xjwsforChrist

And again, very, very well said, Paul.

Okayyyyyyy

Now I lost my post and for me this is frustrating as well, I am not fast at keyboarding.
BUMMER!!!!!!

Will get back
Justmom

Hello dear Char...

Yes Armand made this reference. He mentioned a little differently though.
He stated " That the Saints are under the alter" ( saints are the same as holy ones, Christians or annointed ones) This IS an accurate statement.

The statement you mentioned differently is that " those that die do not go under the altar"

The " those that die" are different. They are NOT of the body of CHRIST, NOT saints, NOT Christians or annointed ones. When they die they are in the world of the dead described in the bible as Sheol and hades, awaiting a second resurrection in revelation 20:12-15.
But I believe you had reference to them as not under the alter, which is correct, but that you have them ALL in heaven, which is NOT correct. They are still waiting their resurrection.



The " those that die " that are of the body of CHRIST are the same as saints, holy ones, Christians meaning annointed one. They ARE under the alter and not in Sheol as they too though are awaiting and have NOT been resurrected until CHRIST returns.
Those alive when he returns are " changed" TOGETHER with THEM. One does not precede the other.
This is 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17.


Thank you for sharing, I understand you may not agree. It is scriptural though and not JW mentality.
Any version you use says the same.

Love to you always
Justmom

First, Char, i truly did not mean to offend you. (I also realize that I might not have, and that we are simply discussing, but i just wanted to make that clear)



It is not unique to this site. There are in fact, many people... coming out of all manner of religions... and using the term in the same manner, with no knowledge of us or of the jw religion either. I believe the term is 'spiritual, but not religious'. I never heard of that term before some people on jwn started posting to youtubes and such.

I gave up on religion before the jws, though i never had much stock in them to begin with, but I understood that even better after them.




I think the term religion, while it originally meant what you say above, has come to mean participation in a man-made organization. So the term is now misleading. That is why some prefer to use the word faith, over religion now.

Words and meanings evolve, and become what they never were to begin with.

I don't think religion to me ever meant faith, but rather what denomination or form or worship that one belonged to. Organized religion falls into that as well.



Yes, I see that.

I am reminded of Stephen, who said "Lord, receive my spirit."



There was no vehemence. None at all. I have ambivalence toward the Catholic or any religion, even the jw one... at least until I come across the pain caused to someone by those religions, then I might have more passion. But mostly, it is simple ambivalence. I would rather be able to say that it is all good. (all good being a phrase... that it is perfectly fine; not all good as in there being nothing wrong) But I can't say that because it is not true.

I had that same ambivalence toward catholicism when I was in a catholic high school. How else could a girl get through a catholic highschool; its masses and its religion courses, without having any knowledge whatsoever about this trinity concept, lol?

I base my understanding on actual history (of the evidence of things done by the church that are against Christ, rather than as He has taught); and the lack of evidence leading one to the various doctrines or teachings that are accepted by catholics; and from what my Lord has taught me about 'religion'. (the organizations... not the faith)

I have never put my faith in any teaching of any religion. It is in fact why I started my study with the jws, just to study the bible... not to study their religion... so that I could learn what the bible actually teaches, so I could at least know if something that some religion says is true, has any true basis on what is written. So as not to be so easily fooled into following them, rather than the truth. It was only after them that i started looking for a religion that was closest to the truth, until I realized what i was doing, and turned to God and Christ alone, instead.

I will say that all my life (from as early childhood as i can remember, onward), I have never put any stock in what another man or priest or preacher or religion or doctrine, etc, has ever said about Christ and God. My question from as early as I can remember has always been how someone else could possibly know the things that they are telling me are true, and unless they have the authority to KNOW, then why should i put any stock in anything they say?

And yeah, I asked this as a young child (not in those words, lol). Not to any particular person. I just asked it. Or... my Lord is telling me that HE was actually asking ME those questions.

In any case, it is the same today... and the only one I know, who does KNOW and so can be trusted as Truth, is Christ. So why go to anyone else?


But truly, no vehemence.


Peace,
tammy

I sent them a direct e-mail, because they are not answering me on the support forum. It will either be something they can fix; or something that we get used to, so we that we stop losing posts. Or another forum, but this is a phpbb thing, and so the choice of other forums is quite limiting.

Hopefully, it is a glitch that the phpbb people are working on fixing... at least as long as they get enough complaints. Which I imagine that they will, since there is such a huge base of people using this system.


Peace,
tammy

As to the word religion, I've never met its use in that way. Maybe that's because I move in "religious" circles or maybe it's an American and not an English usage. No doubt I'll be told otherwise by someone in this country.

The only other way I know the word used is when a nun or a monk goes "into religion", I.e. takes their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

My background is very different from that of most people here.

You have a very very different take on so very much that pertains to Christ. I simply do not recognise it.

Chariklo, with all respect:

To quote you:

“I make no pronouncement at all as to anybody being under the altar. . . .”

And you say this to say what?

The fact that this may have been mentioned by JWs is to say what? That it isn’t a biblical text? Is that what you’re saying? That it is not “your phraseology” is to say what?

Revelation 6:9 states:



So, if I understand you correctly, Chariklo, this biblical statement is “a complete meaningless nonsense,” yes? Is that what you want me to understand?

--Armand

I must have misunderstood you, Armand.

No problem my end.

Paul: You have made a most interesting and indeed profound statement here. You said:



You are so right on the money! And having stated what you have here, Catholics (and Protestants too), both individually and collectively, have committed horrendous atrocities and continue to do so. (No, not all Catholics (and not all Protestants), but many.) And it has been unfortunate that the many of “those” Catholics (and Protestants) were in positions of power and authority such that they could get away with committing such heinous atrocities.

This reminds me of FIs (financial institutions) whose individual members do gross acts of negligence and omissions and because people who suffer at their hands (for some reason) can’t do anything about it to the individuals, go after the FI. The FI pays for the bad acts of the individuals. In the meantime, “some” individuals can be prosecuted (some get away scott-free), but the “organization” pays/suffers for the bad acts of the individual and suffers the bad name as well. On many occasions the FI IS FOUND RESPONSIBLE as well as the individuals.

It is just as Christ is purported to have said: “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees,” the exact same thing can be said of the religious leaders of every church organization, Catholic or Protestant, or otherwise. Like Judaism, that you mentioned, the churches teach ‘commands of men as doctrine.’ Note what Christ stated concerning the leaders/individuals of Judaism, which can equally be said of church leaders/individuals:



Or, put another way:



You also stated:



I’m not sure this statement holds water, however, I think this last statement is a bit of playing with semantics. In saying this, I don’t mean that to be untoward, however.

You state:



Evidently though, there is some that you find “objectionable.” Please, do expound on what you do find “objectionable.” Please share. . . .

--Armand

I find the hierarchy in the RCC ( any religion actually but more son in Christians ones) objectionable.
I don't care for the use of "father" in the RCC or any Christian denomination that uses it.
I find the "self-preservation at all costs" politics of the RCC objectionable.
I find their interference in the "birth control" methods of married couples objectionable.
I find their overly-elaborate ceremonies and the lack of theological understanding of the RCC laity to be objectionable.
I find the lack of theological understanding of the "everyday" priest to be objectionable.
I find the sacraments of "communion" and "confirmation" objectionable ( in the sense that are not needed, though I do understand why they have them).
I find the doctrine of purgatory objectionable BUT I do understand that it is interpretive doctrine.
I can go on but, suffice to say that, the bulk of what I find objectionable is the way, THE WAY has become an organization that seems more interested in its own sel-preservation than that of The Church that is the Body Of Christ.

Golly, I don't even know where to begin... or even if I SHOULD (peace to you, all!). All, ya'll... just calm down! LOLOLOL! No seriously, these matters can evoke passion in ANYONE, yes? So long as we all remember to give the benefit of the doubt, that NO ONE here intends to offend anyone else. Also, I am not sure that dear HP's comments were blasphemous, dear Armand (peace to you, dear one!) as much as simply unknowing, know what I mean? So I am glad you were able to apologize for your fervor... and you, dear Pup (peace to you, as well!), for graciously receiving such and being able to let bygones be.

I did promse dear Char (peace to you!) a response, though, so I will do that. Before I do, though, I have to address a couple/few others things. First, I have to ask those who (might) think the RCC isn't responsible for what the people in it do: do you feel the same as to the JWs and the WTBTS? If so, how can you blame the entire group for what a few may have done/exhibited as to you? Also, can you say that (the organization isn't responsible for those in it do) to, say, those who were molested/abused by "her" priests, which conduct was overlooked, excused, denied, even hidden?

I ask that because I personally know dear Armand... and, having gotten his permission first... can vouch for HIS personal issues with the RCC. His entire family was raised as such... and, sadly, some in that family was victim to the kinds of conduct that is just recently coming to light. Including, yes, the denial and hiding by those who SHOULD have taken action against the perpetrators. Of course, this was many, many years ago... and not with regard to dear Armand himself, but surely we would all agree that such could have long-reaching effects on those victimized... AND their loved ones... both the conduct AND the denial/hiding of it?

So, please, as I would tell any JW... just because YOU haven't been subjected to the crimes and blasphemy of your religion and/or the leaders of it (although, it is the organization that ALLOWS the "wolves" to snatch and scatter God's sheep, is it not? (John 10:12, 13), and so perhaps can't see it's filth... you shouldn't assume that others haven't. Just as THEY don't see the error of those THEY follow, the same could be said of you. In overlooking this you do those who DO see (as perhaps you do with ANOTHER organization)... those who've been victimized... and yourselves... a great disservice.

And you can't fall back on "I didn't know," later... because you DO know what has been done by such religion(s). You DO. And you didn't need the Internet to know. That YOU choose to ignore such because of the "good vibes" associating with those harlots gives YOU right now doesn't mean they aren't harlots. It just means that, for whatever reason, YOU are (currently) rendering yourself "immune" to the effects of their (the daughters of the Harlot) "disease."

Christ harmed NO ONE. These... harm many. Very many... and have for a very long time. Regardless of their "evolution" from one religion to another. Their sole intent is to mislead, if possible, EVEN the Chosen Ones. You might think that because YOU don't "feel" misled you haven't been. Surely, we all agree that that is the case with JWs. ANY, though, who continue to "touch" the "unclean thing" that is the adulteress Harlot and her daughters... are being misled. It matters no more if YOU don't see it and it does if currently practicing JWs don't see it. It is what it is. And no one who follows man... which includes a MAN-MADE religious institution... is any different than the misled JWs. They, too, are yet touching an unclean thing.

It is not until such ones SEPARATE themselves and QUIT touching the unclean thing, Babylon the Great, including toucing her daughters... THEN one can be taken in as a son or daughter:

"'Get away from them, purify yourselves,' says JaHVeH. 'Do not touch anything unclean, and then I shall welcome you. I shall be father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me, says the almighty JaHVeH." 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 - Jerusalem Bible

“Come out from them
and be separate,
says JaHVeH.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.” 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 - NIV


So, if you're wondering why it is that perhaps you don't HEAR... as others profess they DO... consider that PERHAPS it's because you're not yet OBEYING... the call that says "GET OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE!" Out of her, the Great Harlot... AND her daughters... because as long as you DON'T... you SHARE in her "sins". And if you are still sharing in her sins when the time comes, you WILL receive [part of] her plagues. You cannot touch an unclean thing... and BE clean:

"But will anyone produce the pure from what is impure? No one can!" Job 14:4 - Jerusalem Bible

Who can bring a clean [thing] out of an unclean? not one." KJV

"Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!" NASB


We don't serve God based on how WE see fit. We don't serve God based on how OTHERS see fit. We don't serve God based on how RELIGION and its LEADERS say fit. We serve God based on how HE says it fit. And He SAYS... THROUGH HIS SON... Whom He said we are to LISTEN to:

“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” Matthew 17:5"

Can't hear him directly? Then consider, if you WILL... LISTENING... to THIS, a record of what he SAID:

"The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. [i]He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

"... you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

Then, try listening to this:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you workers of lawlessness!"

You don't even have to HEAR Christ's literal voice to get the sense of this. You can simply LISTEN... to what he was RECORDED to have said. If you WISH, though, you CAN ask for ears to hear... when he HIMSELF speaks. You CAN. Stop letting others... and yourself... tell you you CAN'T. Because THAT... is a LACK... of FAITH.

One more thing:

Not only did Abraham, Moses, David, and more know Christ... Adham knew Christ. He "ate" from that One, Christ, the Tree of Life, Root of Jesse, TRUE Vine, Sprout!... when he was in the garden.

Genesis 2:9; 3:22
John 14:6; 15:1-6
Romans 11:16
Isaiah 11:10
Zechariah 3:8; 6:15
Isaiah 53:1-7
Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15
John 6:35, 41, 48
Psalm 78:25

Most of the Psalms written by David were his Lord and mine SPEAKING to him and through him:

"JaHVeH says to my lord (Christ)
'Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.'” Psalm 110:1

How would DAVID know what the MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies, said to the HOLY One of Israel, Christ... unless ONE of them TOLD him??

And of Moses, it was stated:

"By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." Hebrews 11:27, 28

Okay, enough "clarifying" here. I will respond to your initial comments as soon as I can, dear Char, although I think others have done so very accurately. But you deserve a response from me since your comments were directed to me.

In the meantime, may you ALL have peace, truly! NOT as the world gives it... but as Christ, Whom we ALL profess as Lord, gives it!

YOUR servant (all)... and a slave of Christ,

SA

PSacramento:



I couldn’t agree with you more.



Again, I couldn’t agree with you more. And perhaps too, the less formal but more intimate word “Papa.” In addition, I find the use of world “Reverend” totally objectionable. The word “reverend” appears only once in the entire King James Version of the Bible. That word is used as an adjectival title that is specifically applied to the Almighty. I cannot fathom how a human, any human, can take a title belonging to the Supreme Being and arrogate it for their use on themselves or to bestow it on others. I cannot fathom how one would accept such an arrogation for one’s self and not only allow such use by others but who would willingly accept such usage by others for one’s self. Who among mankind is truly “reverend”?



And there you go. I’m with you on that one.



Okay. . . .



Okay, again. . . .Can you picture the apostles and early Christians DOING what Catholics and Protestants do these days in their churches? Not only that, but according to the biblical text, any money given “by Christians” was for the benefit of the poor and the needy. It wasn’t for the building of grand edifices and church buildings and cathedrals. It was not for expensive clothing or expensive (or even cheap) jewels for them to wear to be ooh’d and aaah’d by the congregations. It was for the people in the need. The accumulation of land (paid for), the building of small and large church complexes, the acquiring of great works of art in order decorate their buildings or just simply own, and on and on of such kinds of things, is a misuse of the contributions by the people. The pattern set by the early Christians was for the benefit of the people, for the welfare of the people, and not these other totally unnecessary things.



There I go shaking my head again at what you accurately describe. Neck muscles in order. . . .



Purgatory is never mentioned in the Bible (nor has my Lord ever mentioned it to me) so, I think, the “interpretive doctrine” you speak of, while quite valid, is more “tradition” from another source—neither Christian nor Judaic. In addition, what about the “indulgences” that have been in place for centuries. I don’t know if the RCC has gotten rid of that dogma, maybe they have. Regardless, it was in place for centuries and quite lucrative for the church leaders to support their various wars, etc.



Remember, the apostle Paul spoke of the “apostasy” even in his day beginning to take place. He stated that even “among you” (the Christian congregation) wolves would arise and speak twisted things. He stated that after his death, the apostasy would blossom profusely. It certainly did and has with the RCC and the Protestant churches as well.

--Armand

I don't think we can view interpretive doctrines as "apostasy".



I think it is import to realize that within the Church, a church that is over 2000 years old, many traditions were developed to answer the questions that were raised by "gray areas" in the bible.
Purgatory, for example, was one of them.
It is important to realize that NONE of these "human" or "interpretative doctrines" are viewed as "absolutes", you can disregard many of them because the Church does distinguish between what they view as the direct teachings of Christ and the Original Apostles and the traditions that came later.
In short, they are not "doctrines of salvation".

PS,

I understand what you are stating. However, my view is that when a doctrine of any kind contradicts that which is specifically stated in the Bible or contradicts what Our Lord states, that doctrine in an of itself would be an apostate one. Not necessarily that the person himself/herself is turning away from a belief in God or a rejection of God because doctrines and understandings and interpretations can always be corrected. Perhaps I have used the word "apostate" too loosely "here." I should be more careful. But I think you get my drift.

Respectfully,

--Armand

You don't like the Roman Catholic Church much, then, Paul?!

But then, that just puts you into the mainstream, the majority on this particular forum.

Fortunately, 1.2 billion people in the world disagree with you.