Reasons why the Jehovah’s Witness religion is false (Despite my love for them as human beings)

[Aunty Jane]

This amounts to mind control, followed by a threat with a verse where Jesus excoriates stubborn Pharisees, not religious leaders 2000 years into the future

But of course the Catholic Church would never do such a thing as threatening a person with the fires of an eternal hell if they dared to question the teachings of the church……no mind control there….

Most things in scripture are pictorial of things in the future…..even the flood of Noah’s day, (Matt 24:37-39)….do you not do any Bible study?

 

[RedFan]

How was I changing the subject, when the Catholic Church is founded on twisting the teachings of the “church fathers” rather than on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ? The further away we got from the teachings of Christ’s apostles, the worse it became.
Are you pulling a lawyer tactic on me?…..as the two are inextricably linked, I will bring in the evidence as I understand it….Your Honor.
I am saying that the foundation of Christendom was laid by those who were taught by the early church fathers. On investigation, it seem that Greek philosophical influence was more at work in formulating “Christian“ doctrine than the Bible.

The current philosophical conceptions of the day influenced the interpretation of scripture. . . . The church can be accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories suited to their era.….the first Christian “theologians” if you will.
Those early “theologians” then set about adapting primitive Bible-based Christianity to the current philosophical ideas of the day.

I don't disagree that Greek philosophy helped to shape Christian doctrine in the early centuries of Christendom. That's a different question from the syllogism you posed. And I see you backtracking a bit now. If "the Catholic Church is founded on twisting the teachings of the church fathers," it follows that those church fathers themselves were not the twisters -- yet you claimed that they were. And the reason you gave was absolutely bizarre: apostasy was predicted by Christ, so THIS MUST BE IT!

I suspect you will find that you and I agree on a great many things. But if I see a stupid argument for a proposition -- even a TRUE proposition -- I'm going to call it out. (For example, if you argue to me that "water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade, THEREFORE the earth is round," I'm going to call you out every time, even though I agree with both premises)

 

[RLT63]

How was I changing the subject, when the Catholic Church is founded on twisting the teachings of the “church fathers” rather than on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ? The further away we got from the teachings of Christ’s apostles, the worse it became.

Are you pulling a lawyer tactic on me?…..as the two are inextricably linked, I will bring in the evidence as I understand it….Your Honor.

I am saying that the foundation of Christendom was laid by those who were taught by the early church fathers. On investigation, it seems that Greek philosophical influence was more at work in formulating “Christian“ doctrine than the Bible.

The current philosophical conceptions of the day influenced the interpretation of Scripture. . . . The church can be accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories suited to their era.….the first Christian “theologians” if you will.
Those early “theologians” then set about adapting primitive Bible-based Christianity to the current philosophical ideas of the day.

I feel like this is a cross examination…..I am stating what I already said in post #508
We are not to base our beliefs on anything other than God’s word…..it is why it has been so carefully preserved for thousands of years……humans did not accomplish this….even though some want to take credit for that.

Who were the accusers though? If the heresies were already planted and accepted as truth because “the church“ leaders said so…..don’t we see the same scenario that occurred in Jesus’ day? Those who were the “learned ones” in Judaism were the accepted authority on all things related to God and his worship, and yet what did Jesus say to them? Citing one of their twisted traditions he said….

”….To uphold your tradition you have made God’s word null and void. You hypocrites! How rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (NCB)
Is not Christendom itself filled with man made religious traditions, slavishly followed? None of them are biblically based.

To the teachers of God’s Law. . . .Jesus said….
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the entrance to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor do you allow others to enter”. . . . .“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You journey over sea and land to make a single convert, and then you make that convert twice as worthy of Gehenna as you are”. . . . . “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and then swallow a camel!“
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of decay. In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.“
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to Gehenna?”

“Behold, your house has been abandoned and left desolate. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you murder the Prophets and stone the messengers sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not allow it! I tell you, you will not see me again until you say: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (From Matt ch 23 NCB)

For the last 2000 years, the Jews have denied Jesus as the Christ….as vehemently today as they did back then, such is their indoctrination. Christendom is a mirror image of first century Judaism.….left without God’s guiding spirit or support for centuries, allowing the rot to fester….to produce a pathetic imitation of what Christ started. This is what Jesus and his apostles foretold. These are the important details of why we see the situation we do in the world of today‘s disunited church systems…..hopelessly lost in a mire of conflicting beliefs and practices……a world away from what the apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:10, should identify true Christianity.

Pedantic concentration on semantics is a waste of time. It’s the big picture that needs to emerge because we are all a part of it. Step back and expand your vision…..this is not our courtroom.

But according to you God’s word has not been preserved. It has been distorted, altered, changed to the point that God’s name was removed and the only way to make sense of it is to do studies of the original language, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, it has to be decoded and only the JWs have the secret decoder ring to get the true meaning.

 

[Aunty Jane]

But according to you God’s word has not been preserved. It has been distorted, altered, changed to the point that God’s name was removed and the only way to make sense of it is to do studies of the original language, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, it has to be decoded and only the JWs have the secret decoder ring to get the true meaning.

Let’s see… if Jesus and his apostles declared that an apostasy would come and derail Christianity, then that derailment had to have a beginning because Christ and his apostles did not teach things that were not true.

What does the history of the church reveal? If the beginnings of this apostasy were seen and acknowledged by the apostles in their day, and recorded as part of scripture, what does that indicate about the time frame for this “falling away” to occur? If it began with “the church fathers” and their disciples, (none of whom wrote a word of scripture)….then does it not stand to reason that history repeats because the devil has no new tactics? The old ones still work so well for mortal humans with poor memories. He has time to implement things in a timeframe that time limited humans do not possess.

Since Jesus indicated in his parable that he planted “wheat”, whilst his enemy planted “weeds”, what are we to take from that as well? Were the wheat going to disappear once the field was overgrown with weeds? No! There have always been wheat-like Christians all through history…the martyrs and the so called heretics who gave their lives for the unpopular truth that was falsely presented as heresy. The weeds may have seemed to prevail, but they did not stamp out the truth altogether…..groups of dissenters to the Catholic church have been seen throughout history….and persecuted because they would not accept the church’s distorted view of the Bible.…and they rejected the papacy as fraudulent and unscriptural.

It was Daniel who foretold that only at the “time of the end” would God reveal the truth in an abundance of knowledge that would only come to light at that time (Dan 12:4, 9-10)….a time when he would “cleanse, whiten and refine” his worshippers…..these are not quick fixes, but processes that require time and effort. In the latter parts of the 19th century, a spiritual stirring was taking place as it was foretold, and the beginning of those three processes began in earnest. It was dubbed “the great awakening”….but it did not escape the devil’s notice….true to form he separated these groups and led them in different directions, all with believable scenarios that led people to question the whole divided “church” system, and to follow them instead.

So who was God really guiding at this historical juncture? It would be the ones teaching what the Bible said was truth and following up with the assignment that Jesus gave to his disciples…the very thing he taught them when he was present with them…..this was to continue till the “end of the age” and Jesus promised that he would back them up in this work. (Matt 28:19-20; Matt 10:11-14)

Obviously this work required biblical knowledge and the courage of their convictions, as it was to be done under persecution and hatred, (John 15:18-21) which the “heretics” had undergone down through the ages. The closer we got to “the end” the more intense the persecution would become, though not as much in outright physical persecution, but more as a result of intellectual persecution, which was the result of the new “religion” of science, ushered in, at the dawn of the 20th century.. The devil had a new trick but one that operated on a familiar premise…..science established itself as superior to religion because it had proof of its claims to demonstrate its superiority over faith which does not require proof.

And here we are….

 

[RLT63]

Let’s see… if Jesus and his apostles declared that an apostasy would come and derail Christianity, then that derailment had to have a beginning because Christ and his apostles did not teach things that were not true.

What does the history of the church reveal? If the beginnings of this apostasy were seen and acknowledged by the apostles in their day, and recorded as part of scripture, what does that indicate about the time frame for this “falling away” to occur? If it began with “the church fathers” and their disciples, (none of whom wrote a word of scripture)….then does it not stand to reason that history repeats because the devil has no new tactics? The old ones still work so well for mortal humans with poor memories. He has time to implement things in a timeframe that time limited humans do not possess.

Since Jesus indicated in his parable that he planted “wheat”, whilst his enemy planted “weeds”, what are we to take from that as well? Were the wheat going to disappear once the field was overgrown with weeds? No! There have always been wheat-like Christians all through history…the martyrs and the so called heretics who gave their lives for the unpopular truth that was falsely presented as heresy. The weeds may have seemed to prevail, but they did not stamp out the truth altogether…..groups of dissenters to the Catholic church have been seen throughout history….and persecuted because they would not accept the church’s distorted view of the Bible.…and they rejected the papacy as fraudulent and unscriptural.

It was Daniel who foretold that only at the “time of the end” would God reveal the truth in an abundance of knowledge that would only come to light at that time (Dan 12:4, 9-10)….a time when he would “cleanse, whiten and refine” his worshippers…..these are not quick fixes, but processes that require time and effort. In the latter parts of the 19th century, a spiritual stirring was taking place as it was foretold, and the beginning of those three processes began in earnest. It was dubbed “the great awakening”….but it did not escape the devil’s notice….true to form he separated these groups and led them in different directions, all with believable scenarios that led people to question the whole divided “church” system, and to follow them instead.

So who was God really guiding at this historical juncture? It would be the ones teaching what the Bible said was truth and following up with the assignment that Jesus gave to his disciples…the very thing he taught them when he was present with them…..this was to continue till the “end of the age” and Jesus promised that he would back them up in this work. (Matt 28:19-20; Matt 10:11-14)

Obviously this work required biblical knowledge and the courage of their convictions, as it was to be done under persecution and hatred, (John 15:18-21) which the “heretics” had undergone down through the ages. The closer we got to “the end” the more intense the persecution would become, though not as much in outright physical persecution, but more as a result of intellectual persecution, which was the result of the new “religion” of science, ushered in, at the dawn of the 20th century.. The devil had a new trick but one that operated on a familiar premise…..science established itself as superior to religion because it had proof of its claims to demonstrate its superiority over faith which does not require proof.

And here we are….

I like your post, a lot of information but it didn’t really address my post.We’re still fighting over the Majority Text (Byzantine ) vs the Alexandrian, the Textus Receptus vs Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and arguing over what Greek words mean and who has it right.
You have to be careful, people can read anything into the Bible and use it to justify things it clearly doesn’t. There is someone on this forum quoting scripture and getting into the origin of the words in order to make the case that the Bible does not condemn a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Let’s see… if Jesus and his apostles declared that an apostasy would come and derail Christianity, then that derailment had to have a beginning because Christ and his apostles did not teach things that were not true.

False premises. Neither Jesus nor Paul taught Christianity would be derailed to the point it would be unrecognizable. You still haven't produced any evidence the Apostolic Fathers (falsely defined as apostates), even after spoon-feeding their names. The WTS "thought police" forbids you from reading them; that's why you refuse to produce evidence. Your freedom has been robbed from you.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15). To make matters worse, the WTS departed from all of Protestantism and wrote a false Bible to justify their division upon division.

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is a WTS man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the WTS has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

JW's don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in a dubious translation.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with man-made traditions conjured up in the NWT and a supposedly evil church.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I like your post, a lot of information but it didn’t really address my post.We’re still fighting over the Majority Text (Byzantine ) vs the Alexandrian, the Textus Receptus vs Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and arguing over what Greek words mean and who has it right.

And whom do we hold responsible for the disunity of thought, belief and practice among professed Christians world wide.….there was only one truth in the beginning…..so they cannot all be right…..BUT…they may well all be wrong……except the “few” whom Jesus said were the only ones on the road to life….the majority are traveling at speed on the only other road there is….blissfully unaware of where they are headed.
(Matt 7:13-14)

If we are going to hunt for the “wheat” among the “weeds”, what criteria did Jesus give for those who would be his genuine followers?

How were we to identify them? How are the wheat different from the weeds?

You have to be careful, people can read anything into the Bible and use it to justify things it clearly doesn’t. There is someone on this forum quoting scripture and getting into the origin of the words in order to make the case that the Bible does not condemn a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults.

This is true….and one of the reasons why we do have to stick closely to the entirety of Scripture and not just quote cherry picked verses that only seem to validate our chosen beliefs…..Scripture backs up Scripture….if there is no backup, it cannot be a proof text.

Most of Christendom’s beliefs are based on suggestion, assumption and inference…which is exactly how the “religion” of science sold the theory of evolution…..it is not based on any solid evidence, but on suggestion and assumptions made by those who are devoid of faith. It takes more faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an Intelligent Creator…..but science will never admit that.

Christendom too is so confident that they cannot be wrong, that they don’t seem to notice the elephant in the room…..disunity is not a product of God’s spirit. He does not give one truth to a group over here…..and then give a different set of beliefs to another group over there….and still call it Christian truth.
We have to make choices and God will not make them for us…..our choices are ours to make……and will determine our eternal future.

 

[RedFan]

Scripture backs up Scripture….if there is no backup, it cannot be a proof text.

So, is this a "testimony of two (or more) witnesses" thing? If only one verse in Scripture supports a point it is not to be considered proven?

 

[Aunty Jane]

So, is this a "testimony of two (or more) witnesses" thing? If only one verse in Scripture supports a point it is not to be considered proven?

The Bible is one book, with one author, so its contents cannot contradict themselves. If there is a clear unequivocal statement, it cannot be contradicted by another unless there is scriptural evidence for suspecting for the first statement to be either misunderstood, misinterpreted or mistranslated…..there are options for all three. So Bible study must include all of the evidence….no doctrine should be based on just one verse or passage….obscure or ambiguous verses do not replace clear statements.

The testimony of two or more witnesses to establish anything, was a biblical principle.

 

[RLT63]

According to Strongs Concordance, the Greek “apostasia” (apostasy) means…

1. a falling away, defection from the truth, apostasy.

Paul was accused of teaching an “apostasy against Moses” because he said that Christ had fulfilled the law and it was no longer binding on Christians. For Gentile converts, that wasn’t a big deal, but for Jewish Christians, it was a huge departure from their ancestral religion. Only Jews were subject to the Law of Moses and had practiced it all their lives.

Apostasy describes a forsaking of truth…a defection from it….we all know what a defector is, don’t we?
No one has defected from Christ’s teachings more than the RCC.

I am still waiting for my questions to be answered by any of the Catholic posters here….where is the scriptural support for your doctrines?…….the silence is deafening.
You think we didn’t notice?

Can you tell me then why Catholics have their own translations? Do we have a double standard here?

LOL…that’s because there was so little difference…..Roman Catholicism was a fusion between the two. Was it Christianized paganism…..or paganized Christianity? Was it not Constantine who bore the title “Pontifex Maximus”? That is not a Christian title but a pagan Roman title.

Constantine defeated his last remaining rival, Licinius, and became the undisputed ruler of the Roman world. In 325 C.E., as yet unbaptized, he presided over the first great ecumenical council of the “Christian” church, which condemned Arianism and drew up a statement of essential beliefs called the Nicene Creed.
Did Jesus ever sanction the recitation of a creed? Weren’t his teachings enough? Did he not say, just be for the Lord’s Prayer that repeating the same things over and over was something the pagans did?

Constantine fell terminally ill in the year 337 C.E. At that late hour of his life, he was baptized, and then he died. After his death the Senate placed him among the Roman gods.

Certainly, Constantine was a man of his era. At the beginning of his career, he needed some “divine” patronage, and this could not be provided by the fading Roman gods. The empire, including its religion and other institutions, was in decline, and something new and invigorating was needed to reconsolidate it…..as an astute politician, he found that a new state religion would accomplish that by taking parts of both and combining them to satisfy most of his constituents.

Pagan Rome did not embrace the “Christian” faith at all….they infiltrated it and took it in a completely wrong direction. They turned the worship of the “sun” into the worship of the “son”….

Tertullian is an interesting character….
”Where is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? between one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?’ These bold questions were raised by Tertullian. He came to be known as “one of the most prolific sources of the history of the Church and of the doctrines which were taught in his time.” Virtually no aspect of religious life escaped his attention.

There is more to the paradox of Tertullian than his statements however. Though he intended that his writings defend the truth and uphold the integrity of the church and her doctrines, he actually corrupted true Bible teachings. His key contribution to Christendom turned out to be a theory upon which later writers built the doctrine of a triune God….a doctrine not found in Scripture at all.

Tertullian began his essay entitled Against Praxeas saying: “In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it.” What an interesting thing to say about the devil…..

A crucial issue among professed Christians at that time was the relationship between God and Christ. Some among them, particularly those of Greek background, found it difficult to reconcile belief in one God with the role of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. Praxeas attempted to solve their dilemma by teaching that Jesus was just a different mode of the Father and there was no difference between the Father and the Son. This theory, known as modalism, alleges that God revealed himself “as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.” Is that what the Bible teaches?

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Cor 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Perhaps Tertullian was a victim of his own thinking…? In his haste to correct Praxeas, he invented a solution, but not one corroborated by Scripture. That sent the church down another path.

What is available online for everyone to see, depends entirely on whether you accept that what Tertullian wrote about that subject was gospel truth. Where does Scripture corroborate ““one substance in three persons”?

Persecuting the Church only made it stronger so Satan came up with a new strategy, he married the Church. Or I should say it was a marriage of government and the Church.

 

[RedFan]

The Bible is one book, with one author, so its contents cannot contradict themselves. If there is a clear unequivocal statement, it cannot be contradicted by another unless there is scriptural evidence for suspecting for the first statement to be either misunderstood, misinterpreted or mistranslated…..there are options for all three. So Bible study must include all of the evidence….no doctrine should be based on just one verse or passage….obscure or ambiguous verses do not replace clear statements.

There are lots of instances of the Bible contradicting itself. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27) Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

How do you handle disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14)?

How do you handle Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22)?

How do you handle Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah?

How do you handle Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest,” even though 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time?

 

[RLT63]

There are lots of instances of the Bible contradicting itself. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27) Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

How do you handle disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14)?

How do you handle Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22)?

How do you handle Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah?

How do you handle Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest,” even though 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time?

I suspect you will not get an answer. Those things are hard to explain

 

[RedFan]

I suspect you will not get an answer. Those things are hard to explain

My own answer is simple. That a writing may be “inspired” is no guaranty that the ‘i’s and ‘t’s are all dotted and crossed correctly. The Scriptures didn’t fall from heaven like manna, nor were they handed down on stone tablets on a mountain top. They were written by fallible human beings. Divine inspiration ensures theological truth, not historical accuracy of every detail -- which may be irrelevant to the message. Nothing in that message is diminished if the authors (or their sources) embellished the extraneous details.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is the background to these ones who became known as the early church fathers…?

A little research reveals a lot….

In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war.

And, it it was spirited debate that started the Christian Church.

Apparently, you don’t know your Bible very well (Acts 18:28) . . .

You act as if it was all smooth sailing in the church from the second century onward……but it was exactly the opposite.
Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and it continued as apostasy grew. The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to establish themselves.….so from the start, there were numerous varieties of “Christianity” which had little in common.
During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms, became influential. To satisfy educated pagans, who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature.

WRONG – I never claimed that it was “smooth sailing” in the Early Church.

With all of the martyring o these men during this period – it was anything BUT smooth.

As doctrine develops and doesn’t simply fall out of the sky – there were years of spirited debating and ultimate agreement.

Origen’s treatise “On First Principles” was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely, according to their own errant thinking.

This is an ignorant statement – even for YOU . . .

Jesus’s divinity wasn’t “established” at Nicaea – it was merely defined.
He was ALWAYS divine – before Nicaea and before Creation (John 1:1, Rev. 13:8).

Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Constantine, a pagan emperor masquerading as a Christian convert. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians,(most of them writing in Greek) worked out in a long and bitter debate, what was to be the distinguishing and foundational doctrine that all of Christendom accepts, both Catholic and Protestant.

WRONG.

Eusebius didn’t adopt paganism – just as Jesus, who “associated” with sinners and prostitutes didn’t adopt their ways.

As for the Apostles - they didn’t have everything “figured out” in the First century. If they didn’t – they would never have had the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 to determine how to deal with doctrinal issues brought on by the Judaizers.

Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine.

The question we have to ask is…did those early church fathers adhere closely to the Bible in their writings?

It was actually Greek culture and philosophy that provided the infrastructure of early “Christian” thought.

Almost every quote from the ECFs contains referenced to Scripture.

YOUR notion that they plucked their teachings solely from philosophy is a comically-ignorant blunder.

Against this historical backdrop, what are we to ascertain about the writings of the “early church fathers”?

Even this one unique feature of the Catholic church, that of calling the pope and their priests “Father” is contrary to Jesus’ words….he himself ruled out the use of the religious title “Father” when he said: “Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matt 23:9 NCB)
The use of the term “Father” to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural.

But the list of these unscriptural doctrines is long…..perhaps you would like to address the questions posed to your fellow Catholics, repeated in post #507 above?

Again – when you make Scripturally-bankrupt statements like this – you only embarrass yourself . . .

Jesus NEVER forbade the use of the term “Father”. He forbade the idea that you would consider any man “Father” above our Father in Heaven. He said the same thing about the word “Teacher” (Matt. 23L8).

HOWEVER, the Word of God tells us:
- “You shall honor your FATHER and mother.” (Acts 30:12)
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).

Well you can ignore history but there are many historians who do not paint the same picture that your church does….
Someone is not telling the truth…..I wonder who?

I don’t wonder.

The Watchtower is the source of lies and false prophecy . . .

Neither Russell nor his companions ever claimed to be prophets…..they were just men of God who wanted to do what Jesus did when he tried to find those “lost sheep” who were not blinded by their religious leaders. The truth would “set them free”, ridding them of the shackles placed on all who engage in mindless performance of rituals, rather than studying God’s word for themselves. Being spoon fed lies goes so far back….
The truth is very inconvenient when it completely contradicts everything you have been taught to believe…..so we understand your reticence.…and even your anger and sarcasm.

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing“ are not a recent problem…..they were already there when the last of the apostles were writing their contributions to scripture, kept at bay until its completion. The wolves took over once the restraint of the apostles’ presence was gone…these wolves are your teachers…..which is proven by the fact that you cannot back up a single Catholic doctrine with Scripture.

EXCUSE me??

Russel and his Watchtower cult made FALSE prophecies of Jesus’s Second Coming in 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918 and 1925. That’s at least FIVE false prophecies righy there.
All it takes is ONE false prophecy to make a false prophet . . .

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing are those – like the Watchtower, who lead people astray with their false teachings (Matt. 7:15-19).

A couple of things I can always count on from your long, verbose word salads are –
a. You don’t know the meaning of a “concise” response
b. You Church “history” leaves MUCH to be desired

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Cor 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Perhaps Tertullian was a victim of his own thinking…? In his haste to correct Praxeas, he invented a solution, but not one corroborated by Scripture. That sent the church down another path.

What is available online for everyone to see, depends entirely on whether you accept that what Tertullian wrote about that subject was gospel truth. Where does Scripture corroborate ““one substance in three persons”?

Banned topic.

 

[RLT63]

Banned topic.

I started to post my list of scriptures that support the Trinity when I realized this is a closed topic and not open for discussion.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Persecuting the Church only made it stronger so Satan came up with a new strategy, he married the Church. Or I should say it was a marriage of government and the Church.

You got it….it’s easy to see once it’s pointed out….and isn’t this why Jesus said we must be be “no part of the world”? (John 17:16; John 18:36; James 4:4)
Who is running this show?….the ultimate puppet master. (1 John 5:19)

 

[Aunty Jane]

I started to post my list of scriptures that support the Trinity when I realized this is a closed topic and not open for discussion.

You can post them to me via PM and we can discuss them if you like….without the animosity.
I am more than happy to discuss this topic or any other topic with anyone who might be interested in the other side of this story….rationally, logically and most importantly, scripturally.

Those who have a vested interest in making sure this topic never sees the light of scripture will have no hesitancy in reporting any mention of it…..running to the mods to make the big bad dissenters “shut up”.

Silencing the voice of reason and truth is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus….it didn’t work then, it will not work now. Jehovah will have his truth declared to those who have their minds, hearts and ears open.

Since no one can come to the son without an invitation from the Father, (John 6:65)….I wonder what they are afraid of?
God can and does, invite whomever HE chooses. No human can prevent that.

If this is the forum for “unorthodox” topics to be discussed….then those who want to cause trouble by their unchristian behavior should be the ones banned.

This is a gag order that stifles freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The very things that most of us hold dear……I am deeply saddened by it TBH.

 

[Aunty Jane]

There are lots of instances of the Bible contradicting itself. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27) Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

How do you handle disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14)?

How do you handle Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22)?

How do you handle Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah?

How do you handle Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest,” even though 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time?

How do I handle these things? I simply ask myself if these details are earth shattering contradictions or whether they are minor mistakes in the detail that has been handed down through the centuries by the hands of men. The original scriptures were inspired of God, written by the hand of those he inspired….but in none of your issues here do I see any reason to doubt the Bible’s overall narrative….God’s message to the human race is not altered one iota by any of those apparent discrepancies.

If you think so, then you are either easily distracted by minor details, or you have not digested the Bible’s message as a whole.

Can I ask if you have a “big picture” concerning the Bible’s one story? The one that starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation?

What was God’s purpose in our creation “in the beginning”? And how does he address the situation caused by the rebellion in Eden because both angelic and human children were involved? What did he do to implement a strategy, to not only deal with that situation, but to make sure that he created precedents so that it could never happen again…..neither in heaven nor on earth?
What is the role of the redeemer? And what are the mechanics of that role that Jesus could fulfill, but that the Father could not?
What conclusion does the Revelation give us, that brings us back to what we lost in Eden?

Are these things clear in your mind?

 

[RLT63]

You can post them to me via PM and we can discuss them if you like….without the animosity.
I am more than happy to discuss this topic or any other topic with anyone who might be interested in the other side of this story….rationally, logically and most importantly, scripturally.

Those who have a vested interest in making sure this topic never sees the light of scripture will have no hesitancy in reporting any mention of it…..running to the mods to make the big bad dissenters “shut up”.

Silencing the voice of reason and truth is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus….it didn’t work then, it will not work now. Jehovah will have his truth declared to those who have their minds, hearts and ears open.

Since no one can come to the son without an invitation from the Father, (John 6:65)….I wonder what they are afraid of?
God can and does, invite whomever HE chooses. No human can prevent that.

If this is the forum for “unorthodox” topics to be discussed….then those who want to cause trouble by their unchristian behavior should be the ones banned.

This is a gag order that stifles freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The very things that most of us hold dear……I am deeply saddened by it TBH.

To be fair, when I first joined the forum, trinitarianism vs Unitarianism dominated the forum. It was pretty much all that was discussed and all the forum was about. I think they were just trying to get things under control. Maybe members who want to discuss these issues could ask the mods if there could be a section where these topics could be discussed again. Maybe an unorthodox section or something like that.