P
PRmerger
Guest
I answer with the words of Christ*, “Strive to enter.”
*which you know through only ONE means: the Catholic Church.
- Status
*which you know through only ONE means: the Catholic Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Forgiveness of one’s sins has always been a requirement for salvation, Stephen.
How are one’s sins forgiven? What does the Word of God say?
Answer: through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, if one’s sins are mortal, and through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, if one’s sins are venial.
Are you implying that Calvin looked at Lutheranism and said, “this, except for the sacraments”? I am not convinced that one can say that Calvinism “came out of Lutheranism” in that way.
Jon
A
adf417
Guest
Ok.
It looked like a sort of continuum, one leading to the next. While Calvin was 25 years younger than Luther, Zwingli was a peer, coming on the scene with his symbolic approach at about the same time as Luther, both coming out of the Catholic Church.
Jon
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. And Calvin actually synthesized Lutheran and Zwinglian theology (I think that the most immediate sources were probably Bucer and Melanchthon, actually) to create the most influential version of Reformed theology (though Calvin is not the source of Reformed theology–there were many Reformed theologians and he was just one very important one). The Lutherans rejected this synthesis as still inadequate, mostly because of what they regarded as his overly spiritualized doctrine of the Eucharist (which still went way beyond Zwingli).Ok.
It looked like a sort of continuum, one leading to the next. While Calvin was 25 years younger than Luther, Zwingli was a peer, coming on the scene with his symbolic approach at about the same time as Luther, both coming out of the Catholic Church.
Jon
Edwin
R
Razzle
Guest
Ok – I have not read this post with entirety and nor do I have the time. This will be be brief.
As one of Jehovah’s witnesses we certainly do believe that there is one way to accept bible teachings and one message throughout that must be understood correctly.
Wether you wish to debate that that is one belief or another is the debate that Satan introduced at the start. Just like Adam and Eve – this is our free will choice to make. However we must make an informed one.
It is evidenced throughout the bible that Jehovah uses a channel through which people can worship. Eg: the Israelite nation, apostles and early Christian congregation. Just as in the days of this early congregation they were surrounded by “false” beliefs and ideas and those of that time had to choose themselves wether to accept the teachings of Christ or any of the other beliefs available including adhering to the succeed Jewish traditions. If they chose to follow the apostles then they accepted that these men were responsible, with Jehovah’s guidance, for making spiritual decisions on behalf of the congregation. On occasions a congregation sought the decision making from “the older men”. Not accepting these decisions would have resulted in a reprimand or removal from the congregation. (all of this is in “your” bibles too). You will find today that We are structured exactly in this way, according to scripture.
Baptism.
Someone mentioned Baptism as an example and it is a good example. What is baptism? Is it not an outward demonstration of dedicating ones life to god? Therefore can an infant make the decision to dedicated itself and then determine adhere to it in his/her lifes course. To further this thought, what age did Jesus get baptised. Should not the perfect (oh oh) son of god have done this sooner if this was the proper course to take?
So in light of scripture vs tradition – which would you say reflects Gods thoughts.
Trinity
As someone said earlier – if want to see the trinity you will. You will however be ignoring the fact that the trinity did not originate with Christianity but was already in existence in surrounding beliefs prior to Christ.
There is nowhere that the trinity as a belief is taught in scripture. I don’t want to spark a debate over John 1;1 as it will only spiral into debate over anarthrous nouns and predicate nouns and definite articles etc etc, however a very compelling point is that “WE” are not the only ones to recognise the need for a qualitative understanding of this scripture. All be it few.
1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London
• 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
• 1867 “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
• 1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
• 1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
• 1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
• 1822 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
• 1863 “and the Word was a god.” - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
• 1885 “and the Word was a god.” - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
• 1879 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
• 1911 “and the Word was a god.” - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
• 1958 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1829 “and the Word was a god.” - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
• 1975 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
•
Even from just this simplistic circumstantial point of view one cannot simply state this verse is the be all end all of the trinity debate and that “WE” are undoubtedly incorrect.
Then there is Phil 2:6. one that many refer to. If you accept that say the KJB is correct then it was NOT “robbery” for Christ to be equal to God. Does this then mean that what was just said is also the case (verse5), that “we” also should have the same mind and think nothing of making ourselves equal to God?
Of course not. So once again in the entire theme of scripture the trinity is not supported so then one must say well how else must we understand such scritures.
As JW’s we do throw our trust in the “older men” to properly pass on scriptural understanding just as in the days of the apostles. We do however have to do as the Bereans did and test wethers this is in line with the scriptures for ourselves. (Acts 17:11)
This thread started with this thought.
Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?
I do find it very interesting that if someone approaches the bible from the perspective of listening to IT and being guided by It and not tradition – that this lends toward JW-ish
Am little offended at being referred to as non-Christian.
I spent waaay to long on this.
As one of Jehovah’s witnesses we certainly do believe that there is one way to accept bible teachings and one message throughout that must be understood correctly.
Wether you wish to debate that that is one belief or another is the debate that Satan introduced at the start. Just like Adam and Eve – this is our free will choice to make. However we must make an informed one.
It is evidenced throughout the bible that Jehovah uses a channel through which people can worship. Eg: the Israelite nation, apostles and early Christian congregation. Just as in the days of this early congregation they were surrounded by “false” beliefs and ideas and those of that time had to choose themselves wether to accept the teachings of Christ or any of the other beliefs available including adhering to the succeed Jewish traditions. If they chose to follow the apostles then they accepted that these men were responsible, with Jehovah’s guidance, for making spiritual decisions on behalf of the congregation. On occasions a congregation sought the decision making from “the older men”. Not accepting these decisions would have resulted in a reprimand or removal from the congregation. (all of this is in “your” bibles too). You will find today that We are structured exactly in this way, according to scripture.
Baptism.
Someone mentioned Baptism as an example and it is a good example. What is baptism? Is it not an outward demonstration of dedicating ones life to god? Therefore can an infant make the decision to dedicated itself and then determine adhere to it in his/her lifes course. To further this thought, what age did Jesus get baptised. Should not the perfect (oh oh) son of god have done this sooner if this was the proper course to take?
So in light of scripture vs tradition – which would you say reflects Gods thoughts.
Trinity
As someone said earlier – if want to see the trinity you will. You will however be ignoring the fact that the trinity did not originate with Christianity but was already in existence in surrounding beliefs prior to Christ.
There is nowhere that the trinity as a belief is taught in scripture. I don’t want to spark a debate over John 1;1 as it will only spiral into debate over anarthrous nouns and predicate nouns and definite articles etc etc, however a very compelling point is that “WE” are not the only ones to recognise the need for a qualitative understanding of this scripture. All be it few.
1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London
• 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
• 1867 “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
• 1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
• 1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
• 1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
• 1822 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
• 1863 “and the Word was a god.” - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
• 1885 “and the Word was a god.” - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
• 1879 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
• 1911 “and the Word was a god.” - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
• 1958 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1829 “and the Word was a god.” - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
• 1975 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
•
Even from just this simplistic circumstantial point of view one cannot simply state this verse is the be all end all of the trinity debate and that “WE” are undoubtedly incorrect.
Then there is Phil 2:6. one that many refer to. If you accept that say the KJB is correct then it was NOT “robbery” for Christ to be equal to God. Does this then mean that what was just said is also the case (verse5), that “we” also should have the same mind and think nothing of making ourselves equal to God?
Of course not. So once again in the entire theme of scripture the trinity is not supported so then one must say well how else must we understand such scritures.
As JW’s we do throw our trust in the “older men” to properly pass on scriptural understanding just as in the days of the apostles. We do however have to do as the Bereans did and test wethers this is in line with the scriptures for ourselves. (Acts 17:11)
This thread started with this thought.
Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?
I do find it very interesting that if someone approaches the bible from the perspective of listening to IT and being guided by It and not tradition – that this lends toward JW-ish
Am little offended at being referred to as non-Christian.
I spent waaay to long on this.
R
Razzle
Guest
Hi Jon.
Firstly I don’t really easily take offence. I understand the reason why people state that we are not Christian - it just couldn’t be further from the truth. So I am not seriously offended with any seriousness.
It is true that baptism into Christ does save in that without it one cannot be save. (1 Peter 3:21)
However that alone is not the finish.
James 2:14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?
17 So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead.
Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. 20 But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that his faith was active along with his works and his faith was perfected by his works,
James 1: 22 However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.
**James 1:24 You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith **alone.
Firstly I don’t really easily take offence. I understand the reason why people state that we are not Christian - it just couldn’t be further from the truth. So I am not seriously offended with any seriousness.
It is true that baptism into Christ does save in that without it one cannot be save. (1 Peter 3:21)
However that alone is not the finish.
James 2:14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?
17 So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead.
Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. 20 But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that his faith was active along with his works and his faith was perfected by his works,
James 1: 22 However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.
**James 1:24 You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith **alone.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is very Catholic, Razzle!
Do you have a verse which states that Baptism is an outward sign?
R
Razzle
Guest
Luke 3:3 BBEThis is very Catholic, Razzle!
Do you have a verse which states that Baptism is an outward sign?
Bible in Basic English
And he came into all the country round about Jordan, preaching baptism as a sign of forgiveness of sin for those whose hearts were changed.
The decision to dedicate ones life to God and therefore be obedient to his will through christ Jesus is made in the heart and is between that person and Jehovah. The physical going under the water is a “public” demonstration of this decision.
A
adf417
Guest
Hello Razzle and welcome to CAF. I hope your stay is pleasant and enlightening.
continued…
I hope you find time to read all of the thread as context is important.
Absolutely!
Well, I see the structure a bit different but lets go on…
Razzle you made a large leap from your organizational “structure” to your interpretation of what the scriptures mean. There is much in between. What good does it do to quote scripture and proof text back and forth when we both know the JW”s and the CC’s interpretation will, in the end, be THE issue.
continued…
A
adf417
Guest
…continued
Ah! Good catch! And thank you for confirming my original assertion with the “trajectory” analogy for my Protestant brothers.
I understand your implication here to be - the more you use NT “only” the closer you are to God’s truth, right? This is strong implications for the early Christians who did not have this NT defined as you have it today. So how does your philosophy here bode well for those?
Peace!!!
Who are these “older men”? Can you name any? The JW website quotes from many early Christians but I don’t see any of the JW belief. I assume these men will be the key to properly understanding scripture, right?
Ah! Good catch! And thank you for confirming my original assertion with the “trajectory” analogy for my Protestant brothers.
I understand your implication here to be - the more you use NT “only” the closer you are to God’s truth, right? This is strong implications for the early Christians who did not have this NT defined as you have it today. So how does your philosophy here bode well for those?
I am truly sorry if the term non-Christian offends you. It certainly is not meant to offend and this thread was also not meant to debate JW’s though I am sure you will get an opportunity. I, in turn, find it quite offensive myself when non-Trinitarians consider themselves Christian. Sense you guys like to use Encyclopedia Britannica this may help…britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605497/TrinitarianAm little offended at being referred to as non-Christian.
I hope you stay with us:hug1:
Peace!!!
R
Razzle
Guest
G
geneseesquire
Guest
If the Jehovah Witness following read the bible in context, I might agree they were sola scriptura but it is my experience that the Jehovah Witness reads and interprets each line of scripture as a standalone entity and assign their interpretation for the one line by itself without considering what was written before or after.
A
adf417
Guest
I almost over looked this post as you have inserted your rebuttals within your own quotes and it looked as though you said nothing. It took me a little while to figure it out when I first started as it is a little cumbersome to make the quotes shown separate from your comments but it was worth the struggles. Keep working with it and you will get it.
Do you care to address the last statement on post #52. You seem to have overlooked it and then did exactly what it is saying – proof texting here
. Unless we address the issue of authority, and more specifically authority of the canon, you will continue proof texting from your own interpretation and me from mine (or my Church) and then where will we be? 
Ok, this is in reference to elders in general. In that case
. And with your reference to the Bereans, who studied the scriptures daily, which obviously was the Hebrew writings, what scriptures did the early “Christian” church study?It was a logical question in reference this, to your comment…
Sorry, my bad. The emotional character did not show up on mine.
Peace!!!
Nothing here
I disagree with. Paul tells us in Galatians 5 that we must have a faith that works through love. I disagree with the idea that baptism is an outward demonstration on our part.
Your thoughts?
Jon
D
dronald
Guest
Thanks for hanging out Razzle!
Can you clear this up for me? The JW’s that come to my door never give me a good answer…
1 Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Now, in the New World Translation they add the word [Other] in just like that. I’m wondering why did they insert “other” if the word is not found in the original Greek.
Also, why did Thomas say, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” When he saw Jesus?
Can you clear this up for me? The JW’s that come to my door never give me a good answer…
1 Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Now, in the New World Translation they add the word [Other] in just like that. I’m wondering why did they insert “other” if the word is not found in the original Greek.
Also, why did Thomas say, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” When he saw Jesus?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yeah,but the problem is that JW’s have a total distorted view of Jesus. They deny his Divinity. To them Jesus is NOT God,thus does not matter what one quotes to them. The fact they deny the Hypostatic Union changes the whole tempo of the game.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Razzle:
Where is the JW belief Jesus evaporated into gases instead of the Resurrection? BTW: There is not one shred of evidence Jesus being nailed on an upright stake, the claims are unfounded.
The highlighted words are the BIGGEST LIE JW teach the world. I find it amazing how JW’s have all these new revelations on what ancient languages truly meant and that Christianity has had all wrong until they poppedd up 1800 years later? I can easily debunk the JW’s lie about the Trinity not being taught.
Where is the JW belief Jesus evaporated into gases instead of the Resurrection? BTW: There is not one shred of evidence Jesus being nailed on an upright stake, the claims are unfounded.
- Status