What do you do at a JW meeting?

[adf417]

The Church does indeed teach and believe that Jesus is omniscient. In fact, by examining what Scripture teaches on the subject one can see clearly that the Persons of the Trinity are selective with this ability to be “all-knowing.”

Scripture shows that the Son has the ability to know what is truly in the hearts of men. (Matthew 9.4; Mark 2.8; Luke 5.22; 9:47; John 2.25) At Revelation 2.23 the Son states: “I am the searcher of hearts and minds.”

But apparently the Church has never defined this to mean that the Son is constantly aware of everything that everyone knows or feels. As pointed out on this thread, Jesus himself said regarding of the Coming of the Son of Man or (as more commonly referred to by Catholics as) the Parousia:

But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
—Matthew 24.36.

Despite having heard Jesus say he didn’t know this information, the Apostles still attributed omniscience to Jesus. At John 16.30 the disciples tell Jesus: “We realize that you know everything.” And even Peter, who was one of the few present when Jesus uttered the words at Matthew 24 is reported as saying to Jesus: “Lord, you know everything.”—John 21.17.

Thus the Bible tells us that the Apostles themselves believed that Jesus ‘knew everything’ or was omniscient even though they had heard him say he wasn’t privy to some information that the Father alone had access to.

This is the Roman Catholic and Scriptural teaching regarding the omniscience of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Omniscience doesn’t include that God uses this power all the time and in all situations. It only means he has the ability to know everything. In reference to the Parousia, apparently the Son is quite content to let the Father keep this information to himself despite sharing omniscience with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I can accept the omniscience of Jesus with these nuances but with out any explanations, Tomdstone’s post #72 is, at best, very misleading. I hoped he would follow up with the proper nuances so as to be completely truthful to other readers.

Peace!!!

 

[Tomdstone]

I can accept the omniscience of Jesus with these nuances but with out any explanations, Tomdstone’s post #72 is, at best, very misleading. I hoped he would follow up with the proper nuances so as to be completely truthful to other readers.

Peace!!!

Can you kindly explain your contention that what I posted is misleading. Thanks a lot.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Can you kindly explain your contention that what I posted is misleading. Thanks a lot.

If I might, to also include a rebuttal to what you are citing and to put it in the correct context, Catholics do not believe that God exists in the limits of time and space.

Unlike you and me, God exists on a plane without time, known as eternity. God’s existence, according to Catholic theology, defines the state of existence in which God exists.

It may sound confusing since it appears by your terminology that you are of an Adventist or dispensationalist background. Jehovah’s Witnesses are from this theological background. In their theology, God exists on our plane of time and space. In fact, for them God lives in an actual “place” called Heaven, and God has an actual spiritual (non-corporeal) body. God experiences time exactly how and where we as humans on earth are experiencing time and history. As it unfolds for us, say Witnesses, it unfolds for God. God, on the other hand, is the Great Time-Keeper, setting time for future events and having the ability to foresee into the future.

But for Catholics, God transcends time and space. His existence “IS.” There is no past or future. It is a present state of eternity that is greater than time, history, transcending far above the experience of past, present, and future on our plane. The “I AM” of the name Yahweh is literal in that not only is God defined by God Himself, existence itself is defined by God.

In this theology, shared by Protestants, God does not have a need to possess the ability to see into the future, because the future is as present to God as the past is and the present is. They are all before God. People can be spoken of as being predestined and at the same time free agents because when God created history, past and present and future and all the individual free-agent choices that would be made by us were all there at once before God. Our free will itself is predestined from God’s view and can even be spoken of as fate in this sense, even though we have freely chosen our path. History is already finished, beginning, and present to God.

This is how Abraham is alive to God, though dead, and how God could forgive great sins of the past or even have Mary conceived immaculately because the Passion of Christ was always as soon as time and space were created. That Blood has been since the foundation of the world and will be forever, for the Owner of that Blood now lives in Eternity.

So God knows future things but not because he foresees them. God is not limited to time as the future is present to Him. God knows all things because all things are before him.

However, when the Second Person of the Trinity became the Incarnate Son of God, this brought God into the limits of time and space. He could become hungry, could age, and was even subject to torture and death. This meant some human limits were now experienced. Logically it could be said that his mind could not hold things that transcend the capacity of the human brain either, and the Parousia and subsequent end of history is likely one of those things. From our standpoint no one here can truly define what it will be like to experience the end of history and the beginning of Judgment Day. So it is logical that transcendent things to humans selectively limited the Son of God from that point.

Whether this has always been something the Trinity agreed upon, namely that the Father would hold how history would end, is not disclosed in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition. What is believed by Catholics is that the Son of God accepted and fully willed to be as one of us. This would imply that the Trinity accepted limits to knowledge and existence in One of its Members experiencing life on the mundane plane of humanity.

Besides, if you are not Catholic then you are not in the place to tell Catholics what they do or do not believe. Even the most well-versed Jehovah’s Witness recognizes that one must go to the source to learn the truth because it would supply the most accurate information. It does no good to pick and choose this or that Catholic spot on the Internet to support your claims as no subject in Catholicism is two dimensional. There is 2000 years of theology behind everything, and the complexity cannot be limited to a blurb you find on a website. And though I’ve met many a Jehovah’s Witness in my day, none were ever so rude or ignorant to say: “You don’t know what you really believe as a Catholic.” They were very respectful, even in the most heated situations, and more level-headed than that.

 

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;13054692:

ChosenOne7;13054501:

I think that’s the thing with most people… Preaching to people makes you learn alot from them… People in general just believe what they are told they don’t actually check if it’s in the Bible… But those people will be held accountable by God for not teaching truth… We don’t judge… As Jehovah’s Witnesses we don’t celebrate birthdays so I can’t answer you on that you should do some research and read up about birthdays if you get time

CO - Hope you don’t mind but I posted on another thread and it seems to have come to an end. Now that I’ve got your attention with the lamb I’d like to post it again.

I have some questions for you.

First, why is the studying the Bible so important to you? The reason I ask is because it is highly unlikely the early Christians ‘studied’ the Bible. After Christ’s death the NT had not been written. It is also highly unlikely Christian household’s had a huge parchment in their house containing the entire OT and they regularly 'studied ’ it. In fact, is it not the case many early Christians could not read and write? Thus, you can receive the message of the Gospel and be Christian in spite of never having read a word of Scripture.

I have studied Scripture. I have a Foundation Certificate in Theology and I studied Biblical exegesis for 4 years at university. I am not suggesting for one moment people should not read and reflect on Scripture, but not everyone has the capacity for such study and if you had never read a Bible, I would say you could equally still call yourself Christian. Jesus asked his followers to celebrate Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation. This cannot be denied. It is true we have different takes on the meaning and form of these Sacraments, but it cannot be denied Jesus said we should be Baptized from water and Spirit, and partake of bread and wine and every Christian faith practices them in some form.

The other question I would ask you is why preaching is so important to you? The message of the Gospel was Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead and will come again? Was this not the Good News? This has been preached throughout the world. In preaching it again we are not telling people something they are not aware of. They know. It now lies with them what they will do with that Good News. Thus, I would say the focus of spreading the Gospel now lies in living it in terms of helping the sick, the poor, raising our children in the faith, and living out the Beatitudes in our daily lives. These things Jesus did and an equally effective way to preach if not more so.

Who in your view decided what books should be encompassed in Scripture? How do you think it came to be compiled in the way it is? You say it doesn’t matter which Bible you use, but is it not the case the translation you use does not contain the Apocrypha? Why does your organization think none of the Apocrypha were inspired, and why do they think none of the Gospels deemed to be Gnostic in origin were inspired?

 

[Tomdstone]

Besides, if you are not Catholic then you are not in the place to tell Catholics what they do or do not believe.

Do you disagree with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas? It has been given the approval of the Catholic Church:
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ
…
It clearly states that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are.
newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#13

 

[adf417]

Can you kindly explain your contention that what I posted is misleading. Thanks a lot.

Greetings Tom, Can you kindly point me to the church document that uses the language you used in post #72 that states “Jesus is omniscient”? I have not yet found it from your last post.

Peace!!!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Do you disagree with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas? It has been given the approval of the Catholic Church:
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ
…
It clearly states that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are.
newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#13

First of all Catholic theology has changed considerably since Summa Theologica. It was written in the mid 1200s.

And while I do generally accept what is written there, your question belies your knowledge of Catholicism. The Summa, as we Catholics call it, is an unfinished work that was intended to be a guide to aid theologians in the 13th century in developing theological theory. The official approval you cite only means that nothing in the written work goes against Catholic doctrine. It does not bind the Catholic to accept any portion of the contents within.

While containing a compendium covering the basics of Catholic teaching as understood in the 1200s, it is not a dogmatic statement. If it was it would be binding to be fully accepted as written without question, but this does not apply to the Summa. It was designed for theologians to build further upon and advance Catholic teachings, which has happened in the 8 centuries since.

The understanding of God’s relation to our experience of time has changed considerably since then. And while I agree with what the Summa says, I also believe in what the Church has said since which is not covered in the Summa.

My question is why would you keep raising issues which so clearly demonstrate your unfamiliarity with Catholicism and how doctrine works? All this does is show every single person reading this thread (and there have been quite a number of hits by the way) that your views on Catholicism and the issue at hand is clearly an uniformed one. And an uniformed view will only lead to wrong conclusions. Surely this is not your intention. I gather you have some gifts which can be used to build up instead of tear down in constant challenges.

I would suggest that we find a common ground of peaceful communication on which to build. Surely there is some matter we can agree on. Imagine what we can accomplish if despite our differences we can see where we share convictions and use what we have in common toward accomplishing a common goal to the glory of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

Greetings Tom, Can you kindly point me to the church document that uses the language you used in post #72 that states “Jesus is omniscient”? I have not yet found it from your last post.

Peace!!!

Yes. It says here that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are.
newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#13

 

[Tomdstone]

First of all Catholic theology has changed considerably since Summa Theologica. It was written in the mid 1200s.

And while I do generally accept what is written there, your question belies your knowledge of Catholicism. The Summa, as we Catholics call it, is an unfinished work that was intended to be a guide to aid theologians in the 13th century in developing theological theory. The official approval you cite only means that nothing in the written work goes against Catholic doctrine. It does not bind the Catholic to accept any portion of the contents within.

While containing a compendium covering the basics of Catholic teaching as understood in the 1200s, it is not a dogmatic statement. If it was it would be binding to be fully accepted as written without question, but this does not apply to the Summa. It was designed for theologians to build further upon and advance Catholic teachings, which has happened in the 8 centuries since.

The understanding of God’s relation to our experience of time has changed considerably since then. And while I agree with what the Summa says, I also believe in what the Church has said since which is not covered in the Summa.

My question is why would you keep raising issues which so clearly demonstrate your unfamiliarity with Catholicism and how doctrine works? All this does is show every single person reading this thread (and there have been quite a number of hits by the way) that your views on Catholicism and the issue at hand is clearly an uniformed one. And an uniformed view will only lead to wrong conclusions. Surely this is not your intention. I gather you have some gifts which can be used to build up instead of tear down in constant challenges.

I would suggest that we find a common ground of peaceful communication on which to build. Surely there is some matter we can agree on. Imagine what we can accomplish if despite our differences we can see where we share convictions and use what we have in common toward accomplishing a common goal to the glory of God.

I have given you a Catholic reference with both the imprimatur and nihil obstat that confirms that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are. You appear to be claiming that God does not know all things, but have not given any Church approved document or reference to support this.

 

[Tomdstone]

First of all Catholic theology has changed considerably since Summa Theologica. It was written in the mid 1200s.

And while I do generally accept what is written there, your question belies your knowledge of Catholicism. The Summa, as we Catholics call it, is an unfinished work that was intended to be a guide to aid theologians in the 13th century in developing theological theory. The official approval you cite only means that nothing in the written work goes against Catholic doctrine. It does not bind the Catholic to accept any portion of the contents within.

While containing a compendium covering the basics of Catholic teaching as understood in the 1200s, it is not a dogmatic statement. If it was it would be binding to be fully accepted as written without question, but this does not apply to the Summa. It was designed for theologians to build further upon and advance Catholic teachings, which has happened in the 8 centuries since.

The understanding of God’s relation to our experience of time has changed considerably since then. And while I agree with what the Summa says, I also believe in what the Church has said since which is not covered in the Summa.

My question is why would you keep raising issues which so clearly demonstrate your unfamiliarity with Catholicism and how doctrine works? All this does is show every single person reading this thread (and there have been quite a number of hits by the way) that your views on Catholicism and the issue at hand is clearly an uniformed one. And an uniformed view will only lead to wrong conclusions. Surely this is not your intention. I gather you have some gifts which can be used to build up instead of tear down in constant challenges.

I would suggest that we find a common ground of peaceful communication on which to build. Surely there is some matter we can agree on. Imagine what we can accomplish if despite our differences we can see where we share convictions and use what we have in common toward accomplishing a common goal to the glory of God.

I have given you a serious Catholic reference with both the imprimatur and nihil obstat that confirms that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are. You appear to be claiming that God does not know all things, but have not given any Church approved document or reference to support this.
And here is a second serious Catholic reference which states:
“That God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things, follows from His infinite perfection…That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt…”
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[ChosenOne7]

ChosenOne7;13054718:

minkymurph;13054692:

CO - Hope you don’t mind but I posted on another thread and it seems to have come to an end. Now that I’ve got your attention with the lamb I’d like to post it again.

I have some questions for you.

First, why is the studying the Bible so important to you? The reason I ask is because it is highly unlikely the early Christians ‘studied’ the Bible. After Christ’s death the NT had not been written. It is also highly unlikely Christian household’s had a huge parchment in their house containing the entire OT and they regularly 'studied ’ it. In fact, is it not the case many early Christians could not read and write? Thus, you can receive the message of the Gospel and be Christian in spite of never having read a word of Scripture.

I have studied Scripture. I have a Foundation Certificate in Theology and I studied Biblical exegesis for 4 years at university. I am not suggesting for one moment people should not read and reflect on Scripture, but not everyone has the capacity for such study and if you had never read a Bible, I would say you could equally still call yourself Christian. Jesus asked his followers to celebrate Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation. This cannot be denied. It is true we have different takes on the meaning and form of these Sacraments, but it cannot be denied Jesus said we should be Baptized from water and Spirit, and partake of bread and wine and every Christian faith practices them in some form.

The other question I would ask you is why preaching is so important to you? The message of the Gospel was Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead and will come again? Was this not the Good News? This has been preached throughout the world. In preaching it again we are not telling people something they are not aware of. They know. It now lies with them what they will do with that Good News. Thus, I would say the focus of spreading the Gospel now lies in living it in terms of helping the sick, the poor, raising our children in the faith, and living out the Beatitudes in our daily lives. These things Jesus did and an equally effective way to preach if not more so.

Who in your view decided what books should be encompassed in Scripture? How do you think it came to be compiled in the way it is? You say it doesn’t matter which Bible you use, but is it not the case the translation you use does not contain the Apocrypha? Why does your organization think none of the Apocrypha were inspired, and why do they think none of the Gospels deemed to be Gnostic in origin were inspired?

You giving me your viewpoint… As Jehovah’s Witnesses we follow the Bible… So before I answer your 2 questions the bases for these answers would be to consider Matthew 7:21-23… U said u have studied the Bible, then you should be familiar with those verses…
Says - 21 "Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

What would you say those verses mean? Jesus says all those people that expelled demons, who at the day said did we not prophesy in your name and who performed powerful works in Jesus name… The Bible says faith without works is dead… Many Christians like u say that the works of faith is healing the sick, feeding the poor, donating to charities, building hospitals and schools etc etc… Yet Jesus says they won’t enter the Kingdom… Remember his speaking about believers here… If u read verse 21 again Jesus says only those doing the “WILL” of God will enter the Kingdom… 2 questions arise - Why would Jesus direct such strong words to people who have been performing “many powerful works” in his name? And what is the will of God?

consider an illustration. Put yourself in this parents shoes for a moment…
You and your husband need to go on a trip. You cannot take your children along, so you hire a babysitter. Your instructions to her are simple: “Take care of our children. Feed them, make sure they are clean, and keep them from harm.” When you return, though, you are shocked to see that your children are famished. They are dirty, sickly, and miserable. They are crying for the babysitter’s attention, but their cries go unheeded. Why? She is up on a ladder, washing the windows. Furious You demand an explanation. The sitter replies: “Look at all that I did! Aren’t the windows clean? I made repairs to the house too, all for you! I even cut the lawn and clear the yard for you” Would you as the parents feel better? Hardly! You never asked her to do all those jobs; you just wanted your children to be cared for. Her refusal to heed your instructions would infuriate you…
God has asked each of us to do his will… Doesn’t matter whatever else we decided is good if we not doing what God want us to do we won’t enter into the Kingdom of God… My question to you is - What is the WILL of God? If you can answer that from the bible then you will be able to easily answer those 2 questions you have asked me in you reviews post

 

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;13055566:

ChosenOne7;13054718:

You giving me your viewpoint… As Jehovah’s Witnesses we follow the Bible… So before I answer your 2 questions the bases for these answers would be to consider Matthew 7:21-23… What would you say those verses mean? Jesus says all those people that expelled demons, who at the day said did we not prophesy in your name and who performed powerful works in Jesus name… Why would Jesus direct such strong words to people who have been performing “many powerful works” in his name? And what is the will of God?

Your answering a question with a question which is not an answer.

I am not giving you my viewpoint I am giving you facts. It is a fact the Catholic Bible contains the Apocrapha, Catholics call them the Deutero-Canoninical books, and the Bible you use does not. I asked you why? The reason is because in another post you made statements to the effect all Bibles are the same and it doesn’t matter which Bible you use.

I asked you why your faith rejects the gnostic Gospels. For example; the Gospel of Thomas.

I can’t provide exact quotes from the Bible because as I said, I would have to climb up into the attic and get it. That said, being able to quote Scripture back to front does not make you a Christian. A know atheists who have considerable knowledge of Scripture.

The Bible tells us Jesus healed the sick and sent his Apostles out to do the same. I don’t buy demon possession. In my view those who were ‘possessed by demons’ were suffering from mental illness or conditions such as epilepsy. That said, it is not in dispute the Bible records Jesus healed them and sent out his followers to do the same.

The Bible make references to the Apostles obtaining money to the poor. Dorcas was considered faithful and raised from the death because of her charity to others.

It was the will of God the Apostles should do these things, and the Bible does not say those who aid the sick and the poor will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven because the healed the sick and gave money to the poor.

The significant factor is the intentions behind our acts. Corporate business and governments that are corrupt aid the sick and the poor. There is evidence to suggest that whilst they offer aid, it also suits the purpose of wealthy countries to keep countries poor.
Thus, their intentions are wanting and for this reason their acts are rejected, not because of the acts themselves.

On preaching, the Apostles preached the Good News of the Kingdom. The Good News of the Kingdom was Christ was the Saviour of mankind, died for our sins, rose from the dead and those who believe in him will share in his Resurrection. Do you disagree with this?

It is the will of God we should be baptized. Jesus taught we should be born again from water and Spirit to Nicodemus. The Apostles received John’s baptism, (as did Jesus) Acts records those who heard Christ died for our sins were baptized. Cornelius and his household were baptized but I guess the necessity of baptism is not in issue.

At the Last Supper Jesus told us to celebrate his death by receiving bread and wine. It is true there are many interpretations as to celebrating this Sacrament, but I guess the actual celebration is not in dispute. Thus, it cannot be disputed it is the will of God we should do this.

There is no record in either the Gospels or the Acts the Apostles preached people must become Christians in order to be saved at Armagedon. Neither is there any record in the Gospels or the Acts they preached true followers of God would come to live in a Paradise Earth. I understand this is the tenet of your faith and I do not judge you for engaging in this activity as I support freedom of religion, but there is no record in either the Gospels or the Acts the Apostles and early Christians preached this actual message. Their message was as already stated. Thus, it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty those who do not preach this actual message on a door-to-door basis will be rejected by God, and thus not a requirement for Salvation.

So - are you going to respond to my questions concerning the Deutero-Canoninical books and the gnostic Gospels? Call me stupid but I can’t see how Matthew 7:21-23 relates to that question.

 

[ChosenOne7]

ChosenOne7;13056536:

minkymurph;13055566:

Your answering a question with a question which is not an answer.

I am not giving you my viewpoint I am giving you facts. It is a fact the Catholic Bible contains the Apocrapha, Catholics call them the Deutero-Canoninical books, and the Bible you use does not. I asked you why? The reason is because in another post you made statements to the effect all Bibles are the same and it doesn’t matter which Bible you use.

I asked you why your faith rejects the gnostic Gospels. For example; the Gospel of Thomas.

I can’t provide exact quotes from the Bible because as I said, I would have to climb up into the attic and get it. That said, being able to quote Scripture back to front does not make you a Christian. A know atheists who have considerable knowledge of Scripture.

The Bible tells us Jesus healed the sick and sent his Apostles out to do the same. I don’t buy demon possession. In my view those who were ‘possessed by demons’ were suffering from mental illness or conditions such as epilepsy. That said, it is not in dispute the Bible records Jesus healed them and sent out his followers to do the same.

The Bible make references to the Apostles obtaining money to the poor. Dorcas was considered faithful and raised from the death because of her charity to others.

It was the will of God the Apostles should do these things, and the Bible does not say those who aid the sick and the poor will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven because the healed the sick and gave money to the poor.

The significant factor is the intentions behind our acts. Corporate business and governments that are corrupt aid the sick and the poor. There is evidence to suggest that whilst they offer aid, it also suits the purpose of wealthy countries to keep countries poor.
Thus, their intentions are wanting and for this reason their acts are rejected, not because of the acts themselves.

On preaching, the Apostles preached the Good News of the Kingdom. The Good News of the Kingdom was Christ was the Saviour of mankind, died for our sins, rose from the dead and those who believe in him will share in his Resurrection. Do you disagree with this?

It is the will of God we should be baptized. Jesus taught we should be born again from water and Spirit to Nicodemus. The Apostles received John’s baptism, (as did Jesus) Acts records those who heard Christ died for our sins were baptized. Cornelius and his household were baptized but I guess the necessity of baptism is not in issue.

At the Last Supper Jesus told us to celebrate his death by receiving bread and wine. It is true there are many interpretations as to celebrating this Sacrament, but I guess the actual celebration is not in dispute. Thus, it cannot be disputed it is the will of God we should do this.

There is no record in either the Gospels or the Acts the Apostles preached people must become Christians in order to be saved at Armagedon. Neither is there any record in the Gospels or the Acts they preached true followers of God would come to live in a Paradise Earth. I understand this is the tenet of your faith and I do not judge you for engaging in this activity as I support freedom of religion, but there is no record in either the Gospels or the Acts the Apostles and early Christians preached this actual message. Their message was as already stated. Thus, it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty those who do not preach this actual

message on a door-to-door basis will be rejected by God, and thus not a requirement for Salvation.

So - are you going to respond to my questions concerning the Deutero-Canoninical books and the gnostic Gospels? Call me stupid but I can’t see how Matthew 7:21-23 relates to that question.

You asked me why do we preach and why do we study the Bible… I’m answering that questions… Now you changing the questions… I thought u just wanted to know 2 questions?make up your mind stop jumping from one subject to the next if u have one question stick to it but don’t bombard me and expect me to answer all of it at once… So again… What do u really want to know?

Oh and I was reasoning with you… So it would be easier for u to understand… If u don’t wana understand then let’s rather leave this discussion. Because I’m willing to listen to u I’d expect the same from u…
I can answer you to why the Bible don’t have those books… But what question do u want me to answer… U keep changing it when I’m on one topic u jump to the next… Can we focus on one question at a time?

 

[Tomdstone]

minkymurph;13055566:

ChosenOne7;13054718:

You giving me your viewpoint… As Jehovah’s Witnesses we follow the Bible… So before I answer your 2 questions the bases for these answers would be to consider Matthew 7:21-23… U said u have studied the Bible, then you should be familiar with those verses…
Says - 21 "Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

What would you say those verses mean? Jesus says all those people that expelled demons, who at the day said did we not prophesy in your name and who performed powerful works in Jesus name… The Bible says faith without works is dead… Many Christians like u say that the works of faith is healing the sick, feeding the poor, donating to charities, building hospitals and schools etc etc… Yet Jesus says they won’t enter the Kingdom… Remember his speaking about believers here… If u read verse 21 again Jesus says only those doing the “WILL” of God will enter the Kingdom… 2 questions arise - Why would Jesus direct such strong words to people who have been performing “many powerful works” in his name? And what is the will of God?

consider an illustration. Put yourself in this parents shoes for a moment…
You and your husband need to go on a trip. You cannot take your children along, so you hire a babysitter. Your instructions to her are simple: “Take care of our children. Feed them, make sure they are clean, and keep them from harm.” When you return, though, you are shocked to see that your children are famished. They are dirty, sickly, and miserable. They are crying for the babysitter’s attention, but their cries go unheeded. Why? She is up on a ladder, washing the windows. Furious You demand an explanation. The sitter replies: “Look at all that I did! Aren’t the windows clean? I made repairs to the house too, all for you! I even cut the lawn and clear the yard for you” Would you as the parents feel better? Hardly! You never asked her to do all those jobs; you just wanted your children to be cared for. Her refusal to heed your instructions would infuriate you…
God has asked each of us to do his will… Doesn’t matter whatever else we decided is good if we not doing what God want us to do we won’t enter into the Kingdom of God… My question to you is - What is the WILL of God? If you can answer that from the bible then you will be able to easily answer those 2 questions you have asked me in you reviews post

Matthew 25 says: [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

 

[ChosenOne7]

ChosenOne7;13056536:

minkymurph;13055566:

Matthew 25 says: [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

How does those verses relate to that discussion tombstone?

 

[minkymurph]

Tomdstone;13056622:

ChosenOne7;13056536:

How does those verses relate to that discussion tombstone?

Sorry I don’t know what a discussion tombstone is.

 

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;13056610:

ChosenOne7;13056536:

You asked me why do we preach and why do we study the Bible… I’m answering that questions… Now you changing the questions… I thought u just wanted to know 2 questions?make up your mind stop jumping from one subject to the next if u have one question stick to it but don’t bombard me and expect me to answer all of it at once… So again… What do u really want to know?

Oh and I was reasoning with you… So it would be easier for u to understand… If u don’t wana understand then let’s rather leave this discussion. Because I’m willing to listen to u I’d expect the same from u…
I can answer you to why the Bible don’t have those books… But what question do u want me to answer… U keep changing it when I’m on one topic u jump to the next… Can we focus on one question at a time?

I thought my questions were clear. I’ll make them clearer so it is easier for you to understand.

I am listening. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not mean they have not listened to what you have said. You asked me about the Will of God and I thought I answered that, which is an indication I am listening.

One question at a time.

I asked why are the Deutero-Canonical books and Gnostic Gospels not included in the Bible you regularly use. I thought I was clear on that. You have now responded by saying you don’t know. Question answered.

The second question I asked was who in your view decided what books the Bible should contain?

The reason I asked this question is given the emphasis you place on studying the Bible, I thought how the Bible came to us in the form it is now would be something of great significance to you.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I have given you a serious Catholic reference with both the imprimatur and nihil obstat that confirms that God knows all things whatsoever that in any way are. You appear to be claiming that God does not know all things, but have not given any Church approved document or reference to support this.
And here is a second serious Catholic reference which states:
“That God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things, follows from His infinite perfection…That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt…”
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Nothing I have said disagrees with the statements you’ve printed nor the Summa. In fact I have mentioned repeatedly how God knows all things in light of the text under discussion.

You yourself mention that “you appear to be claiming that God does not know all things” which proves that it is you who are interpreting my comments this way. I suggest you re-read my statements before going forward on this subject as I never said that. The fact that you are not able or willing to wrap your head around the fact that one Person of the Trinity can be lacking some information even for a brief period of time while not changing the fact that in eternity this would not apply does not mean I am claiming that God is not all-knowing.

As this discussion is so way off from the OP’s intent, I suggest that if you want to discuss this further that you start a new thread in the appropriate section. And if you really believe I am being a bad Catholic or not following my faith by what I’ve written, why not report me to someone who governs this forum or a priest. You have a duty to do so as this is supposed to be a Catholic site. . .

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I would like to suggest that if we are not directly discussing what happens at a JW meeting or some point of JW doctrine, that we either start a new thread if we wish to continue these off-subject discussions or learn to bow out gracefully.

I would like to add to those who are not Catholic that our theology includes an embracing of the mystery of God, acknowledging that there are some things about God that we do not currently understand fully. Because God is transcendent Catholics acknowledge that it is not always possible to wrap our minds around certain details regarding the Almighty God. I understand that some people have a need for and demand a definitive answer for many of these things, but in Catholicism definitive answers in some cases may not exist. Catholicism does not always allow for black-and-white compartmentalizations of theological concepts and this may be irritating to those with a significant amount of ambiguity intolerance. Catholicism is not a religion to merely provide answers to satisfy curiosity but a Church to bring Christ’s love to the world.

 

[minkymurph]

I would like to suggest that if we are not directly discussing what happens at a JW meeting or some point of JW doctrine, that we either start a new thread if we wish to continue these off-subject discussions or learn to bow out gracefully.

I would like to add to those who are not Catholic that our theology includes an embracing of the mystery of God, acknowledging that there are some things about God that we do not currently understand fully. Because God is transcendent Catholics acknowledge that it is not always possible to wrap our minds around certain details regarding the Almighty God. I understand that some people have a need for and demand a definitive answer for many of these things, but in Catholicism definitive answers in some cases may not exist. Catholicism does not always allow for black-and-white compartmentalizations of theological concepts and this may be irritating to those with a significant amount of ambiguity intolerance. Catholicism is not a religion to merely provide answers to satisfy curiosity but a Church to bring Christ’s love to the world.

Well said. I concur.

The ambiguity of Catholicism is it’s strength, not its weakness. Those who seek definitive black letter answers will always be disappointed.