Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[Prodigal Son1]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Your right. Your just right. They can't all be corrupt. It all makes sense. In some weird way it does. Christ is God. Wow God loves us so much to die in the flesh for us. Wow. Satan really does blind the non believers. JWs kept telling me that and I always thought that they are the un believers. Wow. I have so many more questions to be answered. I will be on here tomorrow. Please pray for me. Pray that i am Drawn to the true Church and that it is a happy process. Good night.

Good night and happy Easter. You're in my prayers.

[icamay]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Your right. Your just right. They can't all be corrupt. It all makes sense. In some weird way it does. Christ is God. Wow God loves us so much to die in the flesh for us. Wow. Satan really does blind the non believers. JWs kept telling me that and I always thought that they are the un believers. Wow. I have so many more questions to be answered. I will be on here tomorrow. Please pray for me. Pray that i am Drawn to the true Church and that it is a happy process. Good night.

Definitely! You are still very young, and I find that to be a sign that God has great plans for you. While most youth are worried about music and video games, you are worried about God's true church. I see great things in your future!

I pray that as God guides you, you may see His roadsigns along the way. It may be a long and rocky path, but trust Him and He will never lead you astray.

[mackbrislawn]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Thank you. Ok here is another Issue on my mind. Jesus is the same person as God? But why then did Jesus pray to God? And many time Jesus said that God is above him. Here in John 20:17 it said that Jesus has not ascend to the Father. So how could just go to the Father if he is the Father? It says Jesus was a god and my god but in Psalms 82: 1-6 refers to judges as gods. In 17:3 it talks as god and Jesus as two different people. The one you sent forth Jesus Christ it says. So how is Jesus lower then God but is God? And where it says worship to Jesus at Matthew 14:33 JWs says it actually translates as to do obeisance to. John 14:28 says the Father is Greater than I Here in the Douay You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. www.drbo.org

We would say that Jesus is God, but not the same person as the Father, who is the source of all essence of God. Now, since Jesus is not the same person as the Father, you can see how Jesus can pray to the Father, since Jesus is the Son and not the Father. They are different persons. But as the Son, in a sense the Father is greater, since Fathers are "greater" than sons. But, fathers and sons are of the same essence as each other, share the same order of being. The order of being for the Father and Son is that of Godship, which they share bodily, as scripture puts it. That is what is meant by "begotten," as opposed to created or made.

Was the Father always the Father? Yes, since He does not change. Therefore the Father always had a Son, and we say the Son is begotten from the Father from all eternity. That is the distinction from "created." Fathers do not make or create their sons, they beget them. Therefore, the Son is not created.

"Do obeisance" and "worship." In the original Greek manuscripts there is only one word, "proskeneous" (my bad transliteration!), not two words, as the Watchtower New World translation does it. The NWT takes care not to translate the word as worship when it refers to Jesus. But it is the same inspired Greek word nevertheless when applied to worship of the Father or worship of Jesus.

The stated goal of the NWT was to produce a literal translation so the reader whould know what the actual Greek said, not what the translators thought it should say, thereby hiding what the Greek taught. That is a laudable goal, but that is what the NWT does not do. It really does just the opposite, by putting in "do obeisance" or "worship" according to the bias of the NWT translators. There are other examples of this, such as John 1:1 where it is translated "the Word was a god," instead of the more usual "the Word was God."

However, either translation poses problems for monotheists, because the Greek word, "theos," God, is referred to Jesus. Jesus is obviously a different person from the Father, so, how can the inspired word of God get away with applying theos to Jesus without violating monotheism?

One solution, the one adopted by the Watchtower, is to say that Jesus is a lttle god sitting at the right hand of the Father. But this is not in keeping with Isaiah 45:21-22--"there is no other god besides me, righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me...for I am God and there is no other."

This means to call Jesus "a god" is against scripture. There can be no "god" besides the Father. Since we know Jesus is beside the Father, He cannot be another god, but must in some way be the same God, sharing the Godship bodily..

This is the position taken by historic Christianity. Jesus is called God in the earliest writings of the first Christians, so we know that is how they believed from the beginning. Jesus' divinity is not totally understood, but neither is God Himself totally understood.

[Rolltide]

LennyUSA requested that I post a brief history of the Jehovah's Witnesses for him. I've posted an article about this before, so I will repost that information here.


I'll be taking this information and the quotes from articles right here on Catholic Answers (CA) and the Wikipedia (W) article on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also before we begin, a definition:
Eschatology: a part of theology and philosophy concerned with the final events in the history of the world or the ultimate destiny of human kind, commonly phrased as the end of the world.

Here is what the two articles state, in summary, with my own commentary added in bold:

1) Charles Taze Russell has a crisis of faith as a Congregationalist at age 17, and becomes an agnostic. (He doesn't believe in God, but doesn't deny the possibility of God.) This is a *young* man who is having a crisis of faith, and struggling to find out what he believes.

2) After a few years, he goes to an Adventist meeting. This group, led by William Miller, believed that the world would end in 1843, but it doesn't So, they mysteriously "find" an error in their calculations and re-predict the end of the world in 1844. Again, it doesn't happen (obviously). Most people leave this movement, believing it to be a fraud, although a few, led by Ellen G. White, go on to found the Seventh-Day Adventists. In other words, the Adventists have TWICE incorrectly predicted the end of the world, causing most (but not all) followers to abandon their ideas.

3) Jonas Wendell gets Russell interested in Bible prophecy again. In 1876, Russell met Nelson H. Barbour and subsequently adopted Barbour's eschatology. Barbour had predicted a visible return of Christ for 1873, and when that failed to occur, he revised the prediction to 1874. In other words, Russell hooks up with Nelson Barbour, who *also* incorrectly predicts a visible return for Christ (the end of the world)... twice!

4) Soon after the second disappointment, Barbour's group decided Christ had returned to the earth in 1874, but invisibly. They differed from most Second Adventists by teaching that all of humankind descended from Adam would be given a chance to live in a paradise Earth. The year 1914 was seen as the final end, marking a forty-year period from 1874. So, his predictions did not come true, and changes his story to claim that Jesus came to Earth "invisibly" in 1874. After forty years on Earth, the world would then finally end in 1914. This is a skeptical claim from someone who had so clearly failed to predict the future. (I'd also like to point out at this point that are several apparitions and miracles that Catholics believe, such as Fatima, that *did* correctly predict the future.)

5) It was this diminished Adventism which influenced Russell. In July 1879, Russell broke with Barbour over the concept of substitutionary atonement and he soon began publishing his own magazine, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence (now known as The Watchtower). After the break, Russell retained the bulk of Barbour's eschatological views. He was known as "Pastor Russell" (who took the title "Pastor" even though he never got through high school), and in 1881 formed the legal entity which developed into the non-profit organization: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (currently headquartered in New York City). In 1884, it was incorporated with Russell as president. He authored the six-volume series, Studies in the Scriptures. Now, we have Russell breaking with Barbour, but keeping his views about the end of the world (the one thing that he's clearly been wrong about in the past!). It's also important to note that Russell doesn't even have a *high school* education. Now, this isn't necessarily bad or uncommon for that day and age, but the less educated are *far* more susceptible to having people who know more than them talk them into an idea that may be incorrect. They won't have the knowledge to refute it.

6) Before he got his religious career well underway, Russell promoted what he called "miracle wheat," which he sold at sixty dollars per bushel. He claimed it would grow five times as well as regular wheat. In fact, it grew slightly less well than regular wheat, as was established in court when Russell was sued. Later he marketed a fake cancer cure and what he termed a "millennial bean". At first, it might seem like this doesn't have anything directly to do with his faith, but it demonstrates a pattern. Whether he was actively conning people, or whether he was just gullible (possibly due to his lack of education), he was involved in at least three other false, and possibly corrupt, schemes in his early life.

7) Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914. Important here is the idea that Russell is picking up some of his doctrine (including the imminent end of the world) from the Adventists, which were wrong time and time again. If their denomination is wrong, why did Russell adopt ideas from it? If they are right, why isn't everyone Adventist today?

continued...

[Rolltide]

Here is part 2, still discussing the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Another comment before we get started. Isn't it interesting how so far, the major ideas of the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have nothing to do with the Bible, but the personal opinions of two individuals who clearly have major theological problems of their own?

8) When 1914 had come and gone, with no Jesus in sight, Russell modified his teachings and claimed Jesus had, in fact, returned to Earth, but that his return was invisible. His visible return would come later, but still very soon. It would result in the final conflict between God and the Devil—the forces of good and the forces of evil—in which God would be victorious. This conflict is known to Witnesses as the battle of Armageddon, and just about everything the Witnesses teach centers around this doctrine. Here we have a FIFTH incorrect prediction in the life of Russell. He didn't make the first four, but he believed in them. Now he becomes more vague, saying that Jesus is still here invisibly, and that the visible return would be "soon". For someone who is supposedly guided by Jehovah in things like scriptural interpretation, he is making (and following people that are making) a tremendous amount of errors.

9) Russell died on October 31, 1916, and following his death, an editorial committee of five was set up to supervise the writing of the Watch Tower magazine, as set forth in Russell's Last Will and Testament. On January 6, 1917, Joseph Franklin Rutherford (also known as "Judge Rutherford") was elected second President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. New by-laws were passed at the same business meeting that strengthened the President's authority. Initially, the board of directors for the Watch Tower Society accepted this change, but four of the board members withdrew their support. The June 20, 1917 meeting of the full board of directors tabled, for one month, a proposal to return control of the Society to the board, but Rutherford prevented their attempt. Matters came to a head on July 17, 1917 when the book The Finished Mystery was published. Rutherford announced that he was dismissing the four directors and replacing them with new members. Dissension and schisms ensued in congregations worldwide as a result of these events, and of the consequences of new predictions made for the years 1918, 1920 and 1925. At one time Rutherford claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the gospel, but later, in an effort to have his writings supplant Russell’s, he let Russell’s books go out of print. It was Rutherford who coined the slogan, "Millions now living will never die." By it he meant that some people alive in 1914 would still be alive when Armageddon came and the world was restored to a paradise state. The death of Russell causes dissent and schism. The organization *itself* can't even keep control of its beliefs. THREE more failed predictions occur, bringing the total to eight (if you include the Adventist predictions). Rutherford tries to seize control and impose his own beliefs on the group. He even has his own books replace those of Russell! All of this causes many people to become disillusioned and leave.

10) In the 1925 prophecy, Rutherford stated that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets would return to Earth, and so he prepared for them a mansion named Beth Sarim in San Diego, California. He moved into this mansion (where he died in 1942) and bought an automobile with which to drive the resurrected patriarchs around. The Watch Tower Society quietly sold Beth Sarim years later to cover up an embarrassing moment in their history, namely another failed prophecy. This paragraph pretty much speaks for itself. Try searching for Beth Sarim on the internet and see what you find. I can provide you with links, articles, and pictures if necessary, and I have my own separate article on this issue. Also note that Watchtower Publications have continuously changed their story regarding Beth Sarim over the years (to cover up their mistaken prophecy), and this can be historically documented.

11) An emphasis on preaching house-to-house began in 1922. By 1928, attendance at their yearly Memorial dropped nearly 75% from 1922, due to the previous power struggle, the failed predictions for the year 1925, and the evolving doctrinal changes which alienated those who sided with Russell's views.

From 1925 to 1933, their eschatological beliefs underwent radical changes. In 1931, the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was adopted. By 1933, 1914 was seen as the beginning of Christ's presence, his enthronement as king, and the start of the last days instead of being considered the terminal date in their chronology.

Under Rutherford, membership grew from about 44,000 in 1928 to about 115,000 at the time of his death in 1942.

So, the doctrine changed SO MUCH by 1928, that over 75% of the organization simply quit. They officially adopt the name "Jehovah's Witnesses, and, as seen in point #9, adopt the idea that *some* of the people alive in 1914 WILL be alive at the time of the Second Coming. They also begin house-to-house preaching. They really almost had to, since their numbers were declining so severely.

continued...

[Rolltide]

12) Nathan Homer Knorr succeeded Rutherford as president of the Watch Tower Society. Known as an efficient administrator, Knorr founded the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead to train missionaries, as well as the Theocratic Ministry School to train preaching and teaching at the congregational level. (It is under Knorr that the Jehovah's Witnesses earn their reputation as skillful deliverers of "personal testimonies."

Knorr's vice-president Frederick William Franz became the leading theologian, and is believed to have been the principal translator of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Also produced were a Greek-English New Testament interlinear (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) and a Bible dictionary (Aid to Bible Understanding). Since the Bible, as preserved through the centuries, did not support the peculiar doctrines of the Witnesses, Knorr chose an anonymous committee to produce the New World Translation, which is used by no sect other than the Witnesses. By means of former Witnesses, the names of the five members of the translation committee eventually came to light. Four of the five members completely lack credentials to qualify them as Bible translators, and the fifth member studied non-biblical Greek for only about two years.

The offices of elder and ministerial servant (deacon) were restored to Witness congregations in 1972, with appointments being made from headquarters. Membership rose from 115,000 to over 2 million under Knorr's leadership.

What seems to be the conclusion, based on what we've learned so far? The Jehovah's Witnesses, having changed doctrine so many times and with so many failed predictions, were forced to alter the Bible to support their beliefs. Four of the five translators couldn't even translate Greek! Now, this next quote came from the Catholic Answers article, but it indicates the types of things other religions accuse the New World Translation of changing:

"The New World Translation was produced because it buttresses Witnesses’ beliefs through obscure or inaccurate renderings. For example, to prove that Jesus was only a creature, not God, the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 concludes this way: "and the Word was a god" [italics added]. Every other translation, Catholic and Protestant—not to mention the Greek original—has "and the Word was God.""

IF this is true, you can see that such a rendering would eliminate the references to the divinity of Jesus and his equality with God. Such a change would undermine Trinitarian religions. Mind you, I'm NOT telling you to automatically accept that is what happened. You can decide for yourself. But, you can at least acknowledge that if such a change DID occur, it would change the entire interpretation of the Bible. Catholics and Protestants argue that similar subtle changes were made throughout the Bible.


13) Knorr was succeeded as head of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by Frederick Franz. He had been the Witnesses’ leading theologian, and his services were often called upon. During the 1960s and early 1970s, various references appeared in Witnesses' literature and assemblies, implying that Christ's thousand-year millennial reign might begin by 1975. The chronology pointing to 1975 was noted in the secular media at the time. When it didn’t, Franz had to find an explanation.

Witnesses believe that Adam was created in 4026 B.C. and that human beings have been allotted 6000 years of existence until Armageddon and the beginning of the millennium. This figure is based on a "creative week" in which each of six days is equal to 1,000 years, with the Sabbath or seventh day being the beginning of the millennium. Simple arithmetic gives 1975 as the year Armageddon would arrive. Franz explained that Armageddon would actually come 6000 years after Eve’s creation. But when 1975 came and went, the Witnesses had to "adjust" their chronology to cover up a failed prediction. They accomplished this by maintaining that no one knew exactly how long after Adam’s creation Eve came on the scene. Franz said that it was months—even years. Hence he was able to "stretch" the 1975 date to some indeterminate time in the future. In any case, Franz said that Witnesses would just have to wait, knowing the end is right around the corner.

From 1975 to 1980, there was a drop in membership following the failure of this prediction to materialize. In 1980, the Watchtower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding the year 1975.

HOW many times is this now that the organization failed to predict the Second Coming? This time, even the secular media picked up the story. In this case, the Watchtower Society even admitted some responsibility that it was at fault, and that their over-enthusiasm over certain writings about 1975 were misleading. Again, membership drops. Note that Franz is resorting to having to "recalculate" the date yet again, just as was done in 1874 and 1914.

continued...

[Rolltide]

14) The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses was reorganized in 1976 and the power of the presidency passed on to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subsequent presidents of the Watch Tower Society after Knorr's death in 1977 have been Frederick William Franz, Milton George Henschel (1993) and Don A. Adams. However, since 1976, doctrinal and organizational decisions have been made by the Governing Body. In 1995 the Watchtower quietly changed one of its major prophetic doctrines. Until this point, they had maintained that the generation alive in 1914 would not pass from the scene until Armageddon occurred. Now that this generation has almost entirely died out—and Armageddon has not occurred and does not seem like it will happen immediately—they had to change their doctrine. Now, the Watchtower says that Armageddon will simply occur "soon," and it is no longer tied to a particular, literal generation of people.

And so as recently as 15 years ago... yet another change in doctrine! It seems very suspicious that one of the core doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been rewritten again, again, and again. Certainly, this is not the only argument against the organization, but it's the 800 pound elephant in the room. (In other words, it's such a glaring error, it can't be ignored.)

15) As of August 2005, Jehovah's Witnesses have a membership of more than 6.6 million actively involved in preaching. Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries. In no country are they a large part of the population, however. Brazil and Mexico are the only countries other than the U.S. where the number of active Witness publishers exceeds half a million.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed the correct faith, why are so few people across the world in the organization? How are so many fundamental errors explained? Why is it primarily an American phenomenon? Why have SO many people left the group at SO many points during the past?

[Rolltide]

This concludes the historical outline of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I will now present a brief analysis.



Ok, what you've just read above is a very long combination of the Catholic Answers article and the Wikipedia article. I encourage you to read it over *very closely*. Think about the various points. Do you own research. Look up Beth Sarim. Also, when the Watchtower reprints its newsletters and publications, it has been known to go back and change what was said to cover up its poor history of prophecy. This is documented extensively and I can find you the references if you like. In light of all of this evidence, is it at least *possible* that the Watchtower could have altered the New World Translation to suit it's needs?

There is a *lot* of information above, so let me summarize what conclusions *I* believe it leads to. Let me make it clear that this is no one's opinion but my own.

Charles Taze Russell is a good, but uneducated young man. At 17, he has a crisis of faith after getting in over his head in an argument with an athiest. He falls prey to (or actively engages in) a variety of dubious schemes, and finally is drawn toward Adventism. He becomes unhappy. He wants to be a good person in a world that isn't very good, so he's drawn toward an organization that believes that this world will pass in the very near future. It would end all of his current problems on Earth and allow him eternal happiness. It fails to occur, but he continues to believe that this world will be over soon. This, above all, influences his beliefs. It's a psychological and spiritual need, rather than any complex Biblical view.

Russell finds his calling in religion and begins to write. He borrows many ideas from the Adventists, rather than creating them himself. He breaks with Barbour, and makes his own predictions, which fail to materialize. Russell dies having created a belief system that helps to sooth his own troubled spirituality.

Joseph Franklin Rutherford seizes control of the organization in what amounts to a hostile takeover. He throws out many of Russell's beliefs, and makes three more incorrect prophecies, including the one involving Beth Sarim. Three-fourths of the organization simply leaves the group. To stop these huge losses, new president Nathan Homer Korr institutes door-to-door evangelization.

The doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses is now so far from what the Bible says, that Korr authorizes the New World Translation to force the book to support their views. (Please note that when the NWT came out, almost every single review was highly critical of the translation, pointing out that it was, at best, a transliteration, not a translation. This is where you create a very inaccurate translation that gives the rough idea of what the original says. It often has the effect of making it easier to read, too. That, of course, would be very helpful for someone not very experienced in reading the Bible.) Only one person could even translate Greek, and even he had insufficient background to have the necessary skills for the job.

By 1975, you have yet another failed prophecy that results in more people leading the organization. Even as late as last year, there are only 6.6 million followers of the group. Despite ALL their evangelization, they are rarely successful outside of the United States. Their biggest target group is former Catholics, since most Catholics grow up learning from the Catechism rather than from the Bible. They are not nearly as familiar with Bible study, and so don't have the necessary skills to point out the many flaws in the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[pablope]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Thank you. Ok here is another Issue on my mind. Jesus is the heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. www.drbo.org

From:

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_..._Witnesses.asp


Is Christ Inferior?


The Witnesses argue that the Son is inferior in nature to the Father from verses such as these: "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing" (John 5:19). "I have not come of my own initiative, but he that sent me is real, and you do not know him. I know him because I am a representative from him, and that one sent me forth" (John 7:28-29). "I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28).

What can be said about these verses? First, they may be referring to Christ’s human nature, as distinguished from his divine nature. His human nature, being created, is clearly subordinate to the Father’s divine nature.

Second, they may also refer to Christ’s person insofar as the person of the Son is generated or begotten by the person of the Father. This doesn’t mean he is unequal in his divine nature and therefore not divine. It means there is a certain logical relationship between the two persons of the Father and the Son (who are both equally divine) in which it may be said, rightly, that "the Father is greater than I"—greater in the order of the three divine persons, not greater in the order of nature or being.

Third, they may refer to the Son’s role in the economy of redemption.

He came to fulfill the Father’s will in redeeming us and to reveal the Father to us, thus serving the Father. Hence, the Father holds a position in some sense superior to his. Thus the Son might be said to be inferior to the Father in the role he plays, but not in his essential nature.

Are there verses that argue against the Witnesses’ position? Sure. One example is John 5:1-18, where Jesus cures a man on the Sabbath. The Jews became angry because Jesus "worked" on the Sabbath, and in response Jesus said, "‘My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.’ On this account indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God" (verses 17-18). Only God can be equal to himself, and this passage therefore shows that Jesus is God.

The Witnesses also ignore the import of Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit." Another translator’s slip here? Note the singular "name." If the Father, Son, and "holy spirit" were three different entities—God, exalted creature, and impersonal force—then they’d have three names, not one name. The fact that the singular is used implies a unity of being.

What is that one name that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share? If there is a single, revealed name for all three Persons, that name may be Yahweh. There can be no question that God is referred to in the Old Testament as Yahweh (understood by the JWs as "Jehovah"), and this name applies to the Son as well. For example, Jesus speaking in John 8:24 says, "Therefore I said to you, You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am [he], you will die in your sins." Notice that the NWT has added "he" in brackets to obscure the fact that the Greek words here are the words for "I Am." ("He" is not present.) An identical situation occurs at John 8:28.

As any Bible student knows, "I Am" corresponds to Jehovah or Yahweh (cf. Ex. 3:14:"God said to Moses . . . ‘Say to the people of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you,’" RSV).

Go over these verses carefully with the next Witness who comes to your door.

Remember, the Witnesses take verses out of context. They are the preeminent proof-texters. Often the very next verse will undercut their interpretation of the single verse they’re expounding to you.

Never accept their interpretations or their NWT at face value. Always have on hand Catholic and Protestant translations with which to compare the NWT. Read everything in context.

[LennyUSA]

Ok, I think I understand that. So many times the Witnesses changes what the bible says but the general meaning is still there. But the bible i thought was not written by 6 people because in my NWT bible it says that all the people that were making it would remain Anonymous.
So i guess Jesus could be God. I am not entirely sure about that yet. But the other things holidays are traditions of man. Birthdays would not have been celebrated by early Christians. Meaning the ones when Jesus was around. The only time the bible ever mentions birthdays were twice. When King Herod beheaded John the Baptist and a Pharaohs Birthdays. And Jesus was not born in December because they would not have had their flocks out at that time. And even if we knew exactly when Jesus was born we would not celebrate it ether. And Easter is incredibly pagan. The eggs symbolize fertility in pagan traditions. And Jesus wanted us to remember it on the Passover correct? Not every day as the Catholic do with daily Mass. I don't know if that's true. After i had had these questions answered we will touch on the history of the Catholic Church.

[icamay]

Well, here's my personal take:

I honor Christmas and attend Christmas mass, but we do not keep a tree or practice Santa in my house. In my house, Easter is the holiest of holidays - no bunnies. We do not celebrate Halloween either. Many ostracize me for this, but I do not feel comfortable with any of it.

My forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, each World War, and my father spent my childhood in the Middle East fighting many battles in the Gulf. My husband and my brother are both Infantry; therefore, we celebrate the military and U.S. days of recognition. I believe that we would not have the freedom to even question religion without these great sacrifices. I never pray that God take a side during a battle, but that He protects my loved ones. If they should perish, I pray that God take them with him.

Birthdays and anniversaries are not huge deals. We enjoy dinners and such, but no big parties. Just don't see the huge point in it all, but if it makes my loved ones feel special for a day, so be it. That's just because our family is so big.

There ya go. I shared all of that with you so that you feel comfortable in whatever you wish to celebrate. To the Church, there are days we are obligated to observe, and I gladly do so. The rest are up to you.

[Prodigal Son1]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Ok, I think I understand that. So many times the Witnesses changes what the bible says but the general meaning is still there. But the bible i thought was not written by 6 people because in my NWT bible it says that all the people that were making it would remain Anonymous.
So i guess Jesus could be God. I am not entirely sure about that yet. But the other things holidays are traditions of man.

In many books of the New Testament we see the author identified in the first verse in each book. From there we can read the writings of the early Church fathers and see that they identify authors of specific writings.

Not everything is written in the Bible.

Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

There were other places scriptures tell us that we learn.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Scriptures themselves tell us the authority where we can learn.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Those writings were not written for a select group of people over 1800 years after they were written. This would have been skipping generation after generation of people with the correct truth of Christ/God. Christ spoke specifically to the men He chose and appointed over His Church, once telling them:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The men He told that too were mortal men who would eventually die. Christ made that promise to His Church, through men He chose and appointed.

For those who hold everything to scriptures, making scriptures a final authority (even if it's through a flawed interpretation), there are many things missing. For example, where in scriptures does it tell us what letters/epistles would be a part of the definition of the canon making the Bible what we know it is today?

The authors of scriptures, the New Testament, were a part of the Church Christ built. They passed those writings to men they chose and appointed with the authority given to them by Christ. They were able to teach interpretation of what they wrote. Those letters and interpretations were passed through the apostolic succession, until eventually the canon of the Bible was defined by more men of the Church, through their authority granted through the apostolic succession.

Using logic, who would have a better understanding of the New Testament, the apostolic men of the Church that wrote, brought the writings together, defined the canon of the Bible and preserved that Bible for hundreds and hundreds of years, or a group of men picking up the Bible and interpreting it for themselves some 1800+ years after the death and resurrection of Christ? Remember, God did not skip generation after generation, leaving them without His truth, for someone to 'claim' divine guidance hundreds and hundreds of years later. We have many, many denominations today, all with differences in doctrines/teachings, and all claiming truth through someone's private interpretation and all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot tell multiple truths and it be one truth. Can He?

[LennyUSA]

Originally Posted by icamay

Well, here's my personal take:

I honor Christmas and attend Christmas mass, but we do not keep a tree or practice Santa in my house. In my house, Easter is the holiest of holidays - no bunnies. We do not celebrate Halloween either. Many ostracize me for this, but I do not feel comfortable with any of it.

My forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, each World War, and my father spent my childhood in the Middle East fighting many battles in the Gulf. My husband and my brother are both Infantry; therefore, we celebrate the military and U.S. days of recognition. I believe that we would not have the freedom to even question religion without these great sacrifices. I never pray that God take a side during a battle, but that He protects my loved ones. If they should perish, I pray that God take them with him.

Birthdays and anniversaries are not huge deals. We enjoy dinners and such, but no big parties. Just don't see the huge point in it all, but if it makes my loved ones feel special for a day, so be it. That's just because our family is so big.

There ya go. I shared all of that with you so that you feel comfortable in whatever you wish to celebrate. To the Church, there are days we are obligated to observe, and I gladly do so. The rest are up to you.

So i don't have to celebrate it? But i would think that true christians would not celebrate it. It's like mans traditions. And like I said Early Christians probably did not celebrate it. I have heard the Catholic Church did all that to convert pagans from other nations. Am i correct?

[Prodigal Son1]

Originally Posted by LennyUSA

Birthdays would not have been celebrated by early Christians. Meaning the ones when Jesus was around. The only time the bible ever mentions birthdays were twice. When King Herod beheaded John the Baptist and a Pharaohs Birthdays. And Jesus was not born in December because they would not have had their flocks out at that time. And even if we knew exactly when Jesus was born we would not celebrate it ether. And Easter is incredibly pagan. The eggs symbolize fertility in pagan traditions. And Jesus wanted us to remember it on the Passover correct? Not every day as the Catholic do with daily Mass. I don't know if that's true. After i had had these questions answered we will touch on the history of the Catholic Church.

Let's look at this another way, where does scriptures specifically tell us not to celebrate birthdays? Doesn't scriptures teach us to honor our mothers and our fathers? Why would it be considered sinful to celebrate their birthday? Why would it be considered sinful to celebrate the day the Holy Spirit gave us life?

Jesus commanded that we love one another as He loved us. Does Christ not give us many gifts, including the gift of eternal life?

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

When was Christ born? Surely those who point accusing fingers at those who celebrate the coming of the Messiah know the truth to tell everyone else they are wrong?

It's not real important, but I'd like to know where the poor people of those times put their sheep in during the winter?

Did Christ not celebrate the Passover?

Mat 26:18 But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man and say to him: The master saith, My time is near at hand. With thee I make the pasch with my disciples.
Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them: and they prepared the pasch

.

All four Gospels tell us Christ 'celebrated' the pasch with His disciples. If Jesus celebrated a 'feast', why are we forbidden to celebrate Him, who delivers us?

What about Christ's first miracle? Didn't He turn water to wine at a wedding celebration? Wasn't that a gift, given by Christ?

I don't know if you'll find many Christians that will defend the commercialism behind Christmas or Easter. When we attend Mass at Christmas and Easter, we do not discuss or are we taught anything but the events surrounding Christ's coming into the world or fulfillment of the new and everlasting covenant through the Eucharist and His sacrifice. Saint Nick or the Easter bunny are not a part of our worship of God. Does this mean I don't give my wife gifts at Christmas? No, I do, just as Christ received 'birthday/Christmas' gifts at His birth, my wife receives gifts from me and I from her.

We break no commandments giving and sharing. Those are traits of love for one another.

Read the following carefully and then tell me which would be breaking the commandment of God and which is the tradition of men, giving or not giving or preventing one from giving?

Mar 7:8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
Mar 7:9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother. And He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.
Mar 7:11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is a gift) whatsoever is from me shall profit thee.
Mar 7:12 And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.

[icamay]

I just came across a wonderful bit of scripture that made me think of the young man who started this thread.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39–40)

I think it's worth discussing, since he has asked for guidance in this matter by the Scripture. Here, I see the Bible telling us that the Bible alone is not where our salvation lies, but in Him as well. So this takes us back to the original issue - where can our dear OP find Him?

I don't mean to deter from the current discussion, but when I came upon this, I felt that it was speaking to us about this issue.

My opinion is still that he has a very good basis which is worthy to be asked of a priest before his final decision. Either way, I continue to pray, as the OP seems to be a wonderfully spiritual child of God with a great future.