JWs vs Evangelicals

[Elijah John]

There are a few verses from the New Testament that support the notion that Jesus is God. A position favored by Evangelicals and Trinitarians.

Then there are some that support the notion that Jesus is NOT God. A position favored by Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians (small "u") and other Arians.

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

[2timothy316]

Birthdays, Christmas and Easter are pagan in origin and not found in the Bible

The celebration of births, weddings, and Christ’s resurrection are most definitely seen in the Bible.

No decree to celebrate births or Christ's resurrection though.
Have you ever looked up the origin of Birthday celebrations or the origin of Easter? There is no record of any celebrations for either Jesus' birthday or resurrection in the Bible. Those decrees came from the RCC to cover pagan worship. Something is not approved by the Bible either.

Weddings are fine because a marriage is a provision from God. Jesus was even mentioned attending one in John the 2nd chapter. He even helped with beverage selection.

[2timothy316]

Tree worship, bunny worship and self-worship are all unapproved by the Bible.

And none of those things happen in the RCC's Mass. That is a very cynical way to view those holidays. Birthdays are not "self-worship", to celebrate a person by one's loved ones is not "worship". It can be viewed as an act of appreciation of God's most wonderous creation, namely that of a human being, made in the image of God.

And any pagan overtones to popular celebrations of Christmas and Easter, are just that, popular folk-ways, and not part of the official religous observance. Which by contrast celebrate the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively. I've seen plenty of Christ-centered observance at holiday Mass, with ne'er a bow to tree or bunny.

Ah I see, are we only concerned how we as people feel about these things in 'popular folk-ways' or are we concerned how God views these things in a Godly way? Perhaps I'm in the wrong forum?

[2timothy316]

Birthdays are not "self-worship", to celebrate a person by one's loved ones is not "worship".

There is an affinity of such commemoration among the wicked as recorded in The Satanic Bible (Anton LaVey, (Air) Book of Lucifer – The Enlightenment, Avon Books, 1969, Ch XI, Religious Holidays, p. 96) regarding Birthdays:

"The highest of all holidays in the Satanic religion is the date of one’s own birthday. This is in direct contradiction to the holy of holy days of other religions, which deify a particular god who has been created in an anthropomorphic form of their own image, thereby showing that the ego is not really buried. The Satanist feels: ‘Why not really be honest and if you are going to create a god in your image, why not create that god as yourself." Every man is a god if he chooses to recognize himself as one. So, the Satanist celebrates his own birthday as the most important holiday of the year. After all, aren’t you happier about the fact that you were born than you are about the birth of someone you have never even met? Or for that matter, aside from religious holidays, why pay higher tribute to the birthday of a president or to a date in history than we do to the day we were brought into this greatest of all worlds? Despite the fact that some of us may not have been wanted, or at least were not particularly planned, we’re glad, even if no one else is, that we’re here! You should give yourself a pat on the back, buy yourself whatever you want, treat yourself like the king (or god) that you are, and generally celebrate your birthday with as much pomp and ceremony as possible."


So do you still want to defend birthdays?

[2timothy316]

There is much that the Bible does not comment on.

There is much that it does. Idolatry is one it has a lot to say about.

You know that tree you gather around every year.

"Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree

So if there was a 'pagan idol' and 'not a pagan idol' bin in front of you, where would you put the Christmas tree? You might not remember where the tree worship is from but I know someone who does. The Bible says, “You must stay away from idols.�​—1 John 5:21. But what did the RCC do? It wasn't stay away. More like embraced them.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Here's a question, when do you think the first Bible appeared?

Actually, I think the Bible did not become readily available until the invention of the printing press in 1440.

Next question, when has their ever been a separate law code to follow? I don't recall there being a law of Moses and then a law of Aaron.

What laws are you referring? Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law? God’s law? Does God’s law include the Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Here's a question, when do you think the first Bible appeared?

Actually, I think the Bible did not become readily available until the invention of the printing press in 1440.

The first Bible was when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Thousands of years before the printing press.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pentateuch

Next question, when has their ever been a separate law code to follow? I don't recall there being a law of Moses and then a law of Aaron.

What laws are you referring? Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law? God’s law? Does God’s law include the Mosaic law? The moral law? Canon law?

The law of Moses. It was in my post.

So again, was there another set of decrees from the priesthood (Aaron) separate from the law of Moses?

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

The first Bible was when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Thousands of years before the printing press.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pentateuch

The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible. The Pentateuch is not the Bible.

The law of Moses. It was in my post.

Actually, your original question was,

has their ever been a separate law code to follow?

To which I responded what do you refer to as the law? And to which I still would ask, what do you think God refers to as the law?

I submit God has considered Mosaic law His law, the moral law His law, and Canon law His law. I’m pretty sure both Caesar and God opposed stealing as well. Does that mean, thou shall not steal is Moses’s law? Caesar’s law, or God’s law? I would also submit there are distinctions to be made in these laws.

So again, was there another set of decrees from the priesthood (Aaron) separate from the law of Moses?

Yes, the decree from Christ Himself, “He who hears you, hears me�, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�, "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.�,“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.�

[2timothy316]

The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible. The Pentateuch is not the Bible.

Oh dear...
Ok, so do you see the error in your statement here?

"Is the first five books of" what?

The Pentateuch was the Bible for Moses and the Hebrews for a long time. Then more scriptures were added to it and those additions became part of the Bible as well. The Bible has not always been the 66 books you know of today and this is my point. That while decrees and laws have been added to the Bible by 'God's People' I don't think that what comes from the RCC is from God. Because if it was, it would have no problems being put into the Bible.

[2timothy316]

So again, was there another set of decrees from the priesthood (Aaron) separate from the law of Moses?

Yes, the decree from Christ Himself, “He who hears you, hears me�, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�, "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.�,“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.�

But there is a point here for this thread, being that Peter does have books in the Bible. Not a single Pope has books in the Bible. I find that interesting that the so-called Pope who is claimed to be one of the 'teachers endowed with the authority of Christ' can't get a book into the Bible. There was no book of Aaron with extra laws in Moses' day. There has always been only one book from God. The RCC has many unscriptural decrees that are completely contradictory to the Bible. Aaron would never have made such decrees. In fact there was one thing Aaron did, yet that was before he knew the law. You can read about his mistake in Exodus 32:1-6. But later priest did make their own illegal burdensome decrees and they did know the law. Their decrees were not added to the Bible either. Later in Jesus day, Jesus directly told the priest they didn't know the scriptures and what they had added on was not from God. It seems the RCC has followed the pattern set by the Scribes and Pharisees. The S&P even called themselves the authority on God's Word too. The similarities between the Jewish S&P and the RCC is scary close to positions of authority they think they have.

(As far as your other points not concerning this thread but will not be address further: When Jesus said, 'who ever hears you hears me' he was not speaking about the congregation listening, he was talking about the Good News of the Kingdom and not just any ol' thing his disciples said. Jesus was referring to himself and not Peter, the 'much more to say' was revealed after Jesus death and addressed only to his apostles, and the history of the RCC shows it has not stood fast to the teachings written in the Bible.)

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

Oh dear...
Ok, so do you see the error in your statement here?

"Is the first five books of" what?

Of the Bible – just like I said. What do you consider the Bible?

I don't think that what comes from the RCC is from God. Because if it was, it would have no problems being put into the Bible.

Thank you for your opinion. However, nothing the Catholic Church says contradicts the Bible, so why would there need to be some special addendum to add anything? Also, once again . . . there is nothing special about something being written down – as Scripture itself tells us -- “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.�

But there is a point here for this thread, being that Peter does have books in the Bible. Not a single Pope has books in the Bible.

Except the Bible says this:


Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric�) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.�

Acts 1:22 – literally, “one must be ordained� to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 – preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.� An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi� (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 – again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 – Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 – the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 – whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 – Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 – the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 – the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed� priests in “ordination� to minister in the priests’ “office.�

Numbers 16:40 – shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 – shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,� one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 – Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 – Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

Acts 5:13 – the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 – the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice� and Paul does the “offering.�

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan�).

2 Cor. 2:17 – Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 – Paul says we are “ambassadors� for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 – Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 – Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 – Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests�) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 – Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 – Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 – Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 – Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 – John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John’s apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 – the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 – Korah incited a “protestant� rebellion against God’s chosen Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued by dissidents today.)

Sirach 7:29-30 – with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion.

Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.� Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 – Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.� When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apost ... uccession/



The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.


The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.


Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).


For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

I find that interesting that the so-called Pope who is claimed to be one of the 'teachers endowed with the authority of Christ' can't get a book into the Bible.

Why should he? He speaks with authority as the Vicar of Christ.

The RCC has many unscriptural decrees that are completely contradictory to the Bible.

False. What you mean to say is in your opinion the Catholic Church has said things that you/i] claim contradicts the Bible. Historians, biblical scholars, theologians, and many others disagree with your opinion.