Evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses

[johnpauls]

The first break was between Polycarp and Clement over Easter. Then around the middle of the 4th century you had the Acacian Schism. All the time several break-off groups that often covered large areas were everywhere (ie Arian Controversy). The church called them heresies, but they were often full blown schisms. These are the “early” schisms I am referring to.

Whether official or not, during my reading of church history, I often run across the reference “Church of Rome” right along with “Bishop of Rome” as a reference to the Western church. Would it be better if I said “See of Rome”? Wikipedia even has a result for “Church of Rome” and then offers to forward to Catholic Church etc.

As a side point of what you quote concerning Peter and Paul forming the Church in Rome, I have always found it more than peculiar that in all Paul’s and Timothy’s writings, NEVER ONCE is Peter mentioned beting their in Rome with them. Nor does Peter mention in his writings ONCE that Paul is with him. It is hard to prove something by stating what is missing … but it is an intriguing point. So many of the letters back and forth to congregations had salutations and greetings sent to those near the recipient. It could be said that the lack of greeting to Peter, or from Peter, had he been in Rome with Paul, is downright awkward. To have Paul answer letters without mentioning a consultation with Peter may have been highly inappropriate.

…or…

Peter was not in Rome, and we take the bible at face value.

 

[SteveVH]

The first break was between Polycarp and Clement over Easter. Then around the middle of the 4th century you had the Acacian Schism. All the time several break-off groups that often covered large areas were everywhere (ie Arian Controversy). The church called them heresies, but they were often full blown schisms. These are the “early” schisms I am referring to.

Whether official or not, during my reading of church history, I often run across the reference “Church of Rome” right along with “Bishop of Rome” as a reference to the Western church. Would it be better if I said “See of Rome”? Wikipedia even has a result for “Church of Rome” and then offers to forward to Catholic Church etc.

As a side point of what you quote concerning Peter and Paul forming the Church in Rome, I have always found it more than peculiar that in all Paul’s and Timothy’s writings, NEVER ONCE is Peter mentioned beting their in Rome with them. Nor does Peter mention in his writings ONCE that Paul is with him. It is hard to prove something by stating what is missing … but it is an intriguing point. So many of the letters back and forth to congregations had salutations and greetings sent to those near the recipient. It could be said that the lack of greeting to Peter, or from Peter, had he been in Rome with Paul, is downright awkward. To have Paul answer letters without mentioning a consultation with Peter may have been highly inappropriate.

…or…

Peter was not in Rome, and we take the bible at face value.

The following was taken from the “Faith” forum right here on CAF:

*"There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

“The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders.”*

From which source are you getting your information, Lorraine Boettner?

While this is an interesting topic, I think we are getting way off the topic of this thread.

 

[johnpauls]

The code word for Babylon being Rome was post traditional concept of Peter being in Rome. To me, that would be the church writers wanting to further establish that connection. If what you are saying was truly the code word, then why doesn’t Paul or Timothy use that code word for Rome? They simply say Rome.

Or why does Peter, mention his son Mark, while not mentioning Paul or Timothy?

I am just saying that if you imagine Paul and Peter actually being in Rome together and administering the church (as i know you do), it is more than perplexing there is not a mention of that anywhere in their letters.

Also, Paul states that he was sent to the gentiles, and Peter was sent to the Jews. 2 Tim 4:11 is interesting when Paul says he is alone with Luke. We know 2 Tim was written in Rome.

Overall, I think we can jump to the point that Catholics rest their faith on Peter being in Rome based on the concept Peter used the code-name for Rome (being Babylon), and that writers later said Peter was in Rome.

 

[SteveVH]

The code word for Babylon being Rome was post traditional concept of Peter being in Rome. To me, that would be the church writers wanting to further establish that connection. If what you are saying was truly the code word, then why doesn’t Paul or Timothy use that code word for Rome? They simply say Rome.

Or why does Peter, mention his son Mark, while not mentioning Paul or Timothy?

I am just saying that if you imagine Paul and Peter actually being in Rome together and administering the church (as i know you do), it is more than perplexing there is not a mention of that anywhere in their letters.

Also, Paul states that he was sent to the gentiles, and Peter was sent to the Jews. 2 Tim 4:11 is interesting when Paul says he is alone with Luke. We know 2 Tim was written in Rome.

Overall, I think we can jump to the point that Catholics rest their faith on Peter being in Rome based on the concept Peter used the code-name for Rome (being Babylon), and that writers later said Peter was in Rome.

Maybe you should start a thread on this subject. This really has nothing to do with “Evangelizng Jehovah’s Witnesses”

 

[T_More]

The code word for Babylon being Rome was post traditional concept of Peter being in Rome. To me, that would be the church writers wanting to further establish that connection. If what you are saying was truly the code word, then why doesn’t Paul or Timothy use that code word for Rome? They simply say Rome.

As an opponent of the Church, of course “to you” that would be the conclusion. Do you know the reason why Peter used code?

Or why does Peter, mention his son Mark, while not mentioning Paul or Timothy?

**Did not Paul refer to Timothy as a son? Did not John in his Epsitles refer to the readers as his children? Your agrument doesn’t really discount anything. **

I am just saying that if you imagine Paul and Peter actually being in Rome together and administering the church (as i know you do), it is more than perplexing there is not a mention of that anywhere in their letters.

Why is that perplexing? Was there a need to?

Also, Paul states that he was sent to the gentiles, and Peter was sent to the Jews. 2 Tim 4:11 is interesting when Paul says he is alone with Luke. We know 2 Tim was written in Rome.

**By your line of reasoning, does that mean Paul and Timothy were the only christians in Rome at the time of this letter? **

Overall, I think we can jump to the point that Catholics rest their faith on Peter being in Rome based on the concept Peter used the code-name for Rome (being Babylon), and that writers later said Peter was in Rome.

Right…let’s disregard what the early christians understood and accepted. Poeple opposed to the Church will use the church fathers when it supports their position, like you did on the other thread with Justin Martyr, and then disregard them as valid when they don’t.

And your answer for Matthew 16:17-20 is…?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Some ideas for evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Tell them you have a relative in their headquarters and that the end is even nearer than they had previously thought so many times over all these years. Look to your left then nervously look to your right as if you are making sure no one can overhear what you will say next. Lower your voice and give them an intense look. Tell them it will be on St. Patrick’s Day in order to glorify the name of Jehovah and once and for all show the world that Catholics were wrong all along, a it will all come out for the world to see then. Thank them for coming, and make an excuse why you can’t continue discussing this sensitive information at this time, like …they could be listening… then quickly thank them for coming over. Give them a quick wink that says, we are in this thing together and then shut the door as fast as you can.

Years later, they will think back to that day and realize that they really did believe you. They may have even reported back to their elder as soon as they left your door. Then, they would realize how easily duped they could be. This could chip away their faith slowly. They may wonder why they would believe such things about the Catholic Church and that could lead to their wanting to know more about it.

But, that wouldn’t be very ethical I guess. Seriously, in this day and age if one is a Jehovah’s Witness they must be because they can’t get all their family out with them once the lightbulb goes off if it ever does. They do seem to have very limited ability to have any meaningful contact with non members.

 

[SteveVH]

Some ideas for evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Tell them you have a relative in their headquarters and that the end is even nearer than they had previously thought so many times over all these years. Look to your left then nervously look to your right as if you are making sure no one can overhear what you will say next. Lower your voice and give them an intense look. Tell them it will be on St. Patrick’s Day in order to glorify the name of Jehovah and once and for all show the world that Catholics were wrong all along, a it will all come out for the world to see then. Thank them for coming, and make an excuse why you can’t continue discussing this sensitive information at this time, like …they could be listening… then quickly thank them for coming over. Give them a quick wink that says, we are in this thing together and then shut the door as fast as you can.
Years later, they will think back to that day and realize that they really did believe you. They may have even reported back to their elder as soon as they left your door. Then, they would realize how easily duped they could be. This could chip away their faith slowly. They may wonder why they would believe such things about the Catholic Church and that could lead to their wanting to know more about it.

But, that wouldn’t be very ethical I guess. Seriously, in this day and age if one is a Jehovah’s Witness they must be because they can’t get all their family out with them once the lightbulb goes off if it ever does. They do seem to have very limited ability to have any meaningful contact with non members.

This may be unethical, but I would love to be a fly on that wall.