Living with a Jehovah witness


#93

I dont have a problem with you quoting from the bible, you are certainly free to do so even if this were not a free country. :+1:

I just dont understand how you think anyone should expect your interpretation holds any authority when you profess that it can not, thats all.

You mentioned the book of Mormon. Do you really expect a Mormon to allow you to interpret their book differently than they do with meaning? Has that ever been succesful? Or a Muslim?

Peace!!!


#96

Correct, however, one of the biggest issues is that Daniel 4 isn’t generally considered an end times prophecy. The seven times spoken of in Daniel 4 doesn’t equate with the 2,520 years that the Witnesses claim it does. It is disputed as to the exact time it represents, but this doesn’t mean that the Society is correct in its interpretation of this verse merely because they have attempted to decipher it. The seven times was taken out of context and made to fit into their overall eschatology of Jesus and His return. The start and end of the 70 years isn’t usually considered a key piece of Prophecy when dealing with the foretold birth of Christ and the beginning of his Kingdom.

This is a prime example of what happens when you take a verse in Scripture and try to apply it to a particular teaching with no textual basis for it.

From a purely logical standpoint, you can see the motives behind the Society’s teachings and subsequent revisions of their doctrine of 1914. They must show that something did in fact happen during that year, something written about or alluded to in Scripture. The Second Coming of Christ is typically understood to signify the destruction of this world. When this didn’t happen in 1914, they implied that Jesus did come invisibly and is now ruling in Heaven and the “Last Days” started in 1914 and it’s merely a matter of time before the world ends.

Soon, their teachings on the “Overlapping Generation” will also need to be altered and sadly it will be done under the banner of “The Light is Getting Brighter.”


#97

Hi, Tom!

…again, the problem is attributing what they want to what they believe. St. John is not offering several Gods, nor does any of the Apostles. The One True God is the One from the Old Covenant: Yahweh/YHWH; it is being in the Son; not holding the Son as some semi/demigod that is True Life.

Just for your edification, only One Person of God Revealed it:

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (St. John 14)

The problem that Jehovah Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals have is that they want to understand God not as He Reveals Himself but as they are able to assimilate… they hold on to things in Scriptures that to them points them to the truth while ignoring God’s Revelation.

Do I understand what God Revealed? Yes. Completely? No. So I allow His Revelation to be the Authority not my understanding.

…it is ridiculous to suggest that Jews got so angry at Christ that they wanted to kill Him because he “claimed to have existed before Abraham.”

Does this not force a huge red-flag to appear in your mind?

Could you honestly say that if someone claimed to have lived in Adam’s neighborhood and have negotiated land and water rights with him a bunch of Jews would be running amuck, and try to kill him?

Yet, if we allow Revelation to dictate what takes place we find that Jesus is making it clear to them that He is the Immanuel, the God-with-us, that is suppose to Visit the Temple!

This Revelation takes place several times… and sometimes it is included with a subtle underlined built-in “proof-text:”

24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, 25 And because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man. (St. John 2)

22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? (St. Luke 5–interestingly enough, their concern was that Only God has the Power to Forgive)

8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there. (St. Luke 6–here, Jesus makes it a point to display His Authority and Power)

39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” (St. Luke 7–this Pharisee is schooled by Jesus without having uttered a single word… which brings us to St. Matthew 5:28–God Knows our intimate thoughts and desires!)

Rationalizing Scriptures does not make them God’s Revelations; rather, it assures that man’s dictate takes place ahead of God’s Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel


#98

Hi, Tom!

I’m still trying to understand this “new” system; I cannot recall if you or someone else mentioned the Mormons or if it was from another thread… so I was responding to who their theology… which ends in man becoming elevated into god and going out into the universe and populating the planets (like the old sci-fi seeding the universe with dna, thing).

So if it is not part of this particular thread, I apologize for the confusion.

The old system tracked every thread to which I subscribed and gave notice; the new system only sends out notices when there’s a direct reply… so the numbers pile up (blue icon) next to the topics and by the avatar.

Maran atha!

Angel


#104

Hi, Tom!

…again, it is not what I believe to have discovered in Scriptures; it is about what God has Revealed in Scriptures.

In the Old Covenant there was a clear Command: who ever blasphemes the Name of God (YHWH) must die.

I AM, your God and you my people–I will come to your Temple.

We have that happened: Jesus clearly states, ‘Today, this has been Unfolded in your presence.’

Then He states, all blasphemy (sin) is forgiven, even against the Son of man (the Incarnate Word), but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven on this life nor the next…

…as for a surge of energy or life, consider that Jesus does not describe the Holy Spirit as such; that is man’s machination:

7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me. 10 And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. 11 And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. (St. John 16)

If we were to simply hold on to what we desire to understand, then most people who are narrow minded will see the Holy Spirit as a dove:

1:32 John also declared, ‘I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove and resting on him. (St. John)

Curiously, they would miss the Holy Trinity for the dove:

3:21 Now when all the people had been baptised and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily shape, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on you’. (St. Luke)

So how can God be One and yet exist in three Persons?

I do not even pretend to understand His Revelation; I only accept that it is His Reality and that it is His Determination to make Himself Known as He has!:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 1:2 He was with God in the beginning. 1:3 Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. 1:4 All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, 1:5 a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower. (St. John)

Yes, God’s Mysteries are confounding.

But here’s the clue to handling them:

14:1 ‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God still, and trust in me. (St. John)

Maran atha!

Angel


#105

Hi, Tom!

You seem to be well learned; I am sorry that you have employed eisegesis instead of exegesis:

1:20 who, though known since before the world was made, has been revealed only in our time, the end of the ages, for your sake. (1 St. Peter)

Do you not see that this is referencing John 1?

The Word Existed as God from the Beginning.

Jesus, though Existing from the Beginning, is only now being openly shown as God, the Creator of everything that exist, both the visible and the invisible… we Know Him not only as the Creator of all but as the Creator of all, Who Created Everything for His Own Pleasure:

1:16 for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, Thrones, Dominations, Sovereignties, Powers – all things were created through him and for him. (Colossians)

…and not only is the Word God, who Created everything that exists, Revealed as Jesus (the God that Saves), it is in Him that Everything Exists and is Maintained:

1:17 Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity. Now the Church is his body, he is its head. (Colossians)

…so yeah, we can pick and choose those passages that our preconceptions lead us to accept or we can accept everything that God has Revealed!

Maran atha!

Angel


#106

Hi, Tom!

…again, your eisegesis wrongs you. We do not know of a single passage in Scriptures where there’s given a formula (other than Jesus’ Words: ‘Baptize them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’) for how the Apostles Baptized.

What you are taking for granted is what is actually being stated; however, is there any place where any Apostle claim to be Preaching the Father or the Holy Spirit?

No.

Every reference to Preaching is about Christ, and as St. Paul hammered in: ‘and He, Crucified!’

So at Pentecost St. Peter will make use of the same preaching formula; the one that will continue till today!

But, if we are careful to discern things, there are windows given us to Understand the Unfolding Truth:

‘I preach the Gospel of Christ’ would also be proclaimed as ‘the Gospel of God.’

Do you actually believe that there were two distinct Gospels that were being Preached?

Maran atha!

Angel


#107

Hi crusader so my husband and I decided to study the year 1914 and we came to a conclusion that we would only use Bible but of course he brings texts that he has gathered from a Magie of their magazines. Now he said he was going to show me the math aspect of it which according to what he showed me can be found in Daniel, Ezekiel, revelations, and some others that I can’t remember. He said that he isn’t sure that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 like they say or in 587 like I mentioned that I had found. So according to the saeven times and the year 607 or 587, we would either get 1914 or 1933. And he says that 1914 is when they were established during world war 1 and the 1933 is when they were prosecuted by the natzi. And either one of those days would be when Jesus took his throne which is not what Catholics believe. He says that either was we Catholics are not the true people of God and that we are false. Please help me out here. In the creed don’t we say that he (Jesus) is seated at the right of the father and that he will come and judge the living and the dead? So then do we Catholics believe that Jesus has already taken his throne? He says that if that were so that that would mean that the year Jesus took throne would have to be 33ad which is not even close to either one of the calculations. Please help


#108

We do say that he (Jesus) is seated at the right of the father and that he will come and judge the living and the dead. It is at the Second Coming that Christ’s reign occurs.

Catechism

680 Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ’s kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.

671 Though already present in his Church, Christ’s reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled “with power and great glory” by the King’s return to earth. 557 …

557 Lk 21:27; cf. Mt 25:31.

Luke 21:25027
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; 26 Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved; 27 And then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with great power and majesty. 28 But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand.

Matt 25:31
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.


#109

Well there’s a lot to unpack when breaking down their teaching on 1914 so I’ll do my best to touch on a few of the discrepancies I found. First, you shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that their teaching on 1914 today, isn’t the same as what was once originally taught. The basis of what they believe now, didn’t start to take shape until much later.

If I understand you correctly, he’s admitting that he’s uncertain as to which date is correct, 607 B.C. or 587 B.C. This uncertainty leads him to believe that either 1914 or 1933 could be possible dates for when Jesus returned and began ruling in heaven? If that’s what he is stating, then he’d be at odds with the Society’s teachings on 1914. From my understanding, the Society teaches that 1914 was in fact the year that Jesus returned invisibly and began ruling in Heaven. Their Bible Chronology doesn’t allow for a secondary date of 1933 as a possibility for Jesus’s return, at least I’ve yet to come across such a teaching. His uncertainty is well founded though, as 607 B.C. doesn’t have enough evidence or archeological support to back this date as being a reliable possibility for the destruction of Jerusalem.

You mentioned that he went thru the “math” portion of Scripture with you to arrive at the dates of 1914 or possibly 1933. Without knowing for sure which verses, he quoted to you, I can only guess as to which verses he used, however I believe I have an idea. The problem isn’t necessarily that his math is wrong, but the formula is incorrect. He took dates and numbers and added them up based upon what the Society says those figures mean or represent.

First off, when you examine Daniel 4, where it talks about the “seven times”. It is usually interpreted as seven years and it’s not thought to have a “double fulfillment”. Meaning, the Witnesses believe that it has a direct fulfillment when it speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, however they incorrectly apply a larger fulfillment when they try to insist that the seven times is also referring to the 2520 years between 607 B.C. and 1914. They take the 3 ½ times and the corresponding 1260 days from Revelation 12 and believe that the same symbolism can be applied to the seven times spoken of in Daniel 4. Therefore, by doubling 3 ½ times you get seven times which is now 2520 days, but since “days” doesn’t get you to 1914, they use what is sometimes referred to as the “Prophetic Rule” found in Numbers and Ezekiel where a day is a year and now 2520 days is 2520 years.


#110

The problem is none of these different verses in scripture were meant to be applied to one another, but since their Bible Chronology was created to link their teachings together, it gives the impression that they deciphered a hidden prophetic timetable. For example, they have taken Luke 21:24 where it speaks of Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations, until the time of the nations has been completed, as referring to what was spoken of in Daniel 4. However, this doesn’t fit with the entire context of Luke 21. When read in its entirety, especially from verses 20-24, you can see Jesus is referring to a future event and by all indications, He is speaking of the coming destruction of Jerusalem which did in fact occur in 70 AD.

The language and descriptions that Jesus is using in this chapter can also be found in the parallel chapter of Matthew 24. Matthew 24 verse 15-16 says “So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…” Matthew doesn’t say what the desolating sacrilege is, but Luke does; “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…” Luke 21: 20-21. The desolating sacrilege is none other than the Roman armies which have surrounded Jerusalem, which signaled that the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent.

Jesus was not talking about a past event like the Society would have you believe, He is referring to what was about to occur within the next 40 years. This is important, because in Matthew 24 when it says “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” The generation He was referring to were those of his contemporaries. A generation, in the time of Christ and even today, is considered to span roughly 40 years. This time frame lines up exactly with Jesus’s words in Matthew 24; especially when you consider that they were spoken between 30-33 AD and a mere 40 years later (a generation) in 70 AD, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the Temple was thrown down and today all that remains is what is commonly referred to as the Western Retaining Wall or the Wailing Wall.

You must also consider that nothing in Scripture refers to Jesus coming first “invisibly” to set up his Heavenly kingdom by first examining and establishing that all other Christian religions are false and therefore he sets up the “True Christians” and then coming back again in His full power and glory.


#112

Hi!

…do you not see the futility?

A person that puts a blinder on everything but what the cult offers as “truth” cannot be led to the Truth. The scientology people are the same way (only worse). Their whole concept is that they are the ones holding the “truth;” yet, to keep that their reality they cannot join the world since their “truth” is demonstrated as contrary to what is held as Truth.

Note how your husband sets the rules: ‘only the Bible.’ Yet, it is ok for him to introduce his denominational material.

No matter how irrational their concepts may be they hold to them and teach them as the truth. Then, by sealing their followers in that bubble of “reality” they kept them from even thinking outside of their “truth.”

You want to know how simple it is to prove them wrong (if they were rational people)? Just listen to Scriptures:

8:31 To the Jews who believed in him Jesus said: ‘If you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples, 8:32 you will learn the truth and the truth will make you free’. (St. John)

Note that it is Jesus’ Word that is the source of the Truth that sets man free.

Here’s Jesus’ Word again:

14:6 Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (St. John)

Jesus is the Truth!

Know what else? No one can get to the Father but through Jesus… yet, not the Jesus constructed from man’s machinations buy from God’s Revelation:
Jesus, the God the Saves.
Jesus, the Immanuel, the God-with-us.
Jesus, the Wonder-Counsellor.
Jesus, the Mighty-God.
Jesus, the Eternal-Father.
Jesus, the Prince-of-Peace.
Jesus, the God of the Amen.
Jesus, the Lord of lords.
Jesus, the King of kings.
Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega.
Jesus, the Resurrection.
Jesus, the Life.
Jesus, the Image of the Invisible God.

Further, the only religious body in the world that operates on the Truth Principle is the Catholic Church: not a single other body Teaches the Truth and adheres to the Truth as the Catholic Church does because her Founder, and her Guide, is Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit, respectively.

That is in their Bible. Yet, they refuse to see and hear it because, as Jesus told the religious Jewish:

8:42 Jesus answered: ‘If God were your father, you would love me, since I have come here from God; yes, I have come from him; not that I came because I chose, no, I was sent, and by him. 8:43 Do you know why you cannot take in what I say? It is because you are unable to understand my language. 8:44 The devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all: when he lies he is drawing on his own store, because he is a liar, and the father of lies. 8:45 But as for me, I speak the truth and for that very reason, you do not believe me. 8:46 Can one of you convict me of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me? 8:47 A child of God listens to the words of God; if you refuse to listen, it is because you are not God’s children.’ (St. John)

Maran atha!

Angel


#113

Hi, Tom!

Wow, are you sure you are not a Jehovah Witness?

Here’s an example just to show the problem with that eisegesis:

4:17 and why I have sent you Timothy, my dear and faithful son in the Lord: he will remind you of the way that I live in Christ, as I teach it everywhere in all the churches. (1 Corinthians)

There are various other passages that allude to Apostolic Teaching, yet they do not catalogue these teachings (that’s part of the Oral Tradition).

…as for Baptismal formula:

8:36 Further along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘Look, there is some water here; is there anything to stop me being baptised?’ 8:38 He ordered the chariot to stop, then Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and Philip baptised him. (Acts)

So, according to your interpretation, there’s a formula that is decidedly disobedient to Christ’s Command (perhaps making all Baptisms invalid) and there are no formulas used–as the Celebrants determines!

Several Gospels?:

1:6 I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. 1:7 Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; 1:8 and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. 1:9 I am only repeating what we told you before: if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned. (Galatians–JB)
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Galatians–NI)

No matter how you slice it there aren’t several Gospel versions!

Maran atha!

Angel


#114

Thank you crusader13,
The way they teach it, made some sense but I still felt something was off especially since he emphasized we would only read the verses that were spoken of in the magazine, even though I would tell him that I felt that the whole chapter had to be read so that we could understand what they were referring too. He would insist I read the whole chapter on my own time. You mentioned everything that he mentioned all the verses. Now I see that their doctrine does not make sense and what it is that we believe. It’s sad to mention that we had really bonded and we’re actually going to study the Bible but he got the info from their magazines, then went to his meeting and I went to mass. On the way home he tells me " oh I spoke tothe elders and they told me the date is 607!" My heart sunk, I told him that we had agreed to prove it ourselves with the Bible alone and I didn’t believe that to be true. He then said " but you told me that if it ended up being true you would consider leaving what you know" and I told him that I said that if “we” alone came to that conclusion then it was possible but he was told by the elders and that I didn’t trust that doctrine because even in encyclopedias you can’t find anywhere that that date was when Jerusalem was destroyed. He got upset of course and then proceeds to tell me that his elder friend told him to tell me that I need to stop looking into what’s wrong with them because I’m making him (my husband) stumble and that if I want to look at what’s wrong with something I should look into my own history of what I consider the truth, that Catholics have killed so many in wars that are blessed by popes and that we murdered Martin Luther for trying to open up people’s eyes about their (the Catholics) falseness. That a good tree would bare good fruit and a bad tree would bare bad fruit. That I should see how he’s changed ever since he went back and that they do all they can to keep the congregation clean by taking people out for being bad and are not so many unlike the Catholics that are so many of them and we don’t get taken out for doing so many bad things and we do so many bad things. That that’s why (not understanding their doctrines) thinking too critically while examining the Bible was dangerous, it could lead to misinterpretation and confusion. I’ve never been told that as a catholic. He wouldn’t let me talk and kept bashing me with all this stuff that hurt me because he was basically saying that all the people in the world that aren’t JWs including me were evil. They are the tree with the good fruits, they are the ones that strive for perfection, they are the ones that don’t twist or change God’s word…
Continued


#115

Continued:
. I don’t like how he made me feel or how he’s been making me feel for the past two years but mainly since he went back.
Are we really that evil?
I love God and I had never in my life questioned his existence until I started studying with the JWs, I mentioned this to him and he dismissed it saying that he had those thoughts too while he was out and that’s why he went back to the JWs. No matter what I tell him, he doesn’t seem to open his eyes. Even when I saw a ray of light for him, there they went and crushed it. I’m so broken and tired. We agreed to stop fighting and respect each other. I really am at the end of my rope here. Please pray for him for my children. Please I beg all of you who read it to have a kind heart and take a moment to make a small prayer for us. Prayer is powerful and God always listens.
Guys you are right living with a JW is not easy and they do everything to break your spirit wether (not sure if that’s how it’s spelled) they do it on purpose or accidentally. My husband is such a smart man yet he isn’t allowed to think critically. My husband went back because he didn’t know how to behave outside of his religion since they don’t associate with anyone that isn’t one of them and never have my faith a try because he was always very subtly taught that we are guided by the devil.
I found a video called “Witnesses to Jehovah, the watchtower organization, with a former governing body” I found it after making a prayer and asking for guidence to find the truth and I kept it from my husband because I didn’t want him to get mad at me for “trying to make him stumble” but I showed it to my sister because it scared me, I was scared for him and my children, I asked her to watch it and to send it to they boys dad for him to watch. Well we keep a group chat when we all communicate about the boys and he asked us there if everything was ok and making it short my husband found out. Got angry at me for not trusting him and for watching it. He dismissed the video saying that the ex governing body member was an apostate and was not to be believed. That the congregation warns against apostasy and he is the biggest apostate. That my prayer wasn’t hear because I’m not treating him like God has commanded for wife’s to treat their husbands. Then he showed me a text that said that God won’t listen to sinners prayers, can’t remember which one it was, he mentioned that the devil is very wise and sometimes disguises himself as good to make people stumble and that that’s what happened when I found the video. Is this true guys? Am I being guided by the evil one?


#116

WOW!!! I am so sorry you have gotten to this point, and so quickly but sadly it is not surprising either.

There are so many things that could be said and much has already been said. But i think the bolded statment above is the most ridicules of all i have heard, unless they also profess they themselves are not sinners. And if they are not then i know by that profession they have decided for me that i, or the rest of us, am not welcomed into their organization. We are all sinners.

6, you are a good person you are loved by God and God DOES hear your prayers sweet child. Let no one tell you otherwise.

Peace and prayers for you abound!!!


#117

By listen does that mean respond to?
Man cannot save himself so God gives the gift of actual graces to people even before their conversion. The only one closed off is the one that is unrepentant in mortal sin.


#118

Hi Vico,
Thank you for your kind words. Yes that is what he meant that God does not answer prayers to people that don’t abide by his rules, so therefore God was not the one that answered my prayer it was the devil according to his statement. I always thought God loves us so much that he listens to us all no matter what. I really am trying here to be positive but these are people that think everyone is so bad. God gives me strength because otherwise I don’t know what would be if me. This is so hard. I want out for my kids and my sake but I also want to stay for their sake and his. I feel so selfish.


#119

Catholic theology is quite different than that of the reformation. Human nature is not totally corrupted by the Fall, but we do have to grapple with it, and lovingly we receive the grace of God that we may remain free from serious sins that would mean our condemnation.

Catechism

405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.


#120

Hi!

Wars claimed to be Christian Wars (2000+ years less than 10 million death–though most of these are claimed not actually wars that the Catholic Church promoted—rather the Church (the Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization) has implement all sorts of social teachings that have brought us to a less destructive society worldwide); the death tolls by non-Christian wars in just the last 200 years or so over 200 millions.

Martin Luther, a rebellious Catholic Monk that refused to recant his heresy, died of a ripe 60 something, after he originated a schism that has created myriads upon myriads of splinters in the Body of Christ–back when people died at the ripe age of 30 something… so Luther had plenty of time to be “killed” by them albino Priests (the De Vince code thing)–Jehovah Witnesses are so far in their sect that they forget to breath and when they come up for air they blame the Catholic Church for not providing them with clean air (long-winded way of saying they blame the Church for every wrong in the world).

Maran atha!

Angel


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.