| Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Does the Catholic Church hate Jehovah's Witnesses | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 7 2007, 04:56 PM (421 Views) | |
| T-O | Dec 7 2007, 04:56 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
Well MO this is very interesting. I have started a new topic off the subject of Xmas and I want to reply to those quotes you gave me from the Catholic church in the thread about why do you celebrate Christmas. I will do one quote of theirs at a time so as to not make any one too long. Firstly, does the Catholic church actually hate Jehovah’s Witnesses… As a church I would have to say yes since we are very much at the other end of the belief chain than they are, and with their record in the past of hating people who do not fall in line with the church it is pretty much confirmed. I won't get into the atrocities that the Catholic church has committed against these ones other than to say that many many times these ones were tortured, put to death, burned at the stake etc. Do JW’s hate the Catholic church? To this I would have to say yes, but let me qualify that a bit. We hate the teachings of the Catholic church, and the atrocities they have committed, also the bitter and diabolical hatred the church has perpetrated on JW’s. That part we hate. But we do not hate Catholic people. As a matter of fact there are countless ones who were Catholic’s and became JW’s when they heard the truth from the bible. At least one mother superior that I know of and many nuns and priests. As a side note, Pope Benedict has a cousin who is a JW and when he called her recently he commended her for sticking to her faith. About 5 years ago, a Catholic priest in Massachusetts told his congregation that they were all going to go door to door to talk to people about Christ and the bible. He stated “why, people will think we are Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Well he almost got run out of town by his parishioners and I don’t imagine the bishop was all that happy about it either. Amazing. He got into serious doo-doo because he wanted to take the message of Christ door to door like JW’s. So not all Catholics hate JW’s even though many do as we find out by calling on peoples doors the way we do. Most priests are not very hospitable in this regard. In my next few posts I would like to take each of the 5 or so quotes you gave me from the Catholic church in the previous thread, and reply to them if I may. Thanks for bringing the subject up. |
![]() |
|
| Bloss | Dec 7 2007, 05:47 PM Post #2 |
![]()
WE THE PEOPLE
![]()
|
the Catholic Church dosnt hate anyone publicly because they teach for you not to hate anyone and accept everyone. |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| TheWanger | Dec 7 2007, 06:25 PM Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
I hate them since they come to my door and talk their smack. |
| |
![]() |
|
| MoRivera | Dec 7 2007, 09:24 PM Post #4 |
|
Obi-Wan Kenobi
![]()
|
First, absolutely not. While Catholics may hate Jehovah Witnesses (I don't. I think they're generally nice people who do more than their share of biblical analysis. I have yet to have a "mean" Jehovah Witness come to my door). The Catholic Church may condemn the beliefs of JW's, but the Church does not hate any group. Dislike, perhaps. Hate? Not at all. Second, "commend for sticking to your faith" doesn't mean we agree with it. Mother Teresa elaborated very much on the subject. We would love for all those in the world to be a part of the one truth faith-Catholicism. If you refuse, be the absolute best Protestant, Jehovah Witness, Muslim, or Mormon you can be. Obviously the Pope's cousin has no interest in the Catholic Faith. Because of this, he is commending her on the belief system she chose to follow (obviously she's doing a fine job with her faith) |
| Jesus built one Church. He also said to follow Him. If you are not in His Church, you aren't following very well. | |
![]() |
|
| MoRivera | Dec 7 2007, 09:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Obi-Wan Kenobi
![]()
|
|
| Jesus built one Church. He also said to follow Him. If you are not in His Church, you aren't following very well. | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 8 2007, 08:46 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Hi there MO.. Before I answer the Catholic churches stand on JW's beliefs, I want to address this hatred part. The church has a very well documented record of hate and atrocities that go way beyond "dislike" as you put it. For instance the Catholic Inquisition. Anyone can look up reams of information on the churches vicious atrocities against many sorts of people down through the centuries. Not to mention the collaboration of the Pope and the church in bed together with Hitler and his nazi's. But more up to date and particularly about Jehovah's Witnesses. Canada is just ONE example. In the 1940's and early 1950's the Catholic church did their level best, along with their cohorts the government of Quebec, to run JW's out of Quebec. Many many times, mobs, led by and inspired by priests, converged on JW's, whether male or female didnt matter, and beat many of them up severely when they were peacefully going door to door or even on street corners, anywhere the JW's could be found. Burning their literature as well. Now remember, these were peaceful people taking the bible to people. What could the Catholic church have against that? But their hatred was intense. When they called at a door, the Catholic person often would phone the priest,(who instructed them from the pulpit to do this) who then quickly gathered a number of henchmen and swooped in on the witnesses. Hundreds were charged with various trumped up charges and many went to jail. One particular witness was charged 108 times. One of these cases eventually went to Canada's Supreme court. The court ruled 5-4 in favour of the JW's and their report stated that Canadians had NO freedoms, however they ruled in the favour of decency instead of the Catholic intense hatred. When Canada's prime minister Diefenbaker read this ruling, he started the process of putting together a "Charter of Rights" for Canadians. At the time, Canada had nothing like it available. It was later completed and put into law by Trudeau, a succeeding prime minister. Most Canadians do not know that it was A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSECUTION AND CHARGES TRUMPED UP BY THE QUEBEC GOVERNMENT UNDER DUPLESSIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAINST JEHOVAHS WITNESSES that gained Canada its freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Freedoms that all Canadians enjoy since then, not just JW's.. And the Catholic church has the gall to state that only they are Christlike. |
![]() |
|
| Element | Dec 8 2007, 10:46 PM Post #7 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
Not sure, but I hate the catholic church.
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Rockshu | Dec 8 2007, 11:50 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Professional Indian
![]()
|
Don't all major religions hate each other? |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Dec 9 2007, 01:27 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
No. Religious "hatred" is no different from any other hatred. It is a by-product of the need to feel superior to someone or something else. Religious hatred just distorts the Bible to support their "superiority". |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 9 2007, 01:39 AM Post #10 |
![]()
|
Pretty much true I would think, unless you can prove from the bible that you have the truth, and not in a superior attitude sort of way. Just facts. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 9 2007, 03:41 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
HI MO.. Here is the first of the quotes you gave me from the Catholic church about JW’s. Quote.. The Jehovah Witnesses have changed the Bible so much, adding and subtracting words, that it can no longer be called Gods Word. Reply.. Jehovah’s Witnesses a number of years ago published a modern English version of the bible called the “New World Translation”. This is nothing unusual in itself, as there are a great many modern English versions available now. I am wondering which version of the bible that the Catholic church is referring to when it says JW’s have CHANGED by adding or subtracting words. Possibly the Catholic Douay version? I am not sure. However there was a great need to put the bible in modern language. I can categorically state that anything that APPEARS to have been changed, any word or words, that in EVERY instance the words in original manuscripts from the Hebrew of the OT (Old Testament) or the Greek from the NT (New Testament) can be traced back to the original meanings of those words, and that NO attempt has been made in the NWT to change things to suit our own ideas. This simply does not happen. I know that many adversaries of JW’s (pretty much all other “Christian” religions believe in the Trinity) all would like to think that JW’s have added the letter “A” in John1 verse 1 to suit our own way of thinking. NOT SO. It can clearly be seen from the Greek language that in this case the letter “A” is completely compatible to the way that the original text was intended. At the same time, many versions of the bible have included the letter “A” in John 1 verse 1, so it is not just the NWT version that has done it. However, let us look at the Catholic churches record of preserving the integrity of the bible as they would like to intimate when they criticize JW’s. The church claims that she was the one who preserved and encouraged bible reading and that in fact it was Catholics who wrote the original bible. In other words, all the writers like Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the apostle John etc were Catholics. If the Catholic Church made the Bible, is it not strange that she failed to include any word about the assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception and about the efficacy of praying to her; about the veneration of relics, images and saints; about the use of holy water; about the ceremony of the mass; about a pope’s being the vicar of Christ; about monsignors, archbishops and cardinals; about purgatory; about a celibate clergy; about not eating meat on Friday or during Lent; about making novenas; about infant baptism; etc.? Is not the fact that the Bible is silent on all these outstanding points of the Catholic religion strong circumstantial evidence that the Catholic Church did not make the Bible? that it is not a Catholic book? Then to add to all this, often people who would dare to read the bible or even possess one would come under severe penalty. According to Pope Leo XIII the Catholic Church “has never failed to take due measures to bring the Scriptures within the reach of her children”. Do the facts fit the claim that the Catholic Church has encouraged and does encourage Bible-reading? If so, how? and to what extent? At the time when England was under Catholic domination, for anyone to be found guilty of reading the Bible in English meant the forfeiting of “land, cattle, life and goods from his heirs forever”. Many were the followers of Wycliffe, the Lollards, who were imprisoned and even BURNED AT THE STAKE because of having thus read the Bible in their native tongue. Not only can no credit go to the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible but the facts of history show that she has been the chief destroyer of the Bible. Copies of Wycliffe’s Bible were hunted out by her from one end of England to the other and then destroyed. Tyndale had to print his “New Testament” on the continent of Europe, for he could not do so in Catholic England. Although he published 18,000 of them and had them smuggled into England, they were hunted down and destroyed so efficiently that only seventeen copies are known to survive today. I could fill volumes of research to show that the Catholic church for centuries prohibited the owning or reading of the bible, and that to do so could bring about untold suffering or even burning at the stake for the owner, and that the church many times had bibles burned. A paragon of virtue as to the preserving of the bible and its text?. The evidence loudly shouts NO… MO. I don’t mean to be blunt. Its just that facts are facts, and they can be stated in no other terms. More later on what the Catholic church “dislikes” about Jehovahs Witnesses bible beliefs. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 11 2007, 12:17 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Trinity part 1 MO. Here are a couple of the quotes you gave us from the Catholic church about why JW’s are not Christians. This is dealing of course with the doctrine of the Trinity, meaning that Jehovah, Jesus and the holy spirit are three distinct persons and yet are only one God. Catholic church quote… For a group to be considered Christian, they need at least a Trinitarian belief (that is, what we believe about the Trinity), and neither of these groups have that. Catholic church quote.. One who does not believe in the Holy Trinity [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] can not be considered a Christian. Reply… I am going to post this in separate posts for the sake of brevity as it would be too long in one post. I do think it is imperative that we get to the root of the matter before we go too far. Here is some info from various church leaders on the Trinity. It would be good to try and understand just what is meant by the “Trinity doctrine”. What, exactly, is the Trinity? Does the Bible teach it? THE Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia. Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: “God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.” Thus, the Trinity is considered to be “one God in three Persons.” Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others. Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God? This confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.” The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied. In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches! How could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.” However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS). In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it? Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 11 2007, 12:26 AM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Trinity Part 2 IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11. What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].” Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27. Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching? A PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity “is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia. While the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”) reveal? The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.” Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.” An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Well, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) speak clearly of a Trinity? The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.” The New Encyclopćdia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.” Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: “The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence, said Protestant theologian Karl Barth.” Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.”—Origin and Evolution of Religion. Historian Arthur Weigall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity. Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity. Did the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians: “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. “The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity. “At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings.”—Encyclopćdia of Religion and Ethics. “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia. The ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say.” Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.” Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him. Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.” Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus. Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, the Son is a very small light.” Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter. |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Dec 11 2007, 08:17 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
One of my favorite parts. Q: "Well how could Jesus be born without original sin if his mother wasn't?" A: "Hmm... well... Mary was born without it too. Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" Q: "Well she would have to have it too, wouldn't she?" A: "Well yes, it would seem that way... But her mother didn't have it either. And before you ask, neither did her mother!" Q: "And this goes back to the very dawn of mankind?" A: "Yes, I guess it would have to." Q: "And Genesis states we all came from two people, Adam and Eve, yes?" A: "Sure." Q: "And didn't the idea of original sin come from Adam and Eve?" A: "Yes." Q: "So Jesus doesn't have original sin because Mary didn't. And Mary didn't because her mother didn't. And it all goes onward back to the dawn of time when only one man and one woman existed. But the rest of us have it. Doesn't that just slightly contradict itself then?" A: "..." |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 11 2007, 10:27 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. that pretty much sums it up. Just another confused and totally unjustified teaching of the Catholic church. For my part, I want to emphasize that JW's are not against Catholic people. Unfortunately they have been misled and many have come to an accurate knowledge of the truth from the bible. It is the church and its false doctrines that we hate. How could we be otherwise when God Himself hates those false and convoluted teachings? |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Dec 11 2007, 10:31 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
I apologize for the lengths of my first two posts on this topic of why the Catholic church thinks that JW’s are not Christian, one main point being that we do not believe the Trinity doctrine. I realize that the research I did is quite involved, at the same time, I wanted to show some historical proof about this and not make it look like it was all my own ideas. I had intended to add a lot more, but I think I will just summarize things (to everyones relief I imagine) and if anyone, Catholic or otherwise wishes to challenge anything please feel free. To begin, the Trinity (3 Gods but just 1 God) is THE CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF THE “CHRISTIAN” CHURCH. That is how any religion that subscribes to this doctrine describes it. Most so called Christian religions certainly do. The Trinity came into being a few hundred years AFTER the time of Christ and the apostles. The Trinity was NOT believed in by Christ or the early Christians. JESUS never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way—not in power, not in knowledge, not in age. In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God. The bible refers to God the Father, but NEVER to God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit. If all three are part of a triune God, why does Almighty God have a name, Jehovah, and why does Christ have a name, Jesus, but holy spirit NEVER has a name anywhere in scripture? The bible is full of references where Jesus spoke of his heavenly Father, where he came to do his Fathers will, not his own. At John 17:3 he said in prayer to his Father.. “You, the only true God.” At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (RS, Catholic edition). If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all. What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God. According to the Trinity doctrine, the holy spirit is the third person of a Godhead, equal to the Father and to the Son. As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith says: “The Holy Spirit is totally God.” In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word most frequently used for “spirit” is ru´ach, meaning “breath; wind; spirit.” In the Greek Scriptures, the word is pneu´ma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of a Trinity? What about holy spirit? The Bible’s use of “holy spirit” indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations. For instance, a generator produces electricity that accomplishes many things, but the electricity is NOT the generator itself. In simple terms it’s the same with holy spirit. Jehovah’s active force goes out from Him and accomplishes things. As for other things mentioned, that JW’s do not believe in like hell fire, the immortality of the soul and others that the Catholic church doesn’t like about JW’s. These also are FALSE doctrines of the church. Isnt it odd that Protestant religions supposedly broke away from the Catholic church, and yet they all believe these things that the Catholic church started. I can't help but think that it is pretty much only in the way things are done in the churches and not what they believe that is different from the Catholic church. Can anyone imagine Christ wearing the garb of the Catholic Popes or Cardinals etc and being carried around? Jesus said he came to minister (literally serve), and not be ministered to. The Catholic church likes to refer to itself as the “mother” church and different Pope’s have invited other religions to “come home”. SORT OF GIVES A REAL MEANING TO THE XMAS CAROL “I’ll be home for Christmas”. Doesn’t it? Since Christmas also is something the Catholic church started when it adopted all the paganistic practises associated with Xmas and made them "clean" |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |



















7:49 PM Jul 10