Is Catholicism the correct denomination? I'm looking into Christianity further and from what I've seen Protestantism is cringe and Christianity is based, but I don't know much about other denominations like Orthodoxy/Baptists
The true denomination
Is Catholicism the correct denomination? I'm looking into Christianity further and from what I've seen Protestantism is cringe and Christianity is based, but I don't know much about other denominations like Orthodoxy/Baptists
>The true denomination
But enough about Jehovah's Witnesses
Aren't you guys just... Morman...?
Not at all
You can read a summary of our beliefs here if you want
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/
I am, don't trust the JW retard, only 500,000 people make it to heaven. Just look up lds.org or read the book of Mormon and pray.
They believe only 500,000 go to heaven*
It's mormonism but instead of Joey Smith it's Charlie Taze-Russell and windows are not allowed like in Freemasonry
Can you remind me again how many times Jehovah's False Witnesses have made erroneous predictions about the Second Coming of Christ (or Michael the Archangel or whoever you think he is)? Isn't it like 6?
Ancient worshippers of God also had mistaken ideas and expectations and needed to adjust their viewpoint.
Moses offered himself as a deliverer for the nation of Israel 40 years ahead of God’s timetable.—Acts 7:23-25, 30, 35.
The apostles failed to understand the prophecy that foretold the Messiah’s death and resurrection.—Isaiah 53:8-12; Matthew 16:21-23.
Some early Christians had wrong ideas about the timing of “the day of Jehovah.”—2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2.
God later corrected their misunderstandings, and we pray that he will continue doing the same for us.—James 1:5.
That's all a far cry from raising false alarms about the Second Coming, especially when Jesus specifically said "no man knoweth the day or the hour. You guys set six different dates for the Second Coming from the late 1870s to 1970s and you call that a mistake? More like false prophecies.
Also I like how you quote 2 Thessalonians 2 as "the day of *Jehovah*", a word that is never found in the Greek New Testament.
We are not for a moment denying that the publications, in particular the earlier ones, have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken.
But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’, Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen.
With regard to 1914: : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 page 4110)
With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year." (The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3)
With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.' (The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631)
This is what everyone who makes false predictions does. They give themselves enough leeway so they can walk back their claims when they are inevitably proven false, while still profiting from the publicity and book sales they generated.
Speculation? Give me a break. Speculation based on what? There is no way to calculate the date of the Second Coming. Jesus himself did not know when he was going to return (Mk 14:32) but you think you can figure it out? You guys are a bunch of charlatans.
And still avoiding the pertinent questions. Where is the word Jehovah in the original Greek NT?
Yes, we have made predictions based on Bible prophecies and we have made mistakes.
There seems to be a trend on LULZ to state that Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t came into existence until 1931. If we accept that statement, the only failed prediction related to a year (not a specific date) is that related to 1975. It wasn’t exactly a failed prediction, since we still believe that 1975 marks 6,000 years since Adam, and we haven’t changed that point; but there were some mistakes related to that year.
If we consider that JWs existed before adopting our current name, then we should add the failure related to 1925, based on a discarded chronology, and to some degree 1914 (but, again, we haven’t changed our teaching that in 1914 the times of the Gentiles ended, which we have being saying since 1876).
Why do we pay attention to the chronological teachings of the Bible and have ventured to make predictions some times ? It is because we are honestly convinced that the prophecies in the Bible are going to be fulfilled and we are looking forward to seeing their fulfilment, which some times in the past lead us to go too far. Fortunately, we learnt from our mistakes.
>Where is the word Jehovah in the original Greek NT?
See: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/
You got a chapter and verse on any of that buddy?
>See: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/
You can't even answer the question so you re-direct me to your cult's website. The points brought up don't even address the scriptures and only use extra-Biblical evidence, typical of JFWs. You're gonna have to do better than that. There are around 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament floating around out there. Show me one with the name Jehovah in it.
See:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/
See:
Deity of Christ (Heb 1:8, Jn 1:1, 1 Tim 3:16, Rev 1:8, Col 1:9, etc.)
Bodily resurrection of Christ (Lk 24:39, Jn 2:19-21, etc.)
Heaven (2 Corinth 5:8, Phil 1:23, Rev 6:9-11, etc.)
FYI, JESUS is the name that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to, not Jehovah.
>Deity of Christ
I believe in the deity of Christ. But I believe that the Father is greater than He
>Bodily resurrection of Christ
Indeed, he was resurrected with a spiritual body, not a physical body
>Heaven
Ok ? I know heaven exists, what are you trying to say ?
>FYI, JESUS is the name that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to, not Jehovah
Why don't you post the entire verse ? Especially the end that says:
"To the glory of God the Father"
Jesus has been exalted as the second most important person in the universe, but Jehovah is still the highest being in existence and Jesus worships him
>The Father is greater than He
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." -Phil 2:6
"I and my Father are one." -Jn 10:30
>Resurrected with a spiritual body, not a physical body
Don't play semantics JFW, Jesus appeared to the disciples and said "...a spirit hath not FLESH AND BONE as ye see me to have..." and then literally ate bread and fish. If that's not a physical body, than tell me what is?
>Know heaven exists, what are you trying to say ?
Yeah, the JFW heaven (population: 144,000). I was specifically addressing your false doctrine of soul sleep. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".
>Jesus has been exalted as the second most important person in the universe.
"And he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." -Col 1:18
Noun: preeminence
The fact of surpassing all others; superiority.
Man, disproving the Watchtower Cult's retarded false doctrines with scripture alone is like shooting pigeons.
>"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." -Phil 2:6
You quoted Philippians from the kjv, but other translations render it in a way that says the CONTRARY. The latter portion of that passage reads:
“who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·monʹ], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)
>"I and my Father are one." -Jn 10:30
In what sense are they "one" ? In the sense "one God" ? That's not what he said
We do have a clue of what he meant though. Later, Jesus PRAYED that his disciples could “ALL BE ONE,” just as he and his Father ARE ONE.—John 17:20-23
In what sense were his disicples were to be ONE ? In the sense of unity, cohesion. They had to work together as a team, just as Jesus and God are working in unison.
>If that's not a physical body, than tell me what is?
Simple
Spirit creatures can take on human form. For example, angels who did this in the past even ate and drank with humans. (Genesis 18:1-8; 19:1-3)
However, they still were spirit creatures and could leave the physical realm.—Judges 13:15-21.
That's a
Your ability to completely ignore clear scriptures and appeal to translational arguments or irrelevant, obscure passages shows how deluded you really are. People like you get mixed up in cults like the JFWs for a reason.
I could show you any number of verses to disprove your false teachings and you would have a reason why it doesn't mean what it clearly says. Whether it be the "print of the nails (plural)" is Jesus' hands or Jesus referring to the temple of his body being raised in three days and you'd find a way to wiggle your way around it.
But what more can you expect from a movement that originated around a charlatan, false prophet like William Miller. If you can still follow a guy who falsely predicts the Second Coming and is proven to be a complete fraud, there is no lie you will not fall for.
>Whether it be the "print of the nails (plural)" is Jesus' hands
What about it ?
>temple of his body being raised in three days
Yes, he raised his spiritual body
>But what more can you expect from a movement that originated around a charlatan, false prophet
Jesus is neither a charlatan nor a false prophet
You have just blasphemed
>Jesus is God
After he went to heaven, he constantly referred to Jehovah as "my God" (Revelation 3:12) and Paul confirms the superiority of God (not just the Father) over Jesus when he said: "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3)
>Trinitarianism is the historical, mainstream and Biblical view
« No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. »
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
lol
>What about it?
Two nails makes a cross buddy, not a "torture stake".
>Yes, he raised his spiritual body.
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." -Jn 2:19
When Jesus said present-tense "destroy THIS temple" he was referring to his incarnate flesh. The body that is raised up is the same body Jesus walked around in on Earth, a physical body. That is unless you believe Jesus was a spirit or apparition like a gnostic.
>Jesus is neither a charlatan nor a false prophet
Don't pretend you actually follow Jesus. You treat the words of Charles Taze Russell who came out of the Millerite movement as gospel and ignore what the Bible says.
>No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian
So what, did the Nicene view of the Trinity just come out of a vacuum? Christians have always believed in the Orthodox Trinity because it's what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Now I'd like to see the historical data on Christians believing that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
>Two nails makes a cross buddy, not a "torture stake".
It's too nails on a torture stake
>When Jesus said present-tense "destroy THIS temple" he was referring to his incarnate flesh.
He was talking about his spieitual body, because the Bible says that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive [resurrected] in the spirit.”—1 Peter 3:18; Acts 13:34; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 5:16.
>Don't pretend you actually follow Jesus
I do though
>You treat the words of Charles Taze Russell who came out of the Millerite movement as gospel
???????
No we don't, Russell was just a Christian who peinted magazines. He wasn't a prophet, there are some things he said that were incorrect
>So what, did the Nicene view of the Trinity just come out of a vacuum?
“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.
“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.
“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.
>I'd like to see the historical data on Christians believing that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
Archangel means Chief of the angels
Are you saying that Jesus isn't the the commander of the celestial army ?
>It's too nails on a torture stake
Why would two nails be necessary if his hands aren't spread out? The most obvious implication appears to be that Jesus was crucified.
> "He was talking about his spieitual body, because the Bible says that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive [resurrected] in the spirit."
At the end of the day, if the only part of Jesus that was resurrected was his spirit or his spiritual body then that is no resurrection at all, just death.
>He wasn't a prophet, there are some things he said that were incorrect
He is the primary source for everything you believe in.
>Archangel means Chief of the angels. Are you saying that Jesus isn't the the commander of the celestial army?
Well are you saying that God the Father isn't. It's called a chain of command dumbass.
>Why would two nails be necessary if his hands aren't spread out?
To support his body weight
>if the only part of Jesus that was resurrected was his spirit or his spiritual body then that is no resurrection at all, just death.
On the contrary !
If he had taken back his flesh when he was resurrected, he would have canceled that ransom sacrifice. This could not have happened, though, for the Bible says that he sacrificed his flesh and blood “once for all time.”—Hebrews 9:11, 12.
>He is the primary source for everything you believe in
???????????
No ????
The Bible is
>Well are you saying that God the Father isn't. It's called a chain of command dumbass.
God doesn't directly command the army of angels because he gave “All authority [to Jesus] in heaven" (Matthew 28:18)
So Jesus is the archangel !
>To support his body weight
Yeah, because that's definitely how physics work..
>If he had taken back his flesh when he was resurrected, he would have canceled that ransom sacrifice. This could not have happened, though, for the Bible says that he sacrificed his flesh and blood “once for all time.”
I can't even.
>The Bible is
You interpret the Bible based on the teachings of Charles Taze Russell and the JFWs.
>God doesn't directly command the army of angels because he gave “All authority [to Jesus] in heaven"
So God doesn't delegate any authority to anyone else? What purpose do the angels even serve if Jesus is doing everything personally.
To use the Great Commission as a prooftext for Jesus being Michael the Archangel is just... Unbelievable.
>You interpret the Bible based on the teachings of Charles Taze Russell and the JFWs
?????????
No ????
Russell said some things that were incorrect
What's JFWs ?
>So God doesn't delegate any authority to anyone else?
He does. He delegated JWs the authority to preach the good news from door to door for example
>What purpose do the angels even serve if Jesus is doing everything personally.
The angels do many things under Jesus' command:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no5-2017-september/angel-help/
>To use the Great Commission as a prooftext for Jesus being Michael the Archangel is just... Unbelievable.
So you deny that Jesus commands the celestial army ?
Stop entertaining him
Is the Father greater than the Son ?
Great argument
>Yeah, the JFW heaven (population: 144,000). I was specifically addressing your false doctrine of soul sleep. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".
Actually, God selects a limited number of faithful Christians who, after their death, will be resurrected to life in heaven. (1 Peter 1:3, 4)
They will serve alongside Jesus as KINGS and PRIESTS for 1,000 years. (Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) They will form the “new heavens,” that will rule over the “new earth"
The Bible indicates that 144,000 people will be resurrected to heavenly life. (Revelation 7:4)
God promises everlasting life on EARTH for MOST good people.—Psalm 37:11, 29, 34.
Jesus said: “No man has ascended into heaven.” (John 3:13) He thus showed that good people who died before him, such as Abraham, Moses, Job, and David, did not go to heaven. (Acts 2:29, 34) Instead, they had the hope of being resurrected to life on earth.—Job 14:13-15.
The resurrection to heavenly life is called “the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:6) This indicates that there will be another resurrection. It will be an EARTHLY one.
I'm not going to heaven (and I prefer it this way, lol)
But my friend's grandma is one of the anointed
>Noun: preeminence
>The fact of surpassing all others; superiority.
Of course Jesus has preeminence over everything. The exception is God:
"the head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Man, disproving the trinitarian Cult's retarded false doctrines with scripture alone is like shooting pigeons !
Again, just throwing all of these unrelated scriptures together is not the correct way to formulate sound doctrine.
>Of course Jesus has preeminence over everything. The exception is God.
Then that would make the statement "that in ALL things he might have the preeminence" untrue, if there is something he is not preeminent. Jesus is God therefore he has all preeminence. Only the Trinity can explain verses like this, any other view leaves you with an incomplete and contradictory view of scripture. Like how some verses in the Old Testament say that God is not a man (Num 23:19) while others say he is a man (Ex 15:3). God the Father is not a man, God the Son is a man.
>Man, disproving the trinitarian Cult's retarded false doctrines with scripture alone is like shooting pigeons!
I like that seething remark at the end. Too bad that statement doesn't work in the reverse because Trinitarianism is the historical, mainstream and Biblical view, whereas the JFWs are a group less than 200 years old that teaches bizarre doctrines no one else believes in.
>while others say he is a man (Ex 15:3)
"The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name!"
https://biblehub.com/exodus/15-3.htm
??????????????????
Is you okay ?
Jesus is also called Jehovah.
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." -Isaiah 40:3
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." -Mk 1:1-3
No, the fact that prophecies about God in the OT are attributed to Jesus in the NT does not prove that they are the same.
Even though the prediction “George W. Bush will conquer Iraq” may be said to be fulfilled by the actions of General Smith, it doesn’t follow that Smith and Bush are one and the same. Rather, Smith acted as the agent of Bush.
Similarly, Jehovah acts through his servant Jesus.
It literally calls him Jehovah and God... BLINDED.
Sorry, I don't know what false Bible verse that is. Which israeli Atheist archaeologist discovered the underlying manuscripts for that one?
False Bible version*
>It literally calls him Jehovah and God... BLINDED.
Even though the prediction “George W. Bush will conquer Iraq” may be said to be fulfilled by the actions of General Smith, it doesn’t follow that Smith and Bush are one and the same. Rather, Smith acted as the agent of Bush.
BLINDED !
>Sorry, I don't know what false Bible verse that is. Which israeli Atheist archaeologist discovered the underlying manuscripts for that one?
See: https://biblehub.com/exodus/15-3.htm
I meant Exodus 15:3: "“The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
"The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name!"
https://biblehub.com/exodus/15-3.htm
Who are you trying to deceive ?
Forget the idea of a true denomination. All denominations are prone to errors. There is no denominational exclusivity required to be a Christian. To be a Christian requires adherence to the Lord Jesus Christ as written in the scriptures. Follow to the letter the New Testament, and read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. All Christians make mistakes, but you could repent and pick yourself back up to follow the path of Christ.
C*tholicism is a 4th century Roman psyop. The Bible is the only legitimate source of Christian continuity. The Romans Road is the one true path to Jesus.
?si=y-BA22vlNR0m61Qk
There's orthodoxy and there is catholicism. They grew apart due to political reasons as the western and eastern christianity became more separated but theologically they aren't that much different, the main original issue being political one about the primacy of the Pope.
Then there's all those splinter sects that happened after one german seething retard in the XVI said it's okey to interpret the Bible as you want (preferably as long as it's in his way, but any other way is welcomed too because anything that promotes division, seething anf weakens the Papacy is okey too), and so thousands of retards, mostly anglos, began interpreting the Bible as they founded fitting and creating their own cults afterwards.
>cringe
>based
I advise you: read the bible, talk to a pastor of any denomination and detox from the internet for a week.
Yes.
Yes, please consider rejecticing Vatican II it's contrary to the catholic faith
I don't like how open the Pope is too fags
>Contrary to the Catholic faith
According to who? If the Church decides Catholic doctrine, who are you to say that Vatican II is invalid. That sounds like a private interpretation!
>"The Church is infallible except when it disagrees with my theology or the p*pe embraces sodomy
Yep, that's traditional Catholic logic for you.
If you are going to reject Vatican II you might as well reject Vatican I as well
non denomination, reading the Bible is what worked best for me. You guys treat denominations like video game consoles and seem to enjoy having console wars when you're missing the whole point of the faith to begin with.
It's always so cute when Paulians try to argue which of their denominations are correct.
If you're not "Pauline" then what are you, a fucking israelite or something? I always assume people like you are either israeli or Muslim because how can you reject most of the New Testament but still claim to be Christian.
I'm a Christian, a seeker of the truth. And any honest appraisal of truth finds Paul sorely lacking.
>how can you reject most of the New Testament but still claim to be Christian.
It's simple. I follow Christ's truth. Not the lies of men.
Paul was a prophet of Jehovah just like Jesus was
If you reject the prophets you cannot be a Christian
>Paul was a prophet of Jehovah just like Jesus was
Paul was a liar, and not a particularly good one. That his bullshit has deceived so many is one of the great mysteries of life on earth. You'd think someone would notice that a self-declared "knowledgeable Pharisee" wouldn't hang out with the Sadducee high priest, do his hatchet work that the Pharisees constantly screeched was illegitimate, or be blind to the differences between a Paschal offering and a Sin offering.
>If you reject the prophets you cannot be a Christian
Good thing I don't. Do you remember what happens to those who follow false prophets?
>Paul was a liar,
No, he was a prophet
>Good thing I don't
Yes you do. His prophethood was confirmed by Ananias, Peter, James, Barnabas and others as well as his miracles
I really like how you can't actually defend the indefensible aspects of Paul's ministry, so you don't even try, instead referring to your consensus. I'm sure part of the torture of Hell is just how crowded it is with all the deluded retards like you.
>and others as well as his miracles
You do know the bible says not to follow someone just because they perform miracles, right?
>indefensible aspects of Paul's ministry
No such thing
>You do know the bible says not to follow someone just because they perform miracles, right?
False prophets cannot resurrect people
The only contemporary document of the life of and teachings of Jesus is the New Testament. Any conception of Christ outside of the scriptures is a figment of your imagination.
Stephen De Young, Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=924ABA132117960DB2C1B65A1DC5B3E1
John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CF0B91805328BE9E63E9B5C3F319F1D0
Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=3A45DE74393D0EE5151393FEAA6A40B4
Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9BBD734998105BDE5677008AFFE22B1E
Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=1CDDB131EBA5BF66B6A36FF48FE50389
Peter E. Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=BBF127902EB36996C48EF9B34421F0F0
By the way, ignore JWanon. He's been refuted many times, even by me personally.
This thread is really messy, so I'm just going to leave you with one tip: don't try to choose your denomination based on theology, but from historicity. Study the history of Christianity, and see where it leads you.
>He's been refuted many times, even by me personally.
And other things that has been happening inside anon's imagination
>Study the history of Christianity, and see where it leads you.
That's actually a good idea
The True religion would be primarily known for it's love toward all (Jn.13:34,35; 1Jn.3:10-12; 4:7, 8). This would include their enemies (Mat.5:44-48; Rom.12:17-20; 1Pet.2:21-23; 3:8- 9).
It would not participate in or condone war (2Cor.10:3,4; Isa.2:4).
Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts.
People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.
The definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1 Pet.2:21).
That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mat.26:52). No Christian would continue to associate with these religions (Rev.18:4).
What is the historical record of Catholics and Protestants regarding warfare? Jehovah’s Witnesses have NEVER participated in warfare !
>It would not participate in or condone war (2Cor.10:3,4; Isa.2:4).
None of these verses say what you think they do. Paul isn't condemning warfare in Corinthians; he's exhorting the church to not comport themselves in a worldly fashion when it comes to their ministry, which is why the rest of the chapter is about exalting humility and meekness and condemning boasting and pride. Read the rest of the letter, dweeb. Neither is Isaiah condeming warfare either: it's talking about how the state of affairs will be when God finally reigns over creation.
>Jehovah’s Witnesses have NEVER participated in warfare !
You do, actually. You get continually embarrassed, crushed, and destroyed by the Holy Spirit who never ceases to shame your sham of a religion and its fake conceptions about the true deity of Jehovah Jesus.
>You get continually embarrassed, crushed, and destroyed by the Holy Spirit who never ceases to shame your sham of a religion and its fake conceptions about the true deity of Jehovah Jesus.
Based. Jehovah's False Witnesses BTFO!
Today Catholics continue to kill Catholics and Protestants kill Protestants, something true Christians would not do (1Jn.3:10,15; 4:8).
Our hearts tell us that any religion who is willing to shoot their own members in warfare cannot possibly be trusted to teach Biblical truth.
I have found only one group which has presented absolute evidence of truly being Christian: Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 6:9-11; Gal.5:19-22).
>Today Catholics continue to kill Catholics and Protestants kill Protestants, something true Christians would not do
What do the actions of individual members of the Catholic Church have to do with the veracity and historicity of the institution itself as Christ's true church? If Israel remained God's chosen nation despite its numerous transgressions against his law, then what makes you think that would suddenly change here? Someone acting like a "true Christian" or not is something that reflects the individual, not the church, because as far as I know the Catholic Church does not endorse unjust murder and warfare.
>I have found only one group which has presented absolute evidence of truly being Christian: Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 6:9-11; Gal.5:19-22).
No, it's the testimony of the devil. To have such an autistic and madly obsessive attachment to such a heretical organization shows me that you care more about the JWs being the truth than actually finding the truth overall.
When you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated.
Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (Jn.4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Mt.7:16ff). Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.
When you examine most religions you find that they cannot meet any of the other requirements of true Christianity. Their historical record is of bloodthirsty wars, immorality, sectarian violence and factional splits (Mat.7:21- 23; 2Tim3:5; Gal.5:19-23).
>When you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians.
Okay, so was Israel still God's chosen people during the lawlessness of the book of Judges? Even in spite of their infidelity to the Mosaic Law?
>Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (Jn.4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Mt.7:16ff). Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.
Sure, but being a true worshipper does not denote being of the true church. There can be impious Catholics that go to hell and pious Protestants that go to heaven, their chosen denomination notwithstanding. These are guidelines on how to identify true believers, not the true church.
>Their historical record is of bloodthirsty wars, immorality, sectarian violence and factional splits
Great. That means we're still sinful humans that routinely make mistakes. Wanna tell me something I don't know?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in DISAGREEMENT with what the Bible declares !!
These include apostolic succession, worship of saints or Mary, the trinity, prayer to saints or Mary, papacy, hellfire, infant baptism, transubstantiation, plenary indulgences, involvement in wars and politics, the sacramental system, and purgatory.
These concepts are based on Catholic tradition, NOT the Word of God. In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles !!!
Pick one, and we can debate it.
>Don't try to choose your denomination based on theology, but from historicity.
Yeah, don't do that. The idea that early Christians practiced a totally pure religion is quite incorrect actually, the corruption began in the first years after Christ ascended. "Church history" just ends up being a study of false religion. The Bible is the only thing that reigns true no matter what.
"Not giving heed to israeli fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." -Titus 1:14
"But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." -1 Timothy 4:7
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." -John 17:17
>the corruption began in the first years after Christ ascended
the apostasy flourished after the apostles died to be more precise (Acts 20:29, 30)
However, Jesus also predicted that the distinction between true and false Christianity would eventually become clear. This has happened in our time, during the “conclusion of a system of things.”—Matthew 13:30, 39.
If Church history was corrupted from the very beginning, than the bible was corrupted as well.
This is dancing around the fact Martin Luther had to make Sola Scriptura up because he said "fuck the pope fuck the emeperor only the bible matters!" (understandable emotional sentiment at the time, really) on trial and had to post facto justify his emotional outburt because the trial was on the logic of his theological views being superior
the true denomination is no denomination.
Orthodox don't believe in papal supremacy or purgatory
Now just google biblical basis for purgatory and papal supremacy and it should lead to the truth