Jehovah as a name was invented and not God's real name

From the Book of Jehovah's Witnesses                   

God obeys at a Catholic priest

 "The priest speaks and heaven obeys;the priest commands and God is obedient."

(A PRIEST FOREVER By Francis J. Ripley. Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vicarius Generalis.,page 20)

MY REFUTATIONS:

A blatant blasphemy.

Man should be the one to follow God.

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.  (Deuteronomy 30:10)

IF MAN WILL NOT FOLLOW GOD, THIS WILL HAPPEN:

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:  (Deuteronomy 28:15)

Deuteronomy 28:16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

Deuteronomy 28:17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

Deuteronomy 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

Deuteronomy 28:19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

Deuteronomy 28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT:

Matthew 6:9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

MY LAST REFUTATIONS IS THAT IT WAS GOD WHO COMMANDED WHAT THE PRIESTS SHOULD DO ACCORDING TO HIS WILL AND NOT GOD WILL OBEY TO THE PRIESTS ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL:

Leviticus 21:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

then continue reading the whole Chapter 21 of Leviticus.

FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT:

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

We must remember that Apostle Paul's writings are commandments of God (read 1 Corinthians 14:37)

Catholics are happy in doing evil

". . . Catholics on the other hand have been too satisfied in their acceptance of corruption as the normal thing in public life. As a result of all this, a serious vein of cynicism in public affairs still runs through the Catholic body. One finds it among the priests and people alike. "who gets what, when, and how' characterizes the thinking even today of many a Catholic"

(POLITICS. . . GOVERNMENT. . . CATHOLICS By Gerome G. Kerwin, Ph. D. Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman., page 94)

Non Catholics are better people than Catholics

"WE READILY ADMIT THAT SOME PERSONS WHO DO NOT CONFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAT ARE SOME WHO DO; THAT THEY ARE MORE SINCERE AND UPRIGHT, PRESUMABLY MORE PLEASING TO GOD, AND APPARENTLY MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR SOULS"

(THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND YOU by Henri De Lubac, S. J. Page 88)

My refutations:

This is the proof that The Catholic Church is not of God. why? the real Christian Church should be the church of the saints.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Catholic Church as a name was invented only

The Roman Catholic Church” by a Catholic Priest Edward k. Taylor

“ Catholic… was first used by St, Ignatius , bishop of Antioch in Syria who was martyred about 110 A.D.

“ The Church founded by Christ is here , for the first time , Called the Catholic Church ,…. It was to stress the unity of the universal Church that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.

In 1870 , the Vatican Council , the name , Roman Catholic Church “ was proposed , but it was rejected . The bishops assembled unanimously decided upon this official name . The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church…

THE EXTERNAL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

A Handbook of Catholic Usage by Rt. Rev. Msgr. John F Sullivan, D.D. Completely Revised by Rev. John C. O’Leary, Ph.D.

Nihil obstat: John M.A Fearns, S.T.D., Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: Francis Cardina Spellman Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1951 by P.J Kennedy and Sons, New York, USA.

p.226

It’s interesting to note how often our church has availed herself of practices which were I common use among pagans, and which owed their origin to their appropriateness expressing something spiritual by material means. The Church and her clergy are ‘all things to all men, that they may gain Christ,’ and she has often found that it was well to take what was praiseworthy in other forms of worship and adapt it to her own purpose, for the sanctification of her children.

“Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic Rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those pagan creeds; but they are taking of what was the best part from paganism, the keeping of symbolical practices which express the religious instinct that is common to all races and times.”

http://www.amazon.com/externals-Catholic-Church-handbook-usage/dp/B0006AWBRO

Peter never became the Pope

Catholics believe that Peter was the first vicar of Christ and was the first pope. A Catholic pamphlet asserts this, thus: "Yes, Peter was the first Vicar of Christ. . . Peter was the first Pope." (Why Millions call him ''Holy Father," p.6)

Surprisingly, however, this same pamphlet of the Catholic Church categorically states that "Christ Never Called Peter 'Pope' (Ibid. p. I).

Church historian Renwick gives us this historical finding:

"We may note, however, that there was no foundation for the claim of the Roman Church that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years from 42 to 67 A.D." (The Story of the Church, pp. 14-15)

Author Loraine Boettner says in the book, Roman Catholicism:

"There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend." (p. 117)

"All of this makes it quite certain that Peter never was in Rome at all. Not one of the early church fathers gives any support to the belief that Peter was a bishop in Rome until Jerome in the fifth century." (Roman Catholicism, p. 122)

The early fathers of the Catholic Church were not convinced that Peter had become bishop of Rome or that he ever had reached the place for that matter. Notably, they were not the only ones who dismissed this belief. Even Catholic scholars reject such claim. Bishop Stephen Neill says:

"Most scholars reject as unhistorical the tradition that the Apostle Peter was, and was recognized as being, the first Bishop of Rome." (The Christian Society, p. 36)
In the magazine The Sunday Times, published on December 24, 1950, the Roman pontiff came out with an announcement:

"...the Pope announced officially the discovery of the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the great Basilica which bears his name. But the Pope said that it was not possible to prove with certainty that the human bones found in the tomb were really those of Saint Peter." (pp. 1,2)

"Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 10]

Having found no trace of the papacy in the era of the apostles in the New Testament, the good bishop continued his search in the annals of church history but, alas, he found out that there was no trace of the papacy in the first four centuries after the death of the apostles either. His findings were a devastating blow on the allegation that Apostle Peter had reached Rome and served as its bishop. Said he:

"But it is said on all sides, Was not St. Peter at Rome? Was he not crucified with his head down? Are not the pulpits in which he taught, the altars at which he said the mass, in this eternal city? St. Peter having been at Rome, my venerable brethren, rests only on tradition..." (Ibid, p. 9)

There is no evidence in both the New Testament and history books that Peter ever was in Rome. Thus, the papacy's claim of apostolic succession is plainly baseless. And, instead of coming out with positive evidence for the alleged authority and infallibility of the papacy, Strossmayer came out with this revealing conclusion:

"This century is unfortunate, as for nearly 150 years the popes have fallen from all the virtues of their predecessors, and have become apostates rather than apostles' ." (Ibid, p. 20)

His words said it all. The Catholic Church is not the true Church. It is the apostate Church
Against Biblical Facts

The claim that Apostle Peter had once become a bishop of Rome is against the teachings of the Bible. Peter had a particular assignment where he performed his ministry. In Galatians 2:7-8, this is recorded:

"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. "For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles." (New Intemational Version)

Rome was known to be a Gentile world. It was Apostle Paul, not Apostle Peter, who had jurisdiction over the Gentiles as he was particularly assigned as the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter was apostle to the Jews and he could not have left his post and gone to Rome to preach there. It is not surprising, therefore, that church historians and even Catholic authorities themselves could not find any trace or indication that Apostle Peter had ever been in Rome and assumed the office of Bishop in that ancient city.

"The New Testament does not so much as give us a single unmistakable intimation that Peter was ever in Rome; and, even if the reality of such a visit be allowed, his connection with the church at Rome remains before the eyes of history a dim and misty thing compared with his connection with the church at Jerusalem. There is nothing in the nature of the case to assure us that Peter would fix upon the Bishop of Rome The Roman theory runs here into the region of pure assumption, and impinges, moreover, upon a very considerable incongruity." (History of the Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 70-72)