missionary missconceptions

BobRyan: I have read Catholic official documents of the modern era, read books by Catholics seeking to explain their religion to each other or to outsiders, hear real Catholics talk to each other about their religion, and talked with real Catholics.

I have time and again corrected your bogus accusations against them, plus included documentation. Yet you regurgitate those accusations time and again.

You have seen that your accusations are bogus, yet you continue to regurgitate them -- and then time and again go on like no one has ever told you. I have better things to do with my time.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Alas, Brother Darron, (as my deaf friend says) you appear to be signing different things with each hand Alas, Brother Darron, (as my Native American friend says to me) Pale Face speak like snake with split tongue

 

Please clarify. The two things you quoted do not seem to conflict.

It looks like you called me a liar. If so, be careful how you accuse, as not only is it inaccurate, I do not see where you have any real evidence.

 

Ah, I see. Your " Wants to foster unity of purpose among Christians of all denominations ... " means you want all denominations to kneel down before your denomination and worship your denomination. That ain't going to happen. I'd rather be a member of an RCC or a a Seventh Day Adventist -- at least they worshiip God.

I don't think so. You said youself that you needed clarification - so how can you figure out what I was saying? Check, I used two metaphors to say the same thing. But you responded in two different ways?

--Ed the Baptist:
the voice of one crying in the Cyber-wilderness: "Ease-modify the path to the Lord!"

 

That is nonsense.

 

Very true -- this is why I did that real life comparison between JW's and the RCC based on their own documents.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Also true -- as you point out they use a sola scriptural process and though we may differ with them -- as you point out all Christian groups have som differences - at least they rely on very very heavy weekly Bible studies as the basis for their denominational teaching and growth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

This is a good point however since the JW's are the subject of the thread and also the OP is about not simply making stuff up "as popular as it might be" -- I am pointing out that while their doctrines are wrong and so also are a list of actual RC doctrines I have provided here, the question of whether anyone is an actual saved saint in either of those groups remain.

I argue that both Catholics and JW's have saved saints in their group and that both have demonstratably bad doctrine in the group. My point is that the RCC actually gets mentioned in Rev 12 and in Dan 7 and 8 -- as being a problem - whereas the JW's do not.

The reason is that the JW's are a tiny organization by comparison and have never had any "supposedly infallible' LATERAN IV style teaching about "exterminating" the saints that opposed their doctrine.

(Among other reasons).

So I am just trying to get the discussion differentiate between myth and custom that is often used to portray these groups -- and deal with the solid facts for both.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As I said - my list comes right out of THEIR OWN material. If it is in error I would love to know about it. So far even they have not been able to find a flaw in it -- except to attack their own authors for admitting to it.

Secondly - if my list of RC doctrine is not correct then certainly that would have the JW's faring poorly by comparison - I readily admit that -- but first my list would have to be shown in error.

BTW My list of RC authors includes Popes, includes their own "standard reference" for a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism and includes their own expert appologist emplolyed by the 2nd larges Catholic publication known to mankind as well as the RC Historian "Expert" on EWTN.

This is not simply a case of a silly non-Catholic unnable to interpret the Catechism - it is a case of their OWN sources interpreting for us and then relying on them as experts in my own presentation of what THEY themselves are claiming.

Is it any wonder that with doctrines AND with actions in real history as they have -- that they get mentioned in Daniel 7 and in Rev 12?

I would love to have that be the case -- where can I go to find that the Popes and the "standard reference" and Lateran IV I have quoted were in error?

in Christ,

Bob

 

My contribution was to provide context to your statements on JW's showing that by comparison to the RCC they (JW's) do not get mentioned in scripture, do not argue for exterminating the saints (See Lateran IV for details) and do not endorse praying to the dead, do NOT attack the principle of "Sola Scriptura", do NOT argue for images in worship service, do NOT claim to change bread into God etc. (Very little of that is controverted by anybody on this board via actual documentation)

All points regarding the RCC that have been proven in triplicate on this board as even DHK knows.

My argument is not that the JW group does not hold to the errors stated in your post. I have am only adding some balance and perspective by contrasting that with the "camel swallowed" in terms of the "infallible" RC doctrines and Canon Law practices.

I also am not arguing that Catholics and JW's are groups where nobody is saved -- quite the opposite. I argue that both groups have saved saints in the group -- but there is no comparison when it comes to "Biblical mention" given to the RC atrocities over time as compared with that tiny spec we know as the JW's today.

If my comparison between JW's and RC teachings is correct it is VERY applicable to the topic. I think all have to agree on that obviout point.

If my comparison is not correct because the RC teachings that they CLAIM to be "infallible" (for which I have presented documentation in triplicate on these trheads over time) are no longer under such claims -- then "facts" would be helpful to sustain such a "change in the RCC" claim. ALL would benefit should such documentation of a change "exist".

I agree that simply attacking me or the SDA denomination as a "substitute" for engaging in a factual discussion about the context and relative doctrinal comparisons of JW's to the documented RC position -- is just ranting as even it's stated goal is pretty much pointless regrading the topic at hand.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Which is really the only point I was trying to make. There are about 12 milliion JW's on the plant and almost A billion Roman Catholics. It is a spec vs a mountain in terms of "volume" and as you point out above even when we compare doctrine -- the JW's list of errors (as bad as they are) don't get into scripture's hall of fame the way the RCC does.

That bit of "context" was all the point I was making (aside from the fact that I DO consider there to be SAVED SAINTS in both the RC and the JW denominations).

Iin fact -- I was not bringing the SDA subject up at all.

That is true and we have many Christian churches today that consider the spiritual gifts chapter of 1Cor 12 to be "valid" -- that is not "just an SDA position".

ALL prophets (even an SDA one) must be tested "Sola Scriptura" their doctrines claimed to have been affirmed by God or in any way approved by God must be "pure" from a Bible "test" point of view OR they are a false prophet. Pure and simple.

That is kind - but I don't mind the bumpy road now and then. I was simply trying to get to your point in the first paragraph of this post.

Thanks again for the list of "Myths" I find them to be well thought out and helpful.

In John 16 Christ said "I have many MORE things to tell you but you can not bear them now" -- how do you suppose this applies to dealing with those in the groups you have listed here?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Case in point - Nathan. When David goes to Nathan the prophet to ask if he should go ahead with his plans to build the house of God before building his own house -- Nathan says YES it is a good plan and God is with him.

Then later God informs Nathan that David is not to build the house - rather Solomon is to do it.

That is a case of a prophet -- a true prophet being "wrong" but then it is up to God to "correct them" and for them to give the correct message.

The Bible shows that David still trusted Nathan even after that correction.

However Nathan was still subject to the test of a prophet IF his messages claimed to be from God were shown to be in doctrinal error - he could not be a true prophet.

He can be wrong about a great many things personnally, his opinions and even his doctrine can be wrong -- but what he claims to have come from God must be tested against the Bible to see if it is true -- and if it is not -- he is a false prophet.

in Christ,

Bob

 

But however wrong our beliefs are - they do not change God or the Gospel.

Are we saved "by better stories" by "knowing more details in the story" or are we saved by yielding to the Drawing of the Holy Spirit "Who convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" EVEN if God the Holy Spirit is not SEEN and fully understood in all His infinite ways by the person being convicted? Romans 2:13-16 appears to argue that even those with no Bible at all are being reached by the Holy Spirit with the New Covenant promise of the Law written on the heart.

Still in line with this subject God does say "COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE" so simply arguing that the saved are THERE - does not mean God wants them to STAY there.

in Christ,

Bob