No one says she is your redeemer.Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and blessed among women to have been given that role. She is not my redeemer. Jesus alone is my redeemer.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No one says she is your redeemer.Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and blessed among women to have been given that role. She is not my redeemer. Jesus alone is my redeemer.
Do you agree that the RCC Pope is directed by God and is God's human channel
to Catholics on earth?
The pope is the final teacher with authority. No more. No less. BTW, there has been only one infallible statement made by a pope.
Does the RCC claim to be the only path to salvation?
No.
Does the RCC make claims that they are the ONLY way to salvation?
No.
Why is this so different from what claims you make about J.W.'s and their doctrine?
I don't have a problem with your "teachers with authority," just what they teach.
All we have done is mistake the timing....no biggie.. the apostles did that too. (Acts 1:6)
You need to read beyond the .......Most JW's don't bother. They print what they want to satisfy their beliefs.@Wharton
jeager106 said: ↑
Do you agree that the RCC Pope is directed by God and is God's human channel
to Catholics on earth?
The pope is the final teacher with authority. No more. No less. BTW, there has been only one infallible statement made by a pope.
Does the RCC claim to be the only path to salvation?
No.
Does the RCC make claims that they are the ONLY way to salvation?
No.
Why is this so different from what claims you make about J.W.'s and their doctrine?
I don't have a problem with your "teachers with authority," just what they teach. (Quote)
Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one might read:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith' unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)
"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)" (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . ." (Lat
Re: concerns that J.W.'s change dogma. I see that as clarification when new discoveries are
made about translation errors of the past and there are many. Most notably about
eternal life, living in heaven if a "good Christian", and the notion of Hell, Damnation and
the Trinity.
People seem to have a problem with the GB but not the Pope? I don't get that at all.
The RCC has changed dogma much over it's long history but they say it's merely
a clarification of dogma.
"Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be "re-defined." Yet, in this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not "re-definitions." Rather, they are further definitions and/or clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again, because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change."(Adam S. Miller, Op. Cit., p. 3)
Just word play.
Those that three words; "Truth cannot change." Sure it can is sure as hell :>) can
change.
"The only permanent in life is change."
You need to read beyond the .......Most JW's don't bother. They print what they want to satisfy their beliefs.
Good point.You are absolutely correct about the WT only printing what satisfies their beliefs. Here is an example of one from their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 89. Notice how they stopped their quote from the IBD at an upright pole, if they were to quote the rest of the article they would have destroyed their false teaching of the "TORTURE STAKE". I have attached the next paragraph from the article that the WT don't want JW's to read. It is from the same IBD that the WT used, so it is not apostate material.
*** rs p. 89 Cross ***
Why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross?
The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·rosʹ. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
View attachment 10175
Good point.
I've found that JW's, along with Seventh Day Adventists, use the .......method when quoting sentences not in their entirety.
Yep, I wish they would have printed the entire statement:The notorious ellipsis, the deceivers best tool! And, the JW's editorial department do not even use the correct ellipsis. They use "...." and the correct way is "...", maybe they do know what they are doing!
The notorious ellipsis, the deceivers best tool! And, the JW's editorial department do not even use the correct ellipsis. They use "...." and the correct way is "...", maybe they do know what they are doing!
Are picking the nit of how many periods should be in an ellipsis?
An ellipsis is a series of three or more periods (...) inserted into a sentence to indicate a pause or silence. Ellipses are usually used in dialogue. Ellipses are used today in lieu of other proper punctuation.
From the Urban dictionary.
All Christians are priests. All Christians are baptized. No Scripture calls all Christians prophets or kings. BCV please.You are baptized priest, prophet and king.
BTW, since you are a priest, that implies that you offer sacrifices. What sacrifices do you offer?
Book, chapter, verse please.At that point, you become a "father" that Jesus mentioned in the NT. Or in today's words, you are a self-appointed bishop.
One of your Popes refers to her as co- mediator, co-redeemer and co-advocate.No one says she is your redeemer.
New International VersionWho supplies the humanity of Jesus? Mary. No Mary or any other willing human virgin female, no Jesus. No redemption. No mediator between God and man. So what would YOU call Mary?
BTW, that's Mary's supplied humanity hanging on the cross.
Well, what are the essential beliefs? What's the afterlife like? What will we be doing? Can we become gods? I'm just curious as if the video was wrong then please explain why and where it wasNo, it's certain not.
And not very accurate at all, either. At All.
For starters, the even title "Banned Mormon Cartoon" is beyond ludicrous. The Mormon Church doesn't ban its members from watching anything. If everything in the film was actually taken from Mormon publications, as the producer claims, why on earth wouldn't the Church actually want us to see it. That claim is pure crap. It's a sensationalized distortion of Mormon beliefs. Obviously, people who are into that kind of thing will obvious eat it up.
Secondly, the cartoon itself is a sick parody of Mormon beliefs. It's a mean-spirited caricature of what we believe and is inaccurate in so many respects that it's not even funny. It is brimming over with exaggerations, half-truths and flat out lies. It was produced by people who hate us and would love everyone else to hate us. You obviously want to believe this garbage, so be my guest. If you should ever decide that you would like an accurate, factual picture of Mormon doctrine, stop by the LDS DIR and I'll be happy to fill you in on what we really believe.