Where Did these Beliefs Come From?

[Soapy]

“The church” is not a source of truth IMO. On deeper investigation, it has proven itself to be the “weeds” of Jesus parable. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)
Corruption of the church was what was foretold and it happened just as Jesus and the apostles warned. Pretending that it never happened when the evidence is there right under everyone’s nose is an extraordinary kind of blindness. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)


Yes, Mary was a good choice for God to produce his Messiah.
The criteria was that she had to be a virgin, betrothed because her pregnancy had to be accepted as legitimate, (not the result of immorality) so Joseph was encouraged to take Mary as his wife in full knowledge of this child’s origins.......and the parents as a unit had to be devout Jews, lovers of God and faithful worshippers in order to raise their children to worship their God according to the scriptures.

God’s son would grow up in a typically large Jewish family and his adoptive father would play as greater role in Jesus upbringing as his mother did in his birth. He was a good family head in taking his family to Jerusalem for their festivals and in worship at the synagogue where Jesus himself taught.

Nowhere are we told to venerate Mary as anyone but the chosen vessel through whom God chose to bring his son into the world. What Catholics do with regard to Mary is IMO, a disgusting example of idolatry. Was she as important as Jesus in the scriptures? Looking at her place in Catholicism you would think so.......but Jesus and the apostles hardly mentioned her....why? Because her role had been fulfilled. As a disciple of her son, she definitely has a place in heaven, but the foundations of the heavenly kingdom are the 12 apostles, (Revelation 21:14) Mary is not mentioned....one of the lesser mentioned apostles was more important in the kingdom, than Mary.


This is not what your trinity teaches though is it?
Jesus worships his God still, even in heaven (Revelation 3:12) so if Jesus is God, that means that he worships himself......

We worship Jesus’ God “through his name” because he is our only mediator. There are no others....not Mary, not the saints...there are no other intercessors. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)



Since full immersion was required for baptism, I believe that infants were not baptized for two reasons......
1) holding an infant under water in itself would be physically dangerous, leading to the possibility of aspiration and possible pneumonia.
2) Very small children were covered under their parents because no one can be baptized by proxy. It has to be a decision made by a person who has learned what it means to become a Christian and who voluntarily submits to baptism, and all this this signifies.
The act of baptism itself is meaningless without the personal commitment.


Like the Jews, the early Christians did not use any visual aids in the way of holy images, statues or pictures in their worship. True, there are symbols of a dove, a shepherd, and so forth, in the catacombs. But none of these are of a ‘holy’ nature, venerated like the cross, until the latter years of the fourth century. (Coinciding with the advent of Roman Catholicism) And when these appeared, there also appeared mythological figures, indicating that apostasy had crept into the ranks of professed Christians, as Jesus had said it would.

Anything else you’d like to add? There were so many more questions.....

The purpose of this thread is to examine all these questions to see if they are actually valid and scripturally supported and if not, to track down their origins. Which we will get to later no doubt.

Trinitarian will not answer straight forward questions when they realise it debunks their trinity ideology. When common sense and reality comes to the fore, Trinitarians will twist and slither around the subject like snakes in a pit. I’ve had huge problems with them refusing to answer when I’ve asked even simple questions… no guessing as to why they refused! And yet … they can see that it’s wrong but continue to try to force trinity to be right!!

 

[Deeje]

Trinitarian will not answer straight forward questions when they realise it debunks their trinity ideology. When common sense and reality comes to the fore, Trinitarians will twist and slither around the subject like snakes in a pit. I’ve had huge problems with them refusing to answer when I’ve asked even simple questions… no guessing as to why they refused! And yet … they can see that it’s wrong but continue to try to force trinity to be right!!

Those who try to justify this doctrine do not understand how insulting it is to God. It is a clear breach of the first Commandment (Exodus 20:3)....they have put another "god" in place of the Father, who was the God of Jesus Christ, before and after his earthly mission.

Those whom Jesus rejects at the judgment are those he says he "never knew" (Matthew 7:21-23).....those whom he calls "workers of lawlessness" because they worship the son as if he were equal to his superior Father, thereby breaking God's law.

Jesus was a "servant" of his God (Acts 4:27, 30) and made no statement about being equal, or about being "fully God and fully man".

 

[Deeje]

Now let's examine these two....also related questions.

"Should images be used in worship?"

Since the Jews were forbidden to use images of "anything" in their worship, the Christians would have followed that law because, according to scripture, idolatry was one of God's pet hates. (Exodus 20:4-5; 1 Corinthians 10:14) When the unfaithful Israelites fell to worshipping a golden calf after their miraculous liberation from Egypt, God punished the culprits with death. They called that image "Jehovah" (YHWH) and supposedly held a festival in his honor, with singing and dancing....but it was disgusting in God's eyes.

Later when Israel fell to worshipping Molech and began to sacrifice their children to this false god, he punished them again and cleared out all of their disgusting idols. (Leviticus 20:2; Jeremiah 32:35) Idolatry seems to be a magnet for religious people because they want a god they can see. Jehovah will never be that God. He requires his worshippers to "walk by faith, not by sight". (2 Corinthians 5:7)

"Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?"

Since God's worshippers were forbidden to "make images" to be used in worship, the cross is also an image and therefore not acceptable as a symbol of the death of Christ....not only because there is no mention of a cross in the Bible, but also because veneration of the cross pre-dates Christianity as a religious symbol, by centuries. It has very grubby origins.

The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions is stau·rosʹ. In classical Greek, this word meant merely "an upright stake, or paling". Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece....but no crosspiece was ever mentioned in the scriptures.

The Bible also uses the word xyʹlon to identify the device used to put Christ to death (Acts 5:30).

A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It is translated "tree" in most Bibles....and this is in agreement with the apostle Paul's words at Galatians 3:13...
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree”......it was written in God's law.

Mons Perret, who spent fourteen years doing research in the catacombs of Rome, counted in all a total of 11,000 inscriptions among the millions of tombs. According to him, “not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.” (About the same time as Roman Catholicism was declared the state religion. It was Constantine who brought the cross into the Roman "church") Among the signs that do appear are the dove, a symbol of the holy spirit; the lyre, a symbol of joy; the anchor, a symbol of hope and the fish....none of which were venerated.

"A vast body of evidence shows that the cross was used centuries before the birth of Christianity. The cross is thought to have originated from the ancient Babylonians before its spread to other parts of the world such as Syria, Egypt, Greek, Latin, India, and Mexico. The pre-Christian cross was used as a religious symbol and as an ornament among the Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Persians, Europeans, and in some parts of Africa. There was, therefore, universal use of the pre-Christian cross.

The Christian cross as a Christian symbol has its roots in ancient paganism. The use of the Christian cross as a Christian symbol began after the time of the Constantine, which occurred three centuries after the coming of Christ. The crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross conferred a new significance to the use of the cross in Christianity. Before the death of Jesus on the cross, the cross was used privately among Christians. Its purpose was restricted. After the Constantine, the use of the cross was acknowledged as a symbol of Christianity."
The History of the Christian Cross

In the book of Ezekiel, apostate Israelite women are seen "weeping over the god Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:14)
Among the Babylonians an upright cross was a sacred symbol. As in the Hebrew alphabet, such a cross was the original form of their letter T (or Taw), and so it was the initial letter of the name of their god Tammuz. The cross was worshiped centuries before the so-called Christian era.

 

[pearl]

Yes, and the main reason why the books were not included in the Jewish canon was largely to do with their relatively late writing and out of the fear of theological contamination because of the heavy Greek influence at that time in the entire Mediterranean region.

What I find fascinating, the Septuagint is a translation from the much earlier Hebrew prior to the Masoretic.. and prior to the time of Jesus.

 

[Soapy]

The Cross….

That’s why I don’t argue the point…

“Cursed is he who is hung on a tree…”

I go with that, in that whether a Cross or an upright Stake, they are both (cut from) ‘A Tree’.

King David’s Son was killed after getting his huge hair (Cursed is a man with king hair!) caught in the low branches of a tree as he hunted his own Father to kill him…! How cursed and humiliating was that.

And, a punishment for a really wayward Jew was to be hanged from the upright post from his own home (effectively, symbolically, realistically, bringing down his own house!)

And the Romans knew that this was a tradition of the Jews. So it wasn’t a huge step of imagination for the masters of death to devise an instrument of torture for Jews that involved the greatest humiliation to that nation!!

The hanged person was seen by his family and all Jews in the area as a warning to others.

So, for me, Cross or Stake? I’ll leave that to JW’s as I actually see nothing of an issue worth debating!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What Catholics do with regard to Mary is IMO, a disgusting example of idolatry.

In order for it to be idolatry, she would have to be a deity.

What I find fascinating, the Septuagint is a translation from the much earlier Hebrew prior to the Masoretic.. and prior to the time of Jesus.

It's a translation. Which means it is inferior to the original hebrew texts.

 

[Soapy]

In order for it to be idolatry, she would have to be a deity.
It's a translation. Which means it is inferior to the original hebrew texts.

Idolatry in Judaism and Christianity is worship, or veneration as though of a God status, of anyone OR ANYTHING that is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Angels can do great works and are wiser than man, stronger than man, more intelligent than man… but there must not be worshipped or venerated.

Mary is just a dutiful and holy ‘daughter of God’ whom God chose to bare the sinless, holy and righteous child, Jesus.

We are not to worship either Jesus or Mary but the Father alone.

The rewards of Mary and of Jesus are glorious and wonderful, greatly sufficient for them.

It is Satan that tries to cause mankind to worship anyone other than God. If he can persuade anyone, and he has persuaded many, to worship or generate Mary and Jesus (AND THE HOLY SPIRIT!!), then he has won a great fight in the downfall of mankind. If is up to those of us in mankind who know and believe and follow the truth to maintain ourselves worthy of God by worshipping God only…

• for such ones the Father is seeking to worship him!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Idolatry in Judaism and Christianity is worship, or veneration as though of a God status, of anyone OR ANYTHING that is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And Catholics do not assign this God status to Mary. It may look like worship of a deity to you, but unless they assign that Godship status, it is not. Their catechism is very clear on this matter.

 

[Deeje]

In order for it to be idolatry, she would have to be a deity.

If the command by God as the first two of his Ten most important Commandments for his worshippers was “You must have no other gods but me” and “do not make for yourself a graven image of anything” and "do not bow down to them"....(Exodus 20:3-5) then to do both is somewhat of a problem for Catholicism and all of Christendom who followed them down this path. They have placed Jesus on equal footing with his God, thus supplanting the Father as "the only true God", (John 17:3) and Catholicism made Mary into a deity, despite protests that she isn't worshipped.
Bowing before any image when they were told NOT to MAKE them, is blatant disobedience. What will God's response be....? He will let us all know in due time, no doubt.

When this kind of thing took place in ancient Israel......what did God do to the idolaters? (Numbers 25:2-3; 2 Kings 17:16-18)

And Catholics do not assign this God status to Mary. It may look like worship of a deity to you, but unless they assign that Godship status, it is not. Their catechism is very clear on this matter.

What they say and what they do are two entirely different things....its not what they justify to themselves that matters....it whether God accepts the justification.....and to date....he has never changed his mind on idolatry. (1 Corinthians 10:14)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If the command by God as the first two of his Ten most important Commandments for his worshippers was “You must have no other gods but me” and “do not make for yourself a graven image of anything” and "do not bow down to them"....(Exodus 20:3-5) then to do both is somewhat of a problem for Catholicism and all of Christendom who followed them down this path. They have placed Jesus on equal footing with his God, thus supplanting the Father as "the only true God", (John 17:3) and Catholicism made Mary into a deity, despite protests that she isn't worshipped.
Bowing before any image when they were told NOT to MAKE them, is blatant disobedience. What will God's response be....? He will let us all know in due time, no doubt.

When this kind of thing took place in ancient Israel......what did God do to the idolaters? (Numbers 25:2-3; 2 Kings 17:16-18)


What they say and what they do are two entirely different things....its not what they justify to themselves that matters....it whether God accepts the justification.....and to date....he has never changed his mind on idolatry. (1 Corinthians 10:14)

If you want to talk about Judiasm's interpretation, we would say that we have far more problems with you bowing down to a mere man, Jesus, who you fully acknowledge you believe is God.

 

[oldbadger]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?
One at a time, or altogether.....please provide scripture in your response....

Oh come on! Plus scripture?
That's a morning's homework and this week is holiday week.
But I like quizzes so I'll have a go at answers...... good fun!.

Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?
Ummm...... nope

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?
Never..... nope

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?
What? Jesus pointed out quite definitely that he valued his comrades and friends above family, imo.

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?
Not from Jesus, but afterwards all manner of stuff was suggested.
Alright...... I dunno!

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?
Ummm..... dunno

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?
I bloomin' hope not!
The idea worries me.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?
No...... that's all bulldust.
Babies have no need of conscience, nor redemption.

Should images be used in worship?
It might be fun, but the Abrahamic God didn't like it, definitely.

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?
Nope...... if anybody had worn a cross or given one to Jesus he would have asked 'why?'.

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?
No. Congregations were probably just places.

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?
No......... but it's nice to get a fat income, fancy titles and posh clothes out of the congregation.
Today you can get a limo 'n'all if you're in the right church.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wiki is your ‘go to’ for expert advice on scripture....?

Much as Truthopia is your go to for expert advice on human evolution.

Why am I not surprised that you pretty much do what you chastise others for doing.

 

[Deeje]

If you want to talk about Judiasm's interpretation, we would say that we have far more problems with you bowing down to a mere man, Jesus, who you fully acknowledge you believe is God.

If you do not know by now that JW's do not believe that Jesus is God, then I fear you have not read a thing written to you.....please read before you post....it shows that at least you have attempted to understand what the thread is all about. Jesus never claimed to be God nor did he solicit worship for himself.

 

[Deeje]

Oh come on! Plus scripture?
That's a morning's homework and this week is holiday week.
But I like quizzes so I'll have a go at answers...... good fun!.

Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?
Ummm...... nope

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?
Never..... nope

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?
What? Jesus pointed out quite definitely that he valued his comrades and friends above family, imo.

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?
Not from Jesus, but afterwards all manner of stuff was suggested.
Alright...... I dunno!

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?
Ummm..... dunno

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?
I bloomin' hope not!
The idea worries me.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?
No...... that's all bulldust.
Babies have no need of conscience, nor redemption.

Should images be used in worship?
It might be fun, but the Abrahamic God didn't like it, definitely.

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?
Nope...... if anybody had worn a cross or given one to Jesus he would have asked 'why?'.

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?
No. Congregations were probably just places.

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?
No......... but it's nice to get a fat income, fancy titles and posh clothes out of the congregation.
Today you can get a limo 'n'all if you're in the right church.

Congrats.....only one wrong....

The cross was a religious symbol in non-Christian religions long before Jesus walked the earth.
It can be traced back to Babylon.

Egypt's ankh cross was "the symbol of life" representing the male and female reproductive parts....

The cross crept into Christianity when Constantine supposedly received a vision of a flaming cross and was told...."by this conquer". Plainly this was not from Jesus Christ, because he never advocated either political conquest or violence.

 

[2ndpillar]

Sorry for interrupting.

Curious-short question/short answer.

What is the context of these verses:

John 21:25 (If there are more scriptures not recorded, why sola scriptura?)

John 5:39 (If scriptures point to christ, why not go to the source and not what's written about him?

This has nothing to do with Catholicism; so that's irrelevant. Just curious about the interpretations of these verses.

History and interpretations, and even gospels chosen, belongs to the winners. The early "Christians" were simply Jews who believed Yeshua was the messiah (Christ), and followed the teachings of Matthew and James, and examples would be the Ebionites (poor ones) whose original followers were purged out by the later winning orthodox church (Roman Catholic) post 325 AD Nicene Council, of the beast with two horns like a lamb, Constantine, who like the Gnostics, followed Paul, but to the extent that the Gnostics only basically followed Paul's epistles and the gospel of Luke, whereas the Catholics were also big into Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17. The competing gospels and writings were burnt by the Roman Catholics, and only lately, have many been unearthed. The difference was that for one, Yeshua was a man, the son of Mary, and the other, Yeshua was God, the son of woman/Mary. The orthodox sects, the "lawless", mirroring the Roman church, would represent the tares of Mt 13, whereas at the "end of the age", would be gathered and tossed into the furnace of fire. Another perspective is the Arians versus the Trinitarians. The decree of Constantine was that any Arian writings were to be burnt, and that holders of those writings were to be submitted for capital punishment. This type of behavior limited the understanding/interpretations. Much like watching CNN versus News Max. In the end, the good comes out on top, but apparently after much tribulation.

 

[metis]

And Catholics do not assign this God status to Mary. It may look like worship of a deity to you, but unless they assign that Godship status, it is not. Their catechism is very clear on this matter.

And what many JW's simply do not understand is that "graven image" may also be interpreted as being two dimensional, thus one probably should not take pictures. I bring this up because in JW magazines and also here at RF some of the JW's post pictures, so maybe they're treading on thin ice, eh?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you do not know by now that JW's do not believe that Jesus is God, then I fear you have not read a thing written to you.....please read before you post....it shows that at least you have attempted to understand what the thread is all about. Jesus never claimed to be God nor did he solicit worship for himself.

Ah. I don't always check whether I'm responding to a JW or regular Chrisitan. I am aware that JWs consider Jesus to be the archangel Michael, not God. Whether Jesus claimed to be God or not is an argument for Christians and JWs to have. There are verses on both sides of the argument. I personally doubt that Jesus ever claimed to be God, but that's because I believe in a historical Jesus, not the Jesus of the gospels.

I am not following the whole thread. I look at most recent posts in threads that look interesting, when I have time.

 

[Deeje]

Ah. I don't always check whether I'm responding to a JW or regular Chrisitan. I am aware that JWs consider Jesus to be the archangel Michael, not God. Whether Jesus claimed to be God or not is an argument for Christians and JWs to have. There are verses on both sides of the argument. I personally doubt that Jesus ever claimed to be God, but that's because I believe in a historical Jesus, not the Jesus of the gospels.

I am not following the whole thread. I look at most recent posts in threads that look interesting, when I have time.

Thank you for your honest response.

I can tell you categorically that Jesus never once claimed to be God, and that there are no verses that support that notion when taken in context.......but he is linked to Michael, as only these two are said to command the angels.

Because we do not see Jesus as Christendom does, the evidence is that the person we came to know as Jesus, was, in his pre-human form, the “great Prince” spoken about in prophesy by Daniel, and linked to “the time of the end”. (Daniel 12:1) We therefore believe that, as “the Logos” he was God’s ‘spokesman’ from the beginning, the one who guided Israel through the wilderness and spoke to Moses on God’s behalf. The one who was appointed as “mediator” of the “new covenant” spoken about by Jeremiah, just as Moses was mediator of the old covenant. Moses himself foretold that a ‘prophet like him’ was to come. Jesus fulfilled all the qualifications as that prophet......the Messiah for those who were not led down a wrong path by corrupt religious leaders, misinterpreting what he was to accomplish and when.

We each must choose our own spiritual path, but we also need to know all the facts.

 

[Bree]

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

I can think of at least two verses that teach this.

Humans are not immortal, never have been and never will be.

The scriptural teaching has always been that death is the end of life. Humans do not live on after death. There is no inner 'soul' inside that lives on.

 

[pearl]

It's a translation. Which means it is inferior to the original hebrew texts.

Apparently there was a perceived need for a Greek translation of the original Hebrew because Hebrew was no longer the predominant language of the Jews. Was not the Masoretic text also a translation from the original Hebrew but now with the addition of vowels to the Hebrew alphabet and centuries later than the Septuagint?