Jeremiah 16:21

[Mohrb]

but Catholicism is simply the church that makes the wildest claims

Yes, it is a "wild claim" that Jesus instituted an organization that we now call the Catholic Church. It is also a "wild claim" that a man rose from the dead...

it appears that the two claims have some correlation. People who become Catholic believe the "wild claims" by rational thought. There is plentiful evidence for both.

Indeed. The wild claims in the bible are supported by the bible. Circular reasoning, I'm aware, but the bible is something I have faith in.

I don't want to turn this thread into an attack on catholics... that won't do anyone any good. But, I will point out that the Israelites were specifically God's chosen people, with one specific group (The levites, iirc) as the priestly class. However, by the time Jesus came, they'd completely abandoned the spirit of the law in exchange for an unreasonably exaggerated set of laws and loopholes. While, yes, I have faith in God's word... no, that doesn't necessitate a faith in a lineage of humans who openly suggest that the word of their church can over-rule the word of God.

Yes, the RCC claims to have a direct lineage of authority being passed from person to person from peter. But there's really no way to verify any of it between the first century and the third century at all. It can only be historically documented as far back as the council of Nicaea, and Constantine isn't a substitute for peter.

Unless I'm wrong about this? What evidence is there to show specifically who the apostles passed their authority to between them and the council of Nicaea hundreds of years later? What verification is there that Constantine invited only people who had been legitimately been passed authority, and all of the people to whom authority had been passed. (Realize peter wasn't the only apostle)

It would me, too, if it were true...

I've never heard of that concept in Catholicism. Maybe you are unaware of Vatican 2 and the limits that Church places on the Pope's "word"?

Feel free to share. I know I've been told by catholics in the past (and I believe the catholic encyclopedia agrees) that "Holy tradition" is considered to be "as infallible as the bible." And I know between the council of Florence in 1441 and the Second Vatican Council in 1965 there have been some direct flip flopping of some pretty basic tenants.

For example, in 1441 the pope stated that even if a person remained nearly sinless their entire life, regardless of how much they prayed, regardless of any relationship they tried to build with God, even if they shed their blood for Christ, they would still automatically go directly to hell unless before death, they officially converted to join the catholic flock. In the second council, it was decided that Christian non-catholics weren't necessarily all automatically damned to hell.

(Note, I'm not giving them a hard time "for flip flopping" ... I consider this a step in the right direction, and a good thing. However, to claim that the pope's word is equivalent to God's word, when in the past they've made claims that even they reject now... shows that they're not as infallible as they claim to be.

Because it has been around 20 times longer and is over 100 times larger... remember, religious organizations are made up of men and women who are in dire need of forgiveness from God for sins committed.

The 23000 number is from a sample of -all JWs- ... not just elders. There are over 7.3 million JW ministers, and 12 million total regular attendees, and this is a total number of allegations ever (over 100 years). Yes, the catholic church has been around longer, but the numbers reported by the diocese is that there have been over 100,000 priests with at least one allegation against them -in the last 50 years- ... not ever. And, while there are more catholics, there are less than half a million catholic clergy. The 100k allegation number is only allegations against priests, not against catholic attendees.

So the JWs have less than 1/4 of the allegations from a period over twice as long, with over 18 times as many clergy members.

That being said, I agree, I'm not suggesting that catholics as a whole are evil because of such allegations. I'm sure most aren't true. And even the ones that are true are likely composed mostly of otherwise good people who made mistakes. And the few remaining people that are simply "bad" ... I'm sure are not approved of. Likewise with JWs, most allegations are probably unfounded. I'm sure there have been some cases where an otherwise good person has simply made a mistake. And I know for a fact that if a person is found guilty of such a sin and is unrepentant, they are to be immediately disfellowshipped until they are repentant and seek help (on top of any legal ramifications necessary by local law).

I didn't bring this up to "bash catholics" ... but I saw people positioning to start "bashing JWs" ... and this is one thing people like to bring up. I find it best if I bring it up and put it into perspective on my terms rather than backpeddle when someone else brings it up and presents it as if they're "exposing something that we're hiding."

One allegation per 317 ministers is well within the average of alleged abuses among ministers in various "Christian" denominations. I have seen reports of some Protestant ministrial abuse as high as 10% (although that seems high to me) and have seen Catholic priests ranging near 1-2%, while the general public is well within these numbers, even higher, as in some school teachers and scout masters. Considering that JW's are part of the population, I would not be too offended by these numbers, they may even be low...

Indeed. I believe the american population as a whole is about 10%. As much press as the catholic scandal gets, I remember reading an article (can't find it atm) quoting the pope stating that their numbers were about 5%. It would be nice if it was 0% across the board... but out of so many people, there will be some bad ones... or good ones making mistakes... or good ones falsely accused.

... I'd prefer to get back to discussing doctrine and logic though, if you don't mind. (if it makes you feel better, some of the more extreme Pentacostal churches kinda freak me out as well.)

Yes, well, thanks for the joy-ride... ;)[/quote]
Oh, I wasn't referring to you! Sorry if you thought that.

Note the quote at the top of that post. I think I actually started it with some off-the-cuff comment addressing the "authority" issue, mentioning that "just because the catholic church is 'the authority' and approves of prayer to saints (like Mary) doesn't make it biblically accurate." I saw a couple comments about how "all JWs are trained to hate catholics." It looked like it was about to turn into a smear campaign about how "JWs hate puppies and step on flowers." ... so my attempt to quash that sort of rhetoric was to jump straight to the two most serious claims people make against the JWs and put them into perspective. That way it's less likely that we'll spend a week building up minor insults and losing our tempers leading up to the big points.

... I figure, I'd make the big points against JWs now and dispel them... that way we can skip all the frustrating stuff.

... I can see how it would look like an offensive act against your church as opposed to an act defending mine. Wasn't meant to be. That's just the down side to being "the majority." Catholicism is the standard basis of comparison.


... so... eherm... back to Jeremiah 16:21? Since you're here, francis, what's your perspective? The KJV aknowledges the tetragrammaton being translated as "Jehovah" at least 4 times... considering what is being said in Jeremiah 16:21... do you believe God's personal name should be used, or what do you think of it being changed to "lord" in a case like this?

 

[francisdesales]

Indeed. The wild claims in the bible are supported by the bible. Circular reasoning, I'm aware, but the bible is something I have faith in.

It is not necessary to resort to a circular argument on these subjects...

I don't want to turn this thread into an attack on catholics... that won't do anyone any good. But, I will point out that the Israelites were specifically God's chosen people, with one specific group (The levites, iirc) as the priestly class. However, by the time Jesus came, they'd completely abandoned the spirit of the law in exchange for an unreasonably exaggerated set of laws and loopholes. While, yes, I have faith in God's word... no, that doesn't necessitate a faith in a lineage of humans who openly suggest that the word of their church can over-rule the word of God.

That stereotype is not reality.

I have been doing a lot of reading on Judaism during the time bracketing Christ, as related in the Mishnah, and I find numerous teachings that are quite similar to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the upholding of the "spirit of the Law". Living the Torah was very strong for many Jews, and to say "completely abandoned" is to ignore the FACT that the first Christians were indeed Jews who had NOT "completely abandoned" anything taught to them regarding Torah.

Yes, the RCC claims to have a direct lineage of authority being passed from person to person from peter. But there's really no way to verify any of it between the first century and the third century at all.

"At all??" You are generalizing again. The Bible supports that idea, such as Paul - Timothy/Titus, as do the first extra-Biblical writings, such as Ignatius and Clement of Rome. Irenaeus even lists the line of Bishops following Peter to his day. We could discuss the gradual move from "group leadership" to a monarchical episcopate in leadership - and people accepted this authority. But if you expecting a "CNN-like" chain for every single church community, you are expecting too much from ancient authorities who had numerous books and letters burnt during 3 centuries of persecution. Consider how many manuscripts we have of the NT before 200 AD...!

It can only be historically documented as far back as the council of Nicaea, and Constantine isn't a substitute for peter.

Indeed, but I don't think the Catholic Church "traces" anything to Constantine regarding apostolic succession. As the Emperor, it was his duty to bring about peace between "warring" religious sects, such as Catholics and Arians, so it is natural that he would call Nicea into session.

Unless I'm wrong about this? What evidence is there to show specifically who the apostles passed their authority to between them and the council of Nicaea hundreds of years later? What verification is there that Constantine invited only people who had been legitimately been passed authority, and all of the people to whom authority had been passed. (Realize peter wasn't the only apostle)

What verification do we have that Matthew, John, Luke or Mark wrote the Gospels?
What verification do we have that Paul wrote much of the "Pauline corpus"?
What verification do we have that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?

We have to be reasonable on what to expect regarding OUR requirement of verification and must consider the ancient community's ACCEPTANCE of that apostolic succession. THEY accepted Jesus' resurrection, THEY accepted Timothy as validly planted as Paul's successor in Ephesus. THEY accepted the written words that we call "Gospels" as accurate reflections of the life and teachings of the Christ.

The Catholic Church would have been utterly rejected if THE COMMUNITY detected such a break. Interestingly, authority depends not only on those in authority, but those ACCEPTING that authority.

It would me, too, if it were true...

I've never heard of that concept in Catholicism. Maybe you are unaware of Vatican 2 and the limits that Church places on the Pope's "word"?

Feel free to share. I know I've been told by catholics in the past (and I believe the catholic encyclopedia agrees) that "Holy tradition" is considered to be "as infallible as the bible." And I know between the council of Florence in 1441 and the Second Vatican Council in 1965 there have been some direct flip flopping of some pretty basic tenants.

Holy Apostolic Tradition is NOT "words of the Pope that contradict the Bible". The Pope cannot promulgate "new" doctrine - he can only define what we already believe. As to oral tradition/written traditions, remember, Paul told US to hold both. He was a Jew - and the Jews (again, from my reading on this subject lately) considered BOTH the oral and written Traditions were given to Moses at Sinai. Thus, the Mishnah, before it was written, was QUITE authoritative and reflected accurate (and divinely given) traditions and reflections on HOW to live the Torah. Does this sound a bit familiar - that Catholics also revere Apostolic Traditions and where they got that idea from? ALL traditions given by the Apostles are given to us through them by God.

For example, in 1441 the pope stated that even if a person remained nearly sinless their entire life, regardless of how much they prayed, regardless of any relationship they tried to build with God, even if they shed their blood for Christ, they would still automatically go directly to hell unless before death, they officially converted to join the catholic flock. In the second council, it was decided that Christian non-catholics weren't necessarily all automatically damned to hell.

I would have to see the context - I thought the Council of Florence was more about the unification with the Greeks and Gallicianism. The history of this council is a bit cloudy and I would have to see the context of the citation you have in mind.

(Note, I'm not giving them a hard time "for flip flopping" ... I consider this a step in the right direction, and a good thing. However, to claim that the pope's word is equivalent to God's word, when in the past they've made claims that even they reject now... shows that they're not as infallible as they claim to be.

Recall, papal infallibility does not extend to every word that comes from the Pope's mouth. Nor was there such a categorical and universal acceptance of that concept in the 15th century. It was as yet undefined, though vaguely accepted.

The 23000 number is from a sample of -all JWs- ... not just elders. There are over 7.3 million JW ministers, and 12 million total regular attendees, and this is a total number of allegations ever (over 100 years). Yes, the catholic church has been around longer, but the numbers reported by the diocese is that there have been over 100,000 priests with at least one allegation against them -in the last 50 years- ... not ever. And, while there are more catholics, there are less than half a million catholic clergy. The 100k allegation number is only allegations against priests, not against catholic attendees.

So the JWs have less than 1/4 of the allegations from a period over twice as long, with over 18 times as many clergy members.

Your point? That abused JW people do not feel free to come forward yet and make accusations? Studies show that abuse is relatively at the same percentages across the population and all walks of life. Which is why I didn't see any "propaganda" in the numbers you presented. Every organization has their abuse issues, it is just that most do not know of the problem in smaller denominations. The Catholic Church is front and center in this because they are a large and active group in the political, social, and moral front. Left liberals "love" to beat the Catholic Church, because in their minds, it screams "hypocrisy", thus, justifying their own immoral opinions on issues such as gay marriages and abortion.

I didn't bring this up to "bash catholics" ... but I saw people positioning to start "bashing JWs" ... and this is one thing people like to bring up. I find it best if I bring it up and put it into perspective on my terms rather than backpeddle when someone else brings it up and presents it as if they're "exposing something that we're hiding."

As I said before, Jason explained the "love the sinner, hate the teachings of the organization"

I believe the american population as a whole is about 10%. As much press as the catholic scandal gets, I remember reading an article (can't find it atm) quoting the pope stating that their numbers were about 5%. It would be nice if it was 0% across the board... but out of so many people, there will be some bad ones... or good ones making mistakes... or good ones falsely accused.

Naturally, especially when many bishop's strategy is to pay people off and leave accused priests high-and-dry. It is sad, and from a distance, we can say that good will come from it/they will be rewarded for their suffering, etc. - but it is maddening to watch it in the present.

I think I actually started it with some off-the-cuff comment addressing the "authority" issue, mentioning that "just because the catholic church is 'the authority' and approves of prayer to saints (like Mary) doesn't make it biblically accurate."

We could discuss the inaccuracies of that assumption... The Church defines things that are already believed and practiced, as the Spirit moves the entire Church. It doesn't sit down and say "hey, let's pray to Mary this month". It wouldn't have been accepted.

back to Jeremiah 16:21? Since you're here, francis, what's your perspective? The KJV aknowledges the tetragrammaton being translated as "Jehovah" at least 4 times... considering what is being said in Jeremiah 16:21... do you believe God's personal name should be used, or what do you think of it being changed to "lord" in a case like this?

[/quote]

Honestly, I don't have an opinion on this. I would have to do more research before I could make a reasonable response.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

i am well aware of the what the jw thinks of charmastism.

i was mainly adress the comments of dadof10 to you about the rcc. and i clarified that.

the programming by the jw is rather hard to forget, the more you bring it up the more i recall. this time i aint a buying it as i have been set free.

interesting thing on the freemasonry as i wanted to ask you about that. francis.

What would you like to know about freemasonry? The Church states one cannot be a Catholic and a Freemason, they have conflicting beliefs on God, or better, the Freemasons have "no" belief in any PARTICULAR manifestation of God...

Regards

 

[Mysteryman]

Okay, thanks for your reply. But that still leaves a question unaswered. How do you follow Jesus Christ ? I understand rcc beliefs fairly well. So I would appreciate an answer of how do you follow Jesus Christ ?

Jesus promised us the comforter, and that the comforter would come in his name, and teach us all things and remind us of the things that he spoke. This comforter is called a couple of things. One, is Christ in us. The other is called, the Spirit of his Son in our hearts. Another is called, the Spirit of truth. This is where truth comes from. Men of God speak the truth, but it is confirmed by the Spirit of truth that is within us. The reason God sent Apostles, Prophets, Evangilists, and Teachers and Pastors, is so that the body of Christ would not be blown about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and their cunning craftyness , whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Without the Spirit of truth, how else can one tell if someone is speaking the truth ?

Hi MM,

We are talking by each other, so I think it might be helpful to give you some quick instruction on the Catholic view of the role the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (Magisterium) for PUBLIC revelation, that is, Teaching that is binding on the faithful. Doctrine. If I want to know if salvation comes through faith alone, the Church has the answer and the REASON WHY. Please note, we do not just follow blindly. We are encouraged to ask questions, which are ALL answered.

The Holy Spirit speaks to people privately, but this is not binding on anyone but the recipient. If I pray for guidance on a particular issue, I am confident that the Holy Spirit will give me an answer. I may not like it, but He will answer me, none the less. This, however, is only for me personally.

The Church teaches that, if we receive any private revelation, it must be tested against revealed Truth. If we "receive from the spirit" that, for example, salvation is by faith alone, we must "test the Spirit" (as scripture says to do) by the proper authority, the Church Christ founded, since this is a doctrinal issue.

This is the way the Spirit works. If He is, indeed, the Spirit of Truth, He cannot teach error. If the "Spirit" tells you that we are saved by "faith alone", and another believer that we are not, how are we to decide which "Spirit" is right?

Hi dadof10 :

Again, thanks for your reply. But your reply brings up another question, which is a continuation of what we are now discussing. You just explained to me, that if you receive revelation, that it must be tested against revealed truth. I am sure you are aware how vague this statement is, correct ? You also said that everything must be tested by the proper authority , the church Christ founded, on doctrinial issues.

What I understand you to be saying, is that no individual can receive revelation from God, as a revealing of the truth , without strick adherant to the church interpreters. Am I understanding you correctly ?

Wouldn't this type of adherant just nullify the revealing that a person can receive from the Holy Spirit ? In other words, if I receive a revealing that one does not need to be water baptized for any reason. And the church standard of authority states otherwise. Would not the organizations stance come between the Holy Spirit talking and revealing to me, and the stance of the organization ?

What if the Holy Spirit wants me to help the organization to change its stance on certain teachings ? Especially when the Holy Spirit knows that the organization is in error. But the question boils down to the fact, that the organization becomes the stumbling block to hold back the truth from its congregation. Thus squashing the truth with its traditions of men and untruths.

So you see, you still have not answered the question. By what standard is truth suppose to be relevant ? Who judges truth and error ? Men ? Or God ?

You are suggesting that the Holy Spirit works through certain men, and everyone is just suppose to believe what they say without any means by which truth can be judged or untruth can be judged.

But the scriptures tell us, that there is a way to judge. Each individual who is a Christian, has the Spirit of truth in them. So each individual is the final judge. Not the group of leaders ! Nor a council of leaders !

One man , not a council of men, told Peter that he was to blame, and that he was not holding the gospel of Christ uprightly. One man ! His name was Paul. And the Holy Spirit was working through this man Paul. Yet, even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. The majority of the leadership were in the wrong. That included the Apostle Peter. But this one man Paul was the only man that was correct in this instance. The council of men were in error, and the Holy Spirit working through this one Man Paul, was correct. I believe this is still happening in our day and time. And it will continue to happen, as long as men who might or might not be called of God. Hold councils and judge and elect what is the truth by way of their councils. The truth from God does not come down from God in this manner. God calls out certain men of God, and God talks directly through these men. And sometimes , certain men of God need to be corrected, as such was the case with Peter in Galatians chapter 2.

The Spirit of truth is not in councils of men, but in individual believers.

 

[jasoncran]

i am well aware of the what the jw thinks of charmastism.

i was mainly adress the comments of dadof10 to you about the rcc. and i clarified that.

the programming by the jw is rather hard to forget, the more you bring it up the more i recall. this time i aint a buying it as i have been set free.

interesting thing on the freemasonry as i wanted to ask you about that. francis.

What would you like to know about freemasonry? The Church states one cannot be a Catholic and a Freemason, they have conflicting beliefs on God, or better, the Freemasons have "no" belief in any PARTICULAR manifestation of God...

Regards

the catholic history (alleged) on being influenced by freemasonry, i am versed on the freemasons. recall that i worked with a master mason, perhaps this is best left to pm or another thread.

 

[francisdesales]

the catholic history (alleged) on being influenced by freemasonry, i am versed on the freemasons. recall that i worked with a master mason, perhaps this is best left to pm or another thread.

Are you aware of the Freemason's view on God?

If you are, then you would understand how the two are not compatible (and the "influence" bit is propaganda polemics from somewhere).

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

the catholic history (alleged) on being influenced by freemasonry, i am versed on the freemasons. recall that i worked with a master mason, perhaps this is best left to pm or another thread.

Are you aware of the Freemason's view on God?

If you are, then you would understand how the two are not compatible (and the "influence" bit is propaganda polemics from somewhere).

Regards

of course, they see the Lord as being satan and not the God we call adonai. to them lucifer is the lord and is benevolent. the worship the god called osiris as well, both to them are the same.

they called adonai evil.

 

[francisdesales]

Are you aware of the Freemason's view on God?

If you are, then you would understand how the two are not compatible (and the "influence" bit is propaganda polemics from somewhere).

Regards

of course, they see the Lord as being satan and not the God we call adonai. to them lucifer is the lord and is benevolent. the worship the god called osiris as well, both to them are the same.

they called adonai evil.

So on such a fundamental thing, how can one be both a Catholic and a Freemason? How could something from the 17th century opposed to Catholic beliefs "influence" the beliefs held for 1600 years at that point?

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Are you aware of the Freemason's view on God?

If you are, then you would understand how the two are not compatible (and the "influence" bit is propaganda polemics from somewhere).

Regards

of course, they see the Lord as being satan and not the God we call adonai. to them lucifer is the lord and is benevolent. the worship the god called osiris as well, both to them are the same.

they called adonai evil.

So on such a fundamental thing, how can one be both a Catholic and a Freemason? How could something from the 17th century opposed to Catholic beliefs "influence" the beliefs held for 1600 years at that point?

Regards

The Catholic Church has written encylicals that specifically state that Freemasonry and Catholicism are not compatible, esp. in the Mason's vague idea of God.

I can neither confirm or deny what Freemasons believe about God, but since I saw this and I happen to be reading several books on the origins of the French Revolution for a class this summer I thought I might mention that a century later (around 1725) Free Masonry was introduced to France and many clergymen were members of masonic lodges in France (some composed solely of clergy, such as the lodge La Vertu in Clervaux), although many nobles were members as well (of which some clergy were nobles, in terms of wealth). What they discussed I have no idea (it might have been chat about Enlightenment principles, politics, religion, etc.), but I thought I might contribute that tidbit. France has had a strange history of religion though, first persecuting the Huguenots and driving them out and later practically abolishing all religion including Christianity as the state religion in the wake of the Revolution.

Samuel Adams wrote in 1790 about the French Revolution, “I know not what to make of a nation of thirty million atheists.... Too many Frenchmen, after the example of too many Americans, pant for equality of persons and property. The impracticability of this, God Almighty has decreed, and the advocates of liberty, who attempt it, will surely suffer for it." So I don't know if France was an exception to the rest of Europe as concerns religion but it is possible that the clergy elsewhere in Europe were members of masonic lodges as well. If not then France just has an anomalous history of the Church and its activity (or non-activity) in society.

~Josh

 

[Mohrb]

I don't think the suggestion is that "freemasonry affected the catholic church." I think the suggestion is that freemasonry is somehow related to the knights templar, which the catholic church formed. Obviously freemasonry isn't catholicism, but it's something spawned by catholicism.

 

[francisdesales]

I don't think the suggestion is that "freemasonry affected the catholic church." I think the suggestion is that freemasonry is somehow related to the knights templar, which the catholic church formed. Obviously freemasonry isn't catholicism, but it's something spawned by catholicism.

LOL! The founders of Freemasonry were deists who rejected that Christ was the only way to salvation. They still hold to the idea of a vague God, not the Christian idea. "Religion" to the Freemason is not a major consideration, nor does it matter whether you believe in the God of Jesus Christ or Buddha...

History doesn't support the idea either, although I'm sure if you believe the Freemasons, you'll believe they also built the pyramids, as well...

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

josh just look at the dollar bill, and you see the God to the masons.e pluribus unum is from the masons.

 

[dadof10]

Is it your claim, that EVERY scholar that rejects the NWT is biased?

Do you realize what you are implying? That it is ILLOGICAL to use the work of experts in the field that you are arguing. Does this sound right to you?

That's an exaggeration. But, as I said, this tangent is going on for too long in this thread. I'd be glad to discuss it with you more in another thread, but I'm not responding to the "fallacy" tangent in this thread any more.

OK, and if you admit that citing the Greek scholars who translated the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. in an argument on Greek translations is NOT an example of the Ad Verecundiam fallacy, I'll let it go. Can you show some integrity?

You have posted a few Straw-man arguments. And then there's this little gem:

[quote:1mb2g0hc]Those magazines are confusing...And filled with errors.

And you have lousy posture and horrible penmanship! See how useful unsubstantiated insults are?

[/quote:1mb2g0hc]

My "insult" was directed at the Watchtower and Awake! magazines, yours, at me personally. You are equating an attack on MAGAZINES with a personal attack on a person. This is called argumentum Ad Hominem. You need a refresher course on logical fallacies to keep your "mild expert" status.

[quote:1mb2g0hc]"That doesn't mean we should approve of praying to saints and forgiveness of sin can be purchased via material gifts to the catholic church."

The Catholic Church doesn't teach this. Another cheap-shot.

Do the research. "Patron saints" are prayed to quite often in some areas. Ever hear a catholic saying a "Hail Mary?" True, the normal use of such prayers is to pray for the saints to pray for you. Interesting experiment... go to google and type in "Prayer to saint" ... don't hit enter... see what pops up on the auto-complete menu. You'll have a list of prayers to various saints. For example, if you click on the "prayer to saint christopher" you'll get a number of sites quoting the most common pre-written prayer including the phrase "St. Christopher, holy patron of travellers, protect me and lead me safely to my destiny." You can look around for many common prayers to various humans (historically real or not) being treated as demigods. Of course, a catholic will rebutt that it's not the intent... that saints are used for intercessory prayers... yet many (such as the one referenced above) beseech the saints themselves for protection and guidance.

As for paying for forgiveness.... research the phrase "Indulgence."

Them's the facts.[/quote:1mb2g0hc]

My comment was directed toward the sentence highlighted in red, which was also red in my original post. I didn't comment on the communion of Saints, only on your ridiculous statement : "forgiveness of sin can be purchased via material gifts to the catholic church"

Please try and learn something here about Catholic theology, so the next time you discuss issues with a Catholic, you won't look so foolish:

What an indulgence is not

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

What an indulgence is

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

* In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
* Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
* The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
* An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
* In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

[quote:1mb2g0hc]You do not speak Greek or Hebrew, correct? You do not have access to the manuscripts, correct?
You are "examining the differences and carefully weighing the evidence" with SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. You HAVE to trust your SOURCES, correct?

No one has access to the -original- script of each book written... we only have access to ancient copies. And yes, I have access (as does anyone with the internet) to copies of these manuscripts. The "training wheels" version is easily accessible here:

http://www.scripture4all.org

Interlinears like these will accurately show the wording in greek (some interlinears even show the greek word in roman characters to make it even easier for a novice to translate). These interlinears will have their translator's chosen "best word" for each greek/hebrew word above or below the original word itself, and then in a separate column, it'll have the verse interpreted into english sentence structure. Yes, it takes trust to assume that the greek words are trustworthy. However, beyond that is entirely verifiable and falsifiable. One is free to see the word "pneuma"... and even though the interlinear may say either "breath" or "wind" or "spirit" depending on the context... using a lexicon or greek>english dictionary will allow you to understand the entire context of the individual word. Thus, when "pneuma" is translated as "ghost" in the interpretation column, you have the right to question this interpretation knowing that there are multiple possibilities for the translation of the word "pneuma"... and that "ghost" isn't necessarily the ONLY possibility even if SOME experts chose this.[/quote:1mb2g0hc]

For someone so seemingly intelligent, you are having a hard time grasping this concept. You do NOT have access to the manuscripts, you have access to another SOURCE. The dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons and, yes, interlinears, are all sources and you are taking the TRANSLATORS WORD FOR THE CONTENT. Please click on this link (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm)and open John 20, for example. Do you see the TRANSLATION on the right? What about the references to Strong's in the column of each word?

Unless you have access to the newest, most accurate (as opposed to the straw-man "-original- script of each book written"), manuscripts. Unless you have access to other literature written around that time to compare sentence structure. Unless you actually read and write Greek and can translate it into English, you are relying on the accuracy of the TRANSLATORS.

[quote:1mb2g0hc]If the Oxford Greek Dictionary varies from Strong's, which one do you choose and how do you make this decision? Do you look at their CREDENTIALS? Maybe to actually take an expert's credentials into account is another logical fallacy.

If two disagree with each other, I compare how they disagree. Does one simply "include a possible translation" that the other doesn't include? In which case, good. If one has a contrary definition to the other... I can't think of a single example of this happening.[/quote:1mb2g0hc]

Here's one.

NWT: "...and the Word was a god"

Online Greek Interlinear: "...and the Word was God."

Oxford University Press RSV "...and the Word was God."

As you can see, two of the three SOURCES that you consider valid don't translate "ton theon" as "a god" in verse 1, just as they don't (and neither does the NWT) in verse 2. There is definitely a conflict here

However, if it did... I would do more research from other sources, look into the etymology of the word, understand it's history, consider the context, and pray about it.

OK, Go ahead. Let me know what you find in non-JW sources. Please take into consideration that "theon" is NEVER translated in the Greek NT as a god type being or angel, only as either the God of Israel or a false god.

 

[Free]

From another discussion I had with Mohrb:

The Greek supports the rendering "the Word was God"--even apart from verse 3, but verse 3 does indeed support such a rendering--but that is not all the Greek states.

It is very important to note that John is making a distinction between the Word and God; he is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. I'm assuming that you're appealing to the fact that there is no article before theos. That it appears anarthrously in no way means that it should be translated as "a god," as the following reasons show:

1. If both God and the Word had an article, "the Word was God" would be the same as "God was the Word," but clearly that is not the case.
2. If neither God nor the Word had an article, "God" and "Word" would be interchangeable, equating all of God with all of the Word, but that is clearly not the case either.
3. There are 282 other instances of theos appearing anarthrously and I can all but guarantee that all of them are translated as "God" in the NWT. This includes John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18. So then one is left scratching their head as to why this single instance in John 1:1 is translated as "a god."

 

[dadof10]

And when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and Jesus says "Blessed are you because you have seen and BELIEVE..." I take Him at His word.

If you believe a human to be a more reliable source than Jesus himself... how do you call Jesus "God?"

Jesus affirms Thomas' proclamation. Have you read any of Paul's letters? Do you believe a human to be AS reliable as Jesus? John wrote the 4th Gospel. He is a man. Is he a reliable source?

Again... have you read the source you insisted was "The reliable source?" What does your Thayer's Lexicon say about the verse?

Here is the word for word from Thayer's on the entry "theos":

"2 Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn.i.1; xx. 28;1Jn.v.20;...the matter is still in dispute among theologians."

The ellipses are other verses. All I have access to is the on-line version. Is this what you are referring to? If so, I don't see your point.

[quote:2gnysyx1]You can't ignore one verse in favor of another. They are both correct. It's up to us to figure out the meaning. Lucky we have an infallible teaching authority to help, huh?

Indeed. So, may we compare the two verses? If we stipulate that one is not "wrong" and they do not contradict each other, how is it that both are true at once?

My explanation (as well as Thayer's if you read his notes) is that Jesus stated that the Father is "The -only True God" ... indicating that his father -alone- is almighty. While, Thomas did say "My god" he did not necessarily mean that Jesus was the almighty, but a divine, heavenly being. Similar to how John 1:1 states that the word was WITH "Ton theon" (specifically another being due to the accusative usage of the term, further specifically "almighty God" rather than simply another heavenly being who could be called "theos")... and the word WAS "theos" (as an anarthrous nominative predicate... i.e. qualitatively "godlike" or a divine, heavenly being... without actually being "God" himself).

Thomas, being a good jew, likely understood the significance of Isaiah 9:6, and referred to Jesus as "El Gibbor" ("Mighty god" yes. But not "El Shiddai" meaning "almighty God") (Which may also be the best way to interpret John 1:1).

This allows Jesus to be El Gibbor, yet still allow Jesus to truthfully call his Father the ONLY El Shiddai (the only True, almighty God).

That's my understanding... and Thayer's understanding (the expert you pointed out)... and the understanding of many monotheist experts. How do you interpret the two verses to both be true? How can Jesus call his father the ONLY true God... yet Jesus also be God?

The two verses could be in harmony with trinitarianism if Jesus had said "this means eternal life, their taking in knowledge of you, the true God, and Jesus Christ, also the true God." ... but he didn't. He specified that the Father was the -only- true God, and that Jesus Christ immediately contrasted himself as simply the "one sent forth."[/quote:2gnysyx1]

Two views you posted brings your house of cards down concerning Jn. 20:28.

1) "While, Thomas did say "My god"...
2) "Thomas, being a good jew..."

Thomas says "MY God". Who is a "good Jew's" God? Thomas could only be talking about the God of Israel, not some godlike being.

It is obvious from this verse that Jesus is indeed "God" because Thomas calls Him "my God" and for a Jew, there was only one. It is also obvious from Jn. 20:17 that the God of Israel is Jesus' God. So what's a Christian to do? You agree that we can't ignore one verse in favor of another.

The only view that makes sense is the Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity and the two Natures of Jesus. When Jesus is praying to God, for instance, He is praying from His human nature, yet He is still God and cannot deny it when confronted by Thomas. Pretty simple when properly understood, and you don't have to do backflips and try and read Thomas' mind, either.

 

[dadof10]

From another discussion I had with Mohrb:

The Greek supports the rendering "the Word was God"--even apart from verse 3, but verse 3 does indeed support such a rendering--but that is not all the Greek states.

It is very important to note that John is making a distinction between the Word and God; he is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. I'm assuming that you're appealing to the fact that there is no article before theos. That it appears anarthrously in no way means that it should be translated as "a god," as the following reasons show:

1. If both God and the Word had an article, "the Word was God" would be the same as "God was the Word," but clearly that is not the case.
2. If neither God nor the Word had an article, "God" and "Word" would be interchangeable, equating all of God with all of the Word, but that is clearly not the case either.
3. There are 282 other instances of theos appearing anarthrously and I can all but guarantee that all of them are translated as "God" in the NWT. This includes John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18. So then one is left scratching their head as to why this single instance in John 1:1 is translated as "a god."

Bias? Bringing a preconception into translation? The only reason I can think of.

Nice research, Free. These are all really good points. I am trying hard not to turn this into a Trinity debate. I'm trying to focus on the fact that the translators of the NWT may or may not even know Greek, don't take ownership of their scholarship, and why that actually MATTERS. It seems like a no-brainer. If I were a JW that would really bother me.

 

[Free]

From another discussion I had with Mohrb:

The Greek supports the rendering "the Word was God"--even apart from verse 3, but verse 3 does indeed support such a rendering--but that is not all the Greek states.

It is very important to note that John is making a distinction between the Word and God; he is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. I'm assuming that you're appealing to the fact that there is no article before theos. That it appears anarthrously in no way means that it should be translated as "a god," as the following reasons show:

1. If both God and the Word had an article, "the Word was God" would be the same as "God was the Word," but clearly that is not the case.
2. If neither God nor the Word had an article, "God" and "Word" would be interchangeable, equating all of God with all of the Word, but that is clearly not the case either.
3. There are 282 other instances of theos appearing anarthrously and I can all but guarantee that all of them are translated as "God" in the NWT. This includes John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18. So then one is left scratching their head as to why this single instance in John 1:1 is translated as "a god."

Bias? Bringing a preconception into translation? The only reason I can think of.

Nice research, Free. These are all really good points. I am trying hard not to turn this into a Trinity debate. I'm trying to focus on the fact that the translators of the NWT may or may not even know Greek, don't take ownership of their scholarship, and why that actually MATTERS. It seems like a no-brainer. If I were a JW that would really bother me.

I should point out that they are not my thoughts, by any means. I believe I got those from James R. White's, The Forgotten Trinity. And, yes, let's avoid a Trinity debate as there are a couple going on at the moment.

It should very much bother a JW. Someone serious about searching for the truth ought to take such accusations seriously and do some deep research.

 

[Mohrb]

Is it your claim, that EVERY scholar that rejects the NWT is biased?

Do you realize what you are implying? That it is ILLOGICAL to use the work of experts in the field that you are arguing. Does this sound right to you?

That's an exaggeration. But, as I said, this tangent is going on for too long in this thread. I'd be glad to discuss it with you more in another thread, but I'm not responding to the "fallacy" tangent in this thread any more.

OK, and if you admit that citing the Greek scholars who translated the NIV, RSV, KJV, etc. in an argument on Greek translations is NOT an example of the Ad Verecundiam fallacy, I'll let it go. Can you show some integrity?

"Expert A's research suggests opinion A is true." -not fallacious.

"Opinion A is unquestionably true because Expert A said so." -Fallacious.

An expert's opinion is no more or less reliable than the evidence they base their opinion on. An expert will likely gather their evidence properly and interpret it knoweldgably, which is why citing an expert is usually just fine and dandy. However, there are MANY topics where different experts have different viewpoints based on different evidence. Deciding who is right or wrong should be done on the basis of who has the strongest -evidence-... not who paid more for their education or who's opinion is most popular or who plays politics best.

A wealthy man pays $200,000 a year to send his son through the best college in the world to study a certain field... his son is struggling through class and hires the Teacher's Aid to tutor him enough to pass his tests and get his degree.

Who's the expert? The Teacher's Aid who doesn't have ANY degree because he can't afford to buy the credits, but understands the material completely? Or the rich man's son who barely managed to retain the information long enough to pass his test and get a piece of paper?

My "insult" was directed at the Watchtower and Awake! magazines, yours, at me personally. You are equating an attack on MAGAZINES with a personal attack on a person. This is called argumentum Ad Hominem. You need a refresher course on logical fallacies to keep your "mild expert" status.

Unsubstantiated insults are unsubstantiated insults. Ad Hominem attacks can be directed toward inanimate objects such as magazines or political parties, etc.

Yes, the definition of an Ad Hominem is to attempt to disprove a point "by attacking a person" ... but more completely it's "by attacking the one making the point." Which may be a group... or even an experiment itself.

"This test was flawed because it was done in ITT tech instead of MIT tech."

There's a difference between memorizing a definition and understanding the concept the definition is attempting to define.

Here's one.

NWT: "...and the Word was a god"

Online Greek Interlinear: "...and the Word was God."

Oxford University Press RSV "...and the Word was God."

As you can see, two of the three SOURCES that you consider valid don't translate "ton theon" as "a god" in verse 1, just as they don't (and neither does the NWT) in verse 2. There is definitely a conflict here

Ad populum. It was you who defined Thayer as THE expert. Read up on Thayer's interpretation of John 1:1, if you will. Yes, SOME experts claim that "and the word was God." Thayer (who you already called THE expert) believed that the grammar indicated that the word was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" ... that he was qualitatively like the being with whom he was. But he most definitely was not "the God" he was with.

Because both sides of the debate have experts that support them, I believe it's best to look at the grammatical evidence itself... not ad antiquitatem.

OK, Go ahead. Let me know what you find in non-JW sources. Please take into consideration that "theon" is NEVER translated in the Greek NT as a god type being or angel, only as either the God of Israel or a false god.

"Ton Theon" is never translated as anyone other than the Father, Jehovah. I agree.

However, what Jesus was called was (anarthrous) "Theos." Plurality aside, please read John 10:34, where Jesus calls humans "gods" (using the anarthrous nominative form, exactly as he was called a "god" in the anarthrous, nominative form in John 1:1c)

... So... "find one non-JW expert...." ... how does any expert you choose interpret John 10:34? Because it's grammatically identical to John 1:1c (apart from plurality).

 

[Mohrb]

There are 282 other instances of theos appearing anarthrously and I can all but guarantee that all of them are translated as "God" in the NWT. This includes John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18. So then one is left scratching their head as to why this single instance in John 1:1 is translated as "a god."

John 1:18 certainly is interesting. I'll delve a bit deeper into that translation and get back to you with a response. However, John 1:6, 12, and 13 are not simply "theos without a definite article." It's a completely different word "theou." Meaning "of God."

Anarthrous "theos" means the subject of the phrase is qualitatively "God-like"
Anarthrous "theou" means the subject of the phrase is from God.

Both relate to "ton theon" (the one who is Almighty God, Jehovah)... but if the subject is "an angel of God" ... it would be grammatically awkward to say an "aggelos tou ton theon." It would be a "aggelos theou." ... that does NOT mean that the angel was "the angel God" ... "theou" modifies the subject (the angel) by calling the subject "of God."

Also, I ran across this web site:
http://www.prudentialpublishing.info/jo ... _jesus.htm

... doesn't appear that he's a JW, but he seems to have done his research well. Worth reading through.

(No, I'm not saying "this guy says it, therefore it's true." I'm saying "this is a well researched presentation and should be considered on the merit of it's logic.")

 

[dadof10]

Okay, thanks for your reply. But that still leaves a question unaswered. How do you follow Jesus Christ ? I understand rcc beliefs fairly well. So I would appreciate an answer of how do you follow Jesus Christ ?

Jesus promised us the comforter, and that the comforter would come in his name, and teach us all things and remind us of the things that he spoke. This comforter is called a couple of things. One, is Christ in us. The other is called, the Spirit of his Son in our hearts. Another is called, the Spirit of truth. This is where truth comes from. Men of God speak the truth, but it is confirmed by the Spirit of truth that is within us. The reason God sent Apostles, Prophets, Evangilists, and Teachers and Pastors, is so that the body of Christ would not be blown about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and their cunning craftyness , whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Without the Spirit of truth, how else can one tell if someone is speaking the truth ?

Hi MM,

We are talking by each other, so I think it might be helpful to give you some quick instruction on the Catholic view of the role the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (Magisterium) for PUBLIC revelation, that is, Teaching that is binding on the faithful. Doctrine. If I want to know if salvation comes through faith alone, the Church has the answer and the REASON WHY. Please note, we do not just follow blindly. We are encouraged to ask questions, which are ALL answered.

The Holy Spirit speaks to people privately, but this is not binding on anyone but the recipient. If I pray for guidance on a particular issue, I am confident that the Holy Spirit will give me an answer. I may not like it, but He will answer me, none the less. This, however, is only for me personally.

The Church teaches that, if we receive any private revelation, it must be tested against revealed Truth. If we "receive from the spirit" that, for example, salvation is by faith alone, we must "test the Spirit" (as scripture says to do) by the proper authority, the Church Christ founded, since this is a doctrinal issue.

This is the way the Spirit works. If He is, indeed, the Spirit of Truth, He cannot teach error. If the "Spirit" tells you that we are saved by "faith alone", and another believer that we are not, how are we to decide which "Spirit" is right?

Hi dadof10 :

Again, thanks for your reply. But your reply brings up another question, which is a continuation of what we are now discussing. You just explained to me, that if you receive revelation, that it must be tested against revealed truth. I am sure you are aware how vague this statement is, correct ? You also said that everything must be tested by the proper authority , the church Christ founded, on doctrinial issues.

What I understand you to be saying, is that no individual can receive revelation from God, as a revealing of the truth , without strick adherant to the church interpreters. Am I understanding you correctly ?

Wouldn't this type of adherant just nullify the revealing that a person can receive from the Holy Spirit ? In other words, if I receive a revealing that one does not need to be water baptized for any reason. And the church standard of authority states otherwise. Would not the organizations stance come between the Holy Spirit talking and revealing to me, and the stance of the organization ?

What if the Holy Spirit wants me to help the organization to change its stance on certain teachings ? Especially when the Holy Spirit knows that the organization is in error. But the question boils down to the fact, that the organization becomes the stumbling block to hold back the truth from its congregation. Thus squashing the truth with its traditions of men and untruths.

So you see, you still have not answered the question. By what standard is truth suppose to be relevant ? Who judges truth and error ? Men ? Or God ?

You are suggesting that the Holy Spirit works through certain men, and everyone is just suppose to believe what they say without any means by which truth can be judged or untruth can be judged.

But the scriptures tell us, that there is a way to judge. Each individual who is a Christian, has the Spirit of truth in them. So each individual is the final judge. Not the group of leaders ! Nor a council of leaders !

One man , not a council of men, told Peter that he was to blame, and that he was not holding the gospel of Christ uprightly. One man ! His name was Paul. And the Holy Spirit was working through this man Paul. Yet, even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. The majority of the leadership were in the wrong. That included the Apostle Peter. But this one man Paul was the only man that was correct in this instance. The council of men were in error, and the Holy Spirit working through this one Man Paul, was correct. I believe this is still happening in our day and time. And it will continue to happen, as long as men who might or might not be called of God. Hold councils and judge and elect what is the truth by way of their councils. The truth from God does not come down from God in this manner. God calls out certain men of God, and God talks directly through these men. And sometimes , certain men of God need to be corrected, as such was the case with Peter in Galatians chapter 2.

The Spirit of truth is not in councils of men, but in individual believers.

MM,

This is getting pretty close to a Catholic debate. If you have the time, would you like to take this topic to the 1 vs. 1 section? If not, I'll respond here when I have time and hope for the best.