Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be part of Christianity?
Yes 24 42.11%
No 33 57.89%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:37 PM
 
239 posts, read 191,021 times
Reputation: 39

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
I didn't get the impression that GoodToBeHome was referring to a building. I'm sure you'll agree with her, though, that Jesus did not establish multiple churches or teach multiple gospels.
If you will go to post #48 you will see that GoodToBeHome said the following:

Quote:
Jesus started ONE church. Do you go there?
Since the question was about a place and not a faith one can only conclude they were referring to a location or building. Hence I am asking for where they came up with this idea from scripture.

While I do agree it was not Jesus who started multiple churches but was rather the Apostles, especially The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul.

And I also agree that Jesus did not teach multiple gospels. Jesus taught the Good News (gospel) of the Kingdom of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
27,849 posts, read 29,640,240 times
Reputation: 13042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Had to change names View Post
If you will go to post #48 you will see that GoodToBeHome said the following:

Quote:
Jesus started ONE church. Do you go there?
It appears you and I are understanding her question differently. As a Catholic, I'm sure she believes she goes to the very same church Jesus Christ established, but I doubt very much she would claim that she attends church in the same building He and His Apostles may have met in. At any rate, she can clarify what she meant for both of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:51 PM
 
239 posts, read 191,021 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
It appears you and I are understanding her question differently. As a Catholic, I'm sure she believes she goes to the very same church Jesus Christ established, but I doubt very much she would claim that she attends church in the same building He and His Apostles may have met in. At any rate, she can clarify what she meant for both of us.
That's why I addressed my question about what she said to her. I do not know her religion nor what she could possibly mean other than exactly what she said. I responded to exactly what she said. I think she should be the one to make any correction if I am not understanding her question since only she knows for sure her intent. You and I could set here and guess at it for a week and we could both be wrong. So why do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:59 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,067,903 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodToBeHome View Post
Yea, he did. For a thousand years, it was the only game in town.
It's a crying shame that they decided to stop teaching the Gospel. Maybe if they'd have reformed instead of kicking the reformers out we'd be happy Catholics right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 08:46 PM
 
239 posts, read 191,021 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
It's a crying shame that they decided to stop teaching the Gospel. Maybe if they'd have reformed instead of kicking the reformers out we'd be happy Catholics right now.
Nope! Why would those who never became part of the Roman church ever come under it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 08:48 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,067,903 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Had to change names View Post
Nope! Why would those who never became part of the Roman church ever come under it?
who do you mean? You a landmarkist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 09:01 PM
 
3,532 posts, read 6,385,822 times
Reputation: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Had to change names View Post
Denomination just means you hold to a set of beliefs so every single faith group on earth is part of a denomination. What they are really talking about is a higher governing body over the local church. We know that was never part of the church so we do not have such. Most Baptist are part of a "Co-operative" group in which churches of like faith work together in common work. Such as you listed! The Roman Church is where the new idea of a governing body would rule other local churches came from. It is followed by many of her sister churches today as well.
I get your point about what denomination just means. But if I am not mistaken, once a denomination is established, no one can come and claim to be part of that denomination without the approval of the hierarchy clergy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:14 PM
 
810 posts, read 1,431,229 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
No. The NWT Bible that is used by them has been intentionally doctored in a few spots. John 1 is a great example. They intentionally added a word to make it appear Jesus is not God. So no...they don't worship the Jesus that is in my New Testament. They recognize the Jesus in THEIR New Testament, which is different than the Bible.
Since John 1:1 has been debated for 100s of years I don't expect to suddenly solve it here on cd. The NWT is not the only bible translation that renders it differently than the King James. I use several different translations when I study, and consult Internet sources with even more side by side comparisons. Before the release of the NWT, JWs used the KJV and held the same beliefs. I don't consider the KJV to be THE bible...it is a version. In my opinion, having openly studied from several they all harmonize, and I get the same message from them all.

Something that has always struck me is how fast people are to criticize the translation of the NWT, but overlook the obvious translation inconsistencies in other translations/versions. For example...the KJV uses the name Jehovah in (4?) instances, but then switches and uses LORD in over 6000 other instances. How can you overlook 6000 translation inconsistencies, but focus on John 1:1?!

Another inconsistency I came across while studying side by side comparisons is in Jude 25:
KJV
To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

NLT
All glory to him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are his before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.


NIV
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.


ESV
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Notice the KJV omits, "Through Jesus Christ"? When I checked the concordance/inter linear...sure enough it was there. Perhaps a bias in translation in the KJV?

Last edited by beeveenh; 12-29-2012 at 10:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:34 PM
 
239 posts, read 191,021 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by beeveenh View Post
Since John 1:1 has been debated for 100s of years I don't expect to suddenly solve it here on cd. The NWT is not the only bible translation that renders it differently than the King James. I use several different translations when I study, and consult Internet sources with even more side by side comparisons. Before the release of the NWT, JWs used the KJV and held the same beliefs. I don't consider the KJV to be THE bible...it is a version. In my opinion, having openly studied from several they all harmonize, and I get the same message from them all.

Something that has always struck me is how fast people are to criticize the translation of the NWT, but overlook the obvious translation inconsistencies in other translations/versions. For example...the KJV uses the name Jehovah in (4?) instances, but then switches and uses LORD in over 6000 other instances. How can you overlook 6000 translation inconsistencies, but focus on John 1:1?!

Another inconsistency I came across while studying side by side comparisons is in Jude 25:
KJV
To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

NLT
All glory to him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are his before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.


NIV
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.


ESV
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Notice the KJV omits, "Through Jesus Christ"? When I checked the concordance/inter linear...sure enough it was there. Perhaps a bias in translation in the KJV?
I did not open my program and check it but you do realize that the 3 translations you mention use a different Greek manuscript than the KJV. All could be a very accurate translation of the manuscript they are translated from. Did you check that out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:36 PM
 
239 posts, read 191,021 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by antredd View Post
I get your point about what denomination just means. But if I am not mistaken, once a denomination is established, no one can come and claim to be part of that denomination without the approval of the hierarchy clergy.
Well for instance the SBC has no hierarchy clergy. So no that is not true. The only way to join the Baptist is to join with a local church. They do not recognize any higher authority on earth than the local church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top