Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

1) OFFERING BOGUS “SCRIPTURES” TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS THEORIES IS NOT HELPFUL

Soapy tried to offer as a "scripture" : “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)
Clear pointed out that this verse in psalms does NOT say “For I was born a sinner…” and no septuagint source text says this.

Soapy asked : “And so what is the correct English text… and how does that differ from what I gave?”

You don't know and cannot find out without education.
That is the point.

While you criticize religious education, you do not know what the actual scripture says and you are dependent upon someone who is educated on the text to even tell you what errors you are making. Ignorance was never a virtue.

I am not sure you even are able to recognize that your quotes are inaccurate.

for example :

Soapy said : “I’m taking it you do not know your scriptures and so you do not know that Jesus says, in the scriptures, in answer to the disciples concern of a child with physical problems:
‘His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:2-3)”


First of all, the text does not refer to “a child”, but instead, it is a “man”. This is a lazy mistake.
Secondly, this is yet another interpretive paraphrase and it is not a quote of actual biblical text.
There is no source text that says "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him".

If you don’t know the actual text, you are in no position to claim other individuals “do not know your scriptures”.



2) THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD STUDY AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN TEXTS, DOCTRINES AND CHRISTIAN BEHAVIORS
Soapy asked : “Why are you researching Christianity?”

Soapy, not all Christians are like you.

You seem to be satisfied with creating personal religious theories and then offering these theories as authentic Christian theology without a care to validate or examine your theories for accuracy and faults.

Your beliefs simply seem to make sense to you and so you pass them on as “authentic” without subjecting them to outside criticism while offering criticism of the theologies of other Christians.

You frequently tell other honest and good Christians that they are “not Christians” simply because their beliefs and worship of Jesus is different than your beliefs. This sort of undeserved self-satisfaction is not merely off-putting and inaccurate, but such behaviors are often observed by investigators of Christian behaviors and the blatant hypocrisy of such behaviors causes loss of credibility of Christians and the Christian message in their eyes.
“Christians talk about love, but look how they act, even towards one another” is a prototypical description of such Christian hypocrisy.

While you are busy creating a modern set of Christian beliefs, some Christians want to know what the earliest and most authentic Christianity looked like and what they believed.
The value of such study is that the earliest Christianity is often more authentic, more logical, more coherent and more intuitive than the later Christian movements.

If you are ignorant of what the early beliefs and interpretations were, you cannot compare your beliefs with those of the earliest and most authentic Christianity.

If you can’t compare your beliefs and interpretations with those of the earliest Christians, you cannot say with any certainty that your beliefs are better than theirs in any significant way.

You seem satisfied with offering bogus, loose interpretive paraphrases of a bible-like text and then use these interpretive paraphrases to create your religious theories. This use of inaccurate texts causes inaccurate theories.

There are Christians who want to know what the actual biblical text says.

The use of authentic text can help you create better, more accurate concepts of what authentic Christian religion is like.

While you seem to be satisfied with pounding on the single doctrinal piano key that “trinitarians are bad” and “soapys theories are good”, your habitual mischaracterizations of the beliefs of other Christians causes you to offer irrelevant and inaccurate criticisms while leaving their actual beliefs untouched.

The mascarade of judgmental self-righteousness manifested by the insistence that Other Christians “are not Christians” results in some undercurrents of unfairness and the hypocrisy itself lessens the credibility of principles that you offer that are correct.

Not all Christians are oblivious to the “off-putting” effect of inappropriate and undeserved self-righteous posturing that causes so many investigators of christianity discomfort while trying to interact with Christians in a constructive way.

The spirit tells me that I need to try to better understand God and my savior and the nature of Jesus’ superlative atonement. Simply accepting your personal theories with their associated inaccuracies is NOT educating ones self.



3) SOAPYS THEORY OF SINFUL NEWBORNS VERSUS EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SINLESS NEWBORNS

Clear asked : “What sin has a newborn committed that they were born "sinful"?
What sin, should a newborn be punished for?”
Soapy replied : “a newborn is ‘selfish’. It seeks its own needs only: for sleep, for nourishment; for comfort; for security. ” (post #1277)

Is a newborn even ABLE to seek the needs of "others"?
If it cannot seek the needs of others, then to require it to do what it is entirely unable to do is illogical.
Is it a sin for a newborn to seek sleep, nourishment, comfort and security?

3a - THE IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION THAT GOD CREATES A NEWBORN WITH CHARACTERISTICS AND THEN PUNISHES A NEWBORN FOR HAVING THOSE CHARACTERISTICS GOD PLACED IN THE NEWBORN

So, in your theory, God creates a process where a newborn is born with lack of knowledge, understanding, and awareness of others and their needs (i.e. the characteristics you are calling “selfish”), and God creates a newborn with needs such as sleep and nourishment and comfort and security and then God condemns these characteristics as “sinful”?

It is unjust for God to create newborns with these characteristics and then condemn or punish the newborn for having the very characteristics he placed within it.



4) EARLY CHRISTIANITY WAS A MORE JUST AND LOGICAL CHRISTIANITY REGARDING SIN AND NEWBORNS

The 4th century era Sinaiticus New Testament said : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

The epistle of Barnabas was also included in this early (4th c.e.) bible and Barnabas’ testimony to them was that “Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11)

These early Christians who read these scriptures regarding infants and young children did NOT believe that newborns “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”.
They interpreted the early textual witnesses differently and had different beliefs than you do.

For example, IF these early Christians believed what their New Testament said when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, their answer regarding Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4 may have included the innocent newborn and young child.

If the early Christian belief was that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God]”, then it made perfect sense for Jesus to use a child as an example, and to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

Why is Soapys personal theory that a newborn is sinful better than the early Christian belief that Newborns were sinless and pure at birth?



Clear
φυεισεσιειω

 

[Soapy]

I guess I do not know what other Christians might have said to you.



So are you attacking that not all Christians are 100% familiar with the doctrine or that Christians disagree about aspects or what?
You are not really attacking the doctrine here.
Phil 2 actually tells us that Jesus continued to be God when He became a man. He had 2 natures, one as a servant and the other as the Son of God, the same nature as His Father.
It is hard to explain the consciousness of Jesus as a man. He was a man and lived as a man and relied on His Father for all things, so His Godhood took a back seat. Different Christians express it differently and some may think that Phil 2 tells us that Jesus was not God when He was a man. IMO they are wrong but not as wrong as you when you ignore Phil 2 and say that Jesus was not in existence to take on the form of a servant and that He never was in the form of God.



All you seem to have is a list of things that you can use to mock the Trinity and Trinitarians with.
If Jesus was subject to the Father then Jesus did as God told Him through the Holy Spirit.

Mocking the trinity… non, man ami! The trinity mocks itself and places Jesus on the throne of God just as scriptures illustrates Satan was trying to do. Satan realised he couldn’t do it and so turned his attention to persuade humanity to put Jesus there - thus undermining the purpose of God.

Tell me, what purpose is there to Jesus Christ becoming ruler over creation if he was the creator of everything and is God over creation ALREADY?

 

[Soapy]

1) OFFERING BOGUS “SCRIPTURES” TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS THEORIES IS NOT HELPFUL

Soapy tried to offer as a "scripture" : “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)
Clear pointed out that this verse in psalms does NOT say “For I was born a sinner…” and no septuagint source text says this.

Soapy asked : “And so what is the correct English text… and how does that differ from what I gave?”

You don't know and cannot find out without education.
That is the point.

While you criticize religious education, you do not know what the actual scripture says and you are dependent upon someone who is educated on the text to even tell you what errors you are making. Ignorance was never a virtue.

I am not sure you even are able to recognize that your quotes are inaccurate.

for example :

Soapy said : “I’m taking it you do not know your scriptures and so you do not know that Jesus says, in the scriptures, in answer to the disciples concern of a child with physical problems:
‘His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:2-3)”


First of all, the text does not refer to “a child”, but instead, it is a “man”. This is a lazy mistake.
Secondly, this is yet another interpretive paraphrase and it is not a quote of actual biblical text.
There is no source text that says "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him".

If you don’t know the actual text, you are in no position to claim other individuals “do not know your scriptures”.



2) THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD STUDY AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN TEXTS, DOCTRINES AND CHRISTIAN BEHAVIORS
Soapy asked : “Why are you researching Christianity?”

Soapy, not all Christians are like you…



4) EARLY CHRISTIANITY WAS A MORE JUST AND LOGICAL CHRISTIANITY REGARDING SIN AND NEWBORNS

The 4th century era Sinaiticus New Testament said : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

The epistle of Barnabas was also included in this early (4th c.e.) bible and Barnabas’ testimony to them was that “Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11)

These early Christians who read these scriptures regarding infants and young children did NOT believe that newborns “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”.
They interpreted the early textual witnesses differently and had different beliefs than you do.

For example, IF these early Christians believed what their New Testament said when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, their answer regarding Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4 may have included the innocent newborn and young child.

If the early Christian belief was that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God]”, then it made perfect sense for Jesus to use a child as an example, and to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

Why is Soapys personal theory that a newborn is sinful better than the early Christian belief that Newborns were sinless and pure at birth?



Clear
φυεισεσιειω

Soapy tried to offer as a "scripture" : “For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)
Clear pointed out that this verse in psalms does NOT say “For I was born a sinner…” and no septuagint source text says this.

Soapy asked : “And so what is the correct English text… and how does that differ from what I gave?”

You don't know and cannot find out without education.
That is the point.

While you criticize religious education, you do not know what the actual scripture says and you are dependent upon someone who is educated on the text to even tell you what errors you are making. Ignorance was never a virtue.

I am not sure you even are able to recognize that your quotes are inaccurate.

I knew you were fake!

You just proved it.

It’s no wonder other posters block you!

You accuse me of misquoting from the Bible… a quote I copied from a Bible website that gives translations from different bibles. I chose one of them.

You are disagreeing with the Bible translators - NOT ME!

Yet, when I ask YOU what you regard as the true translation…. You CANNOT DO IT!!

Also, you accuse me of saying newborn are ‘Wicked’ and ‘Depraved’… Where did I say that.

Clearly you do not know what is meant by ‘Inherited Sin’ and your propensity to disagree with everything I say is only driving you to create false claims against me just so you can say that I’m wrong.

You don’t even consider that your ‘Historical Data’ sources might be the ones that are wrong!

Indeed, Jesus did appeal to the disciples to be ‘like children’. That’s not because children are ‘innocent’ of sinfulness but that they are BLAMELESS in their childhoodness. We even have human laws that say a child under a certain age is NOT GUILTY of certain crimes! That is not to say the child NEVER COMMITS THOSE CRIMES… but that they, due to limited RESPONSIBILITIES OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW.. Of GOOD AND BAD, they are classed as blameless.

In the main, children do not commit ‘DEPRAVED’ or ‘WICKED’ acts. They more often do SIN out of ignorance, for curiosity sake, for innocent malice (pertaining to fun… ‘I put a pin on the teachers chair - how the class howled as he shot up screaming in pain…..!!! I didn’t mean it, honestly!! I thought he would see it or just prick himself a little…!!! I’m really sorry!!’)

An adult doing this could offer no innocent excuse.

This would mimic Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they sinned. God would forgive them anything they did that was wrong and show them the right way … but they sought to know good and bad for themself… thus making them no longer innocent of wrongdoing.

If they had remained ‘Childlike’ then they would have committed no punishable sin IN THE EYES OF GOD…. Just as children under a certain age in our society are not guilty of wrongful behaviour IN THE EYES OF OUR LAWMAKERS!!

But, nonetheless, SIN… research ‘SIN’…

Ha ha ha ha…. That’s not very clever of you - it’s such poor form that it’s not worth listening to anything you have to offer.

I will not block you, though, because you DO EXPOSE TRINITY FARCE without realising it!

 

[Soapy]

It is unjust for God to create newborns with these characteristics and then condemn or punish the newborn for having the very characteristics he placed within it.

Was it unjust for God to withhold the knowledge of good and bad, and the ‘secret of eternal life’, from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, teasing them with the fruit of the respective trees and banning them from eating from them… on pain of everlasting DEATH?

Who are you to judge God!?

I see you for what you are!!

As a researcher, your role is to collect ‘data’, sift and sort it, link it, and publish it. It’s not your role to judge … because, as a researcher, You do not know what is truth from what is not truth… you can only say ‘x said this’ and ‘y said that’!

If you know enough to judge … then you are not researching…..!!!

You rubbish the truth and take ‘Historical Data’ from selected sources which appear to uphold YOUR VIEW…. Oh, wait… you don’t have a view… you just oppose everything that’s said to you that didn’t come from your selected ‘Historical Data’ sources.

Again, bad form. That’s not research!!! That’s is bogus doctrinatian… attempted indoctrination!

The end result of your bogus research will be that ‘There is no God’… Yes, I see where you are going!

 

[Brian2]

Mocking the trinity… non, man ami! The trinity mocks itself and places Jesus on the throne of God just as scriptures illustrates Satan was trying to do. Satan realised he couldn’t do it and so turned his attention to persuade humanity to put Jesus there - thus undermining the purpose of God.

Tell me, what purpose is there to Jesus Christ becoming ruler over creation if he was the creator of everything and is God over creation ALREADY?

The Father is the one true God and the Son and Holy Spirit are in Him and come from Him. It is the Father who is the ruler over creation and the Son is subject to the Father. Now He is exalted to be ruler over creation with all authority. (not over the Father of course) and in the end He gives back the Kingdom to the Father and becomes subject to Him again.
When that happens Jesus will still be Lord over everything however and everything that the Father has will still belong to Him.
The reason it seems that He is exalted now is because He was obedient to death on the cross. He was in the form of God and did not take advantage of that by refusing to become a humble man, thus showing His equality to the Father before He became a man,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but at the expense of His being exactly like His Father. God highly exalted Him and let Him inherit the title of YHWH so that all could see His equality and worship at His mention of His name. (again see Phil 2:1-11 which is about humility amongst equals, the prehuman Jesus was humble before His Father)

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy



1) RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IS NOT A BAD THING, BUT IT IS A GOOD THING

Soapy said : “I’m taking it you do not know your scriptures and so you do not know that Jesus says, in the scriptures, in answer to the disciples concern of a child with physical problems: ‘His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:2-3)”
Clear responded : “First of all, the text does not refer to “a child”, but instead, it is a “man”. This is a lazy mistake.
Secondly, this is yet another interpretive paraphrase and it is not a quote of actual biblical text.
There is no source text that says "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him".

If you don’t know the actual text, you are in no position to claim other individuals “do not know your scriptures”.

Clear responded : “You don't know and cannot find out without education. That is the point.
While you criticize religious education, you do not know what the actual scripture says and you are dependent upon someone who is educated on the text to even tell you what errors you are making. Ignorance was never a virtue.”
Soapy said : “You accuse me of misquoting from the Bible… a quote I copied from a Bible website that gives translations from different bibles. I chose one of them. You are disagreeing with the Bible translators - NOT ME!” (post #1283)

This is partly correct.
I am disagreeing with the creators of the interpretive paraphrase of the bible which you chose to quote.
Their translation is incorrect and there is no authentic source text for their paraphrase.

The second disagreement is with your personal criticism of religious education.

My point was that since you are ignorant of the source Greek text, you cannot know which translations are correct and which are in error.
Choosing a version that simply agrees with your theories did not keep you from offering a bogus “quote” in this case.

Education and knowledge is NOT a bad thing.

I stand by my statement : If you don’t know the actual text, you are in no position to claim other individuals “do not know your scriptures”.



2) “SIN”, “WICKNESS” AND “DEPRAVITY”

Clear said : “These early Christians who read these scriptures regarding infants and young children did NOT believe that newborns “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”.
They interpreted the early textual witnesses differently and had different beliefs than you do.”
Soapy pointed out : “Also, you accuse me of saying newborn are ‘Wicked’ and ‘Depraved’… Where did I say that.” (post #1283)

You are correct on this point.

You indicated newborns are born with sin, rather than born innocent of sin.

When I asked what “sin” a newborn commits, you replied :

Soapy replied : “a newborn is ‘selfish’. It seeks its own needs only: for sleep, for nourishment; for comfort; for security. ” (post #1277)

When I used the words “wicked” and “depraved” I was using the words of another poster who also believed newborn infants are guilty of sin.
Readers will have to decide if “wickedness” and “depravity” are related to sin sufficiently to justify the usage of these words.




3) IS POSTER "CLEAR" SIMPLY DISAGREEING WITH POSTER "SOAPY" “JUST TO SAY SOAPY IS WRONG”
Soapy said : “Clearly you do not know what is meant by ‘Inherited Sin’ and your propensity to disagree with everything I say is only driving you to create false claims against me just so you can say that I’m wrong.”

This is another false claim. I not only agreed with one of your statements, but I supported it.

Clear said : Soapy said : “Our SIN is now not one that leads to eternal death BY ADAM but by our own self. We live or die by our own sins.”
Clear responded :”I like this statement. THIS is a logical statement.
We are responsible for OUR OWN sins, not our bank robber grand fathers sins, nor are we responsible for Adams sins, nor anyone else's sins” (post #1276)




4) THERE MAY BE ERRORS IN ALL ANCIENT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF ANY SIZE
Soapy said : “You don’t even consider that your ‘Historical Data’ sources might be the ones that are wrong!”

This is another incorrect statement.
Historical sources and their data often have errors in them. I have spoken of this principle before.

Discrete historical conclusions are usually tentative because of this.

However, we are discussing what the early Christians themselves wrote and claimed they believed.

If a belief appears in multiple sources of literature, over a significant period of time and over large geographical areas, then a tentative conclusion is that the doctrine was orthodox for a long time and over a large distance. In this way, we can come to some tentative conclusions regarding what portions of Christianity taught for a specific period of time and in a geographical area.

If you have a different historical opinion, all you have to do is provide historical evidence showing the contrary.



5) REGARDING THE ROLE OF MORAL AWARENESS IN MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Soapy said : “In the main, children do not commit ‘DEPRAVED’ or ‘WICKED’ acts. They more often do SIN out of ignorance, for curiosity sake, for innocent malice…This would mimic Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they sinned. God would forgive them anything they did that was wrong and show them the right way … but they sought to know good and bad for themself… thus making them no longer innocent of wrongdoing.”

I agree with this model.

Adam and Eve were ignorant of sin (like little children) and thus, would only be culpable for any transgression AFTER having achieved moral awareness and thus could not be justly punished for any moral act done in moral ignorance BEFORE they were morally aware.



6) ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LEARNING HISTORY ARE RESEARCHERS AND STUDENTS AND CAN ONLY COME TO DISCRETE AND TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Soapy said : “As a researcher, your role is to collect ‘data’, sift and sort it, link it, and publish it. It’s not your role to judge … because, as a researcher, You do not know what is truth from what is not truth… you can only say ‘x said this’ and ‘y said that’!”

I am not sure why you call me a “researcher” but, in truth, all of us are in the position of researchers and students. Absolute truth of metaphysical things is elusive.

Thus, I agree that historically you and I “can only say ‘x said this’ and ‘y said that”, and we can only make tentative conclusions based on that data.
If you look back on my quotes, this is what I have done.

I have given you quotes where the early Christians clearly said they believed that newborns were innocent of any sin.
You offered readers inaccurate and mistranslated paraphrases that you interpreted for them.

Readers will have to decide for themselves which seems to them to be most accurate, logical and rational, and come to their own tentative decisions.

I think the early Christian teaching that newborns are innocent of any sin is more logical and more rational and more intuitive.

You can convince me these Christians were incorrect, but you will have to provide good, logical data in order to do so.

Why is Soapys theory that newborns have sin is better than the early Christian belief that newborns are innocent of any sin?



7) THE CLAIM THAT CHRISTIAN RESEARCH WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NO GOD
Soapy said : “The end result of your bogus research will be that ‘There is no God’… Yes, I see where you are going!”

This is another silly, irrational claim.

I could just as easily conclude you are an atheist who is claiming to be a Christian in order to make Christians look ignorant, irrational and silly.

I certainly believe in God and in Jesus as the savior of all mankind who wrought a wonderful and superlative atonement for all.
All of the data and experience that I have been exposed to weighs heavily in the belief that there is an intelligent, powerful and loving God who overshadows all of creation.


Clear
φυειακδρδρω

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @Dogknox20


Dogknox20 asked : “What other claims another bishop other then Peter?!” (post #1231)

Firstly, This is another question posed from ignorance.
There are many Christian churches that have bishops who are not Peter.
Do just a bit of homework and you will discover this.


Secondly, I’m not sure what planet you live on, but on this planet, it matters whether a CLAIM is true or false.

1) The habit of making false and / or irrational claims does harm to the Christian cause
As readers have seen, your CLAIM that the APOSTLE Peter was the first standing BISHOP of the roman congregation (post 1225) was FALSE.
Offering false claims is NOT helpful to your cause and making false claims gives justification for investigators of Christianity to be disappointed in Christian honesty in general.
In this way, your bad actions affect other Christianities badly as well.

Your CLAIM that "There is NO history of any other person named in anyplace that claims Peter was NOT First of the Bishops!" (post #1229) was FALSE.
Again. To offer false claims is not helpful and does harm to the credibility of other Christians who are trying to be honest in their own claims.

MOST of your religious bragging involve CLAIMS that were shown to be FALSE, and irrelevant. This is not good.



2) Offering inaccurate quotes from historical texts is not good
In post #1161 you offered an inaccurate quote of Ignatius to try to support a claim you made
This is not a good thing.


3) Mischaracterization of other religions is not good
In post #1183 You inaccurately pointed to “thousands” of JW childhood deaths for not taking blood in a reference to a magazine article that actually only referred to six (6) J.W. children,
The truth was that NONE of these children died as a cause of failure to receive a blood transfusion.

Not only are such mischaracterizations troublesome, but you fail to compare this inaccurate criticism to Catholic inquisitions that murdered thousands and thousands.

4) The attempt to produce a moral high ground for yourself is troublesome when it is based on false claims.



5) You repeat talking points over and over as though you think repetition will make them true.
It’s as though you think pounding on the same piano key is making music. There are other keys.

You are presently obsessing over the fact that your religious movement has an office called a “Bishop” and shares the same name as the original Church of Christs office of Bishop.
However, readers have already seen that your church is not the same church that Jesus referred to that was built upon a rock.
For examples :

In post #1179, both you and I agreed that the early Roman Christian movement evolved into an organization who's bishops espoused evil such as robbery, slavery, oppression and other evil things in their question for riches and power and influence.

We both agreed that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ and its bishops did not do these things.
Your church and its bishops are not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus and its bishops.

If you remember, both you and I agreed that the Roman Christian movement has no evidence that the Apostle Peter ever gave his apostolic power to the roman Christian schism and thus they do not have authentic ecclesiatical authority from God.
The original church of Jesus and it's apostles DID have apostolic level authority.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.


If you remember, both you and I agreed that the roman Christian movements office of Bishop was not the same as the earliest authentic bishop in the early and authentic Church of Jesus.
The Original church of Jesus HAD authentic bishops.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.


While you obsess on the fact that you named one of your officers a “bishop” you might consider that the original Church was NOT built upon the foundation of “bishops”, but instead, it was “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, the cornerstone of the same being Jesus Christ”. (eph 2:20)

The authentic original church was not built on bishops, but as paul said, it was built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets and the cornerstone of the church was always JESUS, not Peter.


Do we need to review the historical data whereby you and I came to these discoveries in this thread?


One major problem as I see it is that you are uneducated historically but do not know it and you are trying to appear that your beliefs are superior to others by presenting false information to readers.

You do not have any problem using anti-christian web sites against those you disagree with but object to ex and anti-catholic web sites as sources of data to describe your beliefs in worshipping Mary more than God. It is this sort of hypocrisy that I object to.

My objection is not that your beliefs are wrong, we all have specific beliefs that are incorrect (myself included).

While there is much that I honor about the Catholic religious movement (I think that the protestants should have taken more specific truths with them when they split off), however My objection is that you are trying to appear superior by using false information and illogical use of erroneous data and false claims.

Dogknox20, I think that you are trying to do a good thing by evangelizing for your beliefs.
This is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.
It is the making of so many false claims and the attempt to assume you have moral superiority over those other Christians you disdain that I find troublesome.
There is no need to bear false witness for Christ to support the gathering of individuals to Christ and to Christian principles.


Clear
φινενεφυφιω

.
Clear Opinion.... Is all you have.. If you had FACTS you would have posted it!
Again I ask... “What other claims another bishop other then Peter?!”

Please answer!
Jesus renamed Simon.. ROCK!

Matthew 10:12 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Mark 3:16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter),
Luke 6:14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

Clear You said..2) In post #1161 you offered an inaccurate quote of Ignatius to try to support a claim you made
I reply.. Again OPINION!!! If you had FACTS you would have posted them!

Clear Your words 3)...
In post #1183 You inaccurately pointed to “thousands” of JW childhood deaths for not taking blood in a reference to a magazine article that actually only referred to six (6) J.W. children,
The truth was that NONE of these children died as a cause of failure to receive a blood transfusion.

I reply.... FACT..
Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment : NPR. Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment Over his parents' objections, 14-year-old Dennis Lindberg refused vital blood transfusions that could have saved him because it was against his faith as a Jehovah's Witness. Nov. 30, 2007
&
Although there are no officially published statistics, it is estimated that about 1,000 Jehovah Witnesses die each year through abstaining from blood transfusions(20), with premature deaths(7,8).

Clear Your words... 4) The attempt to produce a moral high ground for yourself is troublesome when it is based on false claims.
I reply: Again Your OPINION! I post FACTS! I post scripture!
'
Clear Your words.. 5) You are presently obsessing over the fact that your religious movement has an office called a “Bishop” and shares the same name as the original Church of Christs office of Bishop.
However, readers have already seen that your church is not the same church that Jesus referred to that was built upon a rock.

I reply.. Acts 1:20
KJ21 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’

Clear You have OPINION no facts! You WISH I was wrong; You WISH Jesus failed to establish his Church! You WISH Jesus lied when he said "I am WITH YOU ALWAYS to the end of the world"!
FACT.... Your church was NOT started by Jesus! FACT:... Your church was started by a man that also rejected the words of Jesus! Jesus can not be WITH YOU ALWAYS to the end of the world
Clear Jesus did NOT start with your man made church; So he cannot be with you today!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Dogknox20


1) MANY CHURCHES HAVE BISHOPS

Dogknox20 said : "Clear Opinion.... Is all you have.. If you had FACTS you would have posted it!
Again I ask... “What other claims another bishop other then Peter?!” (post #1287)

My response to this question was that if you simply googled or wiki'd for that information yourself, you would find many, many churches that have created a position of bishop just as the later roman Christian movement did.

For example,
Churches of god in christ have bishops, Moravian churches have bishops, international circle of faith have bishops, Lutherans have bishops, Mennonites have bishops, Methodists have bishops, Pentecostals have bishops, the Potter’s house churches have bishops, Syriac churches have bishops, Armenian Apostolic church have bishops, Coptic orthodox have bishops, Ethiopian orthodox have bishops, Anglicans have bishops, etc, etc, etc.


2) AN ATTEMPT TO RE-CHARACTERIZE BEING CAUGHT AT MISCHARACTERIZING JEHOVAHS WITNESSES AND DEATH RATES

Clear Your words 3)...In post #1183 You inaccurately pointed to “thousands” of JW childhood deaths for not taking blood in a reference to a magazine article that actually only referred to six (6) J.W. children,
The truth was that NONE of these children died as a cause of failure to receive a blood transfusion.

I reply.... FACT.. Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment : NPR. (post #1287)


This reference to single child (who may or may not have died from refusing blood) is NOT not your original claim for which you were exposed as mischaracterizing Jehovah Witnesses.

Did you think readers would not notice the switch?
Your new (and different) claim does not excuse making a prior false claim.

Your original claim in post #1187 is : It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine. (Dogknox20, post 1187)


What the article actually says :
The body of the article itself simply relates the story of six (6) Jehovahs Witness youth that encountered a recommendation that they receive a blood transfusion and their different situations and different outcomes.
None of these six Children died because of refusal to accept blood transfusion itself. But the stories concern the Children and their wonderful and honorable and deep commitment to their faith.

Thus, Dogknox20 claim that , according to the 1994 awake “It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion.” (Dogknox20, post #1187) is simply a mischaracterization and a false witness of what the article actual says.

I want to make clear that I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusions in cases of medical necessity.

What I disagreed with is the willful misrepresentation of another religion and it’s beliefs and a misrepresentation of the effects of those beliefs.
While some individuals may feel it is justifiable to misrepresent others "IF we are lying for God", this is NOT good. It is NOT justifiable.



3) ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION AND MIS-DIRECTION

Clear Your words... 4) The attempt to produce a moral high ground for yourself is troublesome when it is based on false claims.
I reply: Again Your OPINION! I post FACTS! I post scripture! (Dogknox20, post 1187)

Your claim that "thousands" of Jehovahs Witness children died when only 6 were discussed and NONE died was NOT scripture.
It is a fact that you posted the above mischaracterization of the Jehovahs Witnesses dying of failure to receive transfusions.

I think that if readers compare the extreme (EXTREME) rarity of deaths of a Jehovah witness child that dies because of lack of blood transfusion with potentially thousands and thousands of individuals who were tortured and killed and brought into slavery and oppression and whose property was taken from them and the Jews whose children were taken from them by virtue of the Roman Catholic inquisitions over the centuries, the Jehovah Witnesses will come off much the better in comparison if Dogknox20 wants to compare moral postures of his religious schism with the the moral postures of the Jehovahs Witnesses.




4) REGARDING THE FALSE HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THE APOSTLE PETER WAS A STANDING BISHOP OF ROME


Dogknox20 said : "Clear Your words.. 5) You are presently obsessing over the fact that your religious movement has an office called a “Bishop” and shares the same name as the original Church of Christs office of Bishop.
However, readers have already seen that your church is not the same church that Jesus referred to that was built upon a rock.

I reply.. Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein’; and, ‘His bishopric let another take.’ (Dogknox20, post 1187)


Acts 1:20 is NOT referring to the Apostle Peter, serving as a standing bishop of the roman congregation, but instead it refers to Judas and that another person was to take his place.
This is not evidence that the apostle Peter was ever a standing Bishop of rome.



5) ANOTHER IRRATIONAL MISCHARACTERIZATION
Dogknox20 said :" Clear You have OPINION no facts! You WISH I was wrong; You WISH Jesus failed to establish his Church! You WISH Jesus lied when he said "I am WITH YOU ALWAYS to the end of the world"! (Dogknox20, post 1187)

This is another extraordinarily silly and irrational claim and another mischaracterization of my position.

I agree with you that Jesus will never abandon his gathering of individuals (εκκλεσια).
.
However, your Christian movement is NOT that gathering he was describing.

You and I both agree :
that the roman schism sought to do evil
it changed and created administrative offices that did not exist and did not have authority,
that there is not historical data demonstrating the apostle Peter was ever a standing bishop of Rome that no period appropriate data demonstrates Peter ever gave an obscure roman Bishop his apostolic power,
and we both agree that your schism was very different than the Church of Jesus Christ in many important ways.

You claim the original church was "holy", I agree.
Your church is NOT the original Church of Jesus
Your church was NOT "holy" in it's attempt to gain riches and in it's engagement in slavery and in it's oppression of it's adherants and non-adherants, and in it's treatment of Jews, and in it's attempt to enslave children in it's service.
The original and authentic church of Jesus Christ did not do these things.



Clear
φυειακσιδρω

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @Dogknox20
1) MANY CHURCHES HAVE BISHOPS
My response to this question was that if you simply googled or wiki'd for that information yourself, you would find many, many churches that have created a position of bishop just as the later roman Christian movement did.

2) AN ATTEMPT TO RE-CHARACTERIZE BEING CAUGHT AT MISCHARACTERIZING JEHOVAHS WITNESSES AND DEATH RATES
This reference to single child (who may or may not have died from refusing blood) is NOT not your original claim for which you were exposed as mischaracterizing Jehovah Witnesses.
Did you think readers would not notice the switch?
Your new (and different) claim does not excuse making a prior false claim.
Your original claim in post #1187 is : It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine. (Dogknox20, post 1187)
hat the article actually says :
The body of the article itself simply relates the story of six (6) Jehovahs Witness youth that encountered a recommendation that they receive a blood transfusion and their different situations and different outcomes.
None of these six Children died because of refusal to accept blood transfusion itself. But the stories concern the Children and their wonderful and honorable and deep commitment to their faith.
3) ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION AND MIS-DIRECTION
Your claim that "thousands" of Jehovahs Witness children died when only 6 were discussed and NONE died was NOT scripture.
It is a fact that you posted the above mischaracterization of the Jehovahs Witnesses dying of failure to receive transfusions.
4) REGARDING THE FALSE HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THE APOSTLE PETER WAS A STANDING BISHOP OF ROME
Dogknox20 said : "Clear Your words.. 5) You are presently obsessing over the fact that your religious movement has an office called a “Bishop” and shares the same name as the original Church of Christs office of Bishop.
Acts 1:20 is NOT referring to the Apostle Peter, serving as a standing bishop of the roman congregation, but instead it refers to Judas and that another person was to take his place.
This is not evidence that the apostle Peter was ever a standing Bishop of rome.
5) ANOTHER IRRATIONAL MISCHARACTERIZATION
Dogknox20 said :" Clear You have OPINION no facts! You WISH I was wrong; You WISH Jesus failed to establish his Church! You WISH Jesus lied when he said "I am WITH YOU ALWAYS to the end of the world"! (Dogknox20, post 1187)
This is another extraordinarily silly and irrational claim and another mischaracterization of my position.
You claim the original church was "holy", I agree.
Your church is NOT the original Church of Jesus
Your church was NOT "holy" in it's attempt to gain riches and in it's engagement in slavery and in it's oppression of it's adherants and non-adherants, and in it's treatment of Jews, and in it's attempt to enslave children in it's service.
The original and authentic church of Jesus Christ did not do these things.
Clear
φυειακσιδρω

I reply..
1) Yes many have bishops.... The Catholic Church has bishops... Peter is the Chief Bishop... the SHEPHERD of God' holy flock; The Key holder.. The Bishop that strengthens the others!
The Bishop with AUTHORITY of Jesus Peter speaks for Jesus!
FACT: Jesus established ONLY one church it is the ONLY Church built on ROCK not on sand!

2) The FACTS remain... The scriptures are clear.. Don't eat blood & don't eat fat! Nothing about refusing to have blood transfused! Teaching don't have blood transfusion is NOT found in the scriptures it is a MAN MADE TRADITION! It's a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century!
The JW's teach.. “Taking blood into the body through mouth or veins violates God’s laws.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people

Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Leviticus 3:17 the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood” .

Clear 3) The fact that one child died is a travesty! I do not make it up.. The JW's and the Watch Tower are evil!! God does NOT want Child sacrifice!
Below are excerpts found on Google! **
**Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment
November 30, 20077:00 AM ET
Heard on The Bryant Park Project

Montreal
**Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds
Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their rights?

**S Woolley

1. Correspondence to:
   Dr S Woolley
   Bristol Royal Infirmary/Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK; woolley_shotmail.com

Abstract
The Jehovah’s Witnesses Society (JW), a fundamentalist Christian sect, is best known to laypersons and healthcare professionals for its refusal of blood products, even when such a refusal may result in death. Since the introduction of the blood ban in 1945, JW parents have fought for their rights to refuse blood on behalf of their children, based on religious beliefs and their right to raise children as they see fit. Adolescent JWs have also sought to refuse blood products based on their beliefs, regardless of the views of their parents.

** These Jehovah’s Witnesses Let Their Son Die By Denying Him a Blood Transfusion | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos

** In a more recent (1995) Canadian case, B(R) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [23], Jehovah's Witness parents refused a blood transfusion for their severely anemic 1-year-old daughter who was at risk of congestive heart failure. The baby was made a ward of the court in order to administer clinically necessary blood transfusions. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that this state intervention was a legitimate limitation on religious freedom. In their ruling the Court considered Canada’s Charter of Rights (section 2 (a) - right to freedom of conscience and religion) versus the Ontario province's obligation to a "child in need of protection" under the Ontario Child Welfare Act.

** In the USA, the case that established the competent adult’s right to refuse treatment occurred in 1914 in Schloendorff vs. Society of New York Hospital [19]. (Schloendorff vs Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, (1914).) A woman agreed to an examination under anesthesia but refused consent for surgery. Despite this, surgery was performed, and serious unexpected complications followed. A lawsuit was launched and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. The presiding judge stated that "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body". Despite this ruling, the patient lost her case because the hospital was a charitable institution and was consequently immune from liability. Still, the case established the notion of informed consent and of the right of a competent adult patient to choose or refuse treatment.

4) Clear Okay I will bite: Where does the bible say "Peter was NOT in Rome"?!
There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: 1 Peter 5:13 “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” . Babylon is a code word for Rome. IF...
Clear If you think it means the real Babylon you would be wrong! The Babylon of the day was sand and dust blowing in the wind it did not exist!
Clear More facts for you>>> .... Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”\

“Another angel, a second, followed, saying, Rev 14:8 ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8).

Clear Babylon in the scriptures can ONLY means ROME! ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

5)... FACT your man made church was started by Charles Taze Russell, who was born in 1852.
If I was to look for the ONE CHURCH .. Jesus is ALWAYS with to the end of the world.. I would reject any ideas of it being the JWs!

Clear The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus established on ROCK is 2000 years old! Jesus is still with her.. God the Holy Spirit is still guiding her into all truth just as Jesus records in his scriptures!

 

[Soapy]

I have modified a part of your post which is 90% true:

• The Father is the one true God , and the Son and Holy Spirit are OF Him . The holy spirit is from Him. The Son was SENT BY HIM (after the baptism). It is the Father who is the ruler over creation and the Son is subject to the Father. Now He is exalted to be ruler over creation with all authority. (not over the Father of course)”

All, apart from the modified part is absolutely correct!

But your next part is incorrect or has partial truth:

• “and in the end He gives back the Kingdom to the Father and becomes subject to Him again.”

There are TWO Rulership that Jesus goes through. The first in bringing the WHOLE of EVERYTHING to righteousness. This is the thousand years rulership. It is this rulership which Jesus HANDS BACK to the Father once the task is accomplished.

The second is the EVERLASTING RULERSHIP OVER CREATION … only!!! This is when Jesus takes his seat as RULER ON THE THRONE OF DAVID and rules with his priests and kings from the ELECT who reign with him replacing the holy angels who currently are steward rulers over creation:

• For the world to come will by no means be ruled over by angels [as it is now!!]

So, your final part:

• “When that happens Jesus will still be Lord over everything however and everything that the Father has will still belong to Him.”

is untrue and unscriptural. Jesus will be KING OVER CREATION… will be it’s RULER…

Jesus will not be ruler over HEAVEN.

“In my fathers house there are many rooms. I go to prepare a place for you, so where I am you will be also…” (paraphrased)

A mansion is a very large house with MANY ROOMS.

Jesus will ONLY BE THE OWNER OF ONE OF THOSE ROOMS (creation). He says so in that very statement!

The REST OF THE MANSION (Heaven) is ruled over by Almighty God: The Father.

 

[rational experiences]

The teachings state the earth's atmosphere gas spirit had returned from human DNA genesis exodus...that had left life mutated.

Saviour quotes asteroid wandering star body gas. End of year ice renewed reborn. Reasons for atmospheric cooling.

The baby life firstborn human man was gone sacrificed. Life lived mutated. Just as it said. Caused by men in science.

No evil science was then practiced as you were mutated as men. In those times life was safe from you. Scientists.

Life healed. Life was present by sex choice. Not by atmospheric conditions. One of your science lies. Humans still lived.

DNA healed as medical genesis. Science knowing science codes advised Jesus a baby who grew into a self present human teacher proved himself spiritually to us.

As proof life had evolved spiritually. And that originally we were from spirit as a spirit being. Our origin status.

The teaching being very important. As mens mind had been corrupted.

By his wisdom. His love. Spiritual phenomena. Which for some reason science tried to claim isn't real. When it is seen felt and manifested.

Real means it remains. We always said it was phenomena. Meaning of which should not occur. Not actually discussed by some.

Hence it is caused then it ends.

What the term Jesus meant. As it did end. Life was saved yet it was being sacrificed. The teaching.

Why it wasn't of God but a stated inheritance of causes. As man is the first term self a human. Firstborn.

Not named.

The man as Jesus by prophecy hence returned. Was sacrificed and left. The sacrifice ended. As our brother owning the inherited science psyche evolved heals returns himself.

His title a destroyer. The scientist man theme.

Life lived and survived. As we lived with Christ. Sex continues life and life is still mutated. Status mutation not yet healed in the human genesis genetics.

By sex choices. Which is not Jesus.

The teaching Jesus not conceived by sex.

Jesus was a topic of conditions.

Science was unsure if the burning wandering star that broke some off and hit Rome would return burning. Or it may have been cooled in its 1000 year return. It came back burning.

Which meant the saviour had not returned cooling. Ice end of yeAr however continued cooling.

How the Baha'i teaching emerged. Which supports the shroud of Turin evidence.

Hence we still lived genetic mutated as it could not heal.

2012 space pressure was thought to finally deliver a contraction in space. Enabling healing. As a mother holy act.

Which never occurred as nuclear science began as its practice.

 

[Brian2]

Hi
Adam and Eve were ignorant of sin (like little children) and thus, would only be culpable for any transgression AFTER having achieved moral awareness and thus could not be justly punished for any moral act done in moral ignorance BEFORE they were morally aware.

God told them not to eat the fruit of a certain tree and if they did eat it they would die.
God was true to His word and that is what happened.
Do you think God was holding them morally responsible for eating the fruit?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Ηι @Dogknox20


1) REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ANIMOSITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ANOTHER RELIGION BY OFFERING FALSE INFORMATION

Dogknox20 : The FACTS remain... (post #1289)

The FACT remains that you tried to create prejudice against the Jehovahs Witnesses by consciously mischaracterizing them by spreading false information.

Once you are willing to offer false information to discredit another church, your credibility is suspect on multiple levels. It is wrong to lie.

Even your current example (Heard on The Bryant Park Project) is a mischaracterization of a Jehovahs witness death meant to prejudice readers.
For example, the child referred to did not die of failing to receive a blood transfusion, he died of cancer.
While the blood may have given him a short reprieve (up to 25% of RBCs from transfused blood only last 24 hours), the fact is, it was the cancer that killed the child and you cannot “transfuse your way out of cancer”.

Even in the Interview, Dr. Diekema also points out to the interviewer that chemotherapy itself is toxic and he says “ Three months from now, he may still die from his leukemia” and “It's that we could have saved his life and made his remaining life much worse for him and actually done him harm. “


If you will stop looking for headlines in order to generate indignation and prejudice against another religion, you could actually do the work of researching the actual issues.
I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusion, but I do not believe in lying or misrepresenting them in order to create prejudice against their beliefs.


1a Another example of mischaracterization
Even your attempt to characterize this practice as “Child Sacrifice” is a repugnant mischaracterization meant to create prejudice.
Do you really think Christians should engage in such tactics?




2) PRETENDING OUTRAGE AT THE PRACTICES OF ANOTHER RELIGION WHILE FAILING TO LOOK AT THE PRACTICES OF YOUR OWN RELIGION
Secondly, your moral posturing and sense of outrage is imbalanced.

You make such a big deal about a religious movement that simply feels it is wrong to take blood and try to overinflate the degree of potential harm while conveniently overlooking the degree of harm your religious movement


For examples, simply look at some of the church councils of your organization in it’s attempt to gain power and money and to oppress not only it’s members, but others as well :


In order to gain power and avoid lawful prosecution for crimes, the council of Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 20 declared that : “No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.”

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)

Why is lifelong enslavement of individuals and their descendants by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.

Why is taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.

Why is burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.

Why is oppression and physical beatings of lower clergy by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?


Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)

Why is prohibition from release of slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave

Why is prohibition from release of church slaves or the contribution of property to others by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?




Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”

Why is the banishment of Jews from their lifelong homes and the loss of their properties (much of which would fall under the influence of your church) a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.

Why is allowing a mere child to agree to life-long servitude and slavery a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?


Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.

Why is stealing from the offerings of your followers for private use by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians.

Why is taking children away from their mothers and fathers and forcing them into marriage to a person of your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.

Why is the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?

Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Why is making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?


Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

Why is making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?




Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

Why is making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?

I am not a Jehovahs Witness, but, if I was going to judge the moral high ground between the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Schism, then given these examples, I think the Jehovahs Witness movement has the moral high ground.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO
3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT PETER WAS NEVER A STANDING BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATION FOR 25 YEARS
Dogknox20 said : Clear Okay I will bite: Where does the bible say "Peter was NOT in Rome"?!”

You are biting on thin air.
I never hinted in a belief that Peter did not end up, at some point, in Rome.
I actually think the apostle Peter ended up in Rome sometime during the 25 years that he is lost to history.

The historical point is that Peter was never, historically, a standing Bishop of the Roman congregation.

Thank you for supporting my belief that the apostle Peter was at least in Rome at some point (and probably died there).




4) Dogknox20 said : "FACT your man made church was started by Charles Taze Russell, who was born in 1852.

You are referring to the Jehovahs Witness movement?

I am not a Jehovahs Witness.
I am merely pointing out that your attempts to create prejudice against them by using false claims is not a particularly Christian value.

Isn’t there a rule against bearing false witness in your organization?





5) Clear The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus established on ROCK is 2000 years old! Jesus is still with her..
God the Holy Spirit is still guiding her into all truth just as Jesus records in his scriptures!

I think this is good advertisement.
However, all of the old congregations such as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (that escaped to pella), and all other modern gatherings that are supported by the spirit of God get to make the same claim with the same assurances that Jesus is with them as well.



Clear
φυτωτζδρφυω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2



REGARDING THE ROLE OF MORAL AWARENESS AND MORAL CULPABILITY IN NEWBORNS AND MORALLY INCOMPETENT INDIVIDUALS (INCLUDING MENTAL RETARDATION OR MENTAL DISEASE)

Soapy said : “In the main, children do not commit ‘DEPRAVED’ or ‘WICKED’ acts. They more often do SIN out of ignorance, for curiosity sake, for innocent malice…This would mimic Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they sinned. God would forgive them anything they did that was wrong and show them the right way … but they sought to know good and bad for themself… thus making them no longer innocent of wrongdoing.”

Clear said to Soapy : “Adam and Eve were ignorant of sin (like little children) and thus, would only be culpable for any transgression AFTER having achieved moral awareness and thus could not be justly punished for any moral act done in moral ignorance BEFORE they were morally aware.

Brian said to Clear : God told them not to eat the fruit of a certain tree and if they did eat it they would die.
God was true to His word and that is what happened.
Do you think God was holding them morally responsible for eating the fruit? (post 1292)


The short answer :
I think their moral responsibility is attenuated to the degree they lacked knowledge and understanding. The less knowledge and understanding, the less responsibility. ("To whom more is given, more is required...)

A newborn that is born without a functioning brain has no sin and no moral responsibility at all and is under no condemnation for anything. If they die an hour after birth, they are under no condemnation. I believe this is true in all individuals.

I think this is true of Adam and Eve and all individuals in all times in history. Regarding the various versions of the story of Adam and Eve, It is in the various historical nuances that the story and it’s meaning and outcome changes.


A longer discussion to the answer :
There are multiple versions of this story and a variety of historical traditions and considerations that change the nature of the story, it’s meaning and the effects of the outcome.

One of the difficult insights for non-historians is the realization that their modern Christian beliefs, texts and interpretations are not the same as the beliefs, texts and interpretations of ancient Christianity. While Historians typically have come to terms with this, the non-historian “go to church on Sunday” Christian who works as a mechanic cannot be expected to have discovered this or even fully understand the concept.

We tend to grow up hearing our version of the garden of eden tradition without realizing there are multiple versions that are different and more expansive than our own. My current thinking is that the early versions described by Christian literature are more logical and rational than the later versions that became popular.

Having said that, I (and probably you..) grew up with the concept that the original plan of God was to place Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden and they were to have children and populate the earth with morally ignorant population that did not know the difference between good and evil and remain in this state for ever.

And further, in this modern version, somehow, this original plan created by an omnipotent and Omniscient God is scuttled by a wiley and clever Lucifer who ruins the original plan and this unexpected problem necessitates a hastily prepared “plan B” which involves a Savior who atones and dies for mankind who has become both mortal and who, through their experiences in mortality have been introduced to the moral knowledge of Good and Evil.

The philosophers and religionists have long pointed out that an omniscient God would have known that Lucifer would scuttle the first plan and an omnipotent God could have worked out a fix and a merciful God could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve, etc. The point is that the modern version has logical problems that the earlier versions did not have and the greater detail in the early versions explain details that are problematic.

Did an omniscient God know that the fall was going to occur?

If he knew the fall was going to occur, then was the fall his actual, original plan (or was an omniscient God surprised at the fall)?

It is in the context of the “fall” of Adam having been according to God’s plan all along that the prophet Sedrach said to the Lord : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master.”

And, an omniscient and omnipotent God could have simply banished Satan, or not put him in the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve in the first place, or have killed Satan. This is the question the prophet Sedrach asked God : “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him..... The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7

The answers to such questions and the meaning behind the fall and what is happening inside mortality changes depending up the version and the details one pays attention to.

For example, one Jewish version describes the first sin in the Garden NOT as disobeying God, but instead, as Adam lying to Eve when telling Eve that God forbade even “touching” the tree of moral wisdom (tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the modern version I grew up with).

The lie was that God didn’t actually tell Adam not to touch it or that, if he or Eve touched it, they would die.

Adam’s lie takes on importance in this Jewish version when Satan is trying to get Eve to eat of the tree and she relates that they can neither eat nor touch the tree or they will die. Satan then pushes Eve so that she makes contact with the tree and Eve then realizes that Adam had not told her the truth.

This discovery leads her to wonder whether the prohibition against eating was also a lie and ultimately, this doubt plays a role in her ultimately eating of the fruit.

This places Adam in the position of either remaining alone in the Garden (and being unable to obey the commandment to “replenish/fill the earth”), or eating and staying with Eve, having children, and gaining moral wisdom as a result. The point is not that this or any specific version of the story is true and others false, simply that there are differing versions in Judaism and in Christian traditions and some of the versions create different meanings regarding what actually happened in this "pre-history" tradition.

For example, once one removes or at least attenuates the concept of guilt and punishment from the story involving these two, naïve and partly morally incompetent adults, the possible meanings of the story shifts and gaining moral knowledge and understanding was not an evil occurrence, but was the plan from the beginning.

For example, this knowledge was never, itself, evil. God himself provides for the teaching and moral experiences which provide Adam (and the rest of us) knowledge and wisdom concerning "good and evil". The desire for moral wisdom itself was never a bad thing and God gives Adam and Even the moral education they sought by partaking of the fruit of the tree of wisdom (or knowledge of good and evil).


Regarding the early Christian belief that newborns are pure and sinless.
I simply making the point that all individuals are responsible only for their own sins and not for anything Adam or their horse-thief great, great, grandfather did.

This is the point the prophet Baruch was making regarding the cause of individual punishment for sin, saying “Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 54:17-19;

In such early Christian traditions, No one is being punished for Adams or anyone else's sins, only for their own sins.
I think this is a logical and rational and a more just model than one person being punished for what someone else did.


In any case Brian2, I hope whatever models of belief you come up with, that they are insightful and your spiritual journey in life is wonderful.


Clear
φυτωτζφινεω

 

[Dogknox20]

POST ONE OF TWO

Ηι @Dogknox20


1) REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ANIMOSITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ANOTHER RELIGION BY OFFERING FALSE INFORMATION

Dogknox20 : The FACTS remain... (post #1289)

The FACT remains that you tried to create prejudice against the Jehovahs Witnesses by consciously mischaracterizing them by spreading false information.

Once you are willing to offer false information to discredit another church, your credibility is suspect on multiple levels. It is wrong to lie.

Even your current example (Heard on The Bryant Park Project) is a mischaracterization of a Jehovahs witness death meant to prejudice readers.
For example, the child referred to did not die of failing to receive a blood transfusion, he died of cancer.
While the blood may have given him a short reprieve (up to 25% of RBCs from transfused blood only last 24 hours), the fact is, it was the cancer that killed the child and you cannot “transfuse your way out of cancer”.

Even in the Interview, Dr. Diekema also points out to the interviewer that chemotherapy itself is toxic and he says “ Three months from now, he may still die from his leukemia” and “It's that we could have saved his life and made his remaining life much worse for him and actually done him harm. “


If you will stop looking for headlines in order to generate indignation and prejudice against another religion, you could actually do the work of researching the actual issues.
I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusion, but I do not believe in lying or misrepresenting them in order to create prejudice against their beliefs.


1a Another example of mischaracterization
Even your attempt to characterize this practice as “Child Sacrifice” is a repugnant mischaracterization meant to create prejudice.
Do you really think Christians should engage in such tactics?




2) PRETENDING OUTRAGE AT THE PRACTICES OF ANOTHER RELIGION WHILE FAILING TO LOOK AT THE PRACTICES OF YOUR OWN RELIGION
Secondly, your moral posturing and sense of outrage is imbalanced.

You make such a big deal about a religious movement that simply feels it is wrong to take blood and try to overinflate the degree of potential harm while conveniently overlooking the degree of harm your religious movement


For examples, simply look at some of the church councils of your organization in it’s attempt to gain power and money and to oppress not only it’s members, but others as well :


In order to gain power and avoid lawful prosecution for crimes, the council of Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 20 declared that : “No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.”

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)

Why is lifelong enslavement of individuals and their descendants by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.

Why is taking property from individuals who have owned it legally by your organization a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?



Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.

Why is burdening clerics with “compulsory services” (a euphemism for slavery?) and taking their money a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?




Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Why is making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?


Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

Why is making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?




Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

Why is making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith?

I am not a Jehovahs Witness, but, if I was going to judge the moral high ground between the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Schism, then given these examples, I think the Jehovahs Witness movement has the moral high ground.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

JerryMyers Right off....Your words... REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ANIMOSITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ANOTHER RELIGION BY OFFERING FALSE INFORMATION
I reply: What does the Watch Tower call the Catholic Church?! I am fairly certain your are taught the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is Anti-Christ! Don't point your finger at me with your OPINIONS!

Your words.. For examples, simply look at some of the church councils of your organization in it’s attempt to gain power and money and to oppress not only it’s members, but others as well
I reply: OPINION! All you have is your opinion!

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church established by Jesus on ROCK is 2000 years old... FACT: Jesus is ALWAYS with her to the end of time! The Holy Spirit (God) is forever guiding her into ALL Truth! The Only Church Jesus established is the Body of Christ; The Pillar and the foundation of truth!
JerryMyers Cry and complain all you want.. You MUST reject the scriptures to remain in your protest against God!

 

[Dogknox20]

POST TWO OF TWO
3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT PETER WAS NEVER A STANDING BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATION FOR 25 YEARS
Dogknox20 said : Clear Okay I will bite: Where does the bible say "Peter was NOT in Rome"?!”

You are biting on thin air.
I never hinted in a belief that Peter did not end up, at some point, in Rome.
I actually think the apostle Peter ended up in Rome sometime during the 25 years that he is lost to history.

The historical point is that Peter was never, historically, a standing Bishop of the Roman congregation.

Thank you for supporting my belief that the apostle Peter was at least in Rome at some point (and probably died there).

4) Dogknox20 said : "FACT your man made church was started by Charles Taze Russell, who was born in 1852.

You are referring to the Jehovahs Witness movement?
I am not a Jehovahs Witness.
I am merely pointing out that your attempts to create prejudice against them by using false claims is not a particularly Christian value.
Isn’t there a rule against bearing false witness in your organization?

5) Clear The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus established on ROCK is 2000 years old! Jesus is still with her..
God the Holy Spirit is still guiding her into all truth just as Jesus records in his scriptures!

I think this is good advertisement.
However, all of the old congregations such as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (that escaped to pella), and all other modern gatherings that are supported by the spirit of God get to make the same claim with the same assurances that Jesus is with them as well.
φυτωτζδρφυω

.
Hello Clear...
The Church Fathers tell you; Peter is the first pope! What you have to do is name another Shepherd of God' Holy Flock; Name another Key Holder! If NOT then all you have is your OPINION once again!
Optatus of Milevus
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Jerome
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Clear you are NOT JW... Why did you stop there? Tell me what are you?! I am Catholic, I am in the Body of Christ! I am IN the Only Holy Catholic Apostolic Body of Jesus!
I am IN Jesus, thus Mary is my Mother! Mary is the Mother of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church the ONLY Church Jesus established on ROCK not on sand!

You are INSIDE or you are OUTSIDE you can't be both inside and outside at the same time!
"Listen to the Church or be treated as Pagan"!
I point out this fact.. "A Pagan is a person OUTSIDE of God' family!"

Clear All of these man made churches are IN Protest against the Body of Christ! They reject the ONLY Church Jesus established thus they are rejecting Jesus!
From the start of the De-Formation to today there are thousands and thousands of churches all claiming to have the only truth but not two of these thousands believe the same things! They reject the Body of Jesus, they are OUTSIDE of the Holy Catholic Church; FREELY turning their back to her! The Anti-Christ is against Christ! All of these thousands of Protesting man made churches reject the ONLY Church Jesus is ALWAYS WITH! They ARE OUTSIDE!

 

[Soapy]

Readers, I thought that some historically minded readers might find it hard to look up the examples regarding the purpose of God in sending spirits to earth alluded to in post #1260, so I thought I would include them below.

My first example came from, the Hellenistic synagogal prayer that describes “… the goal of the creative work [was] – the rational living creature, the world citizen… you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness..." (#3, c.f. aposCon 7.34.1-8)


The second example comes from one of the earliest Christian hymns. Even today, we still sing doctrines in verse: "mild he lays his glory by... Born that man no more may die" (from Hark the Herald Angel Sings). In a similar manner one can study ancient Christian doctrine by reading their hymns. One of the earliest (if not the earliest) Christian Hymns is "The Pearl". In "The Pearl" the early Christians sang doctrinal scenarios, describing processes implied by YoursTrue's quote in post #1259.

In the symbolism of a spirit leaving a heavenly home where it’s been nurtured and comes to earth to gain knowledge and testing, the Hymn tells of a youth, nurtured well by his parents and who is given the task of having his glorious robes removed and being sent to a far and mysterious country where he is to obtain a pearl under difficult circumstances. While away, despite warnings, he slumbers and forgets who he is and his glorious past and even, for a time, his purpose of coming to this strange land.

At some point, he is given help and as he reads a letter from his home, he remembers what it is that he is to accomplish here. He remembers his glorious past, his purpose and accomplishes it. Upon his return, his prior glorious robes are placed upon him, and family and friends now bestow accolades upon him, of which he is only then deserving.


My third example comes from Jewish Zohar, which, similarly, explains this process of learning these same moral and social principles in the following way. First, the question is asked regarding why spirits of mankind are sent to the earth if they are simply going to return back at to God at some future time. The text then says : “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. “

Like the kings son in the above simile, we are all to "learn the ways of the kings palace" so as to return in a morally and socially improved and educated state in order to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy with one another.


Clear
φυειτζδρακω

What has these ‘nothing to do with Bible scriptures’ stories got to do with Christian debate?

The son sent to the village ‘to learn Palace ways’???

What ‘Palace ways’ is the son learning from living among the citizen?

And his mother goes to the village to bring him back?
Why his mother, why not a servant of the king?

Seems to me that the story writers are designing an alternative trinity of ‘Father (king), Son (Heir), and Mother (Holy Spirit)’. This is pure Paganism!!!

Not only is it paganistic but has no relationship with Christianity.

What’s your point (if there is any)

And, in any case, you should start a new topic (thread) for it. I’m guessing you are afraid that no one would engage in it if you did!!

 

[Soapy]

JerryMyers Right off....Your words... REGARDING ATTEMPTS TO CREATE ANIMOSITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ANOTHER RELIGION BY OFFERING FALSE INFORMATION
I reply: What does the Watch Tower call the Catholic Church?! I am fairly certain your are taught the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is Anti-Christ! Don't point your finger at me with your OPINIONS!

Your words.. For examples, simply look at some of the church councils of your organization in it’s attempt to gain power and money and to oppress not only it’s members, but others as well
I reply: OPINION! All you have is your opinion!

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church established by Jesus on ROCK is 2000 years old... FACT: Jesus is ALWAYS with her to the end of time! The Holy Spirit (God) is forever guiding her into ALL Truth! The Only Church Jesus established is the Body of Christ; The Pillar and the foundation of truth!
JerryMyers Cry and complain all you want.. You MUST reject the scriptures to remain in your protest against God!

Satan fighting Satan…

Indoctrination heaping accusations against another indoctrination…

Gotta happen. Prophecy must be fulfilled.

 

[Dogknox20]

Satan fighting Satan…

Indoctrination heaping accusations against another indoctrination…

Gotta happen. Prophecy must be fulfilled.

.
Soapy I agree Scripture Prophesy tells us from AMONG the church will come heretics!
Out of the Church will come False Teachers... Martin Luther "WAS" a Catholic he was AMONG Catholics! ALSO...

Soapy also Arius was a Catholic; he was AMONG Catholics!
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius was a False Teacher he taught Jesus is NOT God. Arius was removed as a False Teacher a Heretic because he introduced destructive heresies! This PROPHESY proves true! The next verse also is true! (verse #2)..

. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Soapy Clearly this PROPHESY points out.. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus established on ROCK not on sand is the way of truth ! This Scripture Prophesy CANNOT work in the reverse... The Holy Catholic Church was NOT among Arius.. The Catholic Church was NOT among Luther. NO.. They were AMONG Catholics they WERE IN the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church until they were removed as False Teachers!