Syncretism.....Can Mixing Religious Ideas Lead to the Truth?

[URAVIP2ME]

I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions...................

Yes, personal ' man-made religion '. ( cafeteria style pick-and-choose religion )
Such 'religion' can be traced back to its start in ancient Babylon.
As the people migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their false religious-myth ideas and practices and with fast speed spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
Whereas, Jesus stressed 'pure worship' of his God, his Father - John 4:23-24

 

[Left Coast]

This whole post is full of your own excuses LC....choose your path and you choose your destination. It’s really that simple.

Again...I cannot choose to believe differently than I do. That's not how beliefs work. I agree...it really is that simple.

The clay does not get to dictate to the potter.

When the clay is sentient? Yes actually, it does.

Making your excuses for rejecting God and his requirements, alters nothing.

Nor does baldly declaring requirements for which you have no good evidence. You are projecting after having made thin excuses for the false prophecies of your organization.

Does your government alter its laws to suit their citizens or are the citizens under obligation to comply with the laws as written? Does the fact that they disagree with the laws alter the outcome or the penalty?

In democratic countries, our governments routinely alter the laws that govern us based on what the population wants. If we disagree with a law, we can (and have, many times) change it to conform to our own goals and preferences.

Any country today who would punish its citizens for heresy or other such thought crimes would be almost universally regarded as a human rights abusing authoritarian dictatorship by the developed world.

 

[Windwalker]

“The whore of Babylon” I believe encompasses all religion that embraces Babylonian religious concepts, which makes them all part of “Babylon the great”. Those concepts include a multiplicity of gods (like trinities)....belief in a continuation of life after death (an immortal soul)....and a fiery hell of eternal torment for the wicked.
All religions who teach these concepts are in opposition to the Bible and it’s God which do not teach any of these ideas.

So, you damn the whole world as false and yourself as true? I don't see any issues there.

But again, to remind you, you selective choose what you think is true from this false system, and consider it pure and washed white as snow because you consider your group's views the only true teachings on earth. They may be right about which books they selected to put in the Bible, God approved of that, but the rest God doesn't approve of? That's a rather self-serving interpretation of the facts, don't you think?

You keep referring to Romans 14 as if it somehow makes all of Paul’s other teachings invalid. Paul did not respond culturally to other people’s religious beliefs, he responded in a way that was not exerting pressure to conform to a strict code, the way he had previously done when he was a zealous Pharisee. He could see that fear and punishment was not the way to teach people without any knowledge of Christ to come to him. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

I don't believe Paul contradicts himself. I do however recognize based upon the major consensus of modern scholars that not all of the letters attributed to Paul, were actually written by Paul. You do in fact find contradictions between the earlier, authentic Paul, and the much later pseudo-Pauls, such as in regards to attitudes and beliefs about slavery and the role of women. But authentic Paul, with authentic Paul, there is consistency. I like authentic Paul quite a lot.

As Jew, Paul would never depart from such a strict command from God, in the consumption of any blood. Just as God never wavered from his stand on sexual morality, so he never wavered in his command on blood, which predates the Mosaic Law, and was included in his “necessary” commands for Christians. (Acts 15:28-28) Holy Spirit was behind the decision.

Paul departed from quite a lot of his previous legalistic standards. It seems you are taking that word "necessary" from Luke as something Paul believed was somehow excluded from his otherwise all-inclusive statement made long before Luke, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify." 1 Cor 10:23, and cf. 1 Cor 6:12, 13:

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."​

In other words, he clearly says food and drink are not important. He says sexuality is not bad, but immorality is bad.

Note, that he does NOT include "blood" in this? As far as I know, that only is referenced by Luke, and again, that was a political concession, a compromise with the legalists amongst the Christians who hadn't quite yet fully appreciated Paul's "all things are lawful" stance of Grace. They couldn't handle that. Yet, if Paul really thought blood was to be denied, as sexual immorality was, he would have included that as exceptions. But he did not in his earlier, authentic writings.Nor would that make any sense, as Jesus himself clearly said, it's not what goes into the body that corrupts it, but what comes out of the mouth.

The law was quite clear on the method of slaughtering any animal whose flesh was for human consumption. As long as his people followed that standard, they were complying with his law. It demonstrated respect for the sanctity of life....even of an animal.

And you follow the OT laws regarding all dietary practices? That would be news to me about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I may be wrong, but don't you allow eating pork and shellfish, putting meat and dairy products in the same refrigerator, and allow mixed types of fabrics in the clothing you wear? Selective legalism, is not exactly following the law. As authentic Paul says quite pointedly regarding the following the law as the path to salvation,

"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace"​

Yahweh is a God who has a legal agreement with humans.....that is what a covenant is.....the Jews were under the old covenant with its many laws, and Christians are also under a covenant, a new one that obligates all disciples to obey the teachings and commands of Jesus Christ. It’s not optional, nor can you pick and choose what you want to believe or follow.....God has the standards that he requires from all his worshippers and there is nothing in scripture that invalidates those standards. (2 John 10)

The commandments of Jesus are simple. Love. If you love, you have fulfilled all the law, Jesus taught. So did Paul. That does not mean, if you love God you follow all the letters of the law as if you're life depended upon it. In fact, there is no effort whatsoever. You just don't harm others if you follow the law of love. Not eating pork, or shellfish, or abstaining for meats with blood still it it, has nothing to do with following the ways of love. That's legalism. Not lovism.

There is no requirement for Christians to observe a Sabbath....like circumcision, that was for Jews only. Acts 15:28-29 confirms this.
Gathering for worship with fellow believers was encouraged by Paul. (Hebrews 10:24-25) God’s people have always gathered for worship. Even Jesus attended the synagogue.

That's right, because the sabbath was man for man, not man for the sabbath. Same things for all those laws. They aren't for God. If you follow love, you don't need all those. Not eating pork, has nothing to do with compassion.

 

[Windwalker]

It’s one thing to be different to others in our approach to worship, but another thing entirely to make up your own rules.

As long as you follow the way of Love, I think we all make up the rules as we go. That's what it means to have the law written on your heart. You don't need to follow rules. You write them, guided by Love.

One cannot be a church of one who has themselves as their teacher.

But they may have God as their teacher. Scripture teaches this, that the Spirit will guide you into all truth. I take Spirit, to mean God, not a man who was voted in as the group leader of the week.

The congregational arrangement was outlined clearly by Jesus (in his address to the congregations in Revelation) and also by the apostles who communicated with these congregations by letter.
There were appointed leaders and teachers whom Paul said that the congregation were encouraged to obey. (Hebrews 13:17)
Can you pick and choose Paul’s words to suit your own version of the truth?That seems to be what you are doing...

Ah, the book of Revelation! Another contribution to the canon of scripture from the RCC. You know that book almost didn't make the grade in the voting on it? Again, I'm still surprised you use the Bible the Catholics gave you. That just doesn't make sense, since they are Whore of Babylon. That never made sense to me.

I'm sorry, in my understanding of Christianity, the "church" means the invisible body of believers, not a hierarchical organization dominated by male leadership. I see church as the body of Christ. You see it as a brick and mortar structure.

I believe that God expects his worshippers to conform to his stated truths and standards.

In your responses, "standards" is emphasized again and again. In my responses "love" is emphasised in contrast to that. I believe the latter is what Jesus taught, and why he taught. To correct legalism.

Jesus called Yahweh his God and Father.....but never did he call himself “God”.

"I and my Father are One", seems a peculiar thing for a flesh and blood man to say, if he wasn't identifying himself directly with the Divine. It sure was understood as blasphemy to those who try to kill him for "making yourself God". That's how they heard it, regardless of your own interpretation of what he meant. I wouldn't think John would include that if the point was to say they were wrong in what they thought. Doesn't exactly fit the flow of the story there.

But each can operate independently of the other. There is “God the Father”, “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit”.....How do three separate “gods” fit into one entity?

That's why it's considered a Mystery.

Let's try another Mystery. Do you believe God is Infinite? Do you believe God is outside of Creation? If God is Infinite, then he cannot be outside creation, but fully within every molecule of creation itself, otherwise God is a block of Swiss Cheese with gaps and holes where God does not exist. That makes God finite. Is your God finite? Or it it a mystery to you how that can possibly be true?

How does one part of God pray to his equal self?

Jesus was fully human and fully divine. That means his finite humanness prayed to the Infinite Divine that was both within him, and all the Universe.

How does one part of God have a will different to his equal self? (Matthew 26:39)

The human Jesus has a will of his humanness, just like all of us. No Trinitarian alive claims the human Jesus was God, as God cannot die upon a cross. But the flesh he robed himself in did. Think of Jesus like a skin suit for the Divine, like taking off your bathrobe. I am not my bathrobe, but when I am in it, that's me you're looking at.

And how does one part of God know things that his equal self does not know? (Matthew 24:36)

There is no part of God that doesn't know things. You are talking about the human Jesus, not the Logos of God. These are not challenges.

Not polytheistic? Really? Sounds very polytheistic to me.

Yes, you don't understand it. You don't seem to understand that any Trinitarian can tell you that the human Jesus is not the same thing as the Divine Logos, which is God itself manifesting itself. That's one God, not two gods.

The Jews never knew this god. Strangely, this three headed god did not exist in Christian teaching until the RCC put him into scripture by inference. They even admit that the trinity is not scriptural.

The Jews also didn't not know who Jesus was. Does that mean he's not the Messiah to you? If you make them the final authority on God, that pretty much puts you out of business too.

God is the one who tells us how to worship him...we are not at liberty to decide that for ourselves.

This is so sad. You don't have the ability to just worship from your own heart, with your own voice, with your own expression of faith? Where is the love in this worship? Sounds really dry and formulaic. Very ritualized, and dead.

 

[Deeje]

I understand all attempts to justify beliefs because we all do it, but because there is a ‘diamond’ (wheat) in the current pile of ‘broken glass’, (weeds) we have to have guidance to find the genuine article by those who know what the ‘diamond’ looks like. Only the “wheat” teach the truth.....the rest are created by the devil to confuse and mislead people often giving them what they want by watering down God’s word to achieve success. He can make wrong look right and falsehood look like truth. We are led by our own hearts. No one comes to Jesus without God’s invitation. (John 6:44, 65)

You agree with the Roman Catholic church then, that the theology of the "orthodoxy" they adopted as the standard belief for all Christians? Yet you reject other beliefs from them, but not that one?

In no way is Catholic orthodoxy a reflection of original Christianity.
What happened from the second century onwards was the prolific growth of the “weeds” that Jesus had foretold. By the 4th century, “Christianity” was ripe for the introduction of Roman Catholicism, which was a fusion between weakened apostate Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship, still very much in evidence to this day.

What modern critical scholarship shows is that the "proto-orthodox" view, was one of many competing views in early Christianity. When the church councils debated which texts to standardize, the proto-orthodox groups, which Ignatius represents, went after the competitors and won the day politically, for various reasons. They crafted which texts should belong and be thrown out based upon them supporting what they wanted others to believe.

Yes.....these church councils were not the convening of genuine “wheat” but were the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity spreading their roots out further and further into the world....doing what Jesus said that the Pharisees were guilty of...(Matthew 23:13-15)

In other words, you are accepting what the Catholic church deemed acceptable beliefs, when it comes to your bible today, yet call them the Whore of Babylon? How could Truth come out of that, if that's what you believe?

Nonsense. We have rejected all of Christendom’s false doctrines. It took a great deal of study and prayer to ascertain which doctrines were based on scripture and which were pagan adoptions....it was discovered that the majority of “church” doctrine was not even close to what Jesus and his apostles taught.
All of their inclusions can be traced back to original Babylon.
We do not see the Bible as the work of the Catholic Church because it is God’s word....not a single syllable was penned by a Catholic. All of the Bible writers were Jewish, as were the first Christians in the time when Jesus conducted his ministry.

Catholicism was identified as the “weeds” from the beginning. It was not an immediate jump, but a slow and steady decline into complete apostasy. As the church gained power the inevitable corruption overtook it completely. It’s history is proof enough that Christ has never set foot in that institution. (Matthew 7:21-23) He has NEVER known them. (Matthew 7:16-20)

The “wheat” are still here, preaching about God’s incoming kingdom just as Jesus said they would.....(Matthew 24:14)..and then “the end will come”.

 

[Windwalker]

I understand all attempts to justify beliefs because we all do it, but because there is a ‘diamond’ (wheat) in the current pile of ‘broken glass’, (weeds) we have to have guidance to find the genuine article by those who know what the ‘diamond’ looks like.

I know what the diamond looks like. I've seen it and tasted it firsthand. So in my case, like recognizes like, or put another way, Spirit recognizes Spirit. Love recognizes Love. It also recognizes what isn't.

But even if you haven't tasted the Divine, we all do have guidance anyway. Everyone who calls upon God does, if they look within and surrender their egos. Here's a few verses about that.

"I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you....

If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." "

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;"
​

And so forth. In other words, a true follower of God learns how to listen to the voice of Spirit within their hearts. "Lean not to your own understanding, but trust in the Lord". It's one thing getting Bible lessons from religious salespeople to tell you stuff they believe, but Spirit alone discerns the Truth, not the mind buying into cleverly constructed doctrines of religious men, all of whom have all their proofs for their arguments from the same scriptures. Snake-oil salesmen, most of them, with all their testimonials of the elixir's miraculous power.

Only the “wheat” teach the truth.....the rest are created by the devil to confuse and mislead people often giving them what they want by watering down God’s word to achieve success. He can make wrong look right and falsehood look like truth. We are led by our own hearts. No one comes to Jesus without God’s invitation. (John 6:44, 65)

I agree we are led by our own hearts, when illuminated by the Spirit of God, if we are surrendered to That. I agree religious peddlers can make wrong look right and falsehoods look like truth. Just look at the Evangelicals selling their spiritual inheritance for a mess of rancid orange pottage in believing Trump is God's man of the hour for them. Pure deception from top to bottom, believing in the man of sin, the Liar and father of lies as good, true, and beautiful. They even crafted and worshipped a literal golden idol of him, like the deceived at the base of Mt. Sinai.

It's really easy to discern Truth from lies. "By their fruits you shall know them". Not by their theological beliefs or their particular eschatology. It's really easy to be taken in by all those well-crafted arguments, when you are trying to reason your way into Truth, rather than listening to Spirit. How do you know it's the Truth? Does it bear any of these spiritual fruits? Then you are on track: "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

That's how you know.

In no way is Catholic orthodoxy a reflection of original Christianity.

Sure it is. The proto-orthodox group they came out of represented one of many of the diverse voices of the early church, as history shows us now since the 1940's. You may not like them or agree with them, but that does not mean they are not practicing Christianity. It's just evolved into forms to fit into the cultures they speak to. They accommodated the diversities they sought to win to Christ. Paul himself did that same thing:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Cor. 9:20, ff.​

If anything, their insistence on sameness of beliefs and condemning divergences in views about God, created the very ground conditions for your own group to do exactly the same thing in believing you and you alone are the one true church, and everyone else is wrong and deceived. They taught you, in other words. You are another form of this idea of "Orthodoxy", the "right views" contrasted with all other points of views as heresies. Exactly the same in fact. That is exactly the same. The apple didn't fall far from the tree that gave it birth.

What happened from the second century onwards was the prolific growth of the “weeds” that Jesus had foretold.

Nope. The opposite was true. It started out wide and diverse, and then diversity got choked out of it, by the need to make everyone believe the same things so they could more easily be managed administratively. History supports what I am saying, and denies that traditional "master story" you have accepted from the Catholic church's teaching. That's not what really happened.

Again, this is another example of things your church learned from the Catholic church, which you despise, like an ungrateful child. I'm just saying, your beliefs are simply modifications upon traditional Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, just underneath the Protestant umbrella, who themselves were born out of Catholicism. The Christian West, includes them and you and all other American based versions of Christianity.

You were not created in a vacuum. Most of what you believe, comes from them.

By the 4th century, “Christianity” was ripe for the introduction of Roman Catholicism, which was a fusion between weakened apostate Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship, still very much in evidence to this day.

I have this very distinct impression that your ideas of history and the church are greatly influenced by Alexander Hislop's, Two Babylons book, published as a pamphlet in 1858 and in print in 1914 (very contemporaneous with the birth of the JWs). The church I was in loved to use that and this one based upon it to show how that they were the truth and Catholicism was the Whore of Babylon:

https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Myst...69288&pd_rd_wg=fCE9G&pd_rd_i=091693800X&psc=1

I actually still have that book!

Most of that has been resoundingly debunked as crap, and even the author of the book I got when I was part of that church that saw themselves as the restored church in the last days (sound similar?), wrote a later book refuting himself because Hislop was a bad historian! https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Connection-Ralph-Woodrow/dp/0916938174

If you want to bother to test your ideas, if this is your organizations shoddy source, then even other conservative and fundamentalist groups all call Hislop's work unreliable and fanciful. ''The Two Babylons'' - Conservapedia

All told, most everything you are saying in this post and others, sounds like it's straight out of the shoddy work of Two Babylons. Not even other fundamentalists cite that anymore because they know it's nonsense. That says something. It has to be really bad for fundamentalists to actually admit they got something wrong!!

Yes.....these church councils were not the convening of genuine “wheat” but were the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity spreading their roots out further and further into the world....doing what Jesus said that the Pharisees were guilty of...(Matthew 23:13-15)

What the Pharisees were guilty of was putting the law ahead of compassion. Legalism in other words. Something that defines most fundamentalist groups. Jesus would see them today in exactly the same light as he saw the Pharisees back then. Different age, different religion, exact same actors.

Nonsense. We have rejected all of Christendom’s false doctrines. It took a great deal of study and prayer to ascertain which doctrines were based on scripture and which were pagan adoptions....it was discovered that the majority of “church” doctrine was not even close to what Jesus and his apostles taught.
All of their inclusions can be traced back to original Babylon.

According to Hislop?

 

[Windwalker]

We do not see the Bible as the work of the Catholic Church because it is God’s word....not a single syllable was penned by a Catholic.

This is pure circular logic. Who gave you the Bible? God? Did God order the Catholic Church councils which books to include and which to reject? No. It was the various bishops who debated and voted on what to include or not include. That's how your bible came to be. From them.

Are you saying God directed them miraculously, gracing them with Spirit's guidance in this one area, but not the rest? Can you explain how you believe the Bible you have came into being, if not in the way I just explained?

As I see it, you embrace the work they did compiling the books of the Bible, but call them the Whore of Babylon the rest of the way. You may as well say, Satan gave us God's Word. That's the logic of this.

All of the Bible writers were Jewish, as were the first Christians in the time when Jesus conducted his ministry.

And it was all much-later Catholic Christians who selected which writings to include in the Bible you that should call God's word.

Catholicism was identified as the “weeds” from the beginning.

It was? By whom? Where?

It was not an immediate jump, but a slow and steady decline into complete apostasy.

Not so. This is not what history shows us in a modern age. Back before the invention of the horseless carriage, maybe, but not since the mid 1900's. We have more information about early Christianity today than we did back when my great grandfather was a blacksmith making horse bridles for a living.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

........Nor does baldly declaring requirements for which you have no good evidence.................
In democratic countries, our governments routinely alter the laws that govern us based on what the population wants. If we disagree with a law, we can (and have, many times) change it to conform to our own goals and preferences......

I find in the Bible that God's requirements (old Hebrew Scriptures) are what Jesus based his teachings.
Jesus regarded the OT as evidence because of the good it would produce through Jesus.
Jesus did Not live in a democratic (people ruled) country, but under a theocratic (God Ruled) country.
No, Not the modern-day theocracy of clergy rule or rule by clergy class but the theocracy of Daniel 2:44.
When Adam broke God's theocratic rule or law, thus Adam set up people rule as superior to God Rule.
The political world scene today is the final result of man's rule as being the superior way.
Showing that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury.
Man's own goals or preferences have brought us to these last days of badness on Earth - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is pure circular logic. Who gave you the Bible? God? Did God order the Catholic Church councils which books to include and which to reject? No. It was the various bishops who debated and voted on what to include or not include. That's how your bible came to be. From them.............

Bishops ? Huh? No. It is the ' ancient manuscripts ' which support or give us Bible canon.
The 'bishops' aka church did recognize the 1st century Bible books considering them as the authoritative Word from God, thus Bible canon was established early on the first-century stage, so all the ' church' had to do was to merely testify as to what was already accepted in first-century writings.
The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' harmonious Bible books.

What came to be from the 'bishops' is what developed as 'Christendom' (so-called Christian but mostly in name only)
The MANY that Jesus forewarned us about at Matthew 7:21-23

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions.

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

I would ask, does not the same thing happen within a Faith when man blends their own ideas and create sects?

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

Psalm 83:18 "That they may know that You alone, whose name is the Lord, Are the Most High over all the earth."

So we either beleive God is the One God over all the Earth, which in turn can be found in all that Man has experienced, or we choose to see our Faith is exclusive to all others.

Could it be we can only find the One God, only when we embrace the diversity the world offers?

Regards Tony

 

[Windwalker]

Bishops ? Huh? No. It is the ' ancient manuscripts ' which support or give us Bible canon.

Who chose which books to include in the NT canon? The JWs, or the Catholic church?

The 'bishops' aka church did recognize the 1st century Bible books considering them as the authoritative Word from God, thus Bible canon was established early on the first-century stage, so all the ' church' had to do was to merely testify as to what was already accepted in first-century writings.

What are you talking about? Many of them were not included in the canon, and some where. Plus, some weren't even written in the 1st century. The Catholics may not have written the texts, but they did select which ones to include, and which ones to reject. How do you know they chose the right ones, and didn't the burn good ones? Do you believe God guided them? Did God oversee the canonization of which texts to include? Did God approve of their choices?

Or did you just adopt the church's canon on faith, trusting the Catholic church was being guided by God in that process?

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its Biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship)[2][3] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[4][5] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia
​

The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' harmonious Bible books.

Actually, they are not out of harmony. They just cover the period of time between the OT and the NT writings. It's about the Maccabean wars, and really doesn't deal with doctrinal issues much. Leave them out if you wish, but you owe all of the NT books in your hand today to the Catholic church.

What came to be from the 'bishops' is what developed as 'Christendom' (so-called Christian but mostly in name only)
The MANY that Jesus forewarned us about at Matthew 7:21-23

He forewarned you then to not read the NT, since they chose which books to include. If they were lost and deceived, what makes the books you have now right then? They chose them. Did God give you the books of the Bible through the false church which was apostate and serving the devil at the time?

I don't know about you, but that makes zero sense to me. How do you rationalize it?

 

[Left Coast]

I find in the Bible that God's requirements (old Hebrew Scriptures) are what Jesus based his teachings.
Jesus regarded the OT as evidence because of the good it would produce through Jesus.
Jesus did Not live in a democratic (people ruled) country, but under a theocratic (God Ruled) country.
No, Not the modern-day theocracy of clergy rule or rule by clergy class but the theocracy of Daniel 2:44.
When Adam broke God's theocratic rule or law, thus Adam set up people rule as superior to God Rule.
The political world scene today is the final result of man's rule as being the superior way.
Showing that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury.
Man's own goals or preferences have brought us to these last days of badness on Earth - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13

You think first century Palestine was "ruled by God?"

 

[Windwalker]

You think first century Palestine was "ruled by God?"

Yes, if you believe Rome was God's empire.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This disputation, obfuscation, and uncertainly regarding the Bible, is I think what Jesus knew was coming.

That’s why He cut through all that, by clearly stating (John 13:34-35) you could id & find His disciples, by the love they would exhibit for their brothers/sisters …. genuine love that transcends all boundaries …. even (Matthew 5:44) loving their enemies.

What group of Christians has this love, the source of which (Galatians 5:22-23) is God’s spirit, producing that fruitage?

Who in the entire world?!

IMO, if you find them, you’ve found the truth.

It may be difficult to figure out what teachings are accurate… but everyone knows what genuine love should be! - 1 Peter 1:22

 

[Windwalker]

This disputation, obfuscation, and uncertainly regarding the Bible, is I think what Jesus knew was coming.

That’s why He cut through all that, by clearly stating (John 13:34-35) you could id & find His disciples, by the love they would exhibit for their brothers/sisters …. genuine love that transcends all boundaries …. even (Matthew 5:44) loving their enemies.

What group of Christians has this love, the source of which (Galatians 5:22-23) is God’s spirit, producing that fruitage?

Who in the entire world?!

IMO, if you find them, you’ve found the truth.

It may be difficult to figure out what teachings are accurate… but everyone knows what genuine love should be! - 1 Peter 1:22

So you are saying that believing the Bible is flawless, and God directed the Catholic church to choose the right books for the Bible for future Jehovah's Witnesses to find the real truth, is what Jesus meant by "You shall know them by their fruits"? I don't follow the wisdom of this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you are saying that believing the Bible is flawless, and God directed the Catholic church to choose the right books for the Bible for future Jehovah's Witnesses to find the real truth, is what Jesus meant by "You shall know them by their fruits"? I don't follow the wisdom of this.

I said nothing about the CC. Why are you saying I did? Where did you get that?

I’ll say this, and when you think about it, you’ll realize it too….Jehovah God can use anyone He wants to accomplish His purpose, and has: Assyria, Babylon, Cyrus the Great, etc. Even Satan was used to fulfill Jehovah’s purpose for the Messiah’s sacrifice!

But I said nothing about that in my post.

 

[Windwalker]

I said nothing about the CC. Why are you saying I did? Where did you get that?

I’ll say this, and when you think about it, you’ll realize it too….Jehovah God can use anyone He wants to accomplish His purpose, and has: Assyria, Babylon, Cyrus the Great, etc. Even Satan was used to fulfill Jehovah’s purpose for the Messiah’s sacrifice!

But I said nothing about that in my post.

What you originally said was, "This disputation, obfuscation, and uncertainly regarding the Bible, is I think what Jesus knew was coming."

I assumed you were referring to every post that was recently being made challenging the view that the Bible was delivered whole cloth, pure and pristine, exactly is as was intended by God. Plenty of mine were doing just that, so it seemed you were addressing me in your post.

Thank you for the answer I was waiting for someone else to try, that God could even use a donkey to speak God's truth, or something or other, which is basically this response above. I don't believe that intellectually satisfies anyone who looks at that closely. That is suggesting that ernest men who thought they were doing God's will and choosing what they thought best reflected the truth of God as they believed was represented in the Catholic orthodox position, were simply being used by God for the JW's to come down the road in the early 1900's America.

That is a really cynical view of God. Don't you think? Kind of dick move, letting them only believe they were saved, but were just being used by God for his purposes to bring modern JW's the right books in the canon of scripture. Who cares if the RCC, the Whore of Babylon, gave you God's word. God used them, but will cast them into the pit to be destroyed because they didn't have the right theology modern JWs have. Very cynical, wouldn't you say?

This is the problem you run into with God, when you think you're the only ones who are saved.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What you originally said was, "This disputation, obfuscation, and uncertainly regarding the Bible, is I think what Jesus knew was coming."

I assumed you were referring to every post that was recently being made challenging the view that the Bible was delivered whole cloth, pure and pristine, exactly is as was intended by God. Plenty of mine were doing just that, so it seemed you were addressing me in your post.

Thank you for the answer I was waiting for someone else to try, that God could even use a donkey to speak God's truth, or something or other, which is basically this response above. I don't believe that intellectually satisfies anyone who looks at that closely. That is suggesting that ernest men who thought they were doing God's will and choosing what they thought best reflected the truth of God as they believed was represented in the Catholic orthodox position, were simply being used by God for the JW's to come down the road in the early 1900's America.

That is a really cynical view of God. Don't you think? Kind of dick move, letting them only believe they were saved, but were just being used by God for his purposes to bring modern JW's the right books in the canon of scripture. Who cares if the RCC, the Whore of Babylon, gave you God's word. God used them, but will cast them into the pit to be destroyed because they didn't have the right theology modern JWs have. Very cynical, wouldn't you say?

This is the problem you run into with God, when you think you're the only ones who are saved.

Christendom’s reputation speaks for itself… it’s leaders have killed their brothers since it’s inception, beginning w/ their supporting Constantine the Great.

All I said, was that you can ID who truly follows Christ, by Christ’s own words at John 13:34-35.
(And who doesn’t, is clearly stated by John at 1 John 5:10-15)

I never said RCC is the whore of Babylon; and I never said we’re (I assume you mean JW’s) the “only ones who are saved.”
I don’t believe either statement….so stop accusing me of what I didn’t say!

Eventually, though, when Ephesians 1:10 & Revelation 21:3-4 are fulfilled, all humans living will recognize Jehovah as God & Creator. I hope you’ll be there!

 

[Windwalker]

Christendom’s reputation speaks for itself… it’s leaders have killed their brothers since it’s inception, beginning w/ their supporting Constantine the Great.

Sinners exist in all religions, including the pedophiles and those who cover up for them found in the JW org: A Secret Database of Child Abuse

I guess maybe you shouldn't judge the whole group based upon the guilty ones, including those in your own organization, as well as those in other religious organizations?

All I said, was that you can ID who truly follows Christ, by Christ’s own words at John 13:34-35.
(And who doesn’t, is clearly stated by John at 1 John 5:10-15)

Does loving your brother mean never correcting them when they state things that are in error?

I never said RCC is the whore of Babylon; and I never said we’re (I assume you mean JW’s) the “only ones who are saved.”

Two others in this thread who are JWs did. I'm also very familiar with these "we've got the restored truth" sects born in the early 1900s America. They love to cite things like this from this discredited book:

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Babylons-Alexander-Hislop/dp/0937958573

"Modern Babylon (Rev. 17:5) is the Roman Catholic Church. Where did the practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism come from? In this scholarly classic, first published over eighty years ago, Alexander Hislop reveals that many Roman Catholic teachings did not originate with Christ or the Bible, but were adopted from ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and given Christian names."​

I don’t believe either statement….so stop accusing me of what I didn’t say!

Sorry, I thought all JW's believed in lockstep regarding the RCC. You're the first exception to that I've met. You accept that Catholics may be just as saved as you believe you are, and don't see them as the Apostate Church?

Eventually, though, when Ephesians 1:10 & Revelation 21:3-4 are fulfilled, all humans living will recognize Jehovah as God & Creator. I hope you’ll be there!

Why would you assume I don't believe in God?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You think first century Palestine was "ruled by God?"

First century ruled by the ' god of this world ' of badness - 2 Corinthians 4:4
Please notice the many 'WOES' that Jesus pronounced against the religious leaders of his day and his reasons for those many 'WOES' as found at the 23rd chapter of Matthew.

In Scripture, it was Adam who by disobeying God and set up People Rule as superior to God Rule.
So, since Adam's fall and to our day God has permitted Man to rule or govern.
In MAN's history I find that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury.