Today's Excellent Church.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Benson
Banned
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:30 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Today's Excellent Church.

Post #1

Post by Benson »

Acts 2 gives the narrative of how the Body of Christ His Church was brought into being by the coming of The Holy Spirit, according to Joel ch. 2 as cited by Apostle Peter.

Today, there are no features within modern Christendom which are a continuation of either Acts ch. 2, Joel ch. 2, The Jerusalem Messianic Church, or the Pauline Gentile Church.

This post remains very short because there is no other information in Scripture to authenticate the state of today's so called "Church." If one thinks the Church does exist today according to the foundation of the Apostles with Christ as the Cornerstone, tell us where on Earth it exists in the hearts of Men before God. No place in Paul's teaching says the Church is some intangibly perceived group of minds set upon faith in Christ.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #61

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam in post #61]
Christ is the Son of God. He is the Holy One (of God). God (the Father of Christ) is the MOST Holy One.

But regardless of what you or anyone else believe about that, the "I" in the passage "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"... is Christ.
Yet one more example of how your theology is incomplete. You can’t pick and choose the passages you like and ignore others. The Bible was intended to be read as a whole. Are you not familiar with God in the OT calling Himself, I am. And then Jesus calling Himself, I am in the NT? Are you not familiar with Thomas saying to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”?

I honestly cannot understand those who wish to deny the divinity of Christ. Why in the world do you think He was killed? They crucified Him because He made Himself equal to God. And He IS! That’s the whole point! But they couldn’t accept it.

Your passages show that Jesus is the head of His Church.


That the Christ is the Head of the Church, yes.

Is there a difference between Jesus and Christ? Please fill me in.

Just that the name "Jesus" is not accurate, so if someone else is using that I will often just use Christ.

My Lord's name is Jaheshua.
Good grief!
You realize the following are all variants of Jaheshua; Jesiah, Joshawa, Joshuah, Joshuwa, Joshwa,Giosue, Iesous, Iokua, Jesus, Josue, Jozsua, Jozua, Yehoshua, Yushua.
They all are the same name, but in different languages.

You aren’t committing the same error as the Jehovah Witnesses, are you?

*********
Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that God’s name (YHWH in the ancient Hebrew manuscript copies of the Old Testament) is supposed to be pronounced “Jehovah.” So persuaded are they about this, they believe they are the only church (organization) who has God’s favor, because they are the only ones who consistently call God by this name. Yet, Jewish and Christian scholars, who are thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament Hebrew language and how to pronounce Hebrew words, make it clear that the Hebrew word YHWH is more accurately pronounced “Yahweh” (Yaw-Way) rather than “Jehovah”.
https://alwaysbeready.com/gods-name-jeh ... -campbell/

The JWs’ translation, the NWT, adds to the NT the name Jehovah, even when the OT is not being quoted. Why? Because clearly they refer to Jesus Christ and the JWs will not recognize His Deity, that Christ is Jehovah God!
http://www.prca.org/resources/publicati ... e-of-god-1


But none of your passages contradict or negate that Christ established a Church and expected her to be His authoritative voice on earth.

None of the passages I cited were meant to negate the truth that Christ has a Church. The passages I cited were in response to you questioning why I listen to Christ (and not to a religion, or to men, or to 'religious leaders', or even to a book).

But what you posted is not an answer to why you listen to Christ or a demonstration of it.


How is that you did not see an answer there? I listen to Christ because a) He is the One to whom God tells me to listen; and b) Christ also states that we (His sheep) are to listen to Him.

Because being told we are to listen to someone and then that someone handing down authority to someone else and saying, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”, “Feed my sheep”, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” would mean listening to Him IS listening to those he put in charge.


I assume as a child, you did not tell your teacher, “I refuse to listen to you. I listen only to my parents!” To not listen to your teacher would have been disobeying your parents. To argue otherwise truly makes no sense. Please, please pray about this.


But Christ has His own voice, which His sheep are to listen to. As He has said.

Yes, and you skip the part of Scripture where Jesus tells Peter, “Feed my sheep”.


I don't have to skip it; it does not apply. Christ is also talking to Peter here, not to me or to you or to anyone else, so this is not an instruction from Him to me (or to you or to anyone else).
Once again an extremely immature and illogical comment. What made you think Jesus is speaking to you when He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the light”? Or when He says, my sheep know me? I didn’t hear Him say, Tam. In fact, He said sheep. How do you know that is directed to you? Such inconsistency in reading the Bible cannot be reconciled and is only necessary in trying to defend one’s personal invented theology.


Why would you conclude Jesus is speaking to you when He says, “I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me”, but say He His comments, “He who hears you, hears me.” is not intended for us, His sheep? OR why conclude, these words, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” are not intended for us?

You are also interpreting what He meant when He told Peter 'feed my sheep', and in such a way that it contradicts what He said TO and ABOUT His sheep (my sheep listen to my voice; come to me; remain in me; learn from me; keep my word.) He would not have contradicted Himself.
Again, it isn’t a contradiction for someone who has power to permit someone else to do something for them. The teacher/student analogy can be applied here too. If someone you are supposed to obey tells you to listen to someone else, you are obeying them by doing so and they haven’t contradicted themselves in the slightest.

And as an aside, I find it ironic that you quote me Bible passages while simultaneously claiming you give no authority to the book. What you really mean, is you listen to the Bible when it suits you and cite the passages you like or that confirm your pre existing theology, but dismiss it and want to say it holds no authority when passages that contradict your view.

The passages that I shared support what I have shared, that my Lord has said. But I listen to Him. I am just pointing out the passages from the bible that show this is what we are supposed to be doing.

Leaving out important information is often what we call presenting a half truth and another word for a half truth is a lie. Why not point out the passages where He is transferring His authority and He tells us that rejecting those He put in charge is rejecting Him? Those passages are in the Bible too. But you conveniently dismiss them.


"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Sounds really, really clear! A naughty child would never get away with not listen to the one put in charge of their care by simply saying, “But Dad, you told me I need only listen to you!”


Worth repeating in another translation:

Then he said to the disciples, “Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me.”


Permit me to explain why you don’t point out all the Scripture I do. I think it is because it contradicts your theology.

As to your articles, I do not see how any of them negate what I shared, or how they even respond to the questions I asked.

Then you didn’t actually read them. All of them showed all the evidence that Christ established His Church and expected we listen to her. THAT negates thinking you are listening to Christ when denying His Church.

I did read them. If they answered my simple and direct question, then there would have been no need to post multiple articles. You could have just done what I did, which is share the direct passage which states the thing that your religion is claiming.
I posted all the Scripture I did to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that we are expected to listen to the Church and that doing so IS actually obeying Christ and His commands and that NOT doing so is actually condemned by Christ. What I posted also points out that that IS exactly how the first Christians saw it. They knew Christ’s Church had authority and that they were supposed to listen to her. And thank God! Can you imagine if everyone then did what you are trying to do? The Good News would never have been spread.


And I would once again like to point out the irony of you insisting on a few Bible quotes (We call that quote mining and is not how the Bible is to be read!) and also giving credence to a couple of verses you feel like posting, all the while claiming we need not listen to the Bible. LOL!


And I will happily point out here to that we wouldn’t even have the Bible for you to quote, if we first didn’t listen to and accept Christ’s Church!!!!! It was the Church who provided us the canon – the Bible as we know it today. So, you already are listening to her!!!!

Where does Christ say to His Church... "Listen to my Church"...
Please re-read my post. It’s all in there with tons of examples from Scripture as well as examples of Christ’s established Church doing just that – listening to His Church! I’m seriously not sure what more evidence you could possibly need. What exactly are you looking for?

I'm looking for His words to us - that states (as you keep claiming) - "Listen to my Church."

If there was such a commandment, you would have listed it by now.
You mean this one: "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

If you ignore the marriage comparison, then you are ignoring a part of what Paul is saying.
I’m not the one ignoring the marriage comparison. You are the one misunderstanding it.
This is the problem with personal interpretation absent of an authoritative Church.

Do you not understand that we (if we are in Christ) ARE the Church?

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride, the New Jerusalem, all made up of the people who are in Him, all of them having HIM as their Head.
This again is a half truth. Yes, there is the Body of Christ of believers, but there is also a specific, visible, established, authoritative Body of Christ, Christ’s Church. The Church does not simply mean all those who believe in Christ. THAT is bad theology and contradicts all that we know from historical records as well as public revelation.

People were told to take their matters to the Church if they had questions or disagreements. You can’t take your matter to an ethereal body of believers or to an idea.


I hope you will take all this to your prayer life. Ask God to help you see. I’m not exactly sure why you seem ok with the illogic of your belief or what you are afraid of in honoring Christ’s Church. I have a feeling your hesitancy is steeped in misinformation. I pray the Holy Spirit will open your heart and mind. Take care. I’ll be praying for you.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #62

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
RightReason wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:28 pm [Replying to tam in post #61]
Christ is the Son of God. He is the Holy One (of God). God (the Father of Christ) is the MOST Holy One.

But regardless of what you or anyone else believe about that, the "I" in the passage "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"... is Christ.
Yet one more example of how your theology is incomplete. You can’t pick and choose the passages you like and ignore others. The Bible was intended to be read as a whole. Are you not familiar with God in the OT calling Himself, I am. And then Jesus calling Himself, I am in the NT? Are you not familiar with Thomas saying to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”?

I honestly cannot understand those who wish to deny the divinity of Christ. Why in the world do you think He was killed? They crucified Him because He made Himself equal to God. And He IS! That’s the whole point! But they couldn’t accept it.
The trinity is another topic. But I would like to point out that you are taking issue with me because I did not change the words that Christ spoke - I copied them just so. You changed the words because of a belief. Things like that are misleading.
Your passages show that Jesus is the head of His Church.


That the Christ is the Head of the Church, yes.

Is there a difference between Jesus and Christ? Please fill me in.

Just that the name "Jesus" is not accurate, so if someone else is using that I will often just use Christ.

My Lord's name is Jaheshua.
Good grief!
You realize the following are all variants of Jaheshua; Jesiah, Joshawa, Joshuah, Joshuwa, Joshwa,Giosue, Iesous, Iokua, Jesus, Josue, Jozsua, Jozua, Yehoshua, Yushua.
They all are the same name, but in different languages.

You aren’t committing the same error as the Jehovah Witnesses, are you?
No. I am using the name that my Lord showed me is His name. "Jesus" is not it. I get that most people are familiar with that name, and use it, but that is tradition, not truth. I did not try to tell you what to do; I simply cannot apply something I know is untrue to my Lord who is the Truth.

But none of your passages contradict or negate that Christ established a Church and expected her to be His authoritative voice on earth.

None of the passages I cited were meant to negate the truth that Christ has a Church. The passages I cited were in response to you questioning why I listen to Christ (and not to a religion, or to men, or to 'religious leaders', or even to a book).

But what you posted is not an answer to why you listen to Christ or a demonstration of it.


How is that you did not see an answer there? I listen to Christ because a) He is the One to whom God tells me to listen; and b) Christ also states that we (His sheep) are to listen to Him.

Because being told we are to listen to someone and then that someone handing down authority to someone else and saying, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “
Christ is speaking to the 72 whom He sends out, not just to the twelve, when He says this. Luke 10:1-16


I assume as a child, you did not tell your teacher, “I refuse to listen to you. I listen only to my parents!”


My parent told me to listen to my (school) teachers.

My Lord has not told me to listen to a religion (not the RCC or any other religion), and HE is Himself the Teacher, my teacher, to whom my God has told me to listen.

But Christ has His own voice, which His sheep are to listen to. As He has said.

Yes, and you skip the part of Scripture where Jesus tells Peter, “Feed my sheep”.


I don't have to skip it; it does not apply. Christ is also talking to Peter here, not to me or to you or to anyone else, so this is not an instruction from Him to me (or to you or to anyone else).
Once again an extremely immature and illogical comment.
It isn't. It is just a fact, and I think you missed the point. I asked you where Christ said to 'us', Listen to my Church. Telling Peter, 'feed my sheep', is not an instruction to 'us'. If Christ wanted us to listen to Peter (or to anyone else), He would have told us; He would have told the other apostles or other disciples. But that is not what He said. He said that HE is the Teacher.
Where does Christ say to His Church... "Listen to my Church"...
Please re-read my post. It’s all in there with tons of examples from Scripture as well as examples of Christ’s established Church doing just that – listening to His Church! I’m seriously not sure what more evidence you could possibly need. What exactly are you looking for?

I'm looking for His words to us - that states (as you keep claiming) - "Listen to my Church."

If there was such a commandment, you would have listed it by now.
You mean this one: "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
See above (and below).

If you ignore the marriage comparison, then you are ignoring a part of what Paul is saying.
I’m not the one ignoring the marriage comparison. You are the one misunderstanding it.
This is the problem with personal interpretation absent of an authoritative Church.
I said exactly what Paul said. That's not even an interpretation; I said what Paul said word for word.

Do you not understand that we (if we are in Christ) ARE the Church?

The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride, the New Jerusalem, all made up of the people who are in Him, all of them having HIM as their Head.
This again is a half truth.
NO. It is not.

A religion (called the RCC) has ADDED to this truth - so that now you think that what I shared is only a half-truth. I did not present a half-truth; a religion has ADDED to the truth in order to grasp for an authority that Christ did not give them. Instead of remaining just in Christ and sharing 'just so', men add to (or take away from) the truth, and people are misled.

Similar to the above (albeit unintentional) changing of the verse from Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - to - God is the Way the Truth and the Life. That change supports a specific doctrine, but it is not what Christ said, and if that doctrine is untrue, then that change will mislead people into believing something untrue. This is one way error seeps into translations.

Yes, there is the Body of Christ of believers, but there is also a specific, visible, established, authoritative Body of Christ, Christ’s Church. The Church does not simply mean all those who believe in Christ. THAT is bad theology and contradicts all that we know from historical records as well as public revelation.
The Church is all Christians (a Christian is a disciple of Christ who is anointed with holy spirit).

People were told to take their matters to the Church if they had questions or disagreements.


The only time Christ said to 'tell it to the church' was when a brother had sinned (against someone). First, take the matter to your brother (just you and him) and if he listens to you you have won him over; if he does not listen to you, then take along two or three others; if he does not listen to them; THEN take the matter to the Church. Not just two or three others (in Christ), but the rest of the church together.
You can’t take your matter to an ethereal body of believers or to an idea.
People are not ethereal; people are not an idea. The Church is the assembly of people who have been called out (of her), and who are in Christ, His Body, His Bride.

I hope you will take all this to your prayer life. Ask God to help you see.


Dear RR, I already did that and He directed me to His Son (the only one from whom we can buy eye salve with which to see).
I’m not exactly sure why you seem ok with the illogic of your belief or what you are afraid of in honoring Christ’s Church. I have a feeling your hesitancy is steeped in misinformation.


I am not afraid or hesitant, RR. I am just listening to my Lord and remaining in Him, as my Father in heaven has directed me to do.

The RCC is not the Church. The RCC has a great deal of blood on her hands. She has been untruthful (leading people into error). She is also a reflection of the roman state religion that came before her, same hierarchical setup with college of cardinals; pontiff maximus, etc. And every religion that has come after her has carried some of the same things in her, even though each sect changes a few things here and there. But while all of them have some truth, all of them also contain falsehood. The only One who can lead His sheep into ALL truth is Christ.


Only Christ is the Truth (nothing false in Him) and the Word of God and the Life.


But we have been through this. I can only bear witness to Christ and point to Him, share the truth with you (and anyone else) that Christ is alive; that He speaks; the He does indeed call His sheep by name. That He is the One who leads His sheep into all truth. Not religion. Not man. Not the bible. Just Christ.

May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #63

Post by JehovahsWitness »

RightReason wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:28 pm

Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that God’s name (YHWH in the ancient Hebrew manuscript copies of the Old Testament) is supposed to be pronounced “Jehovah.”
Jehovah Witnesses insist on no such thing, you are in error.
Down through the centuries, the correct pronunciation of the divine name in Hebrew has been lost. - Watchtower 1980 Feb 1 p. 7
No one today knows exactly how God’s name was pronounced in ancient Hebrew. ...it is important to God that we use his name in whatever language we speak, appreciate its significance, and live in harmony with what it stands for.- - Watchtower 2008, September 1, p.31

Feel free to produce any statement produced by the Watchtower society that rejects as unacceptable the academic transliterations of the tetragrammaton as pronounced in various languages.

God has an illustrious name. In the Hebrew language it is written יהוה, and is believed to have been pronounced like the romanization Yahweh. In English it is pronounced Jehovah, in Spanish Jehová, in Japanese Ehoba. Though the pronunciation varies from language to language, the name is easily recognizable in each language... The name “Jehovah” in English, and its equivalents in other languages, have become recognizable by long usage. How ridiculous to say now that the name should be eliminated because of a deviation in pronunciation!

source: w1963 8/1 462 par 22

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #64

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #64]
RightReason wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:28 pm

Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that God’s name (YHWH in the ancient Hebrew manuscript copies of the Old Testament) is supposed to be pronounced “Jehovah.”

Jehovah Witnesses insist on no such thing, you are in error. . . .

How ridiculous to say now that the name should be eliminated because of a deviation in pronunciation!
No, no, you misunderstand. I’m not saying the name should be eliminated because of a deviation in pronunciation. I think you’re right my comment was confusing due to the word pronounced, but it was not meant pronounced in the sense of how we say something, rather that the JW’s insist on using the word Jehovah because to set themselves apart from Christians, who recognize we are to call on the name of Christ and that God and Jesus are one and the same. The JW’s have developed a disordered unfounded preference for the word., Jehovah because it minimizes Jesus and the true nature of God. But the truth is Sacred Scripture does not use the word Jehovah as often as JW’s do in their NWT.

Here are some interesting facts . . .


The term Jehovah was popularized by a catholic monk who lived in the 12th century AD. "Jehovah" was never used before this!


The expression, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” did not exist prior to it becoming a kind of corporate trademark name of the salesmen of the Watchtower book selling company after 1930. For 2000 years the followers of Christ have called themselves "Christians", never "Yahweh's" or "Jehovah's Witnesses"


Also, YHWH is found in every original Hebrew Manuscript. (However, YHWH is never found in any manuscript of the New Testament.)


The New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.

Even in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit substituted the word "God" in place of YHWH. Look for the substitution by comparing Ps 14:2,4,6,7 and Ps 53:2,4,5,6

YHWH was replaced by the name JESUS as per Acts 4:12.

If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name [v10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH"?

Why are you called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "Christians"? Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to Isa 43:12; 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" then what was the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? Can't be "Jehovah's Witnesses", for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be "Christian" after our savior "Christ"?

https://bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm

A few more interesting remarks:

Since God is also identified as “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” without any mention of Jehovah (YHWH), doesn’t this mean that the name Jehovah is not the only way that God can be addressed in the Old Testament?

Jesus never identified the Father as Jehovah. Was Jesus wrong for not calling the Father by his personal name? When He taught us how to pray, how are we to address the Father? Matthew 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.’” Jesus taught his disciples and us to say “Our Father” and not “Our Jehovah.” You need to chastise Him for forgetting to use Jehovah here and all through his ministry. Jesus never said the name Jehovah

Why didn’t any of the New Testament writers use the name Jehovah? Were all the writers of the New Testament out of line? Are you going to correct them? There are over 5,700 ancient New Testament manuscripts and none of them ever used the name Jehovah. NONE! Does the Watchtower Organization know more than Jesus and the New Testament writers?

https://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/wh ... gods-name/


In 1969, the Watchtower Society produced The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, “Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek. Many JW’s only go by what their current NWT says, even though the societies original, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, provides a more accurate view of the original text. Every JW should find these differences bothersome. I’ll just post a few discrepancies, but there are many . . .


The following is a comparison between the rendering of the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the New World Translation:

Verse Col. 2:9 Interlinear Translation New World Translation: “all the fullness of the divinity” dwells in Christ.
NWT: “all the fullness of divine quality” dwells in Christ.

Note: Greek scholar Joseph Henry Thayer states that the Greek word used here “Theotes” literally means “deity, i.e., the state of being God, Godhead” (The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974, p. 288)


Verse Col 1:16-17 Interlinear Translation New World Translation: Christ created “all (things).”
NWT: Christ created “all [other] Things.”

Note: The Watchtower Society inserts the word “other” four times into this passage, in order to make it compatible with their doctrine of Christ having been created. However, in John 1:3, we read that Christ created “all things” — not all other things.


Verse Phil. 2:9 Interlinear Translation New World Translation: God gave Christ the name “over every name.”
NWT God gave Christ the name “above every [other] name.”

Note: The Watchtower Society teaches that Jehovah God has the name above every name and therefore, they had to insert the word “other” to justify their doctrine. However, according to John 17:11, Jesus has Jehovah’s Name!


Verse John 8:58 Interlinear Translation New World Translation: “Before Abraham to become I am.”
NWT" “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Note: The Greek words for “I am” are “ego eimi.” In every place where these words appear in the text of the Bible, the Society correctly translates them as “I am,” EXCEPT in this verse.19. Why the inconsistency in translation? Jesus was identifying Himself with the “I am” of Exodus 3:14 who is Jehovah God, and this is why the Jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy (see verse 59, compare with Leviticus 24:16). The Society mistranslated this verse because its correct translation contradicts their doctrine.

https://www.4jehovah.org/facts-the-watc ... u-to-know/

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #65

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam in post #63]
Christ is speaking to the 72 whom He sends out, not just to the twelve, when He says this. Luke 10:1-16
But Scripture itself contradicts that interpretation. The first Christians took there matters to the Church. We are told the Church had the final decisions on things that came up. Clearly, the first Christians knew a select few were given authority by Christ and that is who they were to go to. And they did!

********

The New Testament bears witness in numerous places to the fact of Church authority. It clearly shows that Christ gave his Apostles his own authority to continue his mission.

Christ taught many other things to the Apostles that are not recorded in Scripture; we call this Catholic Tradition, literally meaning “that which is handed on”. Tradition is the full, living faith of the Apostles as received from Christ.

Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

This brief passage contains several critical points about Church authority: * Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority he is giving them derives from his own, divine authority. (“All authority…” / “Go therefore”.) * The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself. * The nature of this mission is to lead or govern (“make disciples”), sanctify (“baptizing them”), and teach (“teaching them to observe”). * Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission (“I am with you always”).

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” (Jn 20:21)

In this passage, Jesus commissions the Apostles with continuing his own mission. Again, this mission has its source in the divine authority of the Father. (CCC 859)
“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Mt 10:40)


And:

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)

Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. What’s more, both passages compare the union between Christ and his Apostles to that of the Son and the Father within the Holy Trinity.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

This is a key passage for understanding the Catholic doctrine of Church authority: * Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church (“I will build My Church”) * His choice of Peter as the foundation, or head, of this Church * Christ confers on Peter his own divine authority (“the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”) for ruling the Church (“bind” and “loose”). This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter.

The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ).

In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).

One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28). This passage shows:

•The Apostles knew that they had the governing power necessary to decide this question (this is a huge point: they’re overriding the ritual law of the Old Covenant!); and

•They are conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is guiding their decision, so ultimately it is God who has decided the matter.


This passage in Acts would be meaningless, even blasphemous, if the Apostles did not in fact possess the authority of Christ, supported and guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit.


Finally, the various Epistles in the New Testament (the letters of Paul, Peter, etc.) likewise give many examples of the Apostles exercising their teaching and governing offices. In fact, those letters only exist because the Apostles knew that it was their role to teach and lead the various local churches!


http://www.beginningcatholic.com/church-authority


I know you wish that weren’t true, but it is and documented. It’s very convenient to say, all I need is Christ and self-interpret everything and tell yourself God is ok with that. Yes, that’s very attractive and we can tell ourselves we aren’t bogged down with all that “religion” stuff, but the reality is we have created our own religion where we are always right. We just tell ourselves what we want to hear and enjoy God on our terms. And we love to say things like, “I listen to God, not man” and continue to do all the things that suit us.

I assume as a child, you did not tell your teacher, “I refuse to listen to you. I listen only to my parents!”


My parent told me to listen to my (school) teachers.

My Lord has not told me to listen to a religion (not the RCC or any other religion), and HE is Himself the Teacher, my teacher, to whom my God has told me to listen.

Yes, He did. One more time folks. . .

After He told Peter, thou art Peter, upon this rock I build my church and after He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (FYI, keys imply authority. In the OT having the keys meant that person held an appointed office) and told Him, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. That’s quite a bit of power. He also told him, “"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”


We are also told in subsequent Scripture that if a person refuses to listen even to the church, he should be considered a tax collector.

So, yeah, Christ established a visible, authoritative Church, and told us listening to her is equivalent to listening to Him.


If Christ wanted us to listen to Peter (or to anyone else), He would have told us
LOL! He did! Oh, sweetie, He couldn’t have been more clear and all members int the early Church knew this. Why do you now think you know better?
; He would have told the other apostles or other disciples. But that is not what He said. He said that HE is the Teacher.
I honestly don’t know how you can say this. He literally commanded His disciples to go and teach. Are you sure you are reading the Bible?
A religion (called the RCC) has ADDED to this truth - so that now you think that what I shared is only a half-truth. I did not present a half-truth; a religion has ADDED to the truth in order to grasp for an authority that Christ did not give them. Instead of remaining just in Christ and sharing 'just so', men add to (or take away from) the truth, and people are misled.

How would people know if they were getting it right without an authoritative Church? 5 different sincere believers could read the exact same Scripture and come up with 5 different interpretations. As has been proven with the number of different Christian denominations. Do you not think God, in His wisdom, for saw this? The Bible tells us God intended one united community all in agreement. How exactly do you think that would be accomplished without a united, authoritative, central, catholic, and apostolic church? God’s people have always been expected to listen to those God put in charge. How can anyone deny this? It’s illogical to think otherwise!


The only time Christ said to 'tell it to the church' was when a brother had sinned (against someone). First, take the matter to your brother (just you and him) and if he listens to you you have won him over; if he does not listen to you, then take along two or three others; if he does not listen to them; THEN take the matter to the Church. Not just two or three others (in Christ), but the rest of the church together.

You continue to not read the Bible as a whole. Here are examples from Scripture of people taking matters to the Church. Again, I ask you, are these passages not in your Bible?

The RCC is not the Church. The RCC has a great deal of blood on her hands.
You mean like so many of God’s other appointed leaders? Again, are you not familiar with Scripture? Yes, the Church is made up of human beings. And yet Jesus promised to remain with her and told us to listen to her.
She has been untruthful (leading people into error).
Nope. The Church has not erred in matters of teachings regarding faith and morals. Some of her members have screwed up or even been despicable, but the Church has never lead people into error. Unlike, the thousands of Christian denominations who broke off from Christ’s Church now all teaching different things. They have and continue to lead people into error. Your, we don’t need a religion is leading people into error.
She is also a reflection of the roman state religion that came before her
Like I said, you are full of misinformation and anti-Catholic bias.
same hierarchical setup with college of cardinals; pontiff maximus, etc.
Christ’s first church had a hierarchical set up. Scripture is clear on that, but yet one more thing you dismiss and deny.
And every religion that has come after her has carried some of the same things in her, even though each sect changes a few things here and there. But while all of them have some truth, all of them also contain falsehood.
Yep! Many outside Christ’s Church teach some truths, but unfortunately also teach falsehoods. Including your self-proclaimed non religion. Most off shoot splinter groups that broke off from Christ’s Church thought what they were doing was right. They took some of the beautiful truths taught by Christ Himself, but then either distorted them or left out other things.
The only One who can lead His sheep into ALL truth is Christ.
Yes, through His church as He intended and promised. How do you reconcile Him telling Peter, “feed my sheep”? You are claiming the only one who can lead His sheep into all truth is Christ, and yet here we have in Scripture Christ telling Peter to tend His sheep. This should make you think.

Peace to you Tam. God loves you and just wants you home! I just felt like I needed to say that.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #66

Post by onewithhim »

Christ told Peter to feed his sheep, but He wasn't referring to the bastion of confusion that became the Catholic Church. Peter was to teach the truth to the nations, and not the traditions of a church that is founded on Constantine and his apostate dictates. Can Christ be leading a church that coddles pedophile priests? Can he be the head of a church whose leaders are perverts and murderers? Not a chance.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #67

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to onewithhim in post #67]
Christ told Peter to feed his sheep

I’m glad you admit this authority He gave him. It is more than evident that Christ was establishing a Church and gave a select few authority and commanded us to listen to His Church.

but He wasn't referring to the bastion of confusion that became the Catholic Church.
What confusion are you talking about? The Catholic Church has given us the Bible, safeguarded Sacred Scriptures through the centuries, spread the gospel, administered the sacraments, as commanded by God, not waivered on teaching the truth regarding faith and morals when so many other religions have caved to the fashions of the day. Continually fights for the dignity of the human person from the moment of conception until the moment of death, has produced some of the most incredible Saints, is the largest charitable organization in the world, and has remained united, cohesive, and firm in her teachings.

Or are you referring to the confusion that came from all those who left Christ’s established Church (ie: Lutherans, Mormons, Quakers, Methodists, Jehovah Witness’s, etc) and who now all teach different things, confusing God’s children?
Peter was to teach the truth to the nations, and not the traditions of a church
Scripture itself says we are to listen not just what is in the Bible, but that which is passed on through word of mouth (tradition). Scripture also reveals all the rituals and tradition that the early Church engaged in, just as commanded by God. I assume these passages are in your Bible too . . .


5Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” 1 Cor. 11:2

that is founded on Constantine and his apostate dictates.
You don’t know your history. The Church was not founded on Constantine. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and is the only church that can trace her roots back to Jesus, who appointed Peter as the leader and has had an unbroken line of Apostolic succession ever since. Let’s see, I think JW’s didn’t really exist until the 1600’s and were founded by some guy named, Charles Taze Russell. Who gave him authority? And how do you justify such?

Can Christ be leading a church that coddles pedophile priests? Can he be the head of a church whose leaders are perverts and murderers? Not a chance.
Do you even know your Scripture? Do you have any idea how many leaders God chose and appointed went on to do vile and sinful things? Pick up the Bible! God has always used ordinary, fallible human beings to speak for Him. And He has done so while still managing to get His message across and continuing to tell us, “do as they say and not as they do” because you have my promise I will protect my Church from error. That Onewithim is the only thing that makes sense. I beg you to think about it.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #68

Post by JehovahsWitness »

RightReason wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:41 pm... the JW’s insist on using the word Jehovah because to set themselves apart from Christians, who recognize we are to call on the name of Christ and that God and Jesus are one and the same.
I have already told you you are in error.

Japanese Witnesses do NOT use the Word JEHOVAH at all ... they say EHOBA. Clearly not the same lettres, not the same word. Thus you are wrong to say we insist on the Word "Jehovah". We do not, you are wrong (still)


If however you would like to prove my statement HERE wrong feel free to find a quote from out literature with the verbe "insist" "have to" or any such verb in it in relation to the word JEHOVAH.

Over to you!



JW



Image

Further Reading : The Name of God dropped from Catholic bibles
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/ ... w=embedded
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #69

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #69]
I have already told you you are in error.
And you continue to misunderstand.
If however you would like to prove my statement HERE wrong feel free to find a quote from out literature with the verbe "insist" "have to" or any such verb in it in relation to the word JEHOVAH.
The point is JW’s erroneously overemphasize the word Jehovah. So, I guess instead of insists we could say purposely mistranslated and falsely overused their preferred word, Jehova. Is that better?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Today's Excellent Church.

Post #70

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
RightReason wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:37 pm [Replying to tam in post #63]
Christ is speaking to the 72 whom He sends out, not just to the twelve, when He says this. Luke 10:1-16
But Scripture itself contradicts that interpretation.


I did not post an interpretation What I posted is just what is written. Did you read Luke 10:1-16?
The first Christians took there matters to the Church.


If they were Christians, then they were the Church.

But no doubt people took matters to the apostles, who were eyewitnesses (which is why in replacing Judas they needed someone who was an eyewitness who could testify to the things that he had personally witnessed). Sometimes to get a straight answer because of people who CLAIMED to have been sent from them but who had not been sent from them. That was the whole situation with the people trying to put Gentiles under the law by forcing them to get circumcised and follow the law (of Moses).

Paul did not have to check with the apostles; Paul learned the truth from Christ.

And:

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)

Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ.



Again, Christ says this to the 70 disciples whom He sent out. Not just the twelve apostles.

I know you wish that weren’t true, but it is and documented.


It has nothing to do with what I wish or do not wish. If a religion were true and something that a person needed (or even should) belong to, then I would have no problem with that. But that is not what my Lord has taught me, and I must remain in Him. He has never led me wrong. He is my Head, He is my Teacher, He is my Lord, He alone leads His sheep into all truth.
It’s very convenient to say, all I need is Christ and self-interpret everything and tell yourself God is ok with that.
I said nothing about 'self-interpreting'. I cannot interpret (that would be hit and miss at best). I am not the key to understanding the scriptures; I cannot lead myself or anyone else into all truth. Christ is the key to understanding the scriptures; Christ is the One who leads His sheep into all truth. Christ is the Teacher and the Truth.
Yes, that’s very attractive and we can tell ourselves we aren’t bogged down with all that “religion” stuff, but the reality is we have created our own religion where we are always right.


My Lord has corrected me and my thinking on numerous occasions. He is the One who is always right. Not me.
We just tell ourselves what we want to hear and enjoy God on our terms. And we love to say things like, “I listen to God, not man” and continue to do all the things that suit us.

My Lord tells me the truth, dear RR. Truth is what I want to hear, yes, but that does not mean that truth is easy to hear. Truth can sometimes be very hard to hear, especially about oneself.


If Christ wanted us to listen to Peter (or to anyone else), He would have told us
LOL! He did! Oh, sweetie, He couldn’t have been more clear and all members int the early Church knew this.
Absolutely He could have been more clear. He could have said: "Listen to Peter." Or, when He was telling the apostles that they had ONE teacher (Christ) and ONE leader (again, Christ), and that they were all brothers... He could have said, 'wait, I mean except for Peter, of course, Peter is going to be first among you, Peter is going to be in charge."

As for members of the early church (and all of these things you are claiming were refuted in that other conversation in the links posted in this thread), the FIRST Christians certainly did not know that they were supposed to be listening to Peter, since Paul was rebuking some of them for claiming "I follow Cephas" or "I follow Paul"... or "I follow Apollos". Obviously, they did not know that Peter was in charge or there would have been no one boasting "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos". Neither did Paul know that Peter was supposedly in charge, since this would have been the perfect time for Paul to clarify after his rebuke, "Hey, don't you guys know Peter is in charge; that you're supposed to listen to Peter?"

But he said nothing of the sort. No one did.
Why do you now think you know better?
I don't. My Lord - the One I am listening TO - does, though.

Not to mention the fact that Peter died some time ago, and I could not listen to him even if I wanted to listen to him. Christ, however, does not die, is alive, does speak, does lead His people into all truth.

A religion (called the RCC) has ADDED to this truth - so that now you think that what I shared is only a half-truth. I did not present a half-truth; a religion has ADDED to the truth in order to grasp for an authority that Christ did not give them. Instead of remaining just in Christ and sharing 'just so', men add to (or take away from) the truth, and people are misled.

How would people know if they were getting it right without an authoritative Church?


If they knew Christ, then they would know from Him. That takes faith though. If one does not have this faith - or ears to hear - and one wishes them, then one should ASK for them.

Statements that we could not know from Christ - that Christ is unable to lead His sheep - this is a lacking of faith in Him.
5 different sincere believers could read the exact same Scripture and come up with 5 different interpretations.


Yes, but if they are 'coming up with' 5 different interpretations, then they are self-interpreting. Instead of listening to Christ.

As has been proven with the number of different Christian denominations. Do you not think God, in His wisdom, for saw this?


Of course, and did Christ not say that FEW are chosen; that FEW would find the path that leads to life. Not many. Few.

It is no different than in the days of old,

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land. The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way." Jeremiah 5:30, 31

The only time Christ said to 'tell it to the church' was when a brother had sinned (against someone). First, take the matter to your brother (just you and him) and if he listens to you you have won him over; if he does not listen to you, then take along two or three others; if he does not listen to them; THEN take the matter to the Church. Not just two or three others (in Christ), but the rest of the church together.

You continue to not read the Bible as a whole.


A JW would say the exact same thing about the 'two-hope' theology; or a Calvinist would say the same thing, etc.

Anyone can list a bunch of scriptures and say that they mean whatever they want them to mean, but a closer examination will show that they have been taken out of context - and sometimes they even mean the exact opposite of what a person is using them for!

This whole 'bible as a whole' thing is like asking a person to unfocus their eyes and just see a blurry picture. A blurry picture that can then be interpreted any way a particular religion wants it to be interpreted. But buy some eye salve from Christ instead, to see clearly and in truth.


Some of her members have screwed up or even been despicable, but the Church has never lead people into error.
Of course they have. What about the inquisitions and persecutions? That did not lead people into error? Even if just error about the nature of God and of His Son?
Unlike, the thousands of Christian denominations who broke off from Christ’s Church now all teaching different things. They have and continue to lead people into error. Your, we don’t need a religion is leading people into error.
"We don't need a religion" is not the end of it. Anyone can come out of religion. But one must also come to Christ.
She is also a reflection of the roman state religion that came before her
Like I said, you are full of misinformation and anti-Catholic bias.
same hierarchical setup with college of cardinals; pontiff maximus, etc.
Christ’s first church had a hierarchical set up. Scripture is clear on that, but yet one more thing you dismiss and deny.
I was not referring to just any hierarchical set up, but a mimic of the roman state religion:
The pontifex maximus (Latin for "greatest priest"[1][2][3]) was the chief high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus

Pontifex maximus (roman state religion) = "pope" (roman catholic church)

College of Pontiffs (roman state religion) = College of Cardinals (roman catholic church)



And the Chief High Priest of the true Church (the Body of Christ) is Christ Himself. Not Peter; not some 'pope' or other religious leader. Just Christ.

He is the Chief Shepherd; the High Priest (who never dies).


And every religion that has come after her has carried some of the same things in her, even though each sect changes a few things here and there. But while all of them have some truth, all of them also contain falsehood.
Yep! Many outside Christ’s Church teach some truths, but unfortunately also teach falsehoods.
ALL religions do this. ALL.

The ONLY ONE who can lead us into all truth (no falsehood) is Christ.
Including your self-proclaimed non religion.


That does not make sense.

The only One I am claiming who can lead people into all truth is Christ.
The only One who can lead His sheep into ALL truth is Christ.
Yes, through His church as He intended and promised. How do you reconcile Him telling Peter, “feed my sheep”? You are claiming the only one who can lead His sheep into all truth is Christ, and yet here we have in Scripture Christ telling Peter to tend His sheep. This should make you think.
You are interpreting 'feed my sheep' to mean something more than what it is.

But no man (including Peter) can lead us into all truth. Only Christ can do that. ONLY Christ - not through Peter, not through anything else, just Christ Himself. The following is a perfect example:

People who were following Peter followed him into error. We can know this because Paul wrote about it:

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

A - following Peter here meant being led astray and joining Peter in hypocrisy

B - If Peter was in charge and everyone knew it, why in the world would Peter have been afraid of those in the 'circumcision group'?

C - By this example, you can also see that a person (or religion) can indeed teach ERROR even just with their actions. Not just hypocrisy, but as with the example with Peter, the error that one needed the law (of Moses, and circumcision) to be saved. (Paul goes on in the same passage to teach the truth that is from Christ.) So that when the RCC took part in inquisitions and all that went with them (and other things), they did indeed teach error and lead people astray.
Peace to you Tam. God loves you and just wants you home! I just felt like I needed to say that.

Peace also to you, RR. There is dear JW lady who has given me impassioned pleas as well, to join their religion. She is dear and she is sincere, as you are. But that does not make her religion true any more than it makes your religion true. I appreciate your concern and your love, but I cannot join something that I know to be false, that would require me to turn my back upon my Lord and the faith that God gave me as a gift. I cannot betray either of them like that.


May you (and anyone who wishes) be given ears to hear so as to get a sense of these things that have been shared - and also to hear as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come!" May anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"


Your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Post Reply