Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Brakelite]

So were the Greek Orthodox. Both trace their roots to the apostles.

And the Assyrian churches of the east, and the Celtic churches of the West. All trace to the Apostles. It isn't about whether or not they had their roots in the Apostolic age. It's about the various influences and circumstances that led to the great falling away in Rome of a church once faithful to Jesus, relying on God to protect, and grow and establish the church through the work and influence of the holy Spirit, to an institution that placed its faith and trust in the emperors and kings and the rulers of this world in their use of compulsion and force of arms. No-one is denying that the church in Rome began as a faithful church. You can even call it Catholic (adj) as the early church as taught by the apostles was everywhere united in faith, doctrine, and purpose. But apostasy, literally means a divorce. One cannot be divorced unless at first there was a right relationship. So your attempts to prove the Catholic church as the only true church is meaningless. The church in Rome wasn't the only church in the world. It fell away by committing spiritual adultery with the world. That worldly relationship is still evident today with your Popes all, without exception, claiming secular authority over the world as well as spiritual. You can deny of course that such secular relationships aren't adultery, and you may like to justify that relationship for all you are worth, but not to me. Your church needs to justify it before God, and explain to Him why your church is so hell bent on establishing it's own kingdom on earth when Jesus clearly said, MY kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

So were the Greek Orthodox. Both trace their roots to the apostles.

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[5][6] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.

Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

 

[RedFan]

And the Assyrian churches of the east, and the Celtic churches of the West. All trace to the Apostles. It isn't about whether or not they had their roots in the Apostolic age. I

Sure it is. That's the test for being among the "earliest Christians" -- the only comment of Jude Thadeus I was responding to.

No-one is denying that the church in Rome began as a faithful church. You can even call it Catholic (adj) as the early church as taught by the apostles was everywhere united in faith, doctrine, and purpose.

Right. Ditto for the church in Jerusalem, and in Antioch, and In Alexandria.

So your attempts to prove the Catholic church as the only true church is meaningless

Not MY attempt. I don't consider the RCC (of which I am not a member) to be the only true church.

The church in Rome wasn't the only church in the world.

Correct. But as earlier stated, it was a PART of the only church in the world, as litmused by tracing its roots to the apostles.
That's all I have to say right now. But read my response to Jude Thadeus as well.

 

[RedFan]

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed.

I agree with this. What I would resist is the notion that that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" at the time of the Council of NIcaea was centered in Rome. Alexandria, Antioch were co-equal Sees at that time. The canons that emerged from Nicaea themselves say so.

 

[Brakelite]

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[5][6] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.
View attachment 44922
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

I note the studied reluctance to admit to churches outside of the purview of Rome. Why is that?

 

[Marymog]

You keep laughing @Marymog……it’s who is laughing at you that counts in the big scheme of things….you keep right on justifying the beliefs of your church, as we will all stand before the same judge. He will tell us all whether we got it right or not.…no one will be laughing then.

I don’t think we will have long to wait, judging by the state of the world and the lid that is getting lifted on the inner workings of everything in this devil-controlled system of things…..well due for destruction.
Armageddon is real….bring it on…..we’re ready.

Dear Dear Jane,

I really don't want to get into an unnecessary back and forth with you about silly things but you need to be schooled once again. I will admit that there are many Protestants that laugh at Catholics for their beliefs, practices etc. But there are many Protestants that are Catholic like and don't laugh. There are more of us Catholics than you Protestants so there are more laughing at you and your ilk than laughing at us. With that said EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE).....Protestant and Catholics alike....... laughs at the JW sect!! Take the log out of your eye before noticing the splinter in mine.

Yes, the state of the world is not good Jane. But your men have been lying to you about the end of it since the 1830's when they started your sect as an offshoot of another sect here in America. And that sect was an offshoot of another sect etc etc for the last 500 years since your men started protesting the teachings of The Church. In the early 1900's your sect split into many groups because they couldn't agree on things. All of them thought they were right and the other was wrong. You think that you joined the sect that was right. Right?

No, you and I won't be standing before the same judge because, as you previously said, you were "raised in Christendom and left" it. I agree with you.

 

[Marymog]

I note the studied reluctance to admit to churches outside of the purview of Rome. Why is that?

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine. There are denominations (breakaways from The Church), like yours, outside of Rome but there is only One Church. Since the Protestant Revolution you Protestants think that there is more than One Church. There isn't. Your men have lied to you.

The men that you follow started their Revolution about 300 years AFTER the original Protestant Revolution when the founders of your denomination (farmers, lawyers, teachers) were sitting in the pews of other Protestant churches! * They convinced themselves and hundreds of others that many biblical truths were brought back into light thru THEM*.

*A Historic Look at the Seventh-day Adventist Church

 

[Marymog]

A trip to the catacombs is a real eye opener. Here are some observations by those who have made the journey…..

”Even though there are catacombs in many parts of the Mediterranean basin, those in Rome are the best known and also the largest—their overall length is estimated to be several hundred miles. As many as 60 have been identified, all a few miles outside the historic city center along the consular highways that connected Rome with its provinces. . . . .The greatest development took place during the third and fourth centuries; by this time, what passed for the Christian religion had been thoroughly contaminated by pagan teachings and practices. With the so-called conversion of Constantine in 313 C.E., the catacombs became the property of the Church of Rome, and some ultimately assumed colossal proportions. Altogether, the Roman catacombs could have held hundreds of thousands of tombs, if not millions. . . . .Some of those who used these places evidently had a certain knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, as a number of tombs are decorated with Bible scenes. There is no sign, however, of Mary worship or of other themes so common in later “sacred” art. . . . .We also see figures that have no connection with the Bible. “It’s true,” admits the guide. “Many scenes in these and other catacombs are borrowed from pagan art. You can find the Greco-Roman demigod and hero Orpheus; Cupid and Psyche, who represent the soul’s lot in this life and the next; the vine and the grape harvest, a well-known Dionysian symbol of ecstasy in the afterlife. Taken entirely from idolatrous art, according to one Jesuit scholar, Antonio Ferrua. . . . .

As we continue our visit, the influence exerted by unscriptural devotion to the dead becomes ever clearer. Many desired to be buried close to the tomb of someone considered to be a martyr, with the idea that from his position in heavenly bliss, the martyr could intercede, helping the lesser one to obtain the same reward.

Can these be the remains of true Christianity? Hardly. The Scriptures prophesied that shortly after the death of the apostles, a contamination of the doctrines taught by Jesus and his disciples would arise. (2 Thess 2:3, 7) Indeed, the evidence we have seen, of the cult of the dead and of the martyrs and of the idea of an immortal soul, is eloquent testimony, not of faith based on the teachings of Jesus, but rather of the strong pagan influence already present among apostate Roman Christians in the second to the fourth centuries of our Common Era.”

Lol...Hold on!! HOLD ON Janie!!!

You quote a JW to prove the JW's right?

 

[Marymog]

The principle reason for opposing Catholicism is its teachings regarding the nature of God, and the gospel of salvation.
The pagan connections, its history of persecution, the ritualism, and relics, statuary and icon reverence are but incidental evidence thereof,and the inevitable fruits of the falsehood of its theology.

Let me see if I have your theory correct Brakelite.

The principal reason you and your ilk oppose Catholic teachings is because of its teachings regarding the nature of God, and the gospel of salvation. Even though those teachings of The Church mirror Scripture and what the students of the Apostles taught.....YOUR men (who lived in the 1,800's) who were not students of the Apostles allegedly have the correct teachings regarding the nature of God and the gospel of salvation?

The students of the Apostles were wrong but YOUR MEN, 1,800 years later were right? How does that make any sense?

 

[Brakelite]

Even though those teachings of The Church mirror Scripture and what the students of the Apostles taught

Do they? Please elucidate how someone is danger according to your church. Using scripture of course.

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine.

He did. And there were only a little over 100 members. By 70AD, there were thousands. But yes, still united in doctrine and faith. After 70AD, the 'church' which escaped Jerusalem before it was destroyed, settled throughout the surrounding cities... Syria particularly. Antioch, and stay is now Jordan, Pella, and other cities of Syria known today as the 'silent cities'.

As Scripture says, Christ started One Church with One teaching and One doctrine.

Before all this of course, Paul in particular had helped to begin a church in Rome he and throughout Asia minor, appointing elders in each as far as we know, and writing letters of counsel and reproof. These churches grew. How did they grow? Through the work of last members who Paul and others had discipled. They became missionaries, sharing the gospel wherever they travelled. Galatia was a known settlement of Celts, do had immigrated some 300 years previous. These Celts had constant trade and communication with like settlements in northern Italy, southern France, and Britain. The Celtic church flourished in all those districts, even from the second century. This was at a time when the church in Rome was still struggling to survive under a hail of persecution and opposition, from not only pagan Rome, but also Jews and pagans. Rome was not organised sufficiently as an institution to seem He missionaries anywhere until a few hundred years later. Augustine was surprised when he went to Britain as to how developed and strong the Celtic church was. Patrick of course was well known as a leader in that church, his father being a deacon before Patrick was converted, so even before Patrick was converted, the Celtic church was strong and influential, but not only in Britain, but across the continent. As I said in the post you quoted, Catholics seem reluctant to talk about them.

There are denominations? (breakaways from The Church),

Now all of a sudden you take a massive leap from 200ad, to the 15th century! Did you know there were Christian churches throughout Persia during a large portion of that time span? Did you know that Rome had very little contact, and even less influence with those churches? Did you know that the church of Milan and Turin, for centuries, was independent of any Roman authority? They weren't 'denominations ', nor had they broken away from the one true faith Jesus began. They grew naturally from that one church.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion during the East–West Schism of 1054. While an informal divide between the East and West existed prior to the split, these were internal disputes, under the umbrella of the recognised “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed. It is only after the formal schism of the 11th century that two, distinct churches are seen to exist, and thus commence relations. The split has, on both sides, been immensely lamented,[5][6] for it defeats the exhortation of Jesus Christ “that they may all be one" (John 17:21). The anguish over the past has spurred both sides, particularly in recent decades, to work towards restoring Christian unity through ecumenical efforts.
View attachment 44922
Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

Like the divorce between Judaism and Christianity was because of irreconcilable differences, caused by Judaism’s failure to accept Jesus as Messiah…..what makes us believe that these irreconcilable differences in the Catholic church can be overcome…if it is based on beliefs, then who has to give ground to successfully bring in the other to reconciliation?….after 10 centuries of apostasy….(who accuses whom of not teaching the truth?) where do we suppose this will lead?

Like first century Christianity was a complete breakaway from the old covenant Jews, so the breakaway from apostate Christendom cannot depend on compromise with what is not truth…..the dilemma of ecumenism is unsolvable. The one true faith cannot be something that appears only on the surface to be united…..it cannot fragmented or held under the surface in a mish mash of differing and conflicting views….as Paul said…

”Brethren, I exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be in full agreement with one another and not permit any divisions to arise among you. Be perfectly united in mind and purpose.” (NCB)

Christendom is united only in its disunity…..unless we divorce ourselves from the travesty that this divisive mess has created, God will take us down with her. (Rev 18:4-5)


This picture of Bartholomew is from your link……can someone please tell me what on earth this guy is wearing??? Would we ever see Jesus dressed like this?
He looks like something out of a Star Wars movie.


What about your own leader? What is he wearing?


When Judas led the armed mob to arrest Jesus, did he point to what Jesus was wearing to identify him as “the one”? Or was Jesus dressed like everyone else?
He told his disciples that “all you are brothers” and not to “call any man your father (in the spiritual sense) on earth”.…he also said that anyone who “exalted themselves would be humbled“ or more correctly “humiliated”…and rightly so.
Do these pictures convey humility? Or just the opposite?

Would Jesus have ever presented himself to the people in such distinctive garments along with the titles that go with the outfit or the headgear?
Are those raised in the Catholic faith so removed from who and what the first century Christians were and believed, so as to accept this kind of thing without question?

Everything about the Catholic faith in all its manifestations is a departure from what Christ taught and left as an example.…but unless you know what Christ taught (as opposed to what your church teaches) and you know how Christ conducted himself (as apposed to how your leader conducts himself) and how the apostles never accepted titles that distinguished them from their brothers, but viewed themselves as their genuinely humble servants….you will never know what real Christianity was like….and is like today. In a world of “wheat” and “weeds”…do we know the difference? The easiest people on the planet to fool is ourselves…..our uneducated and misled selves.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Lol...Hold on!! HOLD ON Janie!!!

You quote a JW to prove the JW's right?

I quoted people who had actually been there and heard the guide say what he said…..
You have the Catholic version…..do you actually know if what you have been told is true?
Have you been there? Is the Catholic Church a reliable source of truth? Not in my experience.

 

[Brakelite]

if it is based on beliefs

It wasn't. The rift was over the subject of this thread. A refusal to recognise the Pope as supreme authority. That will change. The future global religion will include both. The Pope will be recognised as the global ruler over all ecumenical members, as well as all eastern mysticism, Luciferian, and even atheist organisations, and the Pope will welcome all into his grand global united love fest on the grounds of natural law and the common good of humanity. The only group that will not recognise his authority will be the off scouring of humanity, the lowest of the low, those "hated of all nations for the name of Jesus", and may be identified by their keeping of all the commandments of God and their faith of Jesus, and the Spirit of prophecy in their midst. Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 19:10.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The rift was over the subject of this thread. A refusal to recognise the Pope as supreme authority.

Wasn’t that a belief.....? One opposed the authority of a man who accepted an authority that was never given by Christ, whilst the other accepted it without question....and both embrace their individual stance to their day.
Ecumenism is like the forced Christianity of the Spanish Inquisition and the conquistadors who demanded conversion of their conquered nations to the Catholic Faith at the point of a sword.

It makes their practice of Christianity extremely hollow and perfunctory, as we know Catholicism is a performance based religion, not one strong on scriptural education. The faith of the masses is in their leaders.....horribly misplaced, but they seem to have no idea where they are being taken. It’s not about the numbers and never was.......it’s about quality, not quantity. (Matt7:13-14)

No one can stop what is coming as it is all prophesied in Scripture, but we know that at the right time, God himself will intervene and eliminate all who oppose his incoming kingdom...those supporting the fake kingdoms established by agents of the devil who have much blood on their hands (Isa 1:15)....the one Daniel prophesied about in Daniel 2:44, that will crush all earthly kingdoms and replace them with HIS “one world government”, on the shoulders of the “Prince of Peace”.....the only one which will deliver what it promises.
Then Revelation 21:2-4 be fulfilled.....
“I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from Go and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

We long for God’s Kingdom to “come” and do away with every last vestige of satan’s rulership over this earth.....(1 John 5:19)
A joyous day for all God’s faithful ones....those who don’t sell out to the devil.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

It wasn't. The rift was over the subject of this thread. A refusal to recognise the Pope as supreme authority.

That happened throughout history. They were called heretics. Councils were held to develop and clarify to settle such controversies.
"supreme authority" is only supreme for Catholics and it's limited to matters of faith and morals. It's not something to be feared. You depict the pope as like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

That will change. The future global religion will include both.

A global religion is just a fear mongering myth, as such a thing is impossible. . Various leaders of major religions often meet to seek ways to get people to stop killing each other in the name of God. So what do you do? Turn a good thing into a ridiculous conspiracy.

The Pope will be recognised as the global ruler over all ecumenical members, as well as all eastern mysticism, Luciferian, and even atheist organisations,

For that to happen, the Pope would have to rescind dozens of encyclicals. He has no authority to do that.

and the Pope will welcome all into his grand global united love fest on the grounds of natural law and the common good of humanity.

The Pope welcomes everything that is good and true in other religions, such as the Golden Rule. That doesn't mean he accepts their falsehoods. That's a slanderous inference. You do that automatically.

The only group that will not recognise his authority will be the off scouring of humanity, the lowest of the low, those "hated of all nations for the name of Jesus", and may be identified by their keeping of all the commandments of God and their faith of Jesus, and the Spirit of prophecy in their midst. Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 19:10.

We have formal relations with other religions because there are so many of us. The Vatican is the smallest county in the world, and the Pope functions as head of that state. He has diplomatic responsibilities as any other head of state, but that doesn't mean he rules over them. Lot's of "Catholic" countries are passing evil abortion laws, so where is this "supreme authority" you speak of?
Lots of people don't recognize papal authority and we don't right them off as unsaved enemies. There are even a few crazy Catholics that don't recognize papal authority. We call them schismatics but they are still Catholics. Your view of "papal authority" belongs in a cartoon script.
The Pope's authority is limited to Catholics only on matters of faith and morals., not governments. Most of them don't care what he says.

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

NOTES

1. Cf. Acts 17:26

2. Cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4

3. Cf. Apoc. 21:23f.

4. Cf 2 Cor. 5:18-19

full page

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

​

Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins (not a Catholic) argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care. A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions.

Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes. It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.

The SDA and JW's think they have it rough.

 

[Brakelite]

The following prove that the authority the Popes claim as belonging to them, going back over a century, is far wider than applying to just "faith and morals" for Catholics.


What "common good' means, is that if the church decides that what you own is too much, they have the right, even the responsibility, to take it from you and give it to some one they believe needs it more. That's called theft. This they claim authority to impose themselves over and above the authority of God Himself as declared in His law.

 

[Augustin56]

So were the Greek Orthodox. Both trace their roots to the apostles.

The Greek Orthodox were part of the Catholic Church until 1054 A.D.

 

[Marymog]

I quoted people who had actually been there and heard the guide say what he said…..
You have the Catholic version…..do you actually know if what you have been told is true?
Have you been there? Is the Catholic Church a reliable source of truth? Not in my experience.

Janie Janie Janie,

Fact one: You quoted the filtered opinions of the JW website who talked to one guide in Rome. You relied on A SINGLE SOURCE for your 'evidence'. Your biased JW website says there was no sign of "Mary worship" in the catacombs. Depicting the mother of God in an image does not constitute "Mary worship". So even though your source may be accurate in that there was no sign of "Mary worship", it does not mean Mary's image was not depicted in the catacombs and that Mary was not held in VERY high regard by the early Christians. If you knew Christian history you would know that she was highly venerated by the early church. Your men have kept that history from you and you refuse to learn it on your own.

Fact two: There are images in the catacombs of what is believed to be Mary according to many sources that ARE NOT JW sources. Do your homework instead of drinking the Kool aide your men are giving you.

Fact three: It doesn't matter if I have been there or not. I rely on expert testimony from various sources instead of one biased source like you have. HAVE YOU BEEN THERE? Apparently NOT. So why are you asking me if I have been there? Is the JW church a reliable source of truth? In my experience C L E A R L Y NOT!!!

 

[Marymog]

Do they? Please elucidate how someone is danger according to your church. Using scripture of course.

Huh? Someone is danger?