xjwsforChrist

My sister...

I KNOW your pain!!!

And understand how crazy one can feel with " hormone issues". I still get confused, turned around and swear I said one thing when I said another. Forget in the middle of my sentence what I'm talking about
and get extreme headaches and completely irritated with coexisting with men, LOL and I love them dearly!
SO........Onward we go warriors and Zenas, and just allow ourselves a minute to regroup

Love you
Justmom.

Okay, let's try that post now (peace to you ALL!). Dear WS and LQ (peace to you, both!) posted links to Wikipedia re the definition of a "Nazarite." The commentary there states:

"The proper noun 'Nazarite' comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning 'consecrated' or 'separated'.[1] "

Interestingly, the link ([1]) references biblical commentary by Abraham ibn Ezra* that the term also means "crowned." This latter should make it therefore even MORE applicable to Christ.

[*"...one of the most distinguished Jewish men of letters and writers of the Middle Ages. Ibn Ezra excelled in philosophy, astronomy/astrology, mathematics, poetry, linguistics, and exegesis; he was called The Wise, The Great and The Admirable Doctor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ibn_Ezra#Biblical_Commentaries]

What my Lord gave me a bit ago, however, was with regard to the terms "consecrated" and "separated", how such applied to HIM... and how it applies to his Body. To wit:

My Lord was "consecrated" when, after being baptized, the spirit of His Father, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, came down upon and "anointed" him, after which JAH Himself said, "This is my Son, the Beloved." That event was the literal "consecrating" of Christ, by means of the "cleansing" he received by JAH's blood: holy spirit. That he was cleansed was manifested by the Father's following words ("This is my Son, the Beloved")... which showed that he was deemed acceptable to "carry the utensils" of the temple of JAH. The receipt of that spirit was the manifestation of the "choosing" - he had received the "oil of exultation", holy spirit... which "oil" was upon ALL the kings of Israel installed by JAH Himself. For those prior, a prophet/priest did the anointing; here, JAH Himself did it.

His "separation," while initially established as a Nazarite, was MORE established in two (2) ways:

1. First, NOT by his refraining from touching dead bodies or people afflicted with leprosy and/or other illnesses (and so considered "unclean" by the Jews)... but when he separated himself from and quit touching the "unclean thing" that was the RELIGIOUS SYSTEM that had developed among the Jews (which was already separated from that of the 10-tribe kingdom). As the "chosen" nation and one to have become a "royal priesthood" separated as to JAH, Israel was the original "woman", Babylon the Great: "Oholah" (the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel - the Samaritans) and "Oholibah" (the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah/Benjamin - the Jews). There were the FIRST to commit adultery against their husbandly owner, JAH of Armies. That adultery/harlotry is what rendered "her"... "unclean"... and so to "touch" her was to become unclean by means of her. As Paul wrote:

"... he who unites himself with a harlot is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 1 Corinthians 6:16

Under the OLD Law, when a man joined himself to a "defiled" woman HE became unclean by means of HER uncleanliness:

"These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes." Revelation 14:4

Human women is not what was being spoken about in John's relation of his vision, however. Because the OLD Law was no longer it effect as to those who belonged to Christ. Once HE came, it was SPIRITUAL "women" that were what defiled. These "women" were the "daughters" of Babylon the Great, the "Mother" of the "harlots." Spiritually, Israel had constituted herself a harlot and for Christ to "touch" her [form of worship of God, and so spiritually] would have made HIM unclean, spiritually. He came, rather, to "touch" Israel... physically, yes, but more importantly, SPIRITUALLY... so as to make HER clean in doing so!

So, by NOT "touching the unclean thing" that was Israel's form of worship, he showed himself "separated." For this reason, he could BE "taken in as a son." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

2. He MANIFESTED that separation by his deeds, his words of truth, he love, pity, compassion, and mercy, but also by his PUBLIC DECLARATION of his anointing and apostleship. Rather that hide his lamp under a basket, he openly declared "why" he had been sent, and to whom... and did so not to strangers but to those who KNEW him BEST:

"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of JaHVeH is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of JaHVeH's favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked." Luke 4:16-22

So, those who knew him were okay with his words... at first. Then, he spoke truth to THEM (versus about himself)... and they turned on him:

“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way." Luke 4:24-28

Yep, his OWN townsfolk, those he grew up among, who knew him and who, all his life and until just a moment earlier, had held him in high regard, now wanted to kill him, literally. And tried!

So, he shared that this was how the "consecration" and "separation" of HIS Nazarite-ship was manifest. He shared it, though, so that we would know how OUR "Nazirite" consecration and separation is manifest:

1. We, the Body of Christ, are "consecrated" when we receive the "oil of exultation"... holy spirit, the blood of God, THROUGH the blood of Christ... by means of an anointing WITH such spirit... which blood cleanses us of ALL sin. Thus, JUST AS WITH CHRIST... who "set the pattern," this "cleansing" renders one acceptable to "carry the utensils" as part of the temple of JAH. Receipt of that spirit is the manifestation of the "choosing," the ANOINTING that ALL kings of Israel installed by JAH Himself received (Revelation 5:9, 10). As I shared above, for those kings prior to Christ one who was a Prophet/High Priest... but not a king... did the anointing.

For Christ, JAH Himself did it.

For US... JAH's Prophet, High Priest, AND King... the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... does it. John 20:21, 22; Acts 2:1-4; Hebrews 4:14; 5:5-7; 6:20;

2. We, the Body of Christ, are "separated" when we follow the pattern of our Leader (Matthew 23:10)... and quit touching the unclean thing (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Isaiah 52:11; Jeremiah 51:45; Revelation 18:4). Because it is only THEN that we can be taken in as "sons and daughters." Ezekiel 20:41 We are "separated" when we TELL others that we are, by means of publicly declaring that we are not part of the "women" of "defilement," as well as LIVE in union with that truth (if it IS the truth). We do not run and/or hide from the negative reaction of others as to this... and whatever truth we are given to share with them... because, like our Leader, Christ, we are not ashamed of the truth of our separation... or what we're given to share as a result of it... nor are we afraid of the reaction/consequences.

But here is the thing we must know: we must separate ourselves FIRST... and THEN we can BE consecrated. THEN we can be taken in as sons and daughters. Just as it occurred with him. Because HIS is the "pattern." He separated himself FIRST... as a literal Nazarite. As such, he lived a life dedicated to JAH pursuant to a literal vow. Even so, he still observed the TRUE Jewish form of worship but had separated himself from the false parts of it by rejecting the "traditions" of that form of worship. As a result of this, he was thrown out: of his home town, many other towns... and ultimately, from the religious instutition that influenced the traditions and ways of thinking of the folks of these towns ("They will expel you from their synagogues!" "When they persecute in one town, flee to another!"). He was cast out/expelled because those who followed such had a FORM of "godly devotion," but "proved false to its power."

The point? You cannot be touching something UNclean... and expect to BE clean. Unlike Christ who, because of BEING clean HIMSELF, cleansed whatever and whoever HE touched... we must first BECOME clean. Only THEN can what WE touch become clean. Until then, however, WE become UNCLEAN by touching that which is UNclean.

And so it must not be like that for us. We cannot even look to, let alone touch... man-made systems of worship, with their traditions and teachings that lead AWAY from the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and still think ourselves "clean." Rather, we are to separate ourselves... while keeping our gaze upon His TRUE "Copper Serpent" - the One HE raised up before us: His TRUE Nazarite... and APPOINTED Leader, King, and High Priest: the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah).

Because THAT One is the One... and ONLY One... who can lead us TO the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... God.

I, SA, have shared this with you just as I received it from my Lord and Master, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... who is the TRUE Prophet, Nazarite, King, and High Priest of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies.

May those with ears to hear hear and get the sense of these truths, as well as hear when the Spirit and his Bride say to YOU:

"Come! Take 'life's water'... the holy spirit of God, which spirit, His blood... is poured out from the innermost part of His Son and Christ, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... and CLEANSES... so as TO consecrate one TO God, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and is poured out... to anyone who wishes and is thirsting FOR it... FREE!" Revelation 22:17; Luke 11:13

And may the undeserved kindness and mercy of my God and Father, the God and Father of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and the Prophets, the MOST Holy One of Israel, and the love and peace of His Son and Christ, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... be upon those with such ears... and your entire household... if you so wish it!

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, as I am servant to ALL those of the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with... and a slave of Christ,

SA

I've always understood "Nazarene" to be merely an indicator of geographical origin. That Jesus was also associated with Galilee makes no difference. A person is commonly said to be of his place of origin, in other words, of the place where he grew up.

I see no indication in the Gospels that he was a Nazarite. He was known as the son of the carpenter, and spoken of (in derision also) as merely an ordinary fellow from Nazareth, the son of Joseph. To consider him as the "chief of the Nazarites" or words to that effect is almost disrespectful. He was, and is, the one and only Son of God, not one of some earthly organisation or group, however God-centred such a group might be. If you think of his condemnation of the Pharisees, of their rituals and open show of being holy, it's surely obvious that the outward show of the Nazarites was the antithesis of his teaching and example.

I have to agree Chariklo, I still can't see any evidence that he would have been a Nazirite in anything other than a symbolic sense. During his time on earth, he drank wine and touched dead bodies. These two things alone would discount it. Didn't Paul say having long hair was a dishonour?

As Chariklo said, why would Jesus come to earth and then attach himself to a group? This had nothing to do with his purpose for being here. In fact wouldn't being a literal Nazirite actually restrict him in doing parts of his ministry? Being a Nazirite was a personal vow that only benefited the relationship between the person and God. Jesus was here to help others and was not so inwardly focused.

When people ask where I'm from, I always automatically say the city where I was raised (which is different to where I was born). If I was born in Wellington, and raised in Auckland and someone asked me where I was from I would say Auckland. Then if this was the old days I would be Winston the Aucklander.

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

Peace to you, dear WS and Char. The reality is that I can only share with you dear ones what I received, whether you hear or refrain. As with anything I share you do NOT have to take my word for it, not at all. You can simply do what any one of us can do... and that is to ask for yourselves. Or... you can rely on what you see with your eyes in the written account; however, I am sure you both realize that much is lacking there, as well as has been "touched" by the pen of the scribes. So... how can you know?

Ask. It's really not that difficult.

Again, peace to you, both!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

Thanks for sharing AGuest, it is appreciated. I'm always keen to hear from all sides when looking into something. Like I said, this was the first time I had come across this, so it was interesting to get some gen on it. I certainly agree that there is a lot lacking in the scriptures, and in the extant contemporary texts.

The search never ends, it just gets more interesting!

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

I certainly agree that there is a lot lacking in the scriptures

There is, dear WS (good morning, and peace to you!). Which is why going to and listening to the SON, who is the Holy Spirit that can lead us into ALL truth, is imperative. Indeed, that One contrasted the benefit of going to HIM... versus searching the scriptures (John 5:39, 40), yes?

In that light, I did go to him regarding this matter and in doing so received a response as to what he was "doing" while growing up and before his ministry. I will share that shortly on the "Voices" thread, because it is more appropriate there, IMHO, if you care to read about it there. Please note that what I will share will take a greater deal of faith from some than perhaps from others but I promise you it is the truth, as I received it FROM the Truth, my Lord and Master, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), the MOST Holy One of Israel... and thus HIS Christ. (John 8:32, 36; 14:6; 17:17; Hebrews 13:12)

I will not ask anyone who does read it to put faith in it as or because I share it. Rather, I exhort everyone who reads it to go to that One, the One from whom I received it, and ask of HIM as to whether it's true or not... and then LISTEN and put faith in what HE responds as to the matter. Of course, that, too, will take some measure of faith. Perhaps only that of a mustard seed... but faith all the same.

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

Some more to share about Nazarites (good day and peace to you all!):

Dear Hubby (peace to you, luv!) was intrigued by the rest of this thread (and the "Voices" one). He did some research and based on what he shared with me, I had more to ask about. Here is what I learned from dear Hubby's research... and which I asked about:

1. All Nazarites weren't such by vow; some were designated such by JAH Himself (even before they were born) and by others (parents) and in such cases the designation may have been for life. For example, Samson, chosen before birth, whose own mother had to observe some requirements during her pregnancy (Judges 13:2-14; 16:17); John (the Baptizer) chosen befre birth; (Luke 1:11-15; Matthew 11:18); and Samuel, whose mother made the vow on his behalf, for his lifetime (1 Samuel 1:9-11, 28).

2. Those who took the vow and became defiled were only unclean for seven days. During that time they had to shave their heads then present an offering of turtle doves. When the seven days ended, they just simply started their "term" over again, with the days previous to his/her defilement going uncounted. (Number 6:8-12) The shaving of the head indicated the end of the vow (Acts 20:23, 24), so shaving their heads upon defilement indicated the end of the previous vow, in anticipation of the (re)new(ed) one.

3. Those who were called to be Nazirites by JAH had different requirements put upon them than those who took the vow. Indeed, these didn't even take a vow nor was their service bound by limited periods of time. And... there was no restriction upon THEM as to touching dead bodies. Samson's touching the dead bodies of 30 men did not defile his Naziriteship nor did his touching the still moist jawbone of an ass (Judges 14:19; 15:15).

I share this to share more as to what I received from my Lord, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah):

As with ALL things, he was much more in fulfilling it than any other. Same here... because he was not only a Nazarite by JAH's choice (before he was born), but by vow. In that light, he DOUBLY fulfilled that commission... being designated even before he was born... but CONFIRMING that designation by his own vow.

And although the voluntary "literal" part could end, for him the symbolic (and spiritual) part never did. Hence, there was no need for him to... wait for it... shave his head. Had he shaved his head, he would have been indicating an END to the "first" (fleshly) part of his vow and a RENEWAL (and so reSTARTING) of the next (spiritual) part. That is not what occurred, however: he never RENEWED (started over) his vows, but simply transitioned from one (fleshly lifetime) right on into the other (spiritual lifetime). From the fleshly (of drinking no wine, etc.) to the spiritual (where he did so drink, as well as admonished, on at least one occasions, his disciples to do so and continue doing so until he returned).

In either event, though, fleshly AND spiritually... he COULD have touched a dead body and still not violated his Naziriteship. Since he had also taken the vow, however, so as to not stumble others, or give reason for reproach (as, again, Nazarites were NOT held in high esteem but were considered a sect and disdained by many regular Israelites, the latter even seeking to "stumble" them to defile their vow!), he did refrain... until his spiritual and TRUE (and so TRUE "lifetime") dedication began.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you all!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

What wonderful truth this is!
I had understand some of this from reading over the years and what was given me from spirit but I did not fully understand all of this. Praise Jah!!!

Thank you again my sister for sharing what you have heard from Holy Spirit.

Love to you and hubby
Justmom

Interestingly (peace to you all!), this is actually still done, today. TODAY, some parents choose "godparents" for their children before they're even born, or soon after, and then "dedicate" the child to God... by means of baptism/"christening." Then, when the child reaches "age" (around 12-14), he/she "CONFIRMS" that dedication for himself/herself.

As a Lutheran (my mother's family's religion)... I was baptized/christened as a baby. Then, at age twelve, after a period of "study"... I did my "confirmation"... wherein "I" restated MY vows and made the dedication my OWN (I think it's similar to/commensurate with "catechism" for Catholics, but I could be wrong). JWs do this in the opposite sequence (study/confirmation/baptism)... but its the same premise: stating for ONESELF one's vow to God (regardless of whether one's parents did an earlier "dedication").

My point? If WE (some of us) do it (and I think most cultures have SOME form of this practice)... Christ doing it shouldn't be that hard to "see." I mean, those who push the practice must have got it from SOMEWHERE... and so we shouldn't really be surprised if they said their BASIS... is after HIS "pattern."

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

I too was baptised and confirmed very much the same way as you, Shelby. (In the Church of England, also called the Anglican Church...very much the same, I think, as the Lutheran Church...historically, many Anglicans marrying Lutherans and vice versa have found it fairly comfortable to make the switch from one to the other without too many spiritual gymnastics.)

To answer your implicit question: catechism isn't actually the same as confirmation. Not at all, not in any way. it's a completely different thing. For that comparison, the equivalent in the Catholic Church is First Holy Communion, which habitually takes place at about seven or eight years old. Catechism itself is the process of learning about the faith. It can happen at any stage in life, is certainly used for children preparing for First Holy Communion, but also for adults who are going through RCIA, or the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, a process of learning about the Roman Catholic understanding and approach to the Christian faith. Thus, this is very much the process of learning that I undertook all those years ago, when I moved from the Anglican to Catholic Church.

But the term "catechism" is much more than that. It's a continuous process of learning. Thus, we have adult catechetics; in a parish, there is an ongoing imparting and exchanging of information and understanding of Christ and the Bible. Often it might be a Bible Study, which would feel very much the same as in any Protestant church but is as different as can be from the "Watchtower Study", the process of JW indoctrination. (JW's are taught to tell Catholics who demur, as I did, at certain points, that Catholics have the same thing and call it by a different name. Thus, they say, when an enquirer objects, as I did, to shunning, oh, but Catholics have excommunication! Not at all, not in any way the same. But JW's believe what they are told and the indoctrination runs deep.) Periodically through the year there might be, in a parish or a diocese, all manner of courses of study. It's all catechesis, at whatever level. The word means learning.

Catechism is also a body of knowledge about the Christian faith. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is an enormous volume, which I have in my study upstairs.

So "catechism" means a process of learning, in any form, about Christ and the Church. The word you're looking for, Shelby, is in fact "confirmation", exactly the same as in the Lutheran or Anglican churches and with the same understanding, a special grace and outpouring of the Holy Spirit, just as at Pentecost. Confirmation is the same, as far as I know, across all the churches. The only difference in the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church sets such store by Holy Communion...which some of you call "partaking" a word that for me feels weird and lacks the depth and richness inherent in the generosity of Christ in giving his Body and Blood to us...that even seven year olds may receive Holy Comunion, as often as every day if circumstances permit. They have a seven-year-old, but at that level a very full basic understanding of what and Whom they are receiving.

Yes, I understand, dear Char (good morning and the greatest of love and peace to you, my dear!)



I understand. I think I got my "understanding" from some of the Catholic kids I grew up with (including my longest girlfriend, who I often attended Mass with). They would say they were "going to Catechism" and had a little book to carry along with. Perhaps they were studying for "confirmation"?



Ahhh! But, then, maybe they DID mean catechism? In that light, it does seem similar to confirmation (for other religions, perhaps?) versus "isn't actually the same as confirmation. Not at all, not in any way"...



Yes! I understand. It's like unbaptized JW publishers studying in order to get baptized, yes! To me, that is similar to what one goes through for confirmation in the Lutheran church. Adults aren't baptized there - they just take communion. I think they, too, study a bit before, however. So, while it may not be as a lengthy a study period for Lutherans/JWs/others, it does seem similar to me. I mean, JWs continue "studying" even after baptism, yes?



I'm not so sure, dear one. I think the JW process is quite continuous... and so one COULD call ALL JWs catechetics, by your definition. Even if they don't call themselves such. To be truthful, one could call US such, as well... because we have not ATTAINED to full truth but are still being LED to such, yes? Thus, our learning process is continuous, as well. True, the CONTENT and CONTEXT of what one learns in these various scenarios may be different, but it's all still the same thing: a continuous process of learning. So, although I hate to be the one to say it... as I really kinda hate the word... it seems like symantics.



You know, dear Char, I truly don't mean to be contentious here... but the Catholic practic of excommunication was QUITE similar the JW practice of disfellowshipping at one point. VERY similar. No, that's not accurate: up until, say, less than a century ago, it was worse, actually. I realize that the RCC has changed quite a bit over, say, the past half century or so but I sometimes feel compelled to ask you to perhaps condescend to look into their history. It's not at all pristeen, not even clean. Not even close. That they have attempted to clean up is a good thing, yes, but it doesn't necessarily undue the wrongs previously done, at least not as far as their victims may be concerned.

And I'm not talking just about pedophilia. The history of the heinous acts of the RCC still surpasses that of the WTBTS (although, the latter is gaining ground, make no mistake). I have tried not to bring that up here, due to my love for those who still have love there, but the truth is the truth. That time has passes does not necessarily erase the past, again, particularly for the victims (or their loved ones/descendants). I mean, do you really believe that if, say, the WTBTS "cleaned up" some of its practices, doctrines, and conduct folks should go streaming back to IT? I would wager that your answer would be "NO WAY!". You must understand, then, how many... MANY... feel the same way about the RCC: while they may have forgiven, they may not have necessarily forgotten. But... they HAVE moved on. Just as some move on past the WTBTS.

Just like you have your issues (and very rightly so!) as to the WTBTS, perhaps a review of the TRUE history of the RCC (meaning, beyond its modern "face") will help you realize why others hold it in the derision they do.



So did members of the RCC at one time, dear one. Only, while the WTBTS only disfellowships (though I don't doubt they would do worse, if the law allowed it)... members of the RCC who didn't do as told or abscribe to their indoctrination... were literally put to death. C'mon, dear Char: you're an educated women. You know this. I am not stating falsehood. You go back a century or more... and you will not only find folks who feel the exact same away about the RCC as you feel about the WTBTS... but "works" by the RCC that were far more heinous than those done today by the WTBTS. That the whole pedophilia issue was hidden and allowed to foment should be SOME indication that Christ's spirit is absent. How can such exist where HIS spirit dwells? C'mon, girl... THINK!

Now, don't get me wrong: it is NOT my intent to bash the RCC, not by ANY means. But if you want to point out TRUTH in these regards, then you need to point it out as to ALL... and not just those who hurt your personally. Indeed, you left the RCC at one point because of such "pain." Dear ones, when you deal with mankind you are BOUND to be hurt - it can't be helped. But that you can readily forgive those who hurt you directly... but not those who did so indirectly... is something you might want to look at. BOTH are guilty of conduct "against" you.... and certainly against God. We, the Body, don't pick and choose among them, though: they all stand in opposition to Christ, and thus God. They are ALL unclean things, harlots. No matter how they LOOK to us... or make us "feel." Truth... is truth... and always conducts itself IN truth. Not just when it pleases them... or when it looks like it might bring them down if they openly profess it.



Then, again, we have to say that the WTBTS engages in this... as well as we here. I wouldn't use that term for us, as the WTBTS may not use it as to them... but by your definition... "learning"... it is the same thing. Since it isn't a word/term that my Lord has given me, I will leave it to those who use it to define THEIR "learning."



I have to be quite honest here: that depiction is quite... interesting... to me, actually. It seems similar to the Talmud, a whole library of commentary to explain the Torah. Why? Why not simply listen to Christ, rather than look to the uninspired commentary of men? Only those who look to such things can explain the need - although, my experience has been that they really can't (explain the need).



Then, again, it describes what those of the WTBTS SAY they are doing... and certainly what we here are doing. The difference is that both those of the RCC and WTBTS receive their process... and information... from men. Whereas we are taken through the process of learning by and given information from Christ. If someone were to ask me, I would say the latter is the more desirable "process."



I do understand what you mean, dear one... and agree that perhaps "confirmation" is what I was referring to. But (1) I think catechism can also apply, if one is not meaning specifically the Catholic version of "learning", and (2) I did not receive holy spirit when I was confirmed as a Lutheran. I DID receive it when I confirmed my "vow" and dedication to God, directly through Christ, after I quit touching the unclean thing (meaning, the WTBTS specifically, and religion generally). I quit "touching" it when I resolved in my heart that I would never be a part of ANY religion, ever again, but simply seek and go to God... through Christ, and Christ alone.



I understand. I would take it step further, though, and say that "partaking" is what LEADS to "communion", communion being the "coming into union" with Christ. Just because one TAKES communion does not mean one is IN union. Judas partook (ate the breat and drank the wine); yet, he did NOT receive the promised holy spirit. Nor did the rest of those those at that meal, not at that time. It was not until my Lord was put to death, entombed, resurrected, then appeared to them did they receive that spirit (John 20:22). It is not always an immediately following phenomenon.



Yet, Samuel was dedicated when he was three. John (the Baptizer) recognized my Lord even before he was born, such that as a FETUS he leaped with joy when in the presence of my Lord... who was also still a fetus. But that's what happens when MAN deigns to say who is ready to confirm themselves to God/Christ... rather than allowing HOLY SPIRIT to say.

Again, I don't mean to content with you, dear Char, not at all. But I think you know by now that I no longer deal in half-truths. And so we need to keep it real. The RCC isn't "clean", any more than the WTBTS. You are well within your right to point out the "sins and errors" of the WTBTS. But it would be truly hypocritical for you to do so while ignoring the sins of the RCC. If you can forgive the RCC, then you must also forgive the WTBTS, because their errors are the same. If, however, you point the finger at the sins of the WTBTS... you, yourself, should also point a finger at the sins of the RCC. Anything less... is hypocrisy.

I hope this helps and, as always, the greatest of love and peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

SA

The catechism of the RCC is the sum of all understanding of the various doctrines of the RCC.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

It is a fascinating read if for nothing else to see how MISREPRESENTED so many of the RCC doctrines are by those with issues to grind with the RCC.
Look at this view on the HS as our interpreting force:

III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

Absolutely, Paul! Spot on! It is as you say the sum of all Catholic understanding.

That sum of all learning is also condensed in understandable form for particular age and ability levels. So, Shelby, yes, the little book that your little Catholic contemporaries were carrying very likely was indeed a child's catechism.

No, it's not the same as JW learning, Shelby. You can of course think it is if you want to, but it's like comparing a picture of water to an actual lake. However, you must speak as you find, bearing in mind that you haven't experienced Catholic understanding from living and practising in the Church. The fact that I tell you it is as different as chalk from cheese should be read while realising that I am very well aware that many here see the Catholic Church as you describe. I'm just telling you, if you want to know. If not, no problem. As for me, I just assume, not always correctly, that people, including yourself, are like me and want to know the actual facts.

And yes, I am very well aware of and informed in the history of the Catholic Church. Not only am I a historian by education, training and work before other parts of life took over, but I specialised in the history and evolution of the Christian church, including the eleventh century Great Schism, when East split from West, and mediaeval theology, education and practice. I'm familiar with the Orthodox liturgy too and the teachings and belief that are behind it. They're very similar to the Catholic Church.

The historical misuse and misapplication of the practice of excommunication doesn't alter what it actually is. I merely give an accurate explanation and definition, easily checked in Church documents, for anyone who wants to know what the Catholic understanding and practice actually is. Naturally, we all know that nothing is perfect, and that historically all manner of beliefs and traditions were misapplied.

Dear Char and Paul (peace to you, both!), I could take exception to much of what is contained in dear Paul's contribution. Indeed, I heard much as I read it. The thing is, I'm not always sure that folks want to HEAR such things... and I do not want to contend simply for contention's sake - so much of that occurred on another forum and given what's in front of me these days I just don't have the energy. I DO want to share the TRUTH, though... as I receive such from our dear Lord. For now, though, I will just share this:

While we ALL start off as "babes" and thus still "under men in charge"... sometimes members of the Body remain in that status longer than others, either because time "set beforehand" for them by God has not yet arrived... or perhaps because they do not quite recognize that time... for HIM, the Father, to teach them... has arrived. Paul wrote about that in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 4:1-9), which I encourage you to read so as to know what I am trying to share with you on this matter.

To help who do read of it understand what was meant, I offer that in ancient times children (sons) were placed under "pedagogues" - teachers who taught them "elementary" things. Even Christ. At some point, however, the child was loosed from that learning system so as to go and learn "the family trade/occupation" directly from his father (who was usually a trade or business person of some kind, perhaps a merchant). The same occurred with Christ, who was under the Jewish system and its leaders... until the day JAH appointed... at which point he (Christ) received holy spirit and began to learn SOLELY from the Father (prior to, he learned from the Father as to the TRUE form of worship WHILE learning from men about the Jewish system of worship).

It is the same here: for a time we are ALL under men in charge. Some of us very briefly, yes, some of us longer. And we learn "elementary" things/principles from them. For example, things of the Law. But at some point our Father Himself takes us under HIS wing so as to teach us. In our case, our Father, the MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies... has assigned us HIS Teacher: Christ, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit. HE is to be our teacher - indeed, he is recorded to say that we are to call no OTHER teacher, for only one... he is such for us. (Matthew 23:8; John 13:12)

If we keep looking to man to "interpret" how the scriptures are to be interpreted... indeed, as to what IS "scripture"... then we continue under THEIR care: we are still babes... and so only able to receive "milk", not "meat."

I realize that, as babes, it can be "scary" to let go of those who we believe we NEED; those who appear to have "cared" for us for most of our [young] lives. But who truly should we love more: our Father... or the "nannies/pedagogues"... the "hired man"... in whose care we were entrusted but only for a time? At what point do we let them GO... and put our faith in the Fine Shepherd, who gave HIS life for us and leads us into ALL truth? Indeed, at what point do they let US go... so as to "celebrate a festival to JaHVeH in the wilderness"?

And that is where we are, dear ones, some of us: the wilderness. The place BETWEEN "Egypt" (i.e., slavery)... and the "Promised Land" (i.e., freedom). While we may no longer be in the former... if we are still following man, we have not yet reached the latter. Indeed, if we are still following man... we may perhaps still even be in "Egypt." Which isn't surprising: not ALL of Israel WANTED to leave their former masters and many cried to go BACK after having been released from them.

Just something for you dear ones to consider... which I hope you will do IN SPIRIT and by going to our dear Lord and asking HIM about these things.



Please forgive me if I gave the impression that that is what I meant, dear Char, but that truly is not what I meant. I do not believe that RCC learning... or ANY learning... is "the same as" JW learning. Far from it! I meant learning, in general, as the definition you gave suggested. Not WHAT one learns... or from whom... that THAT one is "learning,"... whatever it is one is learning... particularly "about" God, Christ, the Church, etc. Regardless of from whom.

The learning of the Body of Christ... which is the TRUE church, by means of being the temple of God and thus LIVING "stones"... versus institutionalized, denominational religion (which includes the designation of "non-denominational" )... is "not the same as" JW learning, by ANY stretch... nor any other religious institution's process of learning. Because it is not subject to the interpretations of man... including what I might share with you. It is received directly from Christ, for those who GO to him FOR such learning.

I hope this helps and, again, as always, peace to you, both!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA