metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Absolutely false, and btw it wasn't called the "Roman Catholic Church" until much later in time when the Uniate churches recombined with the "Catholic Church". If you check with even Wikipedia, you will read how the "Catholic Church" goes back to the apostles, although it wasn't called by that name until the 2nd century. See: Catholic Church - Wikipedia [scroll down to "History"]
So, if you keep on insisting that the lie that your leaders keep feeding you is supposedly true, then just show us here exactly where the break was between what was formerly called "the Way" and its morphing into the CC? Show us where that supposed break occurred, and if such a break had actually occurred, then let me remind you that Jesus' statement about "guiding the church until the end of time" becomes a false prophecy. There was no such break as any serious historian will tell you, but instead of actually looking at objective history you prefer to allow yourself to be brainwashed by the JW leadership.
Those specific words are not used, but the rather obvious principle is found in Acts and some of the epistles whereas appointees are made by the apostles, with the order to congregations that their teachings and leadership are to be followed. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia
Is that why I taught Christian theology for 14 years, not including several seminars after that?
Yes, I've been in Episcopalian/Anglican services here and in Canada, plus my favorite Christian theologian was Anglican (Sir William Barclay) and my favorite book on early church history ("Tradition In the Early Church") was written by an Anglican (Dr. Hanson). Let me say that I have a lot more respect scholastically and substantively reading their literature versus what I've read from the JW's (two sets of my neighbors were Witnesses, and one still is, and I've read quite a bit of their stuff over the years).
Since this "apostate Jewish system" was set up in Torah, your analysis is quite ludicrous. You have so little understanding of the simple fact that Jesus and all of the apostles were Jewish and working within a Jewish paradigm, arguing over various matters like we do today. The main arguments appear to center around two topics, namely the "oral law", which was being debated even before Jesus was born and was controversial indeed, and also Jesus' very liberal interpretation of the Mosaic Law itself.
Since you seem to be unaware of that, you cannot really appreciate some of the finer elements dealing with the controversy that surrounded him. He certainly was not blanket anti-Pharisee as there are statements by him to obey what they teach but not to emulate some of the behaviors that he saw some do. Jesus was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, and Paul upon arrest later said he is a Pharisee, not was a Pharisee. If one doesn't understand their connection to the Pharisee movement (it was not a unified group as there were different branches), then they really don't understand that much about what was happening and why, thus possibly leading to faulty interpretations.
Nonsense. He brought gentiles into the movement without the need for circumcision, increased the role of women, discouraged being judgmental, saw ethnic equality of all peoples, taught compassion and justice (fairness) for all, etc. His use of the "narrow path" was referring largely to one's behavior, not politically-correct dogma.
That's "building bridges", Deeje, and what you and your JW's are doing is the polar opposite, along with unbridled theistic arrogance matched with condescension and judgmentalism towards any group that doesn't fit into your branch's myopic paradigm.
So, instead of blindly following your leaders, maybe at the least start doing some objective studying from historical sources not linked to any one church. And digging up and reading Barclay's books may not be a bad place to start after doing the historical research.
Last edited:
