Revelations...are we ready...

[DeniseR]

tommy4321:

Just an afterthought, it has been stated that 2% of priests are involved in the molestation sex scandal. There is not 2% of the public cited as molestors and certainly the Witnesses have no such problem in their congregation, especially not 2%. This figure came to me in written format from a large Apologetic Department you all know well…

For one thing, the 2% you cite is not primarily from molestation. Many of the abuse victims were teenagers or young men. Molestation happens when the victim is pre-pubescent.

We are talking about the sins of people, not the teachings of the Catholic Church. Even though some in authority covered up the abuse scandal, it by no means is something the Church approves of. If that were the case, we would have to judge the Church by the actions of Judas, who betrayed Christ but didn’t repent. We all fall, like Peter, who denied knowing Jesus, but then repented. That, in a nutshell, is the evidence of God’s forgiving mercy and our responsibility to seek His mercy.

While you seem to say the people of the WT don’t sin, I beg to differ. We all sin and are all in need of God’s mercy. You have attempted to paint us with a brush of being uncharitable when most here have been extremely patient and charitable with you. But you keep bringing up the sex scandal and sins of Catholics as evidence the Catholic Church is wrong and Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct. To me that’s not very charitable.

The Catholic Church has done more than any other church to reach out to people in need. Why don’t you look to people like Mother Teresa or the countless other Catholics who have devoted their lives to helping the less fortunate – the sick, hungry, diseased, etc. The WT seems to talk about the coming eutopia where everything will be wonderful. What are they doing to make the world a better place today? An old friend from high school joined the JW and won’t communicate with her family anymore because they don’t want to convert. I’m not saying JWs are bad people. I’m sure most of them are confused and searching like you with all the good intentions to live a good life.

Again, I say, take a good look at what you are turning your back on before you deny Jesus Christ as your savior. He is not Michael the Archangel or just a good man. He is God incarnate who came to earth to wipe out our sins by dying on the cross and rising from the dead.

 

[tommy4321]

DeniseR:

I’m not saying JWs are bad people. I’m sure most of them are confused…

Hi Denise: The Witnesses happen to be the most confident together people I have met and are not confused. I popped up here to learn what objections catholicism has and learned, especially that you belive God and Christ are distinct. I too learned it’s all one faith here in this cite and there is no cross sampling of any other opinions except Catholic, which is OK on a Catholic site I guess.

You make some good points on Catholics being charitable, and I agree here. Now remember, I am Catholic (or was) and have been for years and shared some of these points you make as I made them too. We stopped going to mass about six months ago and now attend 5 meetings a week at the Kingdom Hall and it works for us.

By no means do we or the Witnesses think that Jesus was a mere man, you have us all wrong in this aspect. I too believe Jesus is the most sacred man who was sent from God and lives with him in Unity in Heaven and he is not from an earthly being but a Godly being. I will admit that each time I open this cite and see the picture on the way in here I have trouble seeing Mary holding a helpless baby or an image of a helpless man dyying of the cross. The perfect image I have of Christ is him alive during his ministry as the strong leader and founder of Christianity and not a helpless baby or suffering man. For example picture the stong picture we see of President Kennedy sitting in suit, uno the one. We picture him as former president as a baby or dying.

I would not compare the apostle Peter to priest molestors, he is a holy person and yes was hypocritical at times but thats alot different then this sex scandal that plagues the church and is all over the daily headlines.

Knowing this place was swarming with Catholics I wanted to prove these points to you:

1. Many Catholics really do not follow Jesus’ main commandant and will be quick to attack Witnesses because they don’t like them.
2. The Bible is not a mystery book and states facts and prohecies and doctines created this mystery about the Trinity thats not a mystery. They are distind and act in union and the Holy Ghost is not a person but an active force.
3. Revelations is not about past events but about future events and Nero is not the wild beast.
4. People here like to discuss controversy and little is discussed about anything else other then that Catholics are right and others are wrong. I see very little discussion in these other threads about love, fellowship, nature and non doctrinal scripture rationalization like you find on other cross religion comparative sites.

I appreciate the good debate though from you all. I will let this thread go down at this point if you want. Sincere peace and love to you 100% Catholics here, tommy

 

[scylla]

Hello Tommy, I have been reading this thread for several days now, and it was so long I really didn’t want to respond in order to give you some room to respond to others.

I went to Kingdom Hall this week, I am Catholic but my wife was out of town and I like to just go out and see other places. It was interesting, very much like a very intense Calvary Chapel with study on converting people, with less fluff. (Sorry I don’t mean to offend anyone from Calvary Chapel that is just the best way to describe it for me)

I don’t believe that Catholics dislike Jehovah’s Witnesses as I see the majority of people taking a lot of time to discuss this with you.

If I said that I knew of a Jehovah’s Witness who is a drunk on his personal time, it wouldn’t be fair to you as that is not what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach and that doesn’t prove them wrong. Same way with your statements about the Church. As someone once said, you shouldn’t leave Peter because of Judas.

So in order to maintain charity I recommend sticking with teaching and reasons for it or else all we end up doing is mud slinging.

I don’t believe and most Catholics don’t believe it is a mystery book, but a Catholic book given to the world. It was composed primarily to be used in Mass as part of the liturgy, in worshipping God. It makes the most sense for me in a Catholic sense, extraodinarily so when you get into typology.

The Catholic faith is all about having faith in God in a loving way by serving others. In doing so I will pray for you as my brother in Christ.

Scylla

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tommy1234:

The symbolic scarlet-colored wild beast “springs from” the seven heads; that is, it is born from, or owes its existence to, those heads of the original “wild beast”…out of the sea”, of which the scarlet-colored wild beast is an image. What does this all mean? Well the Anglo-American power was the ascended head. The previous six heads had fallen and the position of the dominant world power had passed to this dual head and was now centered in it. This seventh head,as the current representative of the line of world powers, was the moving force in establishing the League of Nations and is still the major promoter and financial support of the UNITED NATIONS. Therefore, in symbol, the scarlet color wild beast, the eighth king “springs” from the original seven heads. Looked at like this, the statement that is sprang from the seven harmonizes well with the earlier revelation that the wild beast with two horns like a lamb (the Anglo-American World Power, the seventh head of that original wild beast) urged the making of the image and gave it life Rev. 13:1, 11, 14, 15. Therefore, the United Nations is also itself designed to look like a world government. At times it has acted like one sending people to war. As John soon learns, the time will come when the UN will act with considerable authority and call a war that “goes off into destruction”.

How could the very first readers of Revelation profit from reading it, if the beasts it mentions were not to be identified for another 1900 years ? Would we find assurances of the downfall of the great Chinese-Eurasian Empire founded in 4900 AD any consolation ? If not - why should hearing of lands and people not yet existing in 100 AD, which would not exist until 1776 or so, be a comfort to Christians of 100 AD ?​

These intepretations completely overlook the fact that the Revelation was not written for us in the first place, but for people who had never heard of the UN or the USA or England. The book has to be intepreted with the first century AD as its background - not the sixth, or nineteenth, or twentieth.

Besides - if we ignore the first century - who’s to say that the book is referring to things we know about in our time ? The book may not be referring to the UN at all - the beast may well be the great Chinese-Eurasian Empire of 5000 AD - and as that won’t be founded until about 4900 AD, there is no way we can talk about it

IOW, people who forget that the Revelation was written for folk in the first century AD, always take for granted that it refers to their own times - it never seems to occur to readers in the 16th or 19th or 21st century that they might not be the intended readers of the book, or that history may have plenty of centuries to run before the second coming; so people always identify the beasts of the book with the baddies of their own age, such as the Turks, the Pope, Luther, Napoleon, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. Except for Saddam, all these are long dead - and the world is still here. So there will probably be lots of people in 3000 thinking Revelation will be “fulfilled” in 3020 or so - only to find out that they are as wrong as all those generations before them who misunderstood the book in the first place. ##

 

[tommy4321]

Thanks for your time everybody. I found all your comments very interesting. God Bless you all, tom

 

[tommy4321]

RobertinRSA:

Revelation is an apocryphal book and thus has already taken place - therefore, pointless and futile even debating the book. It is the same as the book of Daniel.

I couldn’t let this post end without asking this since the comment was made that perhaps it is “pointless to debate Revelations” since the events have already happened. If Revelations has already occurred then who won the war during the great tribulation? It seems hard to believe that one might assume Armageddon has already taken place?

 

[tommy4321]

scylla:

I went to Kingdom Hall this week, I am Catholic

Thats great you were able to see what happens during a Kingdom Hall meeting, I wish more Catholics would attend! However, I wanted to ask if Catholics would approve of attending a meeting since the two have such different views?

 

[scylla]

Catholics are certainly able to attend other services, it is good for curiosity sake and to understand other points of view. If I am going to talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, I better understand what they believe in order to understand each other. The beauty of this is I can go to a Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witness or any other faith tradition to understand their position.

Of course I cannot do this in place of Mass, and no Catholic should do this unless they are grounded in their faith, and understand why they are Catholic. I would never skip a Mass for a service in a different faith tradition, but I have absolutely no problem attending another service, especially as I am trying to get to know why people believe what they believe.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[tommy4321]

catsrus:

I guess disfellowshiping a person who has had trouble is not considered “hurting”.

Is a suspension from a Catholic Forum sort of an equivalent to being disfellowshipped?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tommy4321:

Is a suspension from a Catholic Forum sort of an equivalent to being disfellowshipped?

No, as the forum moderators do not forbid the other users of the forum from interacting with those they suspend.

I know someone who was suspended here, and we still interacted though email and at other forums.

Is re-registering with a different name when one is suspended the equivalent of creating an alias to defraud?

 

[tommy4321]

ByzCath:

No, as the forum moderators do not forbid the other users of the forum from interacting with those they suspend.

I know someone who was suspended here, and we still interacted though email and at other forums.

Is re-registering with a different name when one is suspended the equivalent of creating an alias to defraud?

I don’t see mere re-registration following under the following definiton of defrauding: TRANSITIVE VERB:
de·fraud·ed , de·fraud·ing , de·frauds

To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English defrauden, from Old French defrauder, from Latin dfraudre : d-, de- + fraudre, to cheat (from fraus , fraud-, fraud)

OTHER FORMS:
defraud·ation (dfrô-dshn) KEY (Noun), de·frauder (Noun)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tommy4321:

I don’t see mere re-registration following under the following definiton of defrauding: TRANSITIVE VERB:
de·fraud·ed , de·fraud·ing , de·frauds

To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English defrauden, from Old French defrauder, from Latin dfraudre : d-, de- + fraudre, to cheat (from fraus , fraud-, fraud)

OTHER FORMS:
defraud·ation (dfrô-dshn) KEY (Noun), de·frauder (Noun)

Actually I was thinking more along these lines.

fraud |frôd| noun wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain : he was convicted of fraud | prosecutions for social security frauds. • a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities : mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds.

So I take it you find nothing wrong with re-registering when one is suspended.

So have you answered my question from the beginning?

Where did the Bible come from?

 

[tommy4321]

ByzCath:

Actually I was thinking more along these lines.

fraud |frôd| noun wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain : he was convicted of fraud | prosecutions for social security frauds. • a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities : mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds.

So I take it you find nothing wrong with re-registering when one is suspended.

So have you answered my question from the beginning?

Where did the Bible come from?

Yes, I did answer this question. The Bible is Gods inspired Word. I know where you are going with this. It did not come from man and it did not come from Catholics. It was written by God through prophets and holy ones and no one religion has the right to claim it came from their organization. It is from God, period.

 

[tommy4321]

ByzCath:

Actually I was thinking more along these lines.

fraud |frôd| noun wrongful or criminal deception…

P.S. Do I really seem like a criminal to you tommy

 

[scylla]

I am glad you responded to this thread, my friend who is a Jehovah’s Witness has not called me in more than 2 weeks. I will try calling him tomorrow to see if he still want to talk to me.

From what I see is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have to trust their organizations interpretation of the Bible, but I still haven’t had the chance to get the response from my friend of why? How did Charles Taze Russel get the authority to interpret the Bible, and why has the interpretation changed?

Can you please post some links to prove the Bible came directly from God, that he didn’t work through the Catholic Church? As far as I can see the Bible’s canon was first determined by the Catholic Church around late 300AD. If you are going to contest against a common understanding of where the Bible came from, please provide some documentation to assert this claim.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[PaulDupre]

tommy1234:

We see last month on Showtime “our Fathers” and about Cardinal Bernard Law ending up getting a promotion after all of the cover up in the priest sex scandal. This also has happened at other religions like the Protestants.

Hi Tommy,
Do a google search on “Jehovah’s Witnesses child molestation”. You will get thousands of articles about the worldwide epidemic of child sexual abuse in the JW’s and how the leadership routinely protects the molesters and threatens the victims and their families into silence.

Just because the RCC is the biggest target and gets the most negative press, that doesn’t mean it has the biggest problem.

God love you,
Paul

 

[santaro75]

tommy1234:

Here are a few dangers of following religion first rather then God in my opinion. We don’t always know what a doctrine or a council could put in place and that is why I think trust in the Bible and not a specific religion is important.

Remember, jesus started a church and gave all authority to it. He did not give us a bible. And that is 100 percent biblical. however the Bible alone is not biblical.

Am I wrong?

 

[PaulDupre]

OneOfTheTommys:

…what God intended for us here on earth under rulership of the 144,000 heavenly government made up of holy ones and priests under Jesus’ rulership.

Hi Tommy,
Who are the 144,000? The bible says they are “undefiled by women, for they are virgins”. I don’t know of any celibate JWs, do you? Yet every JW I ever met tells me that they are sure they are one of the 144,000. How do you reconcile this?
God love you,
Paul

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tommy4321:

Yes, I did answer this question. The Bible is Gods inspired Word. I know where you are going with this. It did not come from man and it did not come from Catholics. It was written by God through prophets and holy ones and no one religion has the right to claim it came from their organization. It is from God, period.

Hmmm, but what about all the other books that are not included in the canon of the Bible, who decided that they did not belong there?

Or is there a list in the Bible that tells us which books are the inspired Word of God and belong in the Bible? Did God inspire the table of contents at the front of my Bible?

Why isn’t the Gospel of Timothy, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of Pilot’s Wife, and all the other Gnostic Gospels not included in the Bible? Why no Bible with The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, The Protevangelion, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Last Gospel of Peter?

It is exactly because of the Holy Spirit working though the Catholic Church in an Ecumencial Council that we have the Bible as we do today, that is the Catholic Bible. The protestants tore books that are the inspired Word of God out of their Bibles becasue they did not fit their view of Christianity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tommy4321:

P.S. Do I really seem like a criminal to you tommy

In a sense, yes. In the sense that you misrepresent yourself and attempt to lead people away from the True Church of Christ.