The Trinity

[GodsGrace]

No. They did not try to use it. They use the verse where Jesus on the cross yelled out asking his God why he abandoned him. It is a great question. Saying it quotes a Psalm changes nothing. Also, I noticed no response to my post's 3 questions.

I'm having a problem with your post Wrangler.
It's no. 379 addressed to Davy.

If you can get the questions to me, I'll reply to them.

When I click on that post, I get what came up above....

 

[Heart2Soul]

Well, have a good day and be blessed!

I couldn't tell where your post ended and his began...he is using copy and paste instead of reply.

 

[Wrangler]

If you wish to use the internet, those reading along, including @Aunty Jane and @APAK and @Wrangler,
would do well to read the following and do some real studying.

Real studying includes non and anti trinitarian sources, such as the Holy Scriptures. We’ve done some real studying and suggest you do the same - including eliminating imposing trinitarian doctrine unto unitarian text.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm having a problem with your post Wrangler.
It's no. 379 addressed to Davy.

If you can get the questions to me, I'll reply to them.

I appreciate you following up and may have asked Davy the same questions (which he did not answer either).


0. We know Jesus is not God because Jesus died. Consider how this fact relates not being a deity.

1. Why did the resurrected Jesus say he was going to his God @ John 20:17 if he were God?
2. Why did Jesus say his Father is the onlytrue God @ John 17:3 if he were God?
3. Why did the resurrected Jesus, in heaven, given all authority, receive a revelation from God @ Rev 1:1, if he were God?

 

[GodsGrace]

I trust that there was going to be a “cleansing, purifying and refining” of God’s worshippers in this “time of the end”, and that if there wasn’t a lot of impurities discernible at this time, then no “cleansing, purifying and refining” would be necessary.

Viewing what “Christianity” has become in today’s world, I can surely see the need to clean up their act. But the wicked were not going to change...they would just continue on in their old ways, oblivious of the need to clean up their worship, now contaminated with all manner of ill-conceived ideas and practices, accepted for so long that they mistake what they are practicing and believing for genuine Christianity.....I do not see even a remote connection.

So you're saying that the reformation has caused the necessity of a clean up right NOW since Christianity has become contaminated will ill-conceived ideas?

I'd have to agree.

But in that mix, I'd have to add the JWs...which religion is considered to be a cult by any theologian except your own.
Does this mean that JWs need to be cleaned up too?
Or are they the only group that has the truth and perhaps IS the pillar of truth?

Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will.

I wish you'd read my post no. 420 just above.
In a previous post you stated I was incorrect in stating that the JWs used to believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael and that they still do.
Is this correct? Then that post is pertinent to this conversation.
Is Jesus an angel...or is He all those things I listed to God Father, Yahweh.
I think the answer is important.
If Jesus is just a man, His death means nothing and we are lost in our sins.
Ephesians 2:2-6 Jesus is sitting with God in heavenly places...a place of authority, to judge the living and the dead.

Regarding the Holy Spirit...it is God's active force, I'm good with that.
But that active force has His own function toward us humans...that force is shown as a Person, but it can be said that it is the visible love between the Father and the Son.

Are you familiar with the filioque problem?
Possible linguistic resolution[edit]
In 1995, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPU) pointed out that the Filioque conundrum may be a problem of language, rather than a problem of theology.[24] The word ἐκπορεύεσθαι in Greek indicates a primary cause or an ultimate cause; while the Latin word procedere indicates a procession but not from an ultimate cause. The Latin version may be more accurately retranslated into Greek as προϊέναι, rather than ἐκπορεύεσθαι. Metropolitan John Zizioulas declared that PCPCU position shows positive signs of reconciliation for the Filioque issue between the Eastern and Western churches.[25]

I bring this up only because the Holy Spirit is accepted as a person by both the Catholic and Orthodox church.
It is only from where the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS that is in question.

In John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·raʹkle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek "pneuʹmais" used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuʹma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·raʹkle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine. "Autos" (Greek) translated as "HE", can mean "it", "she", "they", etc.....so it does not always say what you assume it does in English. Bias determines a lot in translation. The NWT translates "autos" as "that one" which is just as valid.

You're referring to John 16:7, which I had mentioned.

What about
John 14:17?
that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

This is also listed as a Personal, Possessive, Aorist-Imperative, 3rd person subjunctive.
What does that mean?
I have an idea....but I don't know Greek.

So I depend on those that do, and if we cannot trust them, then neither you nor I are in a good position and cannot trust the Word of God.

Scholars of Greek have translated John 16:7 and John 14:17 with the word HIM (not she and not it).
See John 14:17
Greek Concordance: αὐτό (auto) -- 105 Occurrences

The beginning of what? Until Catholicism introduced the trinity, there was no such thing as a "godhead", and no such thing as a "holy ghost".

Since God's son was by his side as a "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30-31) and Colossians 1:15-17 tells us that creation came from the Father "THROUGH" the son, we can assume that by means of God's spirit all things came into existence by the 'team' working in conjunction.


Yes they did......but there is no mention of a trinity in anything they said. It is implied by the church, but never stated by the apostles or those whom they taught until later....like I said the foretold apostasy did not happen overnight, but gradually over the centuries as men gained more control and a clergy class emerged who mirrored the Pharisees, not the apostles.

The early church grappled with the idea of who Jesus was.
The Apostles themselves did not know....
It wasn't until the resurrection that they understood who Jesus was and understood all that He had said about what He had
to suffer.

Much study of letters circulating went into the accepted belief that Jesus was not "just" a man.
I can list why, but it's too late now.
There are reasons why the early believers came to understand that Jesus is God.
Please remind me tomorrow. (it's midnight now).

The early church had some teaching ariansim....
The creed was to combat this heresy and clarify the church's position re the hypostatic union.

In the 5th century, a dispute arose between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius in which Nestorius claimed that the term theotokos could not be used to describe Mary, the mother of Christ. Nestorius argued for two distinct persons of Christ, maintaining that God could not be born because the divine nature is unoriginate.[dubious – discuss]

Therefore, Nestorius believed that the man Jesus of Nazareth was born in union with, but separate from and not strictly identifiable with, the Logos of God.[dubious – discuss] The Council of Ephesus in 431, under the leadership of Cyril himself as well as the Ephesian bishop Memnon, labeled Nestorius a neo-adoptionist, implying that the man Jesus is divine and the Son of God only by grace and not by nature, and deposed him as a heretic.

In his letter to Nestorius, Cyril used the term "hypostatic" (Greek, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν kath' hypóstasin) to refer to Christ's divine and human natures being one, saying, “We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind what ‘having been made flesh’ means …. We say … that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man.”[10]

source: Hypostatic union - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace]

Real studying includes non and anti trinitarian sources, such as the Holy Scriptures. We’ve done some real studying and suggest you do the same - including eliminating imposing trinitarian doctrine unto unitarian text.

You never have anything to say.

I write for those reading along that may be new Christians or I would have stopped posting to you long ago.

Do you realize that I could say back to YOU everything you say to ME?

Why don't you show me some unitarian text instead?
(and we could discuss it).

I've asked you who you think Jesus is?
You never answered.

Are you following a man named Jesus?
Are you in a cult?

 

[Wrangler]

John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me,

Wait! What? Who gave Jesus his glory?

QUOTE="GodsGrace, post: 1191823, member: 7593"]YOU call Jesus a man...
When God's Word says He is:[/QUOTE]

A man. Jesus is a man as Scripture says. I quoted Gods word twice in Acts 3 & 17:31.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you realize that I could say back to YOU everything you say to ME?

I don’t

impose trinitarian doctrine unto unitarian text.

All one has to do is accept this foundational truth to see the 4th century man-made doctrine for what it is.

The shocking truth is the trinity is not in the Bible - not the word and not the doctrine. Jesus did not teach the trinity.

 

[GodsGrace]

I appreciate you following up and may have asked Davy the same questions (which he did not answer either).


0. We know Jesus is not God because Jesus died. Consider how this fact relates not being a deity.

1. Why did the resurrected Jesus say he was going to his God @ John 20:17 if he were God?
2. Why did Jesus say his Father is the onlytrue God @ John 17:3 if he were God?
3. Why did the resurrected Jesus, in heaven, given all authority, receive a revelation from God @ Rev 1:1, if he were God?

I'll answer quickly...it's past midnight here.
But tomorrow I'll have some reasons why Jesus is God which is more detailed.

1. Jesus said He was going to His God because God IS HIS FATHER.
Jesus eminated from God. This is what non-trinitarians cannot understand.
Christianity believes that Jesus was BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE...
Not Made means that Begotten DOES NOT mean made....

Example: There is a pot with water in it.
The water boils.
Steam emanates from the water.
The steam was IN THE WATER...it was BEGOTTEN, not made.
(I hate examples but it's the best I can do).
The steam was always there...it just wasn't steam.

The Father is the head of the Trinity....Jesus and the Holy Spirit emanate from FATHER.

2. Jesus said His Father is the only true God because He is.
Jesus knew the O.T. VERY well,,,He quoted from it and knew it by heart. He was called Rabbi - teacher.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God. The LORD is One!

Notice that LORD refers to Yahweh, as I'm sure you know.
and Lord refers to Jesus.
Notice that Thomas said to Jesus:
My Lord AND MY GOD.

Notice that the GRACE OF GOD HAS APPEARED...
Titus 2:11
Grace is attributed to God, not to man.
Also, it states that salvation has been brought to all men.
In the O.T. it was understood that GOD is our salvation.
Psalm 79:9
Psalm 62:2
Isaiah 12:2

and many more...


3. Not very familiar with Revelation and cannot reply immediately.
Will do so tomorrow...

 

[GodsGrace]

I don’t


All one has to do is accept this foundational truth to see the 4th century man-made doctrine for what it is.

The shocking truth is the trinity is not in the Bible - not the word and not the doctrine. Jesus did not teach the trinity.

OK
But WHO DO YOU believe Jesus to be?
'night.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wait! What? Who gave Jesus his glory?

QUOTE="GodsGrace, post: 1191823, member: 7593"]YOU call Jesus a man...
When God's Word says He is:

A man. Jesus is a man as Scripture says. I quoted Gods word twice in Acts 3 & 17:31.[/QUOTE]
Just saw this.

You believe Jesus is just a man.
No wonder you can't accept the Trinity.
If I can remember I have a post for you and @Aunty Jane tomorrow.

PLEASE explain to me how you can be a CHRISTian and believe Jesus is just a man.

'night, again.

 

[Wrangler]

OK
But WHO DO YOU believe Jesus to be?
'night.

Haven’t I answered this question many times already? Seriously!

 

[Wrangler]

You believe Jesus is just a man.
No wonder you can't accept the Trinity.

I believe Jesus is ‘just’ a man because Scripture says Jesus is a man many times. It emphasizes that he is a man such as 1 Timothy 2:5.

It is mysticism and dualism to suppose once one is explicitly identified as X, that it is ALSO something other than X. Such is not found in Scripture.

If I may, as @Aunty Jane pointed out, you are confusing Jesus divinity with him NOT being a deity. Like other men of God, Jesus is of God. That does not make him God any more than other men or other heavenly beings.

 

[Aunty Jane]

If you wish to use the internet, those reading along, including @Aunty Jane and @APAK and @Wrangler,
would do well to read the following and do some real studying.

How insulting to assume that we haven't done some "real study"......we just choose to do our study outside of those with trinitarian bias.
We don't swallow the trinity like it is "the be all and end all" of Christianity.....the solid foundation upon which all Christendom's doctrines are built. To me personally, the very fact that people accept this travesty and clear breach of the First Commandment is proof positive that don't know God, Jehovah and his Christ at all. (John 17:3)

Your church has the most deviations of all Christendom's denominations...the very reason why there was a Protestant movement.....and yet you can quote others as if they agree with what Catholicism teaches.....you hit on one subject that you support, and absolve them of the rest where they disagree? Really? How does that work?

Jesus is referred to as THE GLORY, as in the O.T. The Glory is referring to God Father and ONLY to God.
Calling Jesus The Glory is MORE THAN referring to Him as God.
The biblical quotes are in the following statement which is in response to Islamic theology which does not accept
Jesus as God.

Look at these scriptures you quoted....
John 5:20
For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:6
to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Matthew 3:17
and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Mark 12:6
He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

Not one of them supports the idea of a triune God. The Father is a Father of his son.....the one that he created as his "firstborn" (Colossians 1:15) The one who had the "glory" of "an only begotten son from a Father". (John 1:14) God gave his son the glory.....does God need to give things to himself? Its ridiculous!

Maybe you all are Muslims?
Again, I can only repeat that if you do not believe Jesus is God, it is your free-will prerogative,
but then you cannot call yourselves a Christian.

All I can say is that the Muslims have a better understanding of God's relationship with his son than Christendom does.
Can you tell me why, out of the three dominant Abrahamic faiths, only Christendom makes God into a threesome...and then only hundreds of years after Jesus died. If God was always a trinity, wouldn't Abraham have known that seeing as how he is the only man identified in scripture as "God's friend"? (2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23)

Perhaps you are the one, as @Wrangler suggests, who needs to do "some real study"?

 

[Aunty Jane]

So you're saying that the reformation has caused the necessity of a clean up right NOW since Christianity has become contaminated will ill-conceived ideas?

I said nothing about the Reformation being the clean up. All I said about the Reformation is that it took away the more obvious Catholic adoptions and gave people back the Bible. The time of the end was yet future.....but at least people could read the Bible in their own language without being punished.

But in that mix, I'd have to add the JWs...which religion is considered to be a cult by any theologian except your own.
Does this mean that JWs need to be cleaned up too?

Yes it does....we were a big part of the clean up because we took all the doctrines of Christendom and examined each one to see if the scriptures supported them, and one by one we eliminated them. We now hold no beliefs in common with Christendom at all.
The separation is complete and we know what we believe, why we believe it and where to find it in the Bible.

Or are they the only group that has the truth and perhaps IS the pillar of truth?

There is only one truth....all the rest is false. So its up to us to do our homework, as Daniel wrote, in this "time of the end" there is "abundant knowledge" so we have no excuse for ignorance.

In a previous post you stated I was incorrect in stating that the JWs used to believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael and that they still do.
Is this correct? Then that post is pertinent to this conversation.
Is Jesus an angel...or is He all those things I listed to God Father, Yahweh.
I think the answer is important.
If Jesus is just a man, His death means nothing and we are lost in our sins.
Ephesians 2:2-6 Jesus is sitting with God in heavenly places...a place of authority, to judge the living and the dead.

I have never said that Jesus is "just a man".....he is "the son of God" as he identified himself. But never once did he say he was "God". His perfect sinless life redeemed mankind out of the debt that Adam left for his children.

Jesus is a created being as the scriptures maintain and as God's "firstborn" has been with his Father from "the beginning"....but since the eternal Father had no beginning, his first creation was his son and he is "the beginning of God's creation". (Revelation 3:14) Someone who is "begotten" needs a 'begetter'...a father who existed before him. Everything written in scripture has alluded to that relationship.....Jesus is not and never was his Father's equal.

Regarding the Holy Spirit...it is God's active force, I'm good with that.
But that active force has His own function toward us humans...that force is shown as a Person, but it can be said that it is the visible love between the Father and the Son.

The holy spirit has no personality and no name.....it is God's power not a 'person' of power in a three headed god. That is a purely trinitarian invention.

I bring this up only because the Holy Spirit is accepted as a person by both the Catholic and Orthodox church.

If you like what the 'weeds' teach then accept all you wish...we are all free willed and have no excuse to accept the devil's lies when scripture does not back up any of what Catholicism teaches. It is pointless quoting Catholic sources.....I cannot accept any of them. Scripture only....

It is only from where the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS that is in question.

It is God's holy spirit.....it emanates from him, but it is not a separate entity. Nowhere does it say that the holy spirit is "God".
The Catholic Church invented the terminology..."God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit"...because the Bible only identifies Yahweh as the "God the Father".

I have no more time now, so will tackle the rest later....

 

[Wrangler]

How insulting to assume that we haven't done some "real study"......

Ad Hominem. How one knows they’ve lost the argument.

The logical fallacies are all trinitarians have.

 

[GodsGrace]

How insulting to assume that we haven't done some "real study"......we just choose to do our study outside of those with trinitarian bias.
We don't swallow the trinity like it is "the be all and end all" of Christianity.....the solid foundation upon which all Christendom's doctrines are built. To me personally, the very fact that people accept this travesty and clear breach of the First Commandment is proof positive that don't know God, Jehovah and his Christ at all. (John 17:3)

Your church has the most deviations of all Christendom's denominations...the very reason why there was a Protestant movement.....and yet you can quote others as if they agree with what Catholicism teaches.....you hit on one subject that you support, and absolve them of the rest where they disagree? Really? How does that work?


Look at these scriptures you quoted....
John 5:20
For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:6
to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Matthew 3:17
and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Mark 12:6
He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

Not one of them supports the idea of a triune God. The Father is a Father of his son.....the one that he created as his "firstborn" (Colossians 1:15) The one who had the "glory" of "an only begotten son from a Father". (John 1:14) God gave his son the glory.....does God need to give things to himself? Its ridiculous!


All I can say is that the Muslims have a better understanding of God's relationship with his son than Christendom does.
Can you tell me why, out of the three dominant Abrahamic faiths, only Christendom makes God into a threesome...and then only hundreds of years after Jesus died. If God was always a trinity, wouldn't Abraham have known that seeing as how he is the only man identified in scripture as "God's friend"? (2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23)

Perhaps you are the one, as @Wrangler suggests, who needs to do "some real study"?

Sorry,,,it was not meant for you.
I've done some studying myself,,,left a denomination.

We believe what we believe.

 

[tigger 2]

GodsGrace wrote (#430):
1. Jesus said He was going to His God because God IS HIS FATHER.
Jesus eminated from God. This is what non-trinitarians cannot understand.
Christianity believes that Jesus was BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE...
Not Made means that Begotten DOES NOT mean made....

.....................................................
“Begotten” and “created” are English words carefully chosen by Bible translators to convey the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words of the original manuscripts as closely as possible. So first we should determine what the words “created” and “begotten” actually mean in English. The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963 ed. that I have at home says:

“create ... 1: to bring into existence...3 : cause, make” - p. 195.

“beget ... begot ... begotten ... 1 : to procreate as the father : sire 2 : cause” - p. 77.

These two words can share the identical meaning of “cause to be.” That is, we may say the mother has created a child or (more often) someone has begotten something that he built or produced somehow.

The Hebrew word yalad means “to bear, bring forth, beget” but it can be used (as the equivalent English word also can) for “cause to be.” For example, when God says he “begot”/”fathered” (yalad) the nation of Israel (Deut. 32:6, 18), he clearly means that he caused it to be or created it as a nation. There is no implication that it was somehow begotten out of the very substance of his body. In like manner God calls the nation of Israel his son, his firstborn because it was the very first nation created by him and for him (cf. Ex. 4:22). Again, anything Jehovah creates may be said to be “begotten” by him and is his “offspring.”

“Is this the way you treat Jehovah? O foolish people, is not God your Father? Has he not created you?” - Deut. 32:6, Living Bible.

“You forsook the creator who begot [yalad] you and cared nothing for God who brought you to birth.” - Deut. 32:18, NEB.

“Men of Athens [nonChristians], .... The God who made the world and everything in it ... does not live in shrines made by man. .... Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold or silver, or stone...” - Acts 17:22, 24, 29, RSV.

It’s especially important to note the dual application of Psalm 2:7. Here Jehovah speaks to the Israelite king and says “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten [yalad] thee.” It’s true that the Israelite king (David?) prefigures Jesus Christ here, but notice that this scripture must directly apply to David also. Jehovah hasn’t really begotten him out of his very own substance so that now King David’s very body and substance are identical to God’s.

No, the king has, at this point, been accepted by God in a new way. God has caused him to be in a new status. So when this scripture is also applied to the Christ, it is to be applied in a similar (although greater) manner.

In Ps. 90:2 we also see yalad used in the sense of created: “Before the mountains were born [yalad] or you brought forth the earth” - NIV, AT, JB, NJB, NAB (1991), NASB; “begotten” - NAB (1970); “were given birth” - MLB. Or, “Before the mountains were created, before the earth was formed.” - Living Bible, cf. TEV. So, the Hebrew word most often translated “begotten, brought forth” may also be understood (as in English) to mean created or produced. And whether or not God means that the earth (“mountains”) was literally “begotten” from his very own spirit body or created out of nothing really matters very little. The point is that at one time it did not exist and then was brought into existence by the Creator, God!

The very title of God (“Father”) used as “source of all things” shows this common meaning throughout both testaments. God is the Father of all. What does this mean? He is the Father of the Universe, the Father of all creation, and even the Father of the Angels. (They truly are called “sons of God” and they were in existence before the earth was created - Job 38:4, 7, cf.Living Bible and NIVSB f.n.) They are spirit persons. Should we assume then that the angels were “begotten” from God in the sense that they have existed eternally and are actually composed of his very own spirit substance, etc.? After all, it doesn’t actually say that they were “created.” We know they were created because their Father created/”begot” everything: He is the “Father of all” including the spirit persons in heaven. - Eph. 4:6; Heb. 1:7; 12:9.

1 Cor. 8:6 tells us, again, that God is the Father of ALL things. He is the Creator of all things. The very common usage of “Father,” “son,” “begotten,” “born,” etc. is again used here for creation. Not only is God the Father of all created things here, but these things have literally “come out” (ek) from him. (“But to us there is but one God, the Father, [out of - ek] whom are all things”.) Yes the original New Testament word used here is “ek” which literally means “out of” (W. E. Vine, p.1270) and is commonly used in the sense of generating, begetting.

 

[Wrangler]

Sorry,,,it was not meant for you.

The level of intellectual dishonesty is stunning.

If you wish to use the internet, those reading along, including @Aunty Jane and @APAK and @Wrangler,
would do well to read the following and do some real studying.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sorry,,,it was not meant for you.
I've done some studying myself,,,left a denomination.

We believe what we believe.

It is we who have joined ourselves to a body of "Christians" who are usually the ones with the most knowledge....we had to identify the flaws in one denomination to accept the truth in another....some have gone searching in many denominations as I once did, but I never found God in any of them....until I met Jehovah's Witnesses. I asked all the same questions of them that I asked of the churches and expected the same evasive, inconclusive answers that I got from the clergy...but to my complete surprise, here was a body of Christians, probably the most hated for the least offense of any Christian denomination, but who had the answers to all my questions....and straight from God's word. It made me want to get me some of that knowledge. I have been studying ever since, using a wide range of reference material.

May I ask what denomination you left and is it the Catholic church whose beliefs you adopted?
I always find it very difficult to understand going back to Catholicism when so much of what it teaches has nothing to do with Christ or the Bible. The whole foundation of that institution has been wrought with violence and corruption from its beginnings under the influence of a pagan Roman ruler who himself, was never a Christian (though he was seen to support Christianity). But what he did was seek to unite his religiously divided empire by creating a fusion religion of weakened, watered down Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. His motive was purely political.

I believe the leaders of Christendom to be as Jesus said of the Pharisees.....'clean on the outside but full of corruption within'.