Religious Titles

Post Reply New Topic

Matthew 23:9 "Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One."

Why is the Pope referred to as "the Holy Father"? The word "Pope" is from the Latin "papa" and from the Greek πάππας (pappas), which literally means father. Jesus specifically said "do not call anyone YOUR father on earth." Can anyone explain this?

uhh, because the bible is a work of fiction. Just a trashy novel left in hotel night stands?

Maybe you're taking that line out of context, but it sounds like its saying that you cant even call your own biological Dad "father", much less call the Pope father.

There is a difference from calling someone your biological father and calling someone your spiritual father.

As for the original question posed, why do catholics do anything?

It is of course an excellent question.

Of course it is also a good answer to the unenlightened who claim believers do unquestioningly everything in the book.

The simplest answer of course is that it starts up in a milieu which is not highly literate and scripture driven, importing a traditional term of respect.

And that is in turn a point for the people who claim Christianity stole everything from pagans.

This is a pretty prime example of eisegesis, placing your own view on a verse. The more correct method of interpreting scripture is to draw the meaning from its context relating to the other passages that surround it (called exegesis). The for example, the passage before Mattew 23:9 states ‘But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master: and all you are brethren. (Matt 23:8)’, if you want to interpret verse nine to be a literal command to call no one your father, then you also cannot call someone a Rabbi (translated as teacher, doctor). The literal meaning that you have drawn from the passage gives you no ground to support any title for anyone. So is this view supported elsewhere in the Bible?

No, not at all. Within the NT there are many places where Jesus shows that he has no problem calling people father: Matthew 10:21; 15:4-5; 19:15, 19; Mark 7:10-12; 13:12; Luke 6:23, 26; 14:26; 15:12f; 16:27; John 6:49, 58. What about calling a spiritual leader ‘father’? In the Old Testament Elisha called the great prophet Elijah, “My father, my father!” (II Kings 2:12). King Aram considered Elisha his spiritual father (see II Kings 8:9). In the New Testament we read of prophets, in general, were recognized as spiritual fathers (Acts 3:25). David is called father (Acts 2:29), as is Isaac (Romans 9:10). St. Stephen respectfully referred to his persecutors as fathers (Acts 7:2). Abraham is called father quite often (Matthew 3:9; Luke 1:55, 73; 3:8; 16:24, 27, 30; John 8:56; Romans 4:1, 11,12, 16, 17, 18; James 2:21). Was St. John, the Beloved Disciple sinning when he called other Christians fathers? (I John 2:13,14). Or when he referred to himself as Father John? (I John 2:1; III John 4). The same could be asked of St. Peter (I Peter 5:13). St. Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father often (I Corinthians 4:15, 17; II Corinthians 12:14; Philippians 2:22; I Timothy 1:2, 18; II Timothy 2:1; Titus 1:4; Philemon 10).

Jesus also commissioned the Apostles to go and be teachers of the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). St. Paul refers to himself as teacher (see I Timothy 2:7; II Timothy 1:11). He also states that there are others within the Church that have the office of teacher (see I Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11).

The more mainstream exegesis of the passage is that Jesus was warning people not to believe in anyone who puts their own teachings above God's, which is something the Pharisees were prone to doing with their own thinkers.

^^^Well done.

You reason that such a statement by Jesus must be some sort of metaphor to mean something entirely different. Jesus meant exactly what he said.

This thread is meant to poke holes in Christendom's "Holy Traditions" which include the teachings and writings of the Church "Fathers". Who where these Church "Fathers"? These "Fathers" were prominent theologians and "Christian" philosophers who lived between the second and fifth centuries C.E. How much have they influenced modern "Christian" thought? Did they hold fast to the Bible in their teaching? What should be the solid basis of Christian truth for a follower of Jesus Christ?

Greek Orthodox professor of religious studies Demetrios J. Constantelos claims "THE Bible is not the totality of God's word. The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book." What could possibly be another reliable source of divine revelation? Constantelos asserts in his book Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: "Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures [are] viewed as two sides of the same coin."

The point of fact is that once the apostles died an apostasy among professed Christians was foretold by the apostle Paul to rise. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) He specifically mentioned certain apostates, such as Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus. (1Timothy 1:19, 20; 2 Timothy 2:16-19) Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were:

• lack of faith (Hebrews 3:12),
• lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Hebrews 10:32-39),
• abandonment of right moral standards (2 Peter 2:15-22),
• the heeding of the "counterfeit words" of false teachers and "misleading inspired utterances" (2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:16-19; compare Proverbs 11:9),
• trying "to be declared righteous by means of law" (Galatians 5:2-4).
• While still making profession of faith in God's Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ. (Luke 6:46; Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20)
• They may also claim to serve God but reject his representatives, his visible organization, and then turn to 'beating' their former associates to hinder their work. (Jude 8, 11; Numbers 16:19-21; Matthew 24:45-51)
• Apostates often seek to make others their followers. (Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1, 3)
• Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the "antichrist." (1 John 2:18, 19)

As you'll see in the following paragraphs this great apostasy was also divinely foretold to occur with a level of specificity by Simon Peter at 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting (or distorting), as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Peter even warned in verse 17 "YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness."

During the period of persecution that the early Christian congregation experienced at the hands of the Roman Empire, professed Christians were at times induced to deny their Christian discipleship, and those who did so were required to signify their apostasy by making an incense offering before some pagan god or by openly blaspheming the name of Christ. This persecution continued into the middle of the second century C.E. as many more professed Christians defended their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the "divinity" of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over "Christian" doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war. Writes historian Paul Johnson: "[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and so it continued. . . . The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries AD swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to propagate themselves. . . . From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common."

During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret "Christian" teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to "Christianity," such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture.

This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen's treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of "Christian" theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the "divinity" of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of "Christian" dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Emperor Constantine. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians, most of them writing in Greek, worked out in a long and bitter debate what was to be the distinguishing doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity. Chief among them were Athanasius, the assertive bishop of Alexandria, and three church leaders from Cappadocia, Asia Minor-Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus.

Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom as well as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo in Latin were consummate orators, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine. His theological treatises have pervasively shaped the "Christian" thinking of today. Jerome, the period's most distinguished man of letters, was chiefly responsible for the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible from the original languages.

However, important questions are: Did those Church "Fathers" adhere closely to the Bible? In their teaching, did they hold fast to the inspired Scriptures? Are their writings a safe guide to an accurate knowledge of God?

Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern "Christian" thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: "Almost all the prominent Church "Fathers" considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths."

Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church "Fathers" after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church "Fathers" get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."-John 3:16; 14:28.

Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church "Fathers" were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: "The soul that is sinning-it itself will die." (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church "Fathers'" belief in an immortal soul? "The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine's doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism," says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: "Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato."

After even this brief examination of the historical backdrop of the Church "Fathers", as well as the origins of their teachings, it is appropriate to ask, Should a sincere Christian base his or her beliefs on the teachings of the Church "Fathers"? Let the Bible answer.

For one thing, Jesus Christ himself ruled out the use of the religious title "Father" when he said: "Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One." (Matthew 23:9) The use of the term "Father" to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural. The written Word of God was completed about 98 C.E. with the writings of the apostle John. Thus, true Christians do not need to look to any human as the source of inspired revelation. They are careful not to 'make the word of God invalid' because of human tradition. Letting human tradition take the place of God's Word is spiritually lethal. Jesus warned: "If . . . a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."-Matthew 15:6, 14.

Does a Christian need any revelation besides the word of God as contained in the Bible? No. The book of Revelation cautions against adding anything to the inspired record: "If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll."-Revelation 22:18.

Christian truth is embodied in the written Word of God, the Bible. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1-4) The correct understanding of it does not hinge on secular philosophy. Regarding men who tried to use human wisdom to explain divine revelation, it is fitting to repeat the apostle Paul's questions: "Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?"-1 Corinthians 1:20.

Moreover, the true Christian congregation is "a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Its overseers safeguard the purity of their teaching within the congregation, preventing any doctrinal pollutant from creeping in. (2 Timothy 2:15-18, 25) They keep out of the congregation 'false prophets, false teachers, and destructive sects.' (2 Peter 2:1) After the death of the apostles, the Church "Fathers" allowed "misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons" to take root in the Christian congregation.-1 Timothy 4:1.

The consequences of this apostasy are evident in Christendom today. Its beliefs and practices are a far cry from Bible truth.

THIS is why Christendom continues to use titles like Pope despite Jesus's clear-cut directions NOT to use Father, Leader, Rabbi. The whole of Christendom is corrupt to the core because what they teach are basically ancient pagan doctrines. In fact Christendom today shares nothing in common with the first century Christianity Jesus and his apostles established.

As I said before Jesus wasn't speaking in illustration or metaphor when he gave that direction. He meant exactly what he said.

You can always try to take studies exactly to this end - ie. strip away later interpretations and establish your own. Overall though many of the church fathers were, for better or worse, products of their environment. The Greeks, being raised Greek for instance, would being coming at it from their own platform of thought. I cant rule out that there weren't a few who didn't have it in their heads to just make names for themselves by injecting notions that they believed would get them on the map.

As for having church 'fathers' though, I'm not sure how you can have organized religion and not have that. It seems part and parcel.

Hehe, Schrödinger's holy book.

Sure: Only call your father "Father". Personally, I have a biological father I call "Dad", and I have a Father in the Heavens I call "Abba-Father" ... and as to the Pope: Who the 'ell is he to me?

Abba...the band abba?

OK... ALL of Christendom is apostate? Really, ALL of us??? Look, those are some pretty harsh assumptions that ALL of Christendom has fallen so far from the early Christians. Let me ask you this:

Do you pray the "Our Father," celebrate the Eucharist frequently, come together on Sunday to break bread, confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, appoint priests/elders through the laying on of hands, pray to Jesus, anoint the sick with oil, often kneel down to pray, consider yourself to be a witness of Christ, have deacons, celebrate Pentecost, have special people that look after widows and orphans, and occasionally drink wine?

You mentioned "adding" to the Bible in Revelation. Actually, I think the proper context of that verse is only referring to Revelation specifically, but that could certainly apply to the rest of the Bible. The only problem I have with that is the Biblical canon wasn't quite firmly established by that point, so exactly how could "all of Christendom" become apostate if Christians themselves didn't quite even know what that meant yet?

Speaking of "adding" to the Bible--In Col. 1:15-17, the NWT adds the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek. Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? Check out Proverbs 30:5-6.

The word ’ab·ba’′ in ancient Aramaic corresponds to the emphatic or definite form of ’av, literally meaning “the father,” or “O Father.” It was the intimate name used by children for their fathers and combines some of the intimacy of the English word “papa” while retaining the dignity of the word “father,” being both informal and yet respectful. It was, therefore, an endearing form of address rather than a title and was among the first words a child learned to speak.

Revelation 18:2 mentions Babylon the Great. You might be asking what, or who, is that? The founding of the city of Babylon on the Plains of Shinar was concurrent with the attempt at building the Tower of Babel. (Ge 11:2-9). The Bible lists Babel first when giving the ‘beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.’ (Ge 10:8-10) Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the ancient city of Babylon is featured prominently as the longtime enemy of Jehovah God and his people. Though Babylon became the capital of a political empire in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E., it was outstandingly prominent during its entire history as a religious center from which religious influence radiated in many directions. When Jehovah confused the languages they took with them all these ancient pagan beliefs like immorality of the soul and trinity (or triune gods), which is why you may notice many ancient cultures shared similar religious beliefs (Aztec vs Egyptian vs Germanian vs Greek vs and so forth) even though many didn't associate with one another. So for all intents and purposes Babylon the Great symbolically means the world empire of false religion!

It's probably worth reading the account at Revelation 18:1-3 to get the gist of it:

1 After these things I saw another angel descending from heaven, with great authority; and the earth was lighted up from his glory.
2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a lurking place of every unclean exhalation and a lurking place of every unclean and hated bird!
3 For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”

But specifically to your questions. In verse 4 this is where you can take action to save yourself from her doomed verdict.

4 And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues.



Yes and No. Jesus said in Matthew 6:7 “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.” But the lord's prayer is a template with which to forge your prayers. The main point to remember is that prayers must be heartfelt, not scripted, and they must go through Jesus in order for prayers to be heard. At John 14:6, 14: “Jesus said to [Thomas, one of his disciples]: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”



No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate Mass or Communion. We do not believe in transubstantiation, a Roman Catholic teaching. We do celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal on the date corresponding to the Jewish Nisan 14 (usually in March or April) as an annual memorial of Christ’s death. At this meeting they pass around the congregation unleavened bread and red wine in symbol of Christ’s sinless body and sacrificial blood. Only those with the hope of reigning with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom partake of the emblems.— Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:29; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Revelation 14:1-5.



This would be symbolic of Jesus sinless body he gave on behalf of all sinful mankind. We only do this annual per Jesus instructions at Mark 14:22-26.



We don't 'speak in tongues'.

At 1 Corinthians 13:8 reference is made to several miraculous gifts — prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. Verse 9 again refers to two of these gifts — knowledge and prophecy — saying: “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.” (King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942). Or, as Revised Standard Version, Second Edition (1971) reads: “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect.” Then verse 10 states: “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942)) The word “perfect” is translated from the Greek te′lei·on, which conveys the thought of being full grown, complete, or perfect. The Emphasised Bible (1897), Joseph B. Rotherham, The Bible in Living English (published in 1972), Steven T. Byington, and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition here render it “complete.” Notice that it is not the gift of tongues that is said to be “imperfect,” “in part,” or partial. That is said of “prophecy” and “knowledge.” In other words, even with those miraculous gifts, the early Christians had only an imperfect or partial understanding of God’s purpose. But when the prophecies would come to fulfillment, when God’s purpose would be accomplished, then “that which is perfect,” or complete, would come. So, this is obviously not discussing how long the ‘gift of tongues’ would continue.

However, the Bible does indicate how long the ‘gift of tongues’ would be a part of Christian experience. According to the record, this gift and the other gifts of the spirit were always conveyed to persons by the laying on of hands of the apostles of Jesus Christ or in their presence. (Acts 2:4, 14, 17; 10:44-46; 19:6; see also Acts 8:14-18.) Thus, after the death of the Apostles and when the individuals who in that way had received the gifts died, the miraculous gifts resulting from the operation of God’s spirit must have come to their end. Such a view agrees with the purpose of those gifts as stated at Hebrews 2:2-4, "For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of holy spirit according to his will?"

Also first-century Christians “spoke in tongues” and this filled a definite needs back then. Do you know what those needs were? (1) It served as a sign that God had shifted his favor from the Jewish system to the newly formed Christian congregation. (Heb. 2:2-4) and (2) It was a practical means to spread the good news on an international scale in a short time. (Acts 1:8)



To attain the office of overseer or elder, the following qualifications must be met: “The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; . . . not a newly converted man, . . . he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside.”—1Ti 3:1-7.

Likewise, in his letter to Titus, in discussing the subject of making appointments of elders, Paul said that in order to qualify as such, a man had to be “free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly. For an overseer must be free from accusation as God’s steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, that he may be able both to exhort by the teaching that is healthful and to reprove those who contradict.” (Tit 1:5-9) The differences in this latter list of qualifications evidently take into account the special needs of the congregations in Crete, where Titus was serving.—Tit 1:10-14.

Elders are not appointed by the "laying on of hands"; They are appointed by strict qualifications as those outlined in the above scriptures. These men are not elevated above the rest of the congregation. (2 Corinthians 1:24) They are not given special titles. (Matthew 23:8-10) They do not dress differently from others. Neither are they paid for their work. The elders willingly look after the spiritual needs of the congregation. They can provide comfort and guidance in times of trouble.—James 5:14-16; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.



The Lord's prayer found in Matthew 6:9-13 reads: “You must pray, then, this way: ‘[1] Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. [2] Let your kingdom come. [3] Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.’” (Notice that God’s name and purpose should be given priority.) Every prayer to Jehovah should be concluded in Jesus' name because by means of his sacrificial death he opened to way for us to gain salvation. As recorded in John 14:6, 14 Jesus said: “‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." For prayers to be heard and acceptable this is the way one should pray, and that is how we pray.



My apologies but I have no idea what this practice is so I cannot comment on it.



In the Bible, no particular position is specified for our prayers to be heard. (1 Kings 8:22; Nehemiah 8:6; Mark 11:25; Luke 22:41) When I pray I generally pray to God while lying in my bed and also throughout the day, and before every meal. Sometimes I pray on the bus, or when I ride my scooter. Other times while walking, or even when I do my laundry. What is important is to pray to God in sincerity and with the right heart attitude.—Joel 2:12, 13. And obviously closing in Jesus' name is crucial for my prayers to be properly heard.



With reference to Jesus Christ, the Bible states: “These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.” Of whom was Jesus a witness? He himself said that he made his Father’s name manifest. He was the foremost witness of Jehovah. — Revelation 3:14; John 17:6. In fact our name comes from Isaiah 43:10 "“YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah." So to answer your question, no I do not consider myself a witness of Christ. I consider myself a witness of Jehovah.



We have other spiritual men who are qualified to aid in the congregations. We call them ministerial servants, otherwise known as deacons to you. — 1 Timothy 3:8-10,



Unless you're referring to another, Pentecost was part of the Jewish mosaic law covenant. Jesus had announced the new covenant to his disciples on the evening of his last Passover and, just before his ascension, had instructed them to wait at Jerusalem for the promised holy spirit. Now, as the apostle Peter explained, “because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which you see and hear.” (Luke 22:20; Acts 2:33) The presence of God’s spirit was manifested in that some 120 disciples were miraculously speaking in different tongues. By this means, the multitudes of Jews and proselytes from all parts of the Roman Empire could hear with intelligibility “the magnificent things of God.” (Acts 2:7-11) First at this time, by means of Peter, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit was preached, as Jesus had commanded at Matthew 28:19. (Acts 2:21, 36, 38, 39) Having gone into the heavens with the value of his sacrifice, Jesus was able to bring his followers into the new covenant. — Heb 9:15-26.



True Christians are also concerned about the needs of strangers. They gladly give of their time, energy, and means to serve people they do not know. The Christian congregation is thus infused with an atmosphere of compassion and loving-kindness. Motivated by love, members of the congregation are energized to find ways to serve. Because of various personal problems, orphans and widows in the congregation may need your concern and empathy. For instance, compassionate Christians realize that at times the main thing some afflicted ones need is kindly visits from people who will listen with a sympathetic ear, show empathy, and provide Scriptural comfort. Other times widows may need help around their house to hang up mirrors or to mow their lawn. But a "special people"? We are fully resolved in our heart to give whatever our circumstances allow. (2 Cor. 9:6, 7)



Of course! Moderation in all things is a Bible principle. There may be cases where drinking alcohol, even in small quantities, would be ill-advised and detrimental to one’s health. On other occasions one may refrain from drinking intoxicating liquor to avoid stumbling others and out of love and consideration for others.—Romans 14:21. But I personally love a glass of wine every now and then.



Two words: holy spirit. A principal operation of God’s spirit involves its ability to inform, to illuminate, to reveal things. Therefore David could pray: “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10) Much earlier, Joseph had given the interpretation of Pharaoh’s prophetic dreams, being enabled to do so by God’s help. The Egyptian ruler recognized the operation of God’s spirit in him. (Genesis 41:16, 25-39) This illuminating power of the spirit is particularly notable in prophecy. Prophecy, as the apostle shows, did not spring from human interpretation of circumstances and events; it was not the result of some innate ability of the prophets to explain the meaning and significance of these or to forecast the shape of coming events. Rather, such men were “borne along by holy spirit”—conveyed, moved, and guided by God’s active force. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Samuel 23:2; Zechariah 7:12; Luke 1:67; 2:25-35; Acts 1:16; 28:25;) So, too, all the inspired Scriptures were “inspired of God,” which translates the Greek the·o′pneu·stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The spirit operated in various manners in communicating with such men and guiding them, in some cases causing them to see visions or dreams (Ezekiel 37:1; Joel 2:28, 29; Revelation 4:1, 2; 17:3; 21:10), but in all cases operating on their minds and hearts to motivate and guide them according to God’s purpose.—Daniel 7:1; Acts 16:9, 10; Revelation 1:10, 11

God’s spirit, then, not only brings revelation and understanding of God’s will but also energizes his servants to accomplish things in accord with that will. That spirit acts as a driving force that moves and impels them, even as Mark says the spirit “impelled” Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mark 1:12; compare Luke 4:1.) It can be like a “fire” within them, causing them to be “aglow” with that force (1 Thessalonians 5:19; Acts 18:25; Romans 12:11), in a sense ‘building up steam’ or pressure in them to do certain work. (Compare Job 32:8, 18-20; 2 Timothy 1:6, 7.) They receive the “power of the spirit,” or “power through his spirit.” (Luke 2:27; Ephesians 3:16; compare Micah 3:8) Yet it is not merely some unconscious, blind impulse, for their minds and hearts are affected as well so that they can intelligently cooperate with the active force given them. Thus the apostle could say of those who had received the gift of prophecy in the Christian congregation that the “gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets,” so that good order might be maintained.—1 Corinthians 14:31-33.



Quite simply words are inserted to completed the meaning or to help convey the meaning. This happens in many books that are published in one language and then translated into another language.

For example here's the Interlinear Translation of Colossians 1:15 - 17 so you can see for yourself the translation in action.
[img][800:634]http://www.kxmode.com/jw/col%201%2015-17%20interlinear%20translation.jpg[/img]
If you'll notice "[other]" is used in place of the confusing "the all(things)". Would you not agree that the use of "[other]" actually helps clarify those scriptures? The translators respectfully placed the word in single brackets [ ] to complete the sense in the English text.

And I don't think you would have a problem with this


being translated into To the Colossians for clarity.

Although the NWT is the primary bible I use, I will, on occasion, also use The Bible in Living English by Steven B. Byington for the simple reason that it helps to see a scripture in another modern language translation.

(NWT) Matthew 24:14 "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
(The Bible in Living English) Matthew 24:14 "and this gospel of the Reign will be proclaimed in all the world of men, for an attestation to all the nations. And then the end will come."

But the main reason I use NWT is because of its authenticity. For example as a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages.

The translation is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

The most important reason I use NWT is that it restores its author “Jehovah” as translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה‎, which means "He Causes to Become." Replacing the author from his own work with a title like LORD is like someone replacing William Shakespeare with a title like ENGLISH WRITER. Worth noting Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “Since the Tetragram [four Hebrew letters for the divine name] was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.” — Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977, p. 77. His personal name appears in the Bible in the original Hebrew some 7,000 times — more than any other name? When I read a bible I want the most accurate and truth translation I can find.

This reply took about 2.5 hours to assemble. I hope it answered your questions.

I appreciate the amount of work you have put into your posts. There are however, some doctrinal issues that I cannot agree with you on. For example:

The Trinity

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back. . . . And I would make this pious and safe agreement, . . . above all, in the case of those who inquire into the unity of the Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; because in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable.”—St. Augustine

The doctrine of the trinity is based on a 2 established and agreed upon facts within mainstream Christianity.

1. There is only one God.

I don’t think we disagree on this point.

2. There are three distinct persons in the Godhead

It is true that the word ‘trinity’ is not found anywhere in the Bible. However the early Christians did not really need to use that particular word in order to communicate their actual beliefs. Doctrinally there is a great deal of evidence upon which the doctrine of the Trinity can be derived. As you have indicated, the early Christians considered God the Father to be separate from God the Son (Mt. 11.27; 26.39; Mk. 1.9-11; Jn. 17.5). The original Greek term used was ho(Theos) and for most of the NT the father is referred to through this term. Christ is described as Kyrios (lord) through most of the NT. This separation was built in quite purposefully by the authors of the NT.

Do these terms however mean that Christ is not God?

No, not at all. AngelRho has already mentioned Col. 1:15-17. The original Greek text of that text clearly shows that Christ was not a creation of God and that he is God. This is echoed in John 1:3, where the same statement is made, ‘Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made’, this is also echoed in Heb 1:1-3. Does this alone establish the divinity of Christ? Yes, but there is more, the authors were so definitive in their desire to affirm the divinity of Christ that he is also often described as (ho)Theos (Johnn 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8-12; Tit. 2:13; I Jn. 5:20). As to the third member, the Holy Spirit, who is also identified as God (Acts 5:3-4) and the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28; I Cor 6:11), is conceived as personally distinct from both the Father and the Son (Mt 28:19; Lk 11:13; Jn 14:26; 15:26; Rom 8. 26-27; II Cor 13:14; I Pet 1:1-2). As these and other passages make clear, the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, but a personal reality who teachaes and intercedes for believers, who possesses a mind, who can be grieved and lied to, and who is ranked as an equal partner with the Father and the Son.

As to your statement that it is not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does not mention itself specifically, but you have no reason doubt its doctrinal truth. As a JW you also possess many doctrinal precepts not mentioned in the Bible (service committee, pioneers, theocracy and many others). Even the words Jehovah's Witness are not discoverable through the literal reading that you are encouraging and defending.