ taught.

And you cannot prove that this happened from Scripture, for much the same reason as you gave Metis--the New Testament was basically done being written by about 95 AD for the most part. In another thread, you said that you don't need history to prove your points--only the Bible. Are you now starting to see the limitations of your position?

They had one word. It meant a deity. The equivalent in Hebrew was "Lord"...

Something tells me you don't know basic Greek vocabulary relating to this discussion. "Kyrios" is the Greek equivalent for Hebrew "Adonai". "Theos" is the Greek equivalent for Hebrew "Elohim".

There was no way to distinguish which was which except by the use of the definite article. In John 1:1 both Jehovah and Jesus were differentiated because they were both mentioned in one verse.

You dodged my question, so I'll ask again: How does your Bible translate Romans 8:33?

τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:

Note the lack of a definite article in the first instance where "Theos/Theon" is mentioned. Should this be rendered as "God" or "a god", and why? How do we know, grammatically speaking?

When there needs to be a differentiation, the article is used.

What about all the times where there is no differentiation needed, but the definite article is still used? I could bring up literal boatloads of examples where this is done. The sheer amount of times that this happens completely invalidates this particular argument of yours.
In John 1:14...."So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth."[/QUOTE]You ignored my question. Shouldn't "sarx" be rendered as "a flesh" since there is no definite article? If it should be rendered instead as "the Word became flesh", would it not be because the word "flesh" in this instance is a qualitative noun, i.e. a noun which signifies qualities about the subject?

John 1:18 backs this up even further...."No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god (theos) who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." Since the true God, is an eternal being cannot be "begotten" (needing a begetter) so the son is an "only begotten theos". (Revelation 3:12) But he is not God Almighty.

But looking at the Greek for John 1:18 again:

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Should this not therefore read "No one has seen a god at any time"? Additionally, I thought you said that whenever God and Jesus are both mentioned, that God gets the "theos" with the definite article, whereas Jesus doesn't? This is a total reversal of what you said--if the verse translates as you claimed, then it's God Who's getting the theos without the article, and Jesus is getting the definite article!

 

[Deeje]

Did you even read the definition that I posted? Here it is again, from Oxford Dictionary:

"A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order."

Look at the definition above. Look at the practice of baptism. Now look at the definition again. The practice of baptism (yes, even when you guys do it) is a ritual. Ritual doesn't mean "meaningless going-through-the-pagan-apostate-motions". Ritual means "A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order." And baptism falls completely under that definition.

Your church might have a ritual concerning baptism, but for us it is a public declaration before witnesses that one has made a dedication to serve Jehovah as a disciple of his son. It happens after a lengthy study of God's word for a student and full comprehension of what baptism entails. I don't see this in Catholicism.

If you Google Catholic baptism, the images that come up are invariably of infants, none of whom can be disciples (students) old enough to be taught to make a dedication to God. No one can do that by proxy. It has to be a personal commitment.

This is not baptism.

The odd picture that comes up of an adult getting baptized in a Catholic church is like this....

This makes a mockery of the meaning of baptism and its full symbolism. Only complete immersion fits the criteria.
Jesus set the example by his own baptism. The verb "baptize" means “to immerse,” or dip under water.

Matthew 3:13-16:
"Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him....... After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him."

Jesus made baptism a requirement for his followers.
“Go......and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them.”

Did you even read the link where literally almost every line and action of the Mass is linked to Scripture?

It doesn't matter. Mindless repetition even of scripture was not part of Jesus' ministry or worship. Just before giving the "Our Father" prayer he said not to repeat the same thing over and over. He did not say "pray this prayer" He said "pray this way"......Besides, mass is Catholic interpretation of scripture, which I reject entirely.

The Mass offers the faithful the very Body and Blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11), and participation in the heavenly Liturgy that Christ presides over as the true High Priest in Heaven.

Whoa

.....it is against God's law to eat human flesh and to drink the blood of any creature....let alone Christ's.

If you do not understand that what Jesus said was symbolic, then the literal take on that is just repulsive! Partaking of the emblems on Passover night by the apostles, was symbolically being received into the new covenant....to accept the same life course and death as Jesus. Since it was Jesus himself offering the bread and wine, it clearly was not his literal flesh and blood being given to his apostles.

Of course it's our duty to worship God. Even you must admit that. There are certainly many who also don't place their faith at the top of their priority list, but this is to be expected. Even you guys probably see the same issue.

Our faith is at the top of our priority list...if it wasn't then we could not call ourselves Christians. (Matthew 6:33) We try to be imitators of Christ, who always put God's things first. It didn't mean that he had no time for anything else.....it was balanced with the other necessary things in life. This is the meaning of our baptism......it is a symbolic death to our former selfish course in life, and a resurrection to the doing of God's will first in all things. Selfish pursuits take a back seat.

So how much praying, singing and worshipping do you actually do? Isn't worship the whole point of coming together as a community in Christ? It seems you view Bible study as more important than worshiping God.

That goes without saying as singing and prayer were an integral part of Christian and Jewish worship. We have our own music which reflects our own beliefs. But the Bible forms the basis for all our meetings....I love our songs.

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

So do you view the Jewish reverence for the Torah as worshiping the Torah? Do you view two judoka bowing to each other before a match as them worshiping each other? If not, then why on God's green earth do you insist that Catholics worship statues and icons when we insist very clearly that we don't worship them, that worshiping anything but God is idolatry, and that we're merely showing respect to these things as a show of respect to the people depicted?

If one knows the difference between obeisance and worship, (its the same word, "pro·sky·neʹo" but the context determines its translation) then there is no mistaking the difference. The defining thing is that only humans merit obeisance (respectful honor) and only God deserves our worship. Any reverence for a lifeless image is idolatry.

You STILL haven't shown me one single verse of Scripture which one can logically take to conclude that the whole entire Church fell away and became utterly overrun with apostasy. You can't, because that verse doesn't exist.

Indeed, because the Christian scriptures were finalized before the apostasy got into full swing. It was spoken about as a future event from their time, but a not too distant future.

But they never wrote or said anything, and nobody ever commented on these strange folk who didn't have liturgy, refused to give any sign of societal respect, and insisted that Christians should use the Bible alone, and claimed that the Trinity is an apostate belief.

There were no strange folk who collectively did as you describe. They were individuals who often bravely spoke up and were cut down as heretics. The wheat were completely swamped by more numerous and powerful weeds....the time for separation would come before Christ's final judgment. We believe that the separation is happening right now. There are only two camps....."sheep" or "goats". We are all either one or the other.

That wasn't your claim. You said that all of Jesus' teachings came from the Scriptures. Don't move the goalposts on me, now.

No, no, I said that Jesus received all his teachings from his Father. He said so himself. He did say "it is written" but who authored the scripture he quoted from?

John 7:15-18:
"And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 Whoever speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him"

And you cannot prove that this happened from Scripture, for much the same reason as you gave Metis--the New Testament was basically done being written by about 95 AD for the most part. In another thread, you said that you don't need history to prove your points--only the Bible. Are you now starting to see the limitations of your position?

I said "I" don't need history to teach me about God....I let the Bible do that.
I let history teach me about events outside the Bible....like the activities of the early church. Pictures are worth a thousand words...aren't they?

Something tells me you don't know basic Greek vocabulary relating to this discussion. "Kyrios" is the Greek equivalent for Hebrew "Adonai". "Theos" is the Greek equivalent for Hebrew "Elohim".

You are right, I was rushing to finish the post before I had to go to my meeting. I stand corrected. Kyrios was thought to have replaced the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint. ("Lord" "Adonai") "Elohim" and "theos" mean "God".

Both are still ambiguous titles when it came to Greek interpretation. If the Jews had retained the divine name there would have been no confusion. There was no valid reason for ceasing to utter it as the Hebrew Bible writers used it freely and reverently.

It appears that Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue....a passage that contained the divine name twice. (Luke 4:16-21) Since Jesus said he had come to make Jehovah's name known, we believe that he would have read the tetragrammaton out loud. (John 17:26)

 

[djhwoodwerks]

You mean the "Church Fathers"?
Whether we profess to be Christians or not, our perception of the God of the Bible, of Jesus, and of Christianity was probably influenced by them. They were the ancient religious thinkers, writers, theologians, and philosophers who have shaped much of today’s “Christian” thinking. But how scripturally reliable are their writings?

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.

Witnesses are taught and believe that, after the last Apostle died, God left the world in darkness, without His Word, without teachers, without truth, until 1914 or 1918 or 1919, whenever the leaders of their org were chosen by God and Jesus.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

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.

But when other people feel the same way, and post quotes of deception from literature that the wt org publishes, they are apostate and part of satans org persecuting the witnesses. Why is it different when witnesses do it?

 

[Deeje]

Witnesses are taught and believe that, after the last Apostle died, God left the world in darkness, without His Word, without teachers, without truth, until 1914 or 1918 or 1919, whenever the leaders of their org were chosen by God and Jesus.

Hogwash.

 

[Deeje]

But when other people feel the same way, and post quotes of deception from literature that the wt org publishes, they are apostate and part of satans org persecuting the witnesses. Why is it different when witnesses do it?

Its for exactly the same reason why some accepted Jesus' teachings and exposure of the corruption of Judaism, and why others wanted him dead. Which side are you on? That is the decision we all have to make in this time of the end. It is my belief that we are all at this moment, deciding our own fate.

 

[Deeje]

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.....

In 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?

Allow me to refresh your memory:

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
. . . So the evening and the morning were the second day.
. . .
. . .13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19

As we clearly see, first God created night and day. And only three days later did He create the sun, moon and stars.

Please note that light appeared on the first day. That light could only come from the sun. The "lights" were not 'created' on the third day, but God said, "let there be lights....to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years".....Since the creation of the universe (including everything in it) had already taken place "in the beginning" and the earth was at first "formless and waste", there was no doubt some kind of barrier that prevented the full light of the sun, moon and stars from being visible on earth. But there was enough light for vegetation to grow because they came before the full appearance of the luminaries.

Genesis 1:12
"And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds." How do these grow without sunlight?

The only thing that creates "night and day" is the sun and earth's rotation. The two "great luminaries" (as seen from the earth) were already in existence, as were the rest of the stars in the universe, but in some way God lifted the cloud mass (or whatever the barrier was,) so that they became clearly visible. The moon has been used for thousands of years in marking off days, years and seasons.

Your reasoning here makes no sense.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Witnesses are taught and believe that, after the last Apostle died, God left the world in darkness, without His Word, without teachers, without truth, until 1914 or 1918 or 1919, whenever the leaders of their org were chosen by God and Jesus.

Hogwash.

Were there any teachers or preachers, teaching and preaching truth from the Bible before your teachers were chosen by God and Jesus to teach the truth?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Witnesses are taught and believe that, after the last Apostle died, God left the world in darkness, without His Word, without teachers, without truth, until 1914 or 1918 or 1919, whenever the leaders of their org were chosen by God and Jesus.

Hogwash.

Since the writing of Christian scripture ceased at the end of the first century with the last apostle John's contribution, (no coincidence) there is no scripture covering the apostasy except as a future event. The only ones writing after that period were the apostates themselves.

And if you read the scriptures supplied to you, you will see that corruption was already beginning back in the apostolic period. After the death of the apostles the weeds took over. History shows us their atrocious descent into self-aggrandizement, disobedience and corruption. Perhaps these things are never told to those good folk attending mass?

Until 1919, or whenever your teachers were chosen by God and Jesus, correct?

Your response to my post that said the exact same thing was, "Hogwash"!

 

[Deeje]

You dodged my question, so I'll ask again: How does your Bible translate Romans 8:33?

τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:

Note the lack of a definite article in the first instance where "Theos/Theon" is mentioned. Should this be rendered as "God" or "a god", and why? How do we know, grammatically speaking?

Context is also a good indicator....

Romans 8:31-34:
"What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us."

Seeing the verse in context, it is clear who is being spoken about. It is evident who "God" is in these verses. No definite article was required to differentiate him from his son. If you remember that there was no trinity back when these scriptures were written, they were not recorded with a distinction in mind, especially to Jews.

You ignored my question. Shouldn't "sarx" be rendered as "a flesh" since there is no definite article? If it should be rendered instead as "the Word became flesh", would it not be because the word "flesh" in this instance is a qualitative noun, i.e. a noun which signifies qualities about the subject?

You also understand that there was no indefinite article ("a" or "an") in Greek, but the Bible is littered with them in English translations. So what?

John 1:14...."So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth."

Sorry but that is a ridiculous argument. Why would an indefinite article even be needed in that verse?

This is speaking about a spirit being coming to earth as a sinless human. "The Word" (Logos or spokesman) was at the Father's side as the beginning of his creation. (Revelation 3:14) He was the "master worker" at his Father's side in bringing everything else into existence. (Proverbs 8:30-31; Colossians 1:16-17) He was the one God spoke to in Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image".

But looking at the Greek for John 1:18 again:

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Should this not therefore read "No one has seen a god at any time"? Additionally, I thought you said that whenever God and Jesus are both mentioned, that God gets the "theos" with the definite article, whereas Jesus doesn't? This is a total reversal of what you said--if the verse translates as you claimed, then it's God Who's getting the theos without the article, and Jesus is getting the definite article!

Context again allows us to see what is clearly stated. "No one has seen God at any time" This is true of Jehovah, as the scriptures indicate that a human in the presence of God would die from the experience. (Exodus 33:20)
But thousands of people saw Jesus, so this is not speaking about him. But next it says...."the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

Someone who is "begotten" has to have a 'begetter' or someone who generated his existence. Since the Father is an eternal being, it is impossible for him to be begotten, but the son, as a created being (Revelation 3:14) who is said to be at the Father's side, did a great job of representing him. The son is a worshiper of his Father, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12) There is no equality with his God, and never was. (John 14:28) He also calls his Father "the only true God" (John 17:3)

Two separate personages are being spoken about in John 1:18, just they are in John 1:1. One is created and seen by many...the other uncreated, never having been seen in person by any human.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

As far as the immorality is concerned you do not need me to tell you of the extent of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and even nuns, in Catholic churches and orphanages all over the world.

"You don't need me to tell you" of the extent of sexual crimes committed by elders and even rank and file witnesses, in kingdom halls and bible studies all over the world! Just look at Australia. How many cases of sexual abuse went unreported and swept under the proverbial rug in your org from 1950 until present just in Australia alone?

Why is it you can bring that trash up about other religions, when it's happening in your own religion?

 

[Deeje]

Were there any teachers or preachers, teaching and preaching truth from the Bible before your teachers were chosen by God and Jesus to teach the truth?

The wheat have been in existence since Jesus chose the Twelve. He mostly used them to write the Christian scriptures. No "scripture" was written after the death of the apostle John. But much was written in the period that follows. There is a reason why it is not included in the inspired Bible canon. No further scripture was needed because what God had recorded, especially in the Revelation, takes us a thousand years into the future.

Until 1919, or whenever your teachers were chosen by God and Jesus, correct?

Your response to my post that said the exact same thing was, "Hogwash"!

Sorry but I think prejudice is fogging up your lenses again.

There is still no scripture that was produced since the end of the first century.

It was Daniel who foretold the 'cleansing, whitening and refining' of God's people in the "time of the end"....a time when knowledge would be "abundant".

Daniel 12:4
“As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and knowledge will become abundant.”

In verses 9, 10......"Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand."

What knowledge is this? And who were going to accept that 'cleansing, whitening and refining'?....not the wicked. They would understand nothing and be given no insight.

To me, it is no co-incidence that Jehovah raised up those who were seeking the truth; not just one individual, but a group of men from different religious backgrounds in Christendom, having individually come to the conclusion that their church's teachings were not scriptural. Over a period of many years, they slowly analysed each doctrine and practice and prayerfully 'cleansed and refined' their understanding of what the scriptures were teaching, as opposed to what the churches were passing off as "Christianity". The vast difference soon became evident. It didn't happen all at once because cleansing, stain removal and refining are processes that take time. They took all the time that was necessary and today the good news they preach as one united global brotherhood has spread to every corner of the world.

Ask yourself why this cleansing, whitening and refining were necessary at this time period in history? It was the time for Christ to begin his rulership and to give his disciples a description of world events that would identify the time when the "last days" began. He gave them all they needed to mount the most extensive preaching campaign the world has ever seen. Read the sign that Jesus gave about his "presence" and understand that his "coming" is a completely separate event. (Matthew 24:3-14) Once you "see" the judge, it will be too late to change course. I believe that that event is not too far away.

All I can say is, I hope you are confident of your position.

 

[Deeje]

"You don't need me to tell you" of the extent of sexual crimes committed by elders and even rank and file witnesses, in kingdom halls and bible studies all over the world! Just look at Australia. How many cases of sexual abuse went unreported and swept under the proverbial rug in your org from 1950 until present just in Australia alone?

Why is it you can bring that trash up about other religions, when it's happening in your own religion?

If you bothered to read, I acknowledged that sexual abuse happens in every organization....we are not immune to the imperfections of men....any more than the Boy Scouts.

It is handled very differently today. The court system no longer requires a victim to face their abuser in court and to go through what was in the past often vicious cross examination. No one could recommend that experience for anyone unless there was proof positive that an offense took place, otherwise the court system, not really interested in justice, could rip the victims apart, often putting them through a worse ordeal than the original offense.

A little balance is required I think.....something you don't appear to have as far as we are concerned. Pity.