Jehovah's Witness=Unbiblical Religion!

[Spiderman]

First of all, it is my opinion that only Jews are Biblical anything.

I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are presently sinning against the Word of God's path of righteousness.

I am sorry. I did not watch the video. Should I?

Maybe watch the first three minutes of the video, and if it isn't doing anything for you, stop watching.​

 

[Spiderman]

No it doesn't. It doesn't say whether that was a good or bad thing...

2 Maccabees 12:46
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

 

[Wildswanderer]

2 Maccabees 12:46
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

This chapter isn't even about purgatory. But I don't want to go down that rabbit trail.

 

[Spiderman]

This chapter isn't even about purgatory. But I don't want to go down that rabbit trail.

It is about deifying the dead so that they become gods of course!

 

[Spiderman]

I meant to say deify, but it came out defying, because I was speaking into a phone

 

[2ndpillar]

Jesus said he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Only the Catholic Church dates back to Christ.

The Roman Catholic church dates back to 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicaea, assembled by the Roman Emperor Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb, who went on to create the false Trinity dogma, which was later degreed the foundational dogma of the Roman Church in 380 A.D. What dates back to "Christ" is Yeshua bestowing the keys of the kingdom to Peter, which was to fulfill the prophet Zechariah 11:17, whereas the shepherd "Cords", was to be the "worthless shepherd", who would not feed, care, or tend the sheep (Zech 11:16), and whose successor, would "fall" in "that day", which is the "day of the LORD" (Isaiah 22:15-25) & (Joel 2:31-32).

 

[Spiderman]

The Roman Catholic church dates back to 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicaea, assembled by the Roman Emperor Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb, who went on to create the false Trinity dogma, which was later degreed the foundational dogma of the Roman Church in 380 A.D. What dates back to "Christ" is Yeshua bestowing the keys of the kingdom to Peter, which was to fulfill the prophet Zechariah 11:17, whereas the shepherd "Cords", was to be the "worthless shepherd", who would not feed, care, or tend the sheep (Zech 11:16), and whose successor, would "fall" in "that day", which is the "day of the LORD" (Isaiah 22:15-25) & (Joel 2:31-32).

The church before Constantine was the same church as the one after constantine, the only difference is the one before was not legal, so it was underground.

They had the same sacraments, the same Bishops , hierarchy, the same mass, the same ordination, they just didn't have the same structures, and the things that come with it , when you make it the official religion of the Roman empire.

 

[2ndpillar]

It is about deifying the dead so that they become gods of course!

The deification of the dead, "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), in the form of their demon spirits, as gods. The demon spirits of the devil, the beast/emperors, and the false prophets are deified/worshipped today per Revelation 16:13, such as in the case of Caesar/Kaiser/Czar, and Sol Invictus, the sun god, whose day of worship is Sunday, per the decree of Constantine in 321 A.D.

 

[savagewind]

The deification of the dead, "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), in the form of their demon spirits, as gods. The demon spirits of the devil, the beast/emperors, and the false prophets are deified/worshipped today per Revelation 16:13, such as in the case of Caesar/Kaiser/Czar, and Sol Invictus, the sun god, whose day of worship is Sunday, per the decree of Constantine in 321 A.D.

Yikes! In a thousand years, the people there might wonder what that means. Pravo!

 

[muhammad_isa]

The church before Constantine was the same church as the one after constantine, the only difference is the one before was not legal, so it was underground.

That's purely an assumption.
It is said that the Church Fathers and tradition show this to be the case, but in reality the key to this lies with Origen, whose original books were destroyed by the Romans during the so-called Arian persecution.

 

[2ndpillar]

The church before Constantine was the same church as the one after constantine, the only difference is the one before was not legal, so it was underground.

They had the same sacraments, the same Bishops , hierarchy, the same mass, the same ordination, they just didn't have the same structures, and the things that come with it , when you make it the official religion of the Roman empire.

Constantine appointed bishops, convened the Counci of Nicaea, financially supported the churches, expelled Arius, established the pagan festival of Astarte as Easter, in place of Passover, at his Council of Nicaea. The "hierarchy" started with Constantine being the Pontifex Maximus, which came by way of Caesar, by way of the head priests of the pagan religion, and has been passed down to Peter's heir the pope, who is destined to "fall", in "that day" (Isaiah 22:15-25). The "bishop" of Rome was not even at the convening Council of Nicaea. As for "ordination", Yeshua said you only had one teacher, leader, and Father. It was the false prophet Paul, who later established teachers, prophets, etc. Before the Council of Nicaea, all you had was chickens with their heads cut off, with many different parchments, and teachings. They were all corralled by the influence of the Roman Army, and told to come up with a uniform code in order to produce order in his empire. Constatine headed the Council, and inoculated his pagan abominations (Rev 17:5) into the new church.

 

[cataway]

@Spiderman
its time to take the blinders off

 

[Spiderman]

Constantine appointed bishops, convened the Counci of Nicaea, financially supported the churches, expelled Arius, established the pagan festival of Astarte as Easter, in place of Passover, at his Council of Nicaea. The "hierarchy" started with Constantine being the Pontifex Maximus, which came by way of Caesar, by way of the head priests of the pagan religion, and has been passed down to Peter's heir the pope, who is destined to "fall", in "that day" (Isaiah 22:15-25). The "bishop" of Rome was not even at the convening Council of Nicaea. As for "ordination", Yeshua said you only had one teacher, leader, and Father. It was the false prophet Paul, who later established teachers, prophets, etc. Before the Council of Nicaea, all you had was chickens with their heads cut off, with many different parchments, and teachings. They were all corralled by the influence of the Roman Army, and told to come up with a uniform code in order to produce order in his empire. Constatine headed the Council, and inoculated his pagan abominations (Rev 17:5) into the new church.

The Bible has an extremely large amount of verses, that don't mean what they say. I met a guy in a mental institution who plucked out his eyes because Jesus said, "if your eye causes you to send pluck it out, better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to have both of your eyes and be tossed into hell, where the worm does not die. "

The Bible told him to pluck his eye out, so he obeyed. The Bible has many verses like that. The Bible says that if you ask anything in the name of Jesus it will be done for you. I asked Jesus for understanding, and he told me the Bible needs to have an authentic interpreter, and the Bible was never supposed to be the soul authority or rule of faith.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is to be the primary authority or primary rule for Faith or theology. There needs to be an authority on Earth that settles disputes on faith and morals. You tell me:

" If the church after constantine, the Catholic church, was different than the church before Constantine, what happened to the church before constantine? What was it called? Where did it go? Did it just up and vanish?"

 

[Spiderman]

@Spiderman
its time to take the blinders off

You need to take the blinders off and stop following the Bible as your primary rule for faith. Where does the bible say to use the Bible as your primary rule for faith?

Jesus Christ left the early followers with a church. He never said to read the bible. He said to listen to the church. Please take the blinders off!

 

[Brian2]

That's purely an assumption.
It is said that the Church Fathers and tradition show this to be the case, but in reality the key to this lies with Origen, whose original books were destroyed by the Romans during the so-called Arian persecution.

The idea that Origen, whose teaching you do not know, had the truth, is the pure speculation, and you have that speculation because you are a Muslim and want to show that Christian teachings became corrupted.

 

[Spiderman]

The idea that Origen, whose teaching you do not know, had the truth, is the pure speculation, and you have that speculation because you are a Muslim and want to show that Christian teachings became corrupted.

Amen! This and many of your posts here, I frubaled! Preach it bro!

 

[savagewind]

You need to take the blinders off and stop following the Bible as your primary rule for faith. Where does the bible say to use the Bible as your primary rule for faith?

Jesus Christ left the early followers with a church. He never said to read the bible. He said to listen to the church. Please take the blinders off!

Here lies the trouble. I found that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow the Bible as their primary rule. It is why I left them. A JW elder told me that I should "trust" the Governing Body" of Jws, so I left. They trust that I left because I had done something wrong and was disciplined for it. They are believing so many lies! The father of the lie is the devil. Is that not so?

 

[Brian2]

Which Scripture?

When Jesus ascended to Heaven after his resurrection, He was no longer a man....”flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.” 1 Corinthians 15:50.

Jesus was resurrected a spirit being 1 Peter 3:18,
He prayed for that, in John 17:5....wanting the same glory he had before his earthly life.

—See 1 Corinthians 15:45

The scriptures that show Jesus rising from the dead with His body for a start.
That body is the transformed and glorified and incorruptible and immortal body that other Christians are said to rise with.
This body is spoken of in 1Cor 15 and the phrase "flesh and blood" is synonymous for corruptible.
1Cor 15:50, the whole verse, says 50 "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
At John 17:5 Jesus does not have to be a spirit to have the same glory he had before coming to earth, but of course when Jesus rose from the dead He did fill all things and become that life giving Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, as well as remain a man with a body, who rose to heaven with that body as a transformed man. He now fill the whole universe (Eph 4:10) as the One Spirit (Eph 4:4) while still remaining a man on the throne of David and mediating a new Covenant. (1Tim 2:5)
1Pet 3:18 For Christ also msuffered2 nonce for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, othat he might bring us to God, being put to death pin the flesh but made alive qin the spirit, 3 he went and qproclaimed4 to the spirits in prison,
This is what Jesus did, as a spirit in hades, between when He died and rose again.
The JWs have a bit of a tangled web on this point of what a human is and what happens after death and what happens in the resurrection.

 

[Brian2]

Defending their countries? As we discussed, Russians have a LARGE NUMBER of people claiming to be Christian. So does Ukraine.

Maybe they all became soldiers to defend their country. Leaders have a tendency to deceive people. Judging the soldiers with the same judgement you might be giving to the leaders is not right and really we don't know the whole story to be able to judge the leaders properly,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if it is tempting to do so.
The JWs take the moral high ground to say how wonderful that religion is, but the truth of the matter is not that straight forward.
But of course I don't want to say that to be politically neutral is wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The idea that Origen, whose teaching you do not know, had the truth, is the pure speculation, and you have that speculation because you are a Muslim and want to show that Christian teachings became corrupted.

I can see why you would think that..
However, Muslims weren't around at the time when Niceans and Arians were "competing" with each other for truth.
Why was it necessary for the Nicean Emperors to persecute Arians and burn books?

Is that what Jesus taught? Have wars over whether Jesus was made of the same substance as G-d or not?

If you can't see that there is something drastically wrong there, I will leave you in your ignominy.