JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[andrewgraham195]

Glad you stuck around, Delson. We’ll see if Andrew responds to your points specifically. I hope that there are many JW lurkers who may silently consider these points.

Reply,

SteveVH,

I’m sure there are plenty of Catholic “lurkers” around to see that I have answered the points on the pronouns (and more) and that here has been no effective answer from Catholics, including you!

How do Catholics manage to slide singular pronouns and verbs (which are used in connection with the term “God”) and give them a pluralistic sense, which then fits in with their theology, that God is constituted of three persons and not constituted of one person and one person only; how do you Catholics manage it…I don’t fall for an instant for the specious explanations trying to be given, so as to explain away the Catholic dilemma, when it clearly shows singular personal pronouns and verbs for God and that I have answered the question on the holy spirit in regard to John 16:13 and that the antecedent noun for “ekeinos” {a demonstrative} is not “pneuma” [spirit] but “paracletos” [helper] in v7, the Greek is specific, the Greek is exact and I have shown that, but you Catholics try and get out of it, by spin and rhetoric, also specious arguments!

In regard to John 16:13, perhaps your Catholic experts can show me exactly where I am wrong, with some other examples, of where you insist that the spirit is a person, has personality with the use of pronouns, verbs and antecedents!

Your Call!

Best wishes.

Andrew

 

[KathleenGee]

I see your point as I speak Portuguese and know about how even inanimate objects have masculine and feminine declensions.

But what you are missing out on is the understanding and passing down in faith in how it has been lived out for 2,000 years. Rome was always the leading church after the Diaspora. The Hebrew Christians faded in prominence next to the massive growth of the Gentiles.

You can find sources but that does not mean how faith is understood and reading the context of documents, you will see the common train of thought. Pope is an English word, and I always sense a little contempt hidden in the title. I worked with Latins and much prefer Holy Father or ‘Papa’. Because the very essence of who we are are sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

Likewise, Christology, a science in itself, was not able to be developed well in the first 300 years because of persecution and the modes of communication. The Latin Church was poor after the destruction of the Roman Empire and the Eastern Church was rich, up until the Islamic invasions. But we have artifacts and paper trail that go all back to Rome.

 

[andrewgraham195]

Vine is blinded by his own preconceived religious beliefs. According to Strongs 4074 Petros {pet’-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
In research I did some years ago, I could find no instance of there being a word petros. Which makes sense Strongs indicates it is a primary word.

There is something else however and that is John

42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

His name is Cephas which is Aramaic for rock no word play.
The problem with the interpretation you present Is
1 The usage does not support that Jesus says I change your name to rock and then in midsentence change what rock means.
2. A change of name is important only three other people in Scripture had their name changed and it was always monumental.
3. The change of name is accompanied by the Keys of heaven.

“Vine is blinded by his own preconceived religious beliefs. According to Strongs 4074 Petros {pet’-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
In research I did some years ago, I could find no instance of there being a word petros. Which makes sense Strongs indicates it is a primary word.”

Reply,

Your Catholic defense above carries no weight at all, here is how and why!

So you “could find no instance of there being a word petros”!

Example:

The world respected Liddell & Scott Greek English Lexicon has Greek Poet Homer [c. 750 to 650 BCE] and the Greek Tragedian Euripides [c. 480 – 406 BCE] using PETROS, so the reason you couldn’t find it is because you didn’t really look hard enough, perhaps your theology didn’t want you to find it!

The term “petros” in classical Greek… simply means a small stone, distinguished from a large rock, rock mass [petra]… Homer informs us that soldiers (slingers) would use small stones (David and Goliath) to attack their enemies and the term in Greek used was (wait for it) was “petros” and the same term “petros” was used by Euripides in his plays!

As regards “PETRA”, should I go on to inform you about what Ionic and Epic Greek has to say on the term “petra”, of what Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, and others, or, as usual with theologically motivated Catholics, would I be wasting my times!

Empirical historical facts wash away what you are trying to water down!

“Vine is blinded by his own preconceived religious beliefs”

I don’t think so, not on this occasion, as impartial research bears out what the Trinitarian Vine said, so you may need to apologize in regard to what you said about Vine, if not, it merely shows your theological bias!

Now prove me wrong on the above!

Incidentally, the Aramaic and/or Hebrew is irrelevant, as Mathew recorded his gospel in Greek, hence seen, “Petra” and “Petros”, even Saint Augustine, who at one time thought that the “church” was built on Peter, later realized that he was wrong and said that the “church” was built on Christ, as he is the chief corner stone, not Peter!

 

[andrewgraham195]

I see your point as I speak Portuguese and know about how even inanimate objects have masculine and feminine declensions.

But what you are missing out on is the understanding and passing down in faith in how it has been lived out for 2,000 years. Rome was always the leading church after the Diaspora. The Hebrew Christians faded in prominence next to the massive growth of the Gentiles.

You can find sources but that does not mean how faith is understood and reading the context of documents, you will see the common train of thought. Pope is an English word, and I always sense a little contempt hidden in the title. I worked with Latins and much prefer Holy Father or ‘Papa’. Because the very essence of who we are are sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

Likewise, Christology, a science in itself, was not able to be developed well in the first 300 years because of persecution and the modes of communication. The Latin Church was poor after the destruction of the Roman Empire and the Eastern Church was rich, up until the Islamic invasions. But we have artifacts and paper trail that go all back to Rome.

Reply,

How can you say that Rome was the leading church after the diaspora!

No church was a leader, all primate bishops were held in equality, no “See” was above another, Rome wasn’t pre-eminent over Alexandria or Antioch and vice versa, there was no Pope in the traditional sense of understanding such a term, each Primate was called “papa” (pope), there was no Christian “Pontifex Maximus”, the Emperor was the “Maximus” [Head] “Pontifex” [Pontiff] there were several offices of “Pontiff”, as many Roman cults had their “Pontiffs”, but it was only the Emperor who was the Head Pontiff, he being over the “Flamens” etc, only when the emperor Gratian threw out the title and office, was such picked up by the corrupt, immoral and violent Roman primate Bishop, one called Damasus (his Tome makes for interesting reading) but up until then, there was no Catholic Pope; when Justin Martyr wrote an apology to the “Pope” he was writing to Antoninus Pius, then them Emperor and the “Pontifex Maximus”; I have had Catholics on here trying to water the above down and explain it away,but it doesn’t wash, among other matters

 

[themic]

I just looked up the second quote in my copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and look what the "…"s are hiding: “While the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate, there is no doubt about the fact that from the 2d century to the Protestant Reformation Christianity unanimously recognized in its bishops the divinely-established successors of the Apostles.”

Sounds like pretty solid historical evidence to me! I think the JWs used the wrong quote, or maybe they just figured nobody would ever look it up in context.

and I have a catholic encyclopedia on CDrom. What does it say about easter bunnies and christmas trees? Joining armies or halloween? If youre going to question a faith? you better dang well not hold on to HUGE obvious satanic toys and symbols while doing so. If I had to pick? I would rather be with the man that is Closer to the ACTUAL WORDS IN THE BIBLE and are not afraid to open it…than be with the man that kept it in latin for NO ONE to read for years, or the one that has its members unable to open a bible and show why they believe what they believe. A BUNNY THAT LAYS EGGS? you cant see the Wrongness in THAT? How can you NOT? I dont even have to look hard! LOL

 

[andrewgraham195]

The word ʼAb·baʼ′ came to be applied as a title of honor to the Jewish rabbis in the early centuries of the Common Era and is found as such in the Babylonian Talmud. (Berakhot 16b) The one acting in the capacity of vice-president of the Jewish Sanhedrin already held the title of ʼAv, or Father of the Sanhedrin. In later periods the title was also applied to the bishops of the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syrian churches and, more particularly, became the title of the Bishop of Alexandria, thereby making him the “papa” or “pope” of that part of the Eastern church. The English words “abbot” and “abbey” are both derived from the Aramaic ʼab·baʼ′. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, objected to the use of the title “abbot” as applied to the Catholic monks in his time and did so on the basis that it violated Jesus’ instructions at Matthew 23:9: “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.”

Of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Ferraris’ ecclesiastical dictionary says:

“The pope is of such dignity and highness that he is not simply a man but, as it were, God, and the Vicar of God. ... Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven, of earth and of hell. ... Nay, the pope’s excellence and power are not only above heavenly, terrestrial and infernal things, but he is also above angels, and is their superior ... So that if it were possible that angels could err from the faith, or entertain sentiments contrary thereto, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope. ... He is of such great dignity and power that he occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ ... So that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God. ... The pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ, the greatest king of all kings, possessing the plenitude of power; to whom the government of the earthly and heavenly kingdom is entrusted. ... The pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, declare or interpret the divine law. ... The pope can sometimes counteract the divine law by limiting, explaining,” etc."

the above bespeaks Rank Apostasy!

Protestants are no better:

This power and might attributed to the pope has been upheld by the Catholic clergy, and, though many of the Protestant clergy may disagree, they too hold themselves up as “Reverend,” “Right Reverend” and “Father” and use other titles that put them high above the laity, to be looked up to, honored and materially supported, often in a very elaborate way—in a manner similar to the spirit of the papal claim.!"

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Reply,

How can you say that Rome was the leading church after the diaspora!

No church was a leader, all primate bishops were held in equality, no “See” was above another, Rome wasn’t pre-eminent over Alexandria or Antioch and vice versa, there was no Pope in the traditional sense of understanding such a term, each Primate was called “papa” (pope), there was no Christian “Pontifex Maximus”, the Emperor was the “Maximus” [Head] “Pontifex” [Pontiff] there were several offices of “Pontiff”, as many Roman cults had their “Pontiffs”, but it was only the Emperor who was the Head Pontiff, he being over the “Flamens” etc, only when the emperor Gratian threw out the title and office, was such picked up by the corrupt, immoral and violent Roman primate Bishop, one called Damasus (his Tome makes for interesting reading) but up until then, there was no Catholic Pope; when Justin Martyr wrote an apology to the “Pope” he was writing to Antoninus Pius, then them Emperor and the “Pontifex Maximus”; I have had Catholics on here trying to water the above down and explain it away,but it doesn’t wash, among other matters

1. 
   *]Delson and Mystophylus both disproved your John 16:13 claim.
   *]You could not satisfy the challenge Delson presented.
   *]You failed miserably in saying that the English language is the only translation to use the masculine pronoun “He” for the Holy Spirit. I gave 3 different languages that do and stopped as I can easily find a lot more.
   *]You jump from accusation to accusation and slander to slander without presenting any evidence at all.
   
   Now for even more of you slander and misinformation:
   
   1st: Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381AD) states:
   
   
   Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour **after **the bishop of Rome.​
   
   Rome was 1st in honor. To deny this requires ignorance of history or willful ignorance or just plain ill intentions.
   
   2nd: What is called the Catholic Pope is traced directly to the Bishop of Rome. Bishop of Rome = Catholic Pope. Yes other Sees have used the title of Pope but this conversation is about the Bishop of Rome = Catholic Pope. Anything else you want to throw is just smoke.
   
   3rd: Justin Martyr did not write his 1st Apology to a [Pope], but to the Roman Emperor and others:
   

   CHAPTER I – ADDRESS.
   To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of allnations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.
   ​

   
   ​
   [If] you would have actually read the document it is found in the first sentence. But to satisfy your ill intentions, you felt the need to classify the Roman Emperor as a Pope, in furtherance of your slandering.
   
   4th: Due to your lack of reasoning and ability to present anything other than slander, myth, legend, and ignoring the challenges presented to you by others and just jumping into more “bad-mouthing”, I am reporting you.

 

[andrewgraham195]

I’m not interested in biased 4th century church sayings, such was never the case in the early 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, your reading Catholic propaganda for Catholics, Catholics for Catholics, what does one really expect!

And as for:

“Delson and Mystophylus both disproved your John 16:13 claim.”

This is sheer nonsense, I have shown them where the true antecedent lies, and it is seen in v7 and it is paracletos a masculine noun, so that the pronoun, when looking back at its antecedent noun, looks at its grammatical gender and that gender is masculine, so Greek demands the pronoun be masculine, no exceptions, the antecedent noun is not “spirit”, just because it is juxtaposition, and does not make it the antecedent noun for demonstrative pronoun “ekeinos”…dream on!

John 16:7 NIV

“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”

there is your true antecedent of “ekeinos” and it is “Advovate”*, notice, “I will send HIM to you”!

“ekeinos” looks not to “spirit” but back to “Advocate”

*Or - Comforter, Helper.

You Catholics can try every trick in the book, but non of it will wash!

I also addressed the question of “Child” [neuter] when one of you brought it up and I gave examples and explanations!

The tactics that you guys pull are famous!

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Themic, I answered your question about Easter bunnies, Christmas trees and Santa Claus in your thread. You will have to ask Protestants about Halloween. That is also Reformation Day. We Catholics prefer All Saints Day on November 1st.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not interested in biased 4th century church sayings, such was never the case in the early 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, your reading Catholic propaganda for Catholics, Catholics for Catholics, what does one really expect!

More misinformation…

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]):

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Cyprian ( 59:14 [A.D. 252]):

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

Again you have been refuted.

And as for:

“Delson and Mystophylus both disproved your John 16:13 claim.”

You were refuted.

John 16:7 NIV

Jumping translations to satisfy your agenda?

You Catholics can try every trick in the book, but non of it will wash!

The tactics that you guys pull are famous!

More slander, even on the face of the historical, linguistics and reasonable facts we have presented against **none **of yours.

1. 
   *]I take then that you admit and retract your allegations about John 16:13 masculine pronoun biased in the English language?
   *]I take then that you admit and retract your error in regards to Justin Martyr’s Apology?
   *]I take then that you admit and retract your error in regards to you saying that was not the case for the Church at Rome for the 2nd and 3rd century?

 

[Augustine3]

Reply,

How can you say that Rome was the leading church after the diaspora!

No church was a leader, all primate bishops were held in equality, no “See” was above another, Rome wasn’t pre-eminent over Alexandria or Antioch and vice versa, there was no Pope in the traditional sense of understanding such a term, each Primate was called “papa” (pope), there was no Christian “Pontifex Maximus”, the Emperor was the “Maximus” [Head] “Pontifex” [Pontiff] there were several offices of “Pontiff”, as many Roman cults had their “Pontiffs”, but it was only the Emperor who was the Head Pontiff, he being over the “Flamens” etc, only when the emperor Gratian threw out the title and office, was such picked up by the corrupt, immoral and violent Roman primate Bishop, one called Damasus (his Tome makes for interesting reading) but up until then, there was no Catholic Pope; when Justin Martyr wrote an apology to the “Pope” he was writing to Antoninus Pius, then them Emperor and the “Pontifex Maximus”; I have had Catholics on here trying to water the above down and explain it away,but it doesn’t wash, among other matters

Why did St Clement, bishop of Rome send a letter to the Corinthians to settle a dispute when during this time St John, the fourth gospel writer was still alive? St John lived in the Island of Patmos which is a lot closer to Corinth than Rome was, yet the bishop of Rome intervened rather than the apostle John…

 

[themic]

regarding peter as pope? Lets say the catholics are right and the Jws are wrong…Ok? no…When did that fish hat come in to play? because im not seeing that in the bible. And the whole kissing of the ring…wearing white? is that how peter, be he pope or not…did?
And the word…“pope”. is that biblical? no wait…i just saw…its an ADD-IN about 1000 years after jesus. it means father…They called each other that alot. the early catholics used it for many of the leaders…the word Father…such an endearing term. uyou know Jesus Liked that word too…in fact he says so when he said…
(Matthew 23:8-12) . . .But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

ahhhh father. papa, pope. papacy. maybe thats something different. i dunno.

 

[Augustine3]

regarding peter as pope? Lets say the catholics are right and the Jws are wrong…Ok? no…When did that fish hat come in to play? because im not seeing that in the bible. And the whole kissing of the ring…wearing white? is that how peter, be he pope or not…did?
And the word…“pope”. is that biblical? no wait…i just saw…its an ADD-IN about 1000 years after jesus. it means father…They called each other that alot. the early catholics used it for many of the leaders…the word Father…such an endearing term. uyou know Jesus Liked that word too…in fact he says so when he said…
(Matthew 23:8-12) . . .But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

ahhhh father. papa, pope. papacy. maybe thats something different. i dunno.

Here are some Early Church Father testimonies.

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

God bless.

 

[adrift]

Since this poster has been banned I wondered if I should answer but I decided to.

“

So you “could find no instance of there being a word petros”!

To bad he didn’t bother to read the post or he would have known that this had already been discussed.

“Vine is blinded by his own preconceived religious beliefs”

I don’t think so, not on this occasion, as impartial research bears out what the Trinitarian Vine said, so you may need to apologize in regard to what you said about Vine, if not, it merely shows your theological bias!

His research was hardly impartial. He provided the Greek definition and if he had left it at that it would have been impartial but he took it one more step and made a conclusion]
metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the Apostle, is clear (see above). From the sense of the sentence it is clear that Jesus is not referring to Himself. To repeat myself Lets see
You are rock and upon this rock yep pretty clear that Jesus was speaking of Peter who He renamed. Only happened three other times in the Bible.
Let us take a made up sentence
I have a cat and a dog who is black. The closest noun to black is the dog so you know that it is the dog that is black the same thing holds true for Peter and the rock. It is not reasonable to say that Jesus was speaking of Himself

Now prove me wrong on the above!

Incidentally, the Aramaic and/or Hebrew is irrelevant, as Mathew recorded his gospel in Greek, hence seen, “Petra” and “Petros”, even Saint Augustine, who at one time thought that the “church” was built on Peter, later realized that he was wrong and said that the “church” was built on Christ, as he is the chief corner stone, not Peter!

Irrelevant what Jesus said?. That Jesus named Simon Cephas is in Scripture. 42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

It is more likely than not (despite the excellent presentation of Mystophilus) that what Jesus said was your name is Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church.

Peter the Rock

 

[adrift]

regarding peter as pope? Lets say the catholics are right and the Jws are wrong…Ok? no…When did that fish hat come in to play? because im not seeing that in the bible. And the whole kissing of the ring…wearing white? is that how peter, be he pope or not…did?
And the word…“pope”. is that biblical? no wait…i just saw…its an ADD-IN about 1000 years after jesus. it means father…They called each other that alot. the early catholics used it for many of the leaders…the word Father…such an endearing term. uyou know Jesus Liked that word too…in fact he says so when he said…
(Matthew 23:8-12) . . .But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

ahhhh father. papa, pope. papacy. maybe thats something different. i dunno.

First read the thread. There you will find that Paul called himself father.
Second read Call No Man “Father”?
Third what do call your male parent? What do you call your teachers, remember that rabbi means teacher.

 

[petra22]

Reply,

How do Catholics manage to slide singular pronouns and verbs (which are used in connection with the term “God”) and give them a pluralistic sense, which then fits in with their theology, that God is constituted of three persons and not constituted of one person and one person only; how do you Catholics manage it…I don’t fall for an instant for the specious explanations trying to be given, so as to explain away the Catholic dilemma, when it clearly shows singular personal pronouns and verbs for God and that I have answered the question on the holy spirit in regard to John 16:13 and that the antecedent noun for “ekeinos” {a demonstrative} is not “pneuma” [spirit] but “paracletos” [helper] in v7, the Greek is specific, the Greek is exact and I have shown that, but you Catholics try and get out of it, by spin and rhetoric, also specious arguments!

In regard to John 16:13, perhaps your Catholic experts can show me exactly where I am wrong, with some other examples, of where you insist that the spirit is a person, has personality with the use of pronouns, verbs and antecedents!

Andrew

In John 10:30 Jesus says I and the Father are ONE… ONE GOD. Catholics believe in ONE GOD.

 

[petra22]

Jesus is the WORD of God. Can the word of a person be separated from the person? The spirit is the heart of a person. Can the spirit be separated from the person? Yes by death here on earth… but when people try to define GOD, they use language sometimes inadequately.

John wrote again what Jesus said to Phillip. Phillip who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one…

It’s all in there trying to describe the unity of the trinity maybe in very poor language but the best they could do. God is ONE God. Like I said, that’s what Catholics believe.

You seem angry about that…

And this seems off topic… sorry!

 

[dianaiad]

The trouble with looking into pagan roots is that you open up a bucket of worms. The more you look, the more you find pagan roots for everything. The Ten Commandments come from Hammurabi’s Code, for instance. And Noah’s flood is similar to many pagan flood stories. So, how much did the ancient Jews borrow from gentile sources to form their theology and stories of origins?

In other words, by doing this, one his cutting his own throat, cutting off the limb he himself is sitting on.

Everybody admits that Jesus is the Son of God, but that very idea itself has pagan counterparts!

That’s one way to look at it.

Another is the very reasonable…and logical…view that if God is real, and the teachings of Christianity are accurate (as were the teachings of the OT) then His teachings came first. At the beginning of all things human thought…or taught. Given that, OF COURSE there would be flood stories from other cultures. OF COURSE there would be similarities to other codes of law. Of course there would be other stories of God sending/sacrificing a son…how could there not be? It’s a chicken and egg question.

That there are pagan ideas and stories that are similar to Christian and Judaic thought and teachings would naturally follow; indeed, the lack of them would be, to anybody who thought about it, absolute proof that Judaic teachings and Christian thought were completely false.

Not that these stories prove that Christianity is ‘true,’ mind you, but if you think about it, if it is, those stories would have to exist–and they certainly do not prove anything false.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dianaid,

Even in the myths of the ancients, there is truth of God in them. These stories were ancient men’s attempt in learning who they were, where they came from and where they are going, eschatology.

What is one point that we can use, however, to take us out of the realm of relativism, is objective truth. That cannot be a philosophy. Truth has moral value. But we are all sinners and morality is life in action, and the essence of truth is Christ.

Christ is the Son of God.

Christ is the second Person of God and Christ is that of God through which God created the carnate world. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son to incarnate us into full flesh and blood adopted heirs.

God is the only constant that does not change. He speaks to us in Salvation History among a gathering of people. And what we know of truth given to us is that it is constant and does not change.

God is the unmoved Mover that does not change, His message to us does not change, His effects, His commandments, the Revelation of His Son.

God is always in the Eternal Moment.

It is in God we find consistency in faith, same beliefs and practices that go back to Judaism that have no change…the nature and person of God, His effects, His law, His directive in both the Old and New Testament in how He wants to be worshipped, not how we think He wants to be worshipped, and how we are to fulfill His will, drawing our life in Him, and living out the beatitudes in contemplation and doing works of spiritual and corporal works of mercy.

Mercy has always been recognized back to the ancients…mercy and justice.

Subsequently to continue, God authorizes those to represent Him and to administrate His church. But always the same God, consistent with our combined history with Judaism going back 5,600 years, consistency of faith and practice, which is absolute.

 

[KathleenGee]

Andrew, if you are still around…then if Christ is sustaining the Church, we would have had JW beliefs 2000 years ago.