Early Christians and the Canon of Scripture

[CutlerB]

In another thread I asked for help in an exchange with a friend of mine about who has the authority to interpret Scripture, JWs or the Catholic Church.

As part of my personal research for the discussion, I am familiarising myself with how the Witnesses say the Canon of Scripture, or rather the New Testament, came to be determined. Obviously they deny that the Church was involved. Instead, they say that

“By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed”
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 409, Canon

In that same book, the following statements are made, on which I would like to kindly ask all of you to comment how accurate they are, etc. That would be most appreciated.

[E]arly writers — Clement of Rome …], Polycarp …], and Ignatius of Antioch …] wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Theophilus of Antioch …] declared: “Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” Theophilus then uses such expressions as ‘says the Gospel’ (quoting [Matthew]) and “the divine word gives us instructions” (quoting 1Ti 2:2 and Ro 13:7,*8).—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1962, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, “Theophilus to Autolycus” (XII, XIII).

The real test of canonicity, however, is not how many times or by what nonapostolic writer a certain book has been quoted. The contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of holy spirit. Consequently, it cannot contain superstitions or demonism, nor can it encourage creature worship. It must be in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible, thus supporting the authorship of …] God. Each book must conform to the divine “pattern of healthful words” and be in harmony with the teachings and activities of Christ Jesus. (2Ti 1:13; 1Co 4:17)

In another book (“All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial”, p. 302 par. 17 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon) the Watchtower addresses the Catholic Church’s claim directly. It states:

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

I know this is a lot of text, but I really need to get things cleared up in my head.

If anyone could comment on any of the quotes concerning the development of the Canon of the New Testament, I’d be obliged.

Thank you all.

 

[dmar198]

“By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed”
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 409, Canon

There was definitely questioning being done. Just as an example, the Muratorian Fragment was composed right after the period mentioned, and it omits the Letter to the Hebrews, 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, and James. Moreover, it says that the Apocalypse of Peter is admitted by some Christians and omitted by others. So there’s just one example of a Christian showing that there was quite a bit of disagreement among Christians about what should be in the Canon. If it was settled by the end of the second century the Muratorian Fragment wouldn’t be wondering about it at the beginning of the third.

I have to go to church now, but hopefully I’ll be able to post some more when I get back.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with dmar. If it was settled so early, why was their still diversity in the lists of what was received? Also, the Church would declare that it was the Holy Spirit revealing the canon also. They give the false “council vs. Holy Spirit” dichotomy that does not represent what Catholics themselves teach about councils.

 

[po18guy]

Everything that the Watchtower Corporation alleges is private opinion. Everything. Notice that they mention a “canon” by the end of the 2nd century. Really? Canon means “measure” Who measured? And, since there was only a single, unified Church at that time, why would the Church, unified as it was, have to call a council 200 years later to answer the question? Were their no Jehovah’s Witnesses around to answer the question? No, there were not - but the spirit that drives them was alive and well in the person of Arius, who divided the Church for centuries with his denial of the divinity of Christ - just as the “Witnesses” do. They deny all knowledge of Arius, but I greet them as Arians, as it speaks the truth to them.

They are making things up, as they do with all of their beliefs. Just as Russell did. Just as Rutherford did. Just as all of the JW “prophets” have done. Look up their prophecies: 100% failure rate. Some of them are comical.

 

[CutlerB]

I agree with dmar. If it was settled so early, why was their still diversity in the lists of what was received? Also, the Church would declare that it was the Holy Spirit revealing the canon also. They give the false “council vs. Holy Spirit” dichotomy that does not represent what Catholics themselves teach about councils.

Everything that the Watchtower Corporation alleges is private opinion. Everything. Notice that they mention a “canon” by the end of the 2nd century. Really? Canon means “measure” Who measured? And, since there was only a single, unified Church at that time, why would the Church, unified as it was, have to call a council 200 years later to answer the question? Were their no Jehovah’s Witnesses around to answer the question? No, there were not - but the spirit that drives them was alive and well in the person of Arius, who divided the Church for centuries with his denial of the divinity of Christ - just as the “Witnesses” do. They deny all knowledge of Arius, but I greet them as Arians, as it speaks the truth to them.

They are making things up, as they do with all of their beliefs. Just as Russell did. Just as Rutherford did. Just as all of the JW “prophets” have done. Look up their prophecies: 100% failure rate. Some of them are comical.

Thanks. I will have to reply later, since it’s late at night here across the pond and I’m really tired. I will get back to your posts!

 

[ahs]

“By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed”
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 409, Canon

Closed by whom and where is this closing of the Canon recorded? (Their assertion, their burden to support with evidence.)

 

[elizaveta01]

No, I don’t think the canon was set as early as they are saying. According to what I’ve read (from reputable sources), the only scriptures that were universally accepted throughout the Christian world by 200AD were The Gospels - and even they weren’t universally accepted until about 130AD. Acts and the Pauline corpus were accepted gradually but they were still debating about them in some places up until 250AD or so. The rest of the NT canon were gradually accepted over the next hundred and fifty years or so.

In fact some of the NT, particularly the book of James, was disputed up until the canon was closed by the Church at the Council of Carthage in 397. There are no known quotes of the book of James before 350AD.

One interesting question would be why they accept the same NT canon as the Catholic Church. In the time around 200AD there were a number of other scriptures that were in use. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Acts of Paul, the Apocalype of Peter, etc were widely used by the early Church and accepted as true scriptures by a number of the early fathers. If the JW’s teach that the NT consists of those scriptures used and quoted in 200AD, then why aren’t these writings in the JW bible? And why are the Petrine writings and James in the JW Bible when they weren’t used or quoted in 200AD? Makes no sense.

Personally I don’t think much of JW scholarship in general, and wouldn’t take anything they say at face value without support from other sources.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Others have pointed out that the Canon was certainly not settled fact by the end of the Second Century (which would have been nearly the year 300).

Nobody here has contested the commonly accepted assertion that the Canon was recognized near the end of the Fourth Century.

My question is this: Second or Fourth Century - what is the difference?

Neither were in the Apostolic Age. Did the Church somehow have the authority to declare the Canon within two centuries of the Apostolic Age, but not within four centuries?

Exactly where is the “cutoff” when the Church ceases to be authoritative?

Are the JW’s willing to accept the authority of Catholic Bishops who taught BEFORE their version of the date of the Canon of the NT? (hee, hee, hee)

 

[CutlerB]

I agree with dmar. If it was settled so early, why was their still diversity in the lists of what was received? Also, the Church would declare that it was the Holy Spirit revealing the canon also. They give the false “council vs. Holy Spirit” dichotomy that does not represent what Catholics themselves teach about councils.

One of their “arguments” is that no one decided what the Canon was other than the Holy Spirit. They say that’s why the canon was closed in the First century, because the Author had already determined it. It says in one of the above quotes, I think.

Everything that the Watchtower Corporation alleges is private opinion. Everything. Notice that they mention a “canon” by the end of the 2nd century. Really? Canon means “measure” Who measured? And, since there was only a single, unified Church at that time, why would the Church, unified as it was, have to call a council 200 years later to answer the question? Were their no Jehovah’s Witnesses around to answer the question? No, there were not - but the spirit that drives them was alive and well in the person of Arius, who divided the Church for centuries with his denial of the divinity of Christ - just as the “Witnesses” do. They deny all knowledge of Arius, but I greet them as Arians, as it speaks the truth to them.

They are making things up, as they do with all of their beliefs. Just as Russell did. Just as Rutherford did. Just as all of the JW “prophets” have done. Look up their prophecies: 100% failure rate. Some of them are comical.

I agree with you, but here’s what they say: The Early Christians accepted the Canon we have today. (See quotes) As to why the Church called the Council, here they say: “To add seven books to the Old Testament.”

Personally I don’t think much of JW scholarship in general, and wouldn’t take anything they say at face value without support from other sources.

I don’t either, but I will still have to counter their position when it comes to it

My question is this: Second or Fourth Century - what is the difference?

Neither were in the Apostolic Age. Did the Church somehow have the authority to declare the Canon within two centuries of the Apostolic Age, but not within four centuries?

Well, their answer is the Church never decided in the second century, therefore the question is irrelevant.

Are the JW’s willing to accept the authority of Catholic Bishops who taught BEFORE their version of the date of the Canon of the NT? (hee, hee, hee)

That’s a good question! All of the people they quote are Catholics, even Bishops. Perhaps one could spin it another way: Why trust Catholics on the matter? Why does the Watchtower quote them to support their canon? If they “added seven books”, surely they would put in the New Testament what they saw fit as “apostate Christians”!

On that score, do we have quotes from those Fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc.) that identify the Church either as Catholic or in some other way unmistakably the Catholic Church? I even think the Muratorian Fragment contains a reference to the Catholic Church!

 

[po18guy]

One of their “arguments” is that no one decided what the Canon was other than the Holy Spirit. They say that’s why the canon was closed in the First century, because the Author had already determined it. It says in one of the above quotes, I think.

Except that the JW ‘holy spirit’ is not a person, but rather an impersonal force, like gravity. The JW holy spirit must be like some type of centrifuge except that, rather than separating blood plasma from the red and white cells, the JW holy spirit apparently separates the canonical books from the apocrypha. To believe this JW “explanation” requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

I agree with you, but here’s what they say: The Early Christians accepted the Canon we have today. (See quotes) As to why the Church called the Council, here they say: “To add seven books to the Old Testament.”

Laughable! The “early Christians” followed their Bishops! The JWs foolishly try to separate the 'early Christians" from the “Roman Catholic Church” - the Bogeyman to them. Except that the early Christians were the Catholic Church. Once again, it seems that the JWs are hallucinating.

If they “added seven books”, surely they would put in the New Testament what they saw fit as “apostate Christians”!

Those seven books were written and used before Christ and one of them, the Book of Sirach, is also known as Ecclesiasticus. OK, so what? “Ecclesiasticus” means “Church book.” For the JWs, this is called “a clue”
In their zeal to hate and discredit the Catholic Church, the JWs conveneintly forget that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches also used those seven books from day one. To sanitize an American idiom, the JWs fertilizer is weak.

On that score, do we have quotes from those Fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc.) that identify the Church either as Catholic or in some other way unmistakably the Catholic Church? I even think the Muratorian Fragment contains a reference to the Catholic Church!

Ignatius of Antioch, (a student of Polycarp - himself a student of John the Apostle), in the year 107, referred in writing to the ‘catholic (universal) Church’ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:3)

The JW fabrications are surreal. Look at the “qualifications” of their founder, Charles Taze Russell - an ignorant and unstable man if ever there was one. No education beyond 7th grade. No religious or theological training. No visions. Sued for fraud. Divorced for mental cruelty to his wife. This one man’s opinions are the entire foundation of the JW house of cards.

And, we’re not even broaching the subject of their litany of failed prophecies. But, they are true believers - right down to the glassy stare in their eyes.

 

[CutlerB]

Except that the JW ‘holy spirit’ is not a person, but rather an impersonal force, like gravity. The JW holy spirit must be like some type of centrifuge except that, rather than separating blood plasma from the red and white cells, the JW holy spirit apparently separates the canonical books from the apocrypha. To believe this JW “explanation” requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

True, but to them He is God’s “active force”, so basically they are saying God arranged the Canon.

Laughable! The “early Christians” followed their Bishops! The JWs foolishly try to separate the 'early Christians" from the “Roman Catholic Church” - the Bogeyman to them. Except that the early Christians were the Catholic Church. Once again, it seems that the JWs are hallucinating.

No surprise there!

Those seven books were written and used before Christ and one of them, the Book of Sirach, is also known as Ecclesiasticus. OK, so what? “Ecclesiasticus” means “Church book.” For the JWs, this is called “a clue”.
In their zeal to hate and discredit the Catholic Church, the JWs conveneintly forget that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches also used those seven books from day one. To sanitize an American idiom, the JWs fertilizer is weak.

You may have misread my point. I was trying to say that if the JWs appeal to the Church Fathers (whom they call “Early Christians”) they place themselves in a very weak position. Either they acknowledge that they were “true Christians”, thus totally destroying their own belief system and legitimising the Catholic Church, or they have to admit that if the Church was out to “add seven books” to the Bible, those “Early Christians” could have just as well included books in the New Testament that don’t belong in the “true Canon”. That throws one back to the question: Who do you trust?

Ignatius of Antioch, (a student of Polycarp - himself a student of John the Apostle), in the year 107, referred in writing to the ‘catholic (universal) Church’ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:3)

Thanks! Are there some from the others? It doesn’t have to say “Catholic Church”, but something that refers clearly to Her or one of her doctrines as true (such as Trinity, Pope, Tradition, Apostolic Succession, Hell, anything that is contrary to fundamental JW tenets).

 

[thistle]

In another thread I asked for help in an exchange with a friend of mine about who has the authority to interpret Scripture, JWs or the Catholic Church.

As part of my personal research for the discussion, I am familiarising myself with how the Witnesses say the Canon of Scripture, or rather the New Testament, came to be determined. Obviously they deny that the Church was involved. Instead, they say that

In that same book, the following statements are made, on which I would like to kindly ask all of you to comment how accurate they are, etc. That would be most appreciated.

In another book (“All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial”, p. 302 par. 17 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon) the Watchtower addresses the Catholic Church’s claim directly. It states:

I know this is a lot of text, but I really need to get things cleared up in my head.

If anyone could comment on any of the quotes concerning the development of the Canon of the New Testament, I’d be obliged.

Thank you all.

catholic.com/tracts/stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses
catholic.com/tracts/more-stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses

 

[dmar198]

“By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed”
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 409, Canon

Aside from the fact that the Canon was still being debated in the Muratorian Fragment at the beginning of the third century, I tried to think of anything that happened in the late second century that would give them the impression that the New Testament Canon was a settled issue.

The only thing I could think of was the publication of St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. His book is important to the history of the New Testament Canon because he quotes from almost every book of the New Testament and doesn’t reject anything in the modern Canon. So maybe that’s why they said it was settled. But if that’s what they were thinking, it totally backfires, because St. Irenaeus also thought the Shepherd of Hermas was part of the Canon, and called it Scripture in Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 20, paragraph 2.

In the early third century, we also have the testimony of Origen, who wrote that several of the Canonical books of the New Testament were in dispute in his time, including 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. source] He also said that Gospel of the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabbas were in dispute. [same source] So combine all that with what I said about the Muratorian Fragment and anybody can see that the Canon was not settled by the end of the second century, and not in the early third century either.

[E]arly writers — Clement of Rome …], Polycarp …], and Ignatius of Antioch …] wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Yes, that’s true. Many of the books of the New Testament were widely accepted, but that doesn’t imply that the Canon was settled, or we wouldn’t find their contemporaries quoting non-Canonical literature as Scripture, which we do (see above). It is also important to recognize the contribution of Eusebius of Caesaria, the early 4th century Church Historian. In his Ecclesiastical History he writes that James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were often omitted source] and that the Shepherd of Hermas was occasionally admitted. [same source]

The real test of canonicity, however, is not how many times or by what nonapostolic writer a certain book has been quoted. The contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of holy spirit. Consequently, it cannot contain superstitions or demonism, nor can it encourage creature worship. It must be in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible, thus supporting the authorship of …] God. Each book must conform to the divine “pattern of healthful words” and be in harmony with the teachings and activities of Christ Jesus. (2Ti 1:13; 1Co 4:17)

1. Whether a certain book is quoted by the Church Fathers is a very important test of its canonicity, because they often tell us whether the book they are quoting is canonical. Dismissing the testimony of the Church Fathers like that is a bad idea because Jesus and the Apostles told us to listen to the successive Church leaders after the Apostolic age. (See the evidence for apostolic succession.)
2. Yes, a biblical book should give evidence of its inspiration. But are we infallible enough to determine on our own what constitutes sufficient evidence for any given book? Philemon and 2 John and 3 John are pretty short books. There’s not really that much room for them to give evidence of their inspired status. You could say that internal evidence gives them a date within the first century and their content matches the thoughts of the authors they claim to be from; that’s evidence; but is it sufficient? Especially when 2 and 3 John were disputed so late into Church History?

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

I don’t think the Church regards its decisions re: the Canon as a top-down affair. I think the Church regards it as bottom-up. The faithful Catholics in the ages before 382 A.D. (when the Council of Rome declared the Canon – before the Council of Carthage) were slowly sorting out the wheat from the weeds, listening carefully to the words of the Shepherd, and then the bishops in council put a stamp of approval on what was presented to them by the faithful and their priests. But what these JWs are getting wrong is, they are mischaracterizing that process of development that took centuries of faithful Catholics, they are dismissing it with the thought that because the development of the Canon happened therefore they (modern JWs) could have done it without the Church, and therefore the bishops gathered in council made no real contribution. And that’s just silly.

 

[dmar198]

As to why the Church called the Council, here they say: “To add seven books to the Old Testament.”

Well that’s silly because the Deuterocanonical books were already accepted by the pre-fourth century Christians just as much as the other ones. These JWs demonstrate that by their own sources: Clement of Rome quoted the Book of Wisdom in his Letter to the Corinthians chapter 27 paragraph 5. (Not to be confused with St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians – this is a different one.) The Didache quoted from Sirach in Didache 4:3-5. Polycarp quoted from Tobit in his Letter to the Phillipians paragraph 10. St. Irenaeus quoted from the extended version of Daniel in Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 26 Paragraph 3 and from Baruch in Book 5 Chapter 35 Paragraph 1. Other early Church Fathers who quoted from the Deuterocanon can be perused here: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html So this idea that the Church Fathers “added 7 books” at the Council of Carthage is silly. They were already there and were already accepted as Scripture.

On that score, do we have quotes from those Fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc.) that identify the Church either as Catholic or in some other way unmistakably the Catholic Church?

Yes. St. Ignatius said, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans Paragraph 8) Polycarp was acknowledged by his contemporaries as a Catholic: “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 ) The Muratorian fragment does mention Catholicism: “The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church.” In addition, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and Pope St. Clement of Rome are all used in classic Catholic apologetics to demonstrate early belief in the papacy, which is a Catholic-only belief. See catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

Okay now I feel like I’ve responded in more depth. I hope what I’ve posted is helpful. God bless!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You may have misread my point. I was trying to say that if the JWs appeal to the Church Fathers (whom they call “Early Christians”) they place themselves in a very weak position. Either they acknowledge that they were “true Christians”, thus totally destroying their own belief system and legitimising the Catholic Church, or they have to admit that if the Church was out to “add seven books” to the Bible, those “Early Christians” could have just as well included books in the New Testament that don’t belong in the “true Canon”. That throws one back to the question: Who do you trust?

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

 

[CutlerB]

Well that’s silly because the Deuterocanonical books were already accepted by the pre-fourth century Christians just as much as the other ones. These JWs demonstrate that by their own sources: Clement of Rome quoted the Book of Wisdom in his Letter to the Corinthians chapter 27 paragraph 5. (Not to be confused with St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians – this is a different one.) The Didache quoted from Sirach in Didache 4:3-5. Polycarp quoted from Tobit in his Letter to the Phillipians paragraph 10. St. Irenaeus quoted from the extended version of Daniel in Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 26 Paragraph 3 and from Baruch in Book 5 Chapter 35 Paragraph 1. Other early Church Fathers who quoted from the Deuterocanon can be perused here: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html So this idea that the Church Fathers “added 7 books” at the Council of Carthage is silly. They were already there and were already accepted as Scripture. Yes. St. Ignatius said, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans Paragraph 8) Polycarp was acknowledged by his contemporaries as a Catholic: “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 ) The Muratorian fragment does mention Catholicism: “The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church.” In addition, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and Pope St. Clement of Rome are all used in classic Catholic apologetics to demonstrate early belief in the papacy, which is a Catholic-only belief. See catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

Okay now I feel like I’ve responded in more depth. I hope what I’ve posted is helpful. God bless!

It was indeed, thank you!

 

[po18guy]

True, but to them He is God’s “active force”, so basically they are saying God arranged the Canon.

Ask them where that is written. The Holy Spirit is the Author of scripture, not the arranger. The Church did that.

You may have misread my point. I was trying to say that if the JWs appeal to the Church Fathers (whom they call “Early Christians”) they place themselves in a very weak position. Either they acknowledge that they were “true Christians”, thus totally destroying their own belief system and legitimising the Catholic Church, or they have to admit that if the Church was out to “add seven books” to the Bible, those “Early Christians” could have just as well included books in the New Testament that don’t belong in the “true Canon”. That throws one back to the question: Who do you trust?

Oh! Sorry. When you defeat their points, they get that glassy expression in their eyes and change the subject. I ask them what their founder’s qualifications were to privately interpret the scriptures.

Thanks! Are there some from the others? It doesn’t have to say “Catholic Church”, but something that refers clearly to Her or one of her doctrines as true (such as Trinity, Pope, Tradition, Apostolic Succession, Hell, anything that is contrary to fundamental JW tenets).

There is a two volume set on the early Church fathers by Benedict XVI, as well as Jimmy Akin’s "The Fathers Know Best.

 

[CutlerB]

Ask them where that is written. The Holy Spirit is the Author of scripture, not the arranger. The Church did that.

Although He would be involved in arranging the Canon through the Church. Neither of the two did it apart from the other, could we say that?

Oh! Sorry. When you defeat their points, they get that glassy expression in their eyes and change the subject. I ask them what their founder’s qualifications were to privately interpret the scriptures.

No worries. Since we’re not talking face to face because he moved a bit further away for university, I won’t see that expression. I’ve had him change subject often, and I keep falling for it time and again.

There is a two volume set on the early Church fathers by Benedict XVI, as well as Jimmy Akin’s "The Fathers Know Best.

I have Jimmy’s book.

 

[po18guy]

Although He would be involved in arranging the Canon through the Church. Neither of the two did it apart from the other, could we say that? HE (they think He is like “the force” in Star Wars) inspired both the writing and the compilation of scripture.

If you can, get a copy of The Essential Catholic Survival Guide as it has an excellent section on stumping the JWs. For obvious reasons, they tend to distance themselves from Russell. Just exposing the bio of their founder, and the hilarious failed prophecies that followed (i.e. the mansion and the limo) will have them quickly diverting attention back to their “New Weird Translation” which somewhat resembles the bible.

You want a real laugh? There still exist about 50,000 “Bible Students” (“BS”), the remnant of the original group that Russell founded. They consider the JWs to be heretics!

 

[CutlerB]

CutlerB;11229579:

Although He would be involved in arranging the Canon through the Church. Neither of the two did it apart from the other, could we say that? HE

(they think He is like “the force” in Star Wars) inspired both the writing and the compilation of scripture.

Where did that second bit of “my quote” come from?

If you can, get a copy of The Essential Catholic Survival Guide as it has an excellent section on stumping the JWs.

It’s the print version of all online CA tracts, that is I could also read them on this website, correct?

For obvious reasons, they tend to distance themselves from Russell. Just exposing the bio of their founder, and the hilarious failed prophecies that followed (i.e. the mansion and the limo) will have them quickly diverting attention back to their “New Weird Translation” which somewhat resembles the bible.

Limo? That’s one I haven’t heard of yet! Tell me more! The mansion came to good use… Rutherford thought he’d take “custody” of it, until the Old Testament Fathers were resurrected. Why not, indeed!

You want a real laugh? There still exist about 50,000 “Bible Students” (“BS”), the remnant of the original group that Russell founded. They consider the JWs to be heretics!

And yet they praise their “unity” of JWs. Weirrrd.