Not enough non catholic here

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks Anna,

I didn’t want to come here to fight, but I was (am?) a little nervous as to how the RC community here may respond to my posts.

I saw the thread ‘not enough non-catholics’ and thought I’d pop up to answer anyone’s questions, since JW’s are a very small group by comparison.

Think I’m about to get beaten to a pulp on the answer I gave to Porknpie about hell though

redle,
Just pace yourself. You can take a break anytime.

Also, it’s always your option regarding whether or not to answer a post or enter discussion on another issue.

When you need a break, take one.

Besides, it’s almost Thanksgiving. Maybe you need a few days of vacation from the forum. Your new Catholic friends will still be here when you come back.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks Anna,

I didn’t want to come here to fight, but I was (am?) a little nervous as to how the RC community here may respond to my posts.

I happen to love discourse/discussion/dialogue.

And disagreements are thrilling to me.

That is, I welcome a good debate in which there’s a back and forth of arguments (here, “arguments” is used in the classical philosophical term, not as in this:

http://assets.lifehack.org/wp-content/files/2008/07/argument-380x258.jpg

It is 100% holy to go back and forth, discussing religion, as long as charity is maintained.

 

[PRmerger]

Phew, you are making me work here

Instead of answering each point you raise, I will give a principle that addresses them all.
Php 1:9 And this I pray: That your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and in all understanding:
2Ti 2:7 Understand what I say: for the Lord will give thee in all things understanding.

These verses speak of understanding, a mental ‘putting together’, recognition, discernment, reasoning.

Amen!

If we are looking for a scriptural answer to all of our questions, well there could not be a Bible big enough.

Indeed. That is why the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

this is why we are told to use our powers of reason to take the context, the bigger picture and the details, then find the answer that is harmonious to the rest of -]scripture/-] the Word of God

Yes, with the above correction.

Note: Catholics do not believe that the Word of God is contained in Scripture alone.

Therefore, why do JW’s not object to dancing?
Ps 150:4 (KJV) “Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.”

Right. What about daughters dancing on a birthday, though? Does not a very bad thing occur from this?

The point of Mark 6 is not about dance even though it is a detail in vs 22.

Well, yes. We both understand this.

But on what authority do you decide when something is an important detail vs something being a secondary detail?

Does the number of times something is mentioned give it import? If something is mentioned 10 times, does that give it primacy over something that is mentioned only once?

If that is your paradigm, what Scripture tells you this is the method of exegesis you must use?

It is a trap to expect to find every answer in scripture - you will never find it, nor are we expected to. This is why we are trained :
Heb 5:14 But strong meat is for the perfect: for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil.

Amen!

 

[redle]

What about daughters dancing on a birthday, though? Does not a very bad thing occur from this?

But on what authority do you decide when something is an important detail vs something being a secondary detail?

Does the number of times something is mentioned give it import? If something is mentioned 10 times, does that give it primacy over something that is mentioned only once?

If that is your paradigm, what Scripture tells you this is the method of exegesis you must use?

I think we’re about to come full circle on this.
Daughters dancing on a birthday may lead to bad results, so isn’t it good that JW’s don’t celebrate birthdays! (this sounds sarcastic but it’s meant light heartedly).

The number of times something is mentioned may be a factor, or it may not - it’s not the only factor. There’s the context, outcome, and bigger picture to consider.

We definately ARE coming full circle on this one -
On who’s authority? The Bible equips us to decide. JW’s do not need an external authority to explain every single nuance and make every single decision for us. As I previously said… there’s not a Bible big enough.

I find it interesting that you agree with me here
- Quote:
- "The point of Mark 6 is not about dance even though it is a detail in vs 22. "

-  "Well, yes. We both understand this."

then you ask on what authority I know this to be true. I guess it’s the same authority that leads you to agree that the point of Mark 6 is not about dance. What scripture would you use to substantiate your agreement? On whose authority do you say this is not about dance?

Please remember, JW’s do not believe we know all of Gods will yet, and we don’t consider that we understand all of the Bible yet. It is progressive for us.

 

[PRmerger]

I think we’re about to come full circle on this.
Daughters dancing on a birthday may lead to bad results, so isn’t it good that JW’s don’t celebrate birthdays! (this sounds sarcastic but it’s meant light heartedly).

Fair enough.

The number of times something is mentioned may be a factor, or it may not - it’s not the only factor. There’s the context, outcome, and bigger picture to consider.

We definately ARE coming full circle on this one -
On who’s authority? The Bible equips us to decide.

But whose interpretation of the Bible? What if 2 people read the very same verse and come to contrary positions?

What is the JW solution?

JW’s do not need an external authority to explain every single nuance and make every single decision for us. As I previously said… there’s not a Bible big enough.

I find it interesting that you agree with me here
- Quote:
- "The point of Mark 6 is not about dance even though it is a detail in vs 22. "

-  "Well, yes. We both understand this."

then you ask on what authority I know this to be true. I guess it’s the same authority that leads you to agree that the point of Mark 6 is not about dance. What scripture would you use to substantiate your agreement? On whose authority do you say this is not about dance?

On the authority of the Catholic Church.

Which is the same authority you use to declare that Mark 6 is inspired–you would not know it any other way, yes?

Please remember, JW’s do not believe we know all of Gods will yet, and we don’t consider that we understand all of the Bible yet. It is progressive for us.

Not understanding is fine.

However, changing the teachings of God is frightening. You cannot trust that what you preach today is true, for it can change, according to JW theology.

In fact, 1 month from now, is it not true, that it’s possible for you to come back here and say, “Well, our understanding of the Biblical teaching on birthdays has changed. Now we say that it’s fine to celebrate birthdays, just not to have your daughters dance at them.”

And since that’s possible, how can I trust what you say here to be the truth now?

 

[Porknpie]

On the authority of the Catholic Church.

Which is the same authority you use to declare that Mark 6 is inspired–you would not know it any other way, yes?

Redle -

This same Catholic Church…the same authority…canonized the books that you use in your bible. The Catholic Church has 73 books, canonized in 397AD out of nearly 300 books/writings from that time period. The King James Bible that you are using has only 66 books, seven removed by a printing company to save money. However, the original KJB had all 73. … Catholics believe you do not have the complete written Word of God…and yet the KJB once did.

So setting the 7 books aside…the JWs acknowledge the Catholic church’s authority in selecting the 66 books that you are using in your KJB. At the same time, and this is troubling for JW…you do not following Catholic interpretation of the bible nor on faith & morals. This is a major contradiction: If you can not trust the Church on the latter, how do you trust the same Church on the former?

In fact, 1 month from now, is it not true, that it’s possible for you to come back here and say, “Well, our understanding of the Biblical teaching on birthdays has changed. Now we say that it’s fine to celebrate birthdays, just not to have your daughters dance at them.”

Redle, what happened on Christ’s first birthday? Was it celebrated? Clearly yes. The magi came from a distance land to bring him homage (defined as giving honor or respect)…they brought precious gifts. Clearly, they celebrated the day & event. I say we do the same on our own birthdays for one another. In doing so we honor and respect the day for the person, but also give thanks to God for that persons life and his creation. Just like the Magi.

 

[redle]

So setting the 7 books aside…the JWs acknowledge the Catholic church’s authority in selecting the 66 books that you are using in your KJB. At the same time, and this is troubling for JW…you do not following Catholic interpretation of the bible nor on faith & morals. This is a major contradiction: If you can not trust the Church on the latter, how do you trust the same Church on the former?

We recognise that the Catholic Church canonised those books of the Bible, but we also believe that this was a formality since there was already acceptance that these were the correct books prior to the Catholic Church rubber stamping it. So it’s not 100% accurate to say that since we accept the canon we should also accept the RC teachings.

Redle, what happened on Christ’s first birthday? Was it celebrated? Clearly yes. The magi came from a distance land to bring him homage (defined as giving honor or respect)…they brought precious gifts. Clearly, they celebrated the day & event. I say we do the same on our own birthdays for one another. In doing so we honor and respect the day for the person, but also give thanks to God for that persons life and his creation. Just like the Magi.

It is an assumption to say these events happened on Christs 1st birthday - that is not specified. All we are told is that he was an ‘infant’ at the time, and the rest of the text informs us Jesus was under two years old.

 

[PRmerger]

We recognise that the Catholic Church canonised those books of the Bible, but we also believe that this was a formality since there was already acceptance that these were the correct books prior to the Catholic Church rubber stamping it. So it’s not 100% accurate to say that since we accept the canon we should also accept the RC teachings.

But would it be correct, then, to say that you accept Tradition? For what is Sacred Tradition except the oral teaching that was proclaimed and in “already acceptance”?

And would it be correct, then, to say that you are not a Bible Alone Christian?

And do you then believe in the infallibility of a Church? Or are you of the opinion that there could be an error in the Catholic Church’s formal decision to canonize the 27 books of the NT?

 

[redle]

But would it be correct, then, to say that you accept Tradition? For what is Sacred Tradition except the oral teaching that was proclaimed and in “already acceptance”?

And would it be correct, then, to say that you are not a Bible Alone Christian?

And do you then believe in the infallibility of a Church? Or are you of the opinion that there could be an error in the Catholic Church’s formal decision to canonize the 27 books of the NT?

I notice you have capitalised the ‘T’ of Tradition, giving it some special meaning and I’m not certain what that is.
That said, yes, JW’s do respect the biblical historical tradtions which have led us to this point in time.

Sola Scriptura? No, we need a Church. We call this our Governing Body.

If the RC decision to canonise those books also tallies with our belief that those books are inspired, then there is no conflict.

 

[PRmerger]

I notice you have capitalised the ‘T’ of Tradition, giving it some special meaning and I’m not certain what that is.

Yes, you are correct in your observation. The capital T is to distinguish Sacred Tradition from tradition, which is simply another word for “customs”.

Sacred Tradition is quite different from customs.

That said, yes, JW’s do respect the biblical historical tradtions which have led us to this point in time.

Sola Scriptura? No, we need a Church. We call this our Governing Body.

Fair enough.

But your GB is fallible. That means they are going to be in error. Inevitably. They have erred and will err and perhaps are in error now. Yes? Is this a correct explication of how you understand your GB?

If the RC decision to canonise those books also tallies with our belief that those books are inspired, then there is no conflict.

Do you acknowledge that the CC did this infallibly? Or do you believe they erred somewhere in the discernment of the NT canon?

 

[Faithdancer]

Is it just my imagination that there are very few non Catholics on this forum? I would have thought that this place would be full of non catholic Christians telling us where we have gone wrong. But no, there are very few.

My supposition is that Protestants (with a few exceptions) don’t hang around here because they cannot debate knowledgeable Catholics.

This forum is of course res ipsa loquitur “Catholic.” However, I have noted that among the non-Catholics who frequent here and who post frequently, there seem to be more who identify as atheist, agnostic, pagan whatever, etc. than Protestant. This is not what I would have expected.

 

[Porknpie]

It is an assumption to say these events happened on Christs 1st birthday - that is not specified. All we are told is that he was an ‘infant’ at the time, and the rest of the text informs us Jesus was under two years old.

Redle…

Sorry to confuse you. There are no assumptions. Scripture clearly specifies the events happened at his birth, not 12 months later on what we would call his first birthday. The magi came to Herod when when Jesus was born, his birthday, day of origin and paid him homage…bringing gifts, celebrating the birth of the King of the Jews. There is nothing wrong with us doing the same, imitating the magi, honoring and thanking God for the life he gives us. This is the example that we should follow. IMHO, to not celebrate ones birthday is to not honor God fully for the gift of live. It’s also not scriptural as no where in scripture does it say not do so…it follows a man made tradition…

Birthday is by definition the day of birth. Lets define terms…always good and appropriate to do so. Source is Merriam-Webster.com

Birthday
a : the day of a person’s birth
b : a day of origin

Birthday = day of origin = when Jesus was born…he was a newborn.

NABRE Matthew 2
1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
2 saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage.”
3 When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.
5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:

Herod however, killed all the newborns 2 years old and younger only after he was deceived. This does not mean Jesus was already 2 years old. It just meant Herod wasn’t sure what age the King was born as the Magi had fled after seeing Jesus.

16 When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.

 

[Crazy_Russian]

Is it just my imagination that there are very few non Catholics on this forum? I would have thought that this place would be full of non catholic Christians telling us where we have gone wrong. But no, there are very few.

My supposition is that Protestants (with a few exceptions) don’t hang around here because they cannot debate knowledgeable Catholics.

I am happy to debate Catholics and Christians alike once i have sufficiant permissions to post my research to back my testimony.

It’s a pleasure to meet you. One thing I have heard about this forum from friends of mine, is that when they have shared my research, they were banned because it was so true, it could not be debated. My research speaks according to the Law and Testimony (spirit of prophecy) but is not in line with Christian tradtion and exposes several lies in Christian doctrine.

So I am here to see if I too will be banned or if we will have the pleasure of potentially exposing a lie with the truth. It’s my understanding that truth will always expose a lie.

God Bless.

 

[PRmerger]

I am happy to debate Catholics and Christians alike once i have sufficiant permissions to post my research to back my testimony.

It’s a pleasure to meet you. One thing I have heard about this forum from friends of mine, is that when they have shared my research, they were banned because it was so true, it could not be debated. My research speaks according to the Law and Testimony (spirit of prophecy) but is not in line with Christian tradtion and exposes several lies in Christian doctrine.

So I am here to see if I too will be banned or if we will have the pleasure of potentially exposing a lie with the truth. It’s my understanding that truth will always expose a lie.

God Bless.

If you get banned it will be for violating forum rules, Crazy Russian. Not for posting truth.

 

[Crazy_Russian]

If you get banned it will be for violating forum rules, Crazy Russian. Not for posting truth.

I hope you are correct. Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Redle…

Sorry to confuse you. There are no assumptions. Scripture clearly specifies the events happened at his birth, not 12 months later on what we would call his first birthday. The magi came to Herod when when Jesus was born, his birthday, day of origin and paid him homage…bringing gifts, celebrating the birth of the King of the Jews. There is nothing wrong with us doing the same, imitating the magi, honoring and thanking God for the life he gives us. This is the example that we should follow. IMHO, to not celebrate ones birthday is to not honor God fully for the gift of live. It’s also not scriptural as no where in scripture does it say not do so…it follows a man made tradition…

Birthday is by definition the day of birth. Lets define terms…always good and appropriate to do so. Source is Merriam-Webster.com

Birthday
a : the day of a person’s birth
b : a day of origin

Birthday = day of origin = when Jesus was born…he was a newborn.

NABRE Matthew 2
1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
2 saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage.”
3 When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.
5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:

Herod however, killed all the newborns 2 years old and younger only after he was deceived. This does not mean Jesus was already 2 years old. It just meant Herod wasn’t sure what age the King was born as the Magi had fled after seeing Jesus.

16 When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi.

The magi travelled from modern day Persia and it might have taken them two years to make the journey. The time calculated by Herod was based upon when the magi reported the star appearing.

Matt 2:10-12
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; 11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

The Gk word used here for "child’ is paidon which is also used for toddlers or young weaned children ( as well as babies in the Christian faith). Also, note that they arrived after the family have moved into a house. Their arrival, then is almost certainly not the night of his birth. All that being said, I agree with you that it is right and proper to celebrate His birth. Since we don’t know the exact time, the Church chose Dec. 25th to overtrump the celebration of the birth of the invicible sun god that was celebrated on that day. The Church always celebrated the coming of the magi on Jan 6, because they came shortly after the birth of Jesus, and that day is celebrated as Epiphany, or the light of Christ to the Gentiles.

 

[guanophore]

I am happy to debate Catholics and Christians alike once i have sufficiant permissions to post my research to back my testimony.

It’s a pleasure to meet you. One thing I have heard about this forum from friends of mine, is that when they have shared my research, they were banned because it was so true, it could not be debated. My research speaks according to the Law and Testimony (spirit of prophecy) but is not in line with Christian tradtion and exposes several lies in Christian doctrine.

So I am here to see if I too will be banned or if we will have the pleasure of potentially exposing a lie with the truth. It’s my understanding that truth will always expose a lie.

God Bless.

no, Crazy, banning does not happen because your views are different than ours, it is because anyone (Catholics included) is banned when it becomes clear that they are here to promote a specific agenda.

So, please don’t wait, go ahead and open a thread, and post what you can. I am eager to learn what you consider “lies in Christian doctrine”.

 

[Crazy_Russian]

no, Crazy, banning does not happen because your views are different than ours, it is because anyone (Catholics included) is banned when it becomes clear that they are here to promote a specific agenda.

So, please don’t wait, go ahead and open a thread, and post what you can. I am eager to learn what you consider “lies in Christian doctrine”.

I have begun a thread. It’s concerning the timing of the original Passover Lamb. Please come visit the thread and review the material I shared at the link to participate in the thread. Page Three at the link discusses briefly just a couple of Errors in Christian doctrine from a specific bible verse.

I would have shared many fact based illustrations, but as I stated before, I do not yet have the permissions to post the illustrated study material in the thread in image format that supports the truths i look forward to sharing. I will be patient. Baby Steps so to speak since I am new here.

I do have an agenda however, and that is to display truth where Many in the denominationally divided Christian world have not. This problem of mixed testimony presented by the Christian world and denominational division simply makes God look like a liar and causes him to loose credibility to a world quickly adopting science and reason as a means for truth.

Blessings.

 

[PRmerger]

This problem of mixed testimony presented by the Christian world and denominational division simply makes God look like a liar and causes him to loose credibility to a world quickly adopting science and reason as a means for truth.

Blessings.

Science and reason are “a means for truth”. Just not the *only *means for discerning truth.

As Blaise Pascal said:

2 errors. To exclude reason. And to exclude all but reason.

 

[Crazy_Russian]

Science and reason are “a means for truth”. Just not the *only *means for discerning truth.

As Blaise Pascal said:

2 errors. To exclude reason. And to exclude all but reason.

I could not agree with you more! With out prophecy/testimony of Jesus via the spirit of truth, (Truth from God since God is the source of truth) all our combined knowlege as men means nothing.