First Jehovah's witnesses to knock at my door

[Porknpie]

I thought I addressed this back in post 55? I even highlighted the quotes from the Professors in blue so they would stand out.

I will quote one of them again:

Ken Berding, associate professor, whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures says: “The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God."

Do you think the professor is wrong?

Hi Logically, sorry for the slowed response but my work has been keeping me busy. Yes, he is wrong and no he is right. I’m not waffling here so let me clarify my words and what I mean

To the extent that he says the following, he is right: the books that we (and you) considered inspired and inerrant were books that The Church recognized were written by the apostles or those that knew that apostles AND they were being used in The Church widely, for the Catholic Mass. This is what St. Jerome was sent to find out: what writings were being used by The Church at Mass? And those “Christians” that he refers to…they were all members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They were the original Christians: Catholic Christians.

Where he is in error: there was not a universal set of writings agreed on that were scripture and books in the bible currently were disputed: Hebrew and Revelation for sure. Other books not in the bible were thought by some to be inspired but The Church excluded them. In total, The Church discerned 27 books of the NT out of more than 200 writings in circulation.

The Muratorian fragmant from 170 AD has a list that **almost **exactly matches the 27 books confirmed over 200 years later. (many assume the missing bit of the fragment adds the three books not mentioned)

The word “almost” is an important word here. The list does not establish scripture. You do NOT have the following writings in your bible that were on the fragment:

• The Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians
• The Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon
• The Apocalypse of Peter
• The Shepherd (written by Hermas).

And there are a dozen more proper lists drawn up that all predate the council of Rome that more or less are the same as what the council confirmed.

More or less is not the same as to what you have in your bible. If you believe “more or less” is the Truth, then why is the Shepherd of Hermas not in your bible?

As the professor put it:
“…the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.”

The professor is simply in error: Always does not equal “more or less”.

My reason for insisting on this is to counter the popular argument I hear:
*“If God used the councils of the fourth century to decide what books were in his word, and JW’s accept that, then logically the new doctrine decided at these councils (that God was three persons in one) was inspired too.” *

Logically and this is the contradiction for you: The Catholic Church decided what books should be in the bible. The Church definitively decided that the bible had 73 books and that the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas and others should be excluded. It also INCLUDED Hebrews and Revelation which were disputed.

So God, through the Holy Spirit, led The Catholic Church to all truth in deciding what is Scripture. Yet, you (JW) believe that the same Church went into apostasy on faith and morals. This is “Illogical” Logically. If you believe the latter, then you have no way of trusting the former is true. Perhaps the Shepard of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter SHOULD be the bible.

On the subject, this book provides much more detail on how the canon of scripture was developed. Fr Graham was a Priest and convert to Catholicism.

 

[adf417]

Hi Logically, sorry for the slowed response but my work has been keeping me busy. Yes, he is wrong and no he is right. I’m not waffling here so let me clarify my words and what I mean

To the extent that he says the following, he is right: the books that we (and you) considered inspired and inerrant were books that The Church recognized were written by the apostles or those that knew that apostles AND they were being used in The Church widely, for the Catholic Mass. This is what St. Jerome was sent to find out: what writings were being used by The Church at Mass? And those “Christians” that he refers to…they were all members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They were the original Christians: Catholic Christians.

Where he is in error: there was not a universal set of writings agreed on that were scripture and books in the bible currently were disputed: Hebrew and Revelation for sure. Other books not in the bible were thought by some to be inspired but The Church excluded them. In total, The Church discerned 27 books of the NT out of more than 200 writings in circulation.

The word “almost” is an important word here. The list does not establish scripture. You do NOT have the following writings in your bible that were on the fragment:

• The Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians
• The Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon
• The Apocalypse of Peter
• The Shepherd (written by Hermas).

More or less is not the same as to what you have in your bible. If you believe “more or less” is the Truth, then why is the Shepherd of Hermas not in your bible?

The professor is simply in error: Always does not equal “more or less”.

Logically and this is the contradiction for you: The Catholic Church decided what books should be in the bible. The Church definitively decided that the bible had 73 books and that the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas and others should be excluded. It also INCLUDED Hebrews and Revelation which were disputed.

So God, through the Holy Spirit, led The Catholic Church to all truth in deciding what is Scripture. Yet, you (JW) believe that the same Church went into apostasy on faith and morals. This is “Illogical” Logically. If you believe the latter, then you have no way of trusting the former is true. Perhaps the Shepard of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter SHOULD be the bible.

On the subject, this book provides much more detail on how the canon of scripture was developed. Fr Graham was a Priest and convert to Catholicism.

Well done Pork.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

My reason for insisting on this is to counter the popular argument I hear:
*“If God used the councils of the fourth century to decide what books were in his word, and JW’s accept that, then logically the new doctrine decided at these councils (that God was three persons in one) was inspired too.” *

The answer: The councils didn’t decide the Bible books, it was already well known.

Historically speaking, the invention of a “Bible canon” by the Gnostics Basilides and Marcion of Sinope proves that Christians did not know that the books they were writing, reading, and distributing were Scripture or could be considered inspired of God.

The book, The Bible Through the Ages, states that there was resistance by the first Christians to developing a Biblical canon of Christian writings equal and in addition to the Hebrew Scriptures:

Resistance to a new Scripture stemmed from a belief in the authority of oral tradition: a living memory handed on verbally from one generation to the next.–The Bible Through the Ages, “Debating the New Testament Canon,” Bruce Metzger, New York/Montreal 1996.

The first Christians did not look to the Christian Scriptures as being the ultimate authority in their day either. As Papias (circa 60-130 C.E.), the bishop of Hierapolis stated when speaking of Oral Tradition as compared to the written word:

It seemed to me that I could profit more from the living voice than from books.

His preference for the “living voice” of “everything I carefully learned from the elders and carefully remembered” was shared by the majority of Christians well into the second century…until…

The Gnostics introduced the idea of “proof texts” upon which to base and support doctrine, with Basilides the first to invent a list of proof texts consisting of the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and selected epistles of St. Paul.

But it was the work of the Gnostic Marcion who between 137 and 144 C.E. brought the issue to the fore when he declared as “canon” (meaning “rule” or “measure”) an edited version of Luke with select readings of Paul’s letters as the measure for Christian worship and doctrine. His rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures, denial of Jesus’ humanity and catholic (“universal” as opposed to the Gnostic view of “select few”) salvation led to his excommunication.

But Marcion’s arguments regarding authoritative writings consisting of a “canon” were widely popular, and his incomplete canon moved the Church to examine the questions being raised: “Were any of the writings of the Christian Church inspired? Was there a need for canonization? Were they equal to the Hebrew writings?”

You say the councils didn’t decide the books, suggesting that the Christians of this period already knew.

But if they did, why would Basilides or Marcion dare to invent such lists? If it was already clear to all, how could what they did bring the question to the fore–unless there was no such thought to begin with?

Also, if the councils did not develop the canon, why aren’t the popular books that were distributed among the early Christians not included in the canon? The Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter were widely read and distributed, as was the Didache. By comparison very few heard of the Revelation to John and until the canon was settled, the authorship of 2 Peter was in doubt as well as its inspiration on that basis.The Epistle of Barnabas and the Acts of Paul were far more well attested than 2 Peter and John’s Revelation. Jude was unheard of, as were the epistles of John.

It was not until the Eusebian canon table was accepted in Athanasius’ Easter letter of 367 did all 27 books we have today first appear together as canon. After that Church liturgies began dropping readings from the popular books not on this new list.

What of the previous canon lists?

After Marcion’s came the Muratorian Canon, and it left out Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1-3 John, but accepted the Shepherd of Hermas and Peter’s Apocalypse.

Irenaeus of Lyons’ and Tertullian’s canon favored the inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas due to its popularity, acceptance, and how often it was read in the early churches while rejecting the letters of Peter and John.

It was Eusebius who supported the inclusion of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2-3 John, Hebrews, and chose John’s Apocalypse over Peter’s.

But if this was left to chance and not finalized by Church authority your New World Translation would have the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Acts of Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Wisdom of Solomon would have been considered a “New Testament” writing. (Christians favored moving the book of Wisdom from the LXX to the Christian Canon, but the Church decided this was unnecessary with its acceptance of the Hebrew Scriptures found in the Alexandrian LXX as canon). You would be missing the books many were questioning and/or rejecting or knew nothing about too.

To say that the Christians ‘just knew’ which books were canonical doesn’t match anything in history, religious or secular. It takes authority to develop a canon, and that authority is in the Church. The canon did not decide itself, nor was it developed based on people ‘just knowing.’

 

[DelsonJacobs]

More Evidence to Counter the Claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses Regarding Early "Christians Knowing the Canon"

St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in both Roman Catholicism Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. Celebrated as a Catholic saint each year on May 2nd, he is also revered by Protestants by the title “Father of The Canon.”

St. Athanasius’ list released in the fourth century–a list which for the first time listed all 27 books of the New Testament that are accepted today as canonical–was officially adopted, ending the wide distribution of many other books popular by circulation among Christians at the time (i.e., the Protoevangelium of James, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas).

This official adoption began with Pope Damasus I, the Bishop of Rome at the time, who promulgated the list of New Testament books identical to that of Athanasius.

Following this the 393 Synod of Hippo adopted the same canon, as did a synod in Carthage in 397.

Also, the idea of canonization is one introduced by the Gnostic challenge. It was not from the Jewish culture which gave birth to Christianity. In fact, the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews were not “canonized” by any set of standards similar to any of the Christian Scriptures, nor was there more than a fluid collections of works used by Jews and Christians of this time (note references to the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in the Epistle of Jude, vs. 9, 14-15).

It was once popular among Protestant circles to advance the idea that a 1st century “Council of Yavne (Jamnia)” closed the Hebrew canon around 90 C.E., but by the late 20th century evidence came forward to show that this idea was based upon a hypothetical model no longer accepted as historical.

Judaism has never officially closed its canon, only dividing texts by language and era at best. For example, while none of the Books of Maccabees are considered part of the Hebrew Scriptures, they are still widely read and used each year around Chanukah. Maccabees comes from the library often referred to as the “Greek Scriptures,” a fact even the Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge could cause confusion, so much so that they make mention of it in titling their New Testament Canon as the “Christian Greek Scriptures.” Inspiration is not an issue with Jews and their texts, as their religion is considered inspired of God, and thus the product of Scriptures from this inspired religion negate the need for such formal declaration of “inspiration.”

Without a formal, closed Hebrew canon, the first Christians did not see the need to create a competitive or additional one. Judaism, while revering the Scriptures that came from their religion, was not considered a religion based on Scripture like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Scripture was a product of their religion and doctrines.

Christianity followed the Jewish model, being from the same culture, and did not base its religion on any set of Christian Scriptures, which as shown did not exist as an authoritative body at the time. On the contrary, like the Jewish religion, the Christian religion produced texts that would, centuries later, been considered as holy writ. But by this time the decision to formally canonize and decide which books would fit this measure fell to Church authority and not popular consensus. Christianity, like Judaism, was not a religion based on a book or any set of writings like the Gnostics suggested. As Judaism was based on a theophany experienced by Abraham, Moses, and later the entire nation at the foot of Mount Sinai, Christianity was a religion based on an epiphany centered in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth.

The belief that religion had to be based on written texts was popularized in the United States around the 1700s and 1800s. Mormonism is one such religion that is based upon a set of books. Jehovah’s Witnesses developed from Adventists who, around the era of the Great Disappointment, favored a similar view that religion was limited to information found in a holy book. Unlike the Mormons, the book would be the Bible.

But the Witnesses would go one step further in proclaiming that the Bible was the ultimate standard for all religious truth, even at the cost of the Church’s 2,000-year-old claim that Jesus was God’s ultimate and final revelation of truth. While the Witnesses claim all that needs to be known about Jesus for salvation is included in Scripture, the Church has always held that Christ gave Christians all they needed for salvation in his Church even before the texts of the Christian Scriptures were completed, collected, distributed, and finally canonized by Church authority almost 400 years later.

The Church made salvation possible before the Scripture canon, and the foundation stones of Heavenly Jerusalem is made up of the Apostles and early Christians–people who were saved before the New Testament was completely written or ever canonized.

 

[Blood_Angel]

One of my science teachers at school was a Jehovah’s Witness, she was really odd and quiet and lacked authority but then it was a class full of ruffians and I was the only paying attention to what I was being taught. I don’t know if all of them are like that.
They don’t believe in Jesus do they?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Jehovah’s Witness do indeed believe in Jesus. They accept him as Christ and Savior.

The only difference is that they believe he is the offspring of God, a created being. They have frequently made claims to Jesus being one and the same with St. Michael the Archangel.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Jehovah’s Witness do indeed believe in Jesus. They accept him as Christ and Savior.

The only difference is that they believe he is the offspring of God, a created being. They have frequently made claims to Jesus being one and the same with St. Michael the Archangel./QUOTE

offspring are not created they are begotten. There is a big difference.

 

[Logically]

Hi Logically, sorry for the slowed response but my work has been keeping me busy. Yes, he is wrong and no he is right. I’m not waffling here so let me clarify my words and what I mean…

So God, through the Holy Spirit, led The Catholic Church to all truth in deciding what is Scripture. Yet, you (JW) believe that the same Church went into apostasy on faith and morals. This is “Illogical” Logically. If you believe the latter, then you have no way of trusting the former is true. Perhaps the Shepard of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter SHOULD be the bible.

On the subject, this book provides much more detail on how the canon of scripture was developed. Fr Graham was a Priest and convert to Catholicism.

Hi again.

Thanks for your reply. I have just read it. I’m afraid I am not a scholar on this subject, so I’m going to have to do some research. (I’ve never even heard of the shepard of Hermas!)

Why can’t you guys ask me nice simple questions like: “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why don’t you believe in hell?” -
Instead it’s stuff I almost need a doctorate in history, ancient languages and philosophy to unravel! Ha.

Talk later. Enjoy.

 

[pacloc]

Well, since you are offering, can you explain your understanding of why you do not believe there is a hell. As an ex-JW, I knew some of the “proofs,” but I would like to hear how you interpret it. It is also known that JWs believe in annihilation instead, (Though they do not really use that term, probably to be deferent from the other religions that believe in the same thing), can you explain why it is you believe in this. I would really like to only hear answers from the New Testament, since even JWs know that a fuller understanding of God’s Kingdom only came since Jesus Christ was born.

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks for your reply. I have just read it. I’m afraid I am not a scholar on this subject, so I’m going to have to do some research. (I’ve never even heard of the shepard of Hermas!)

Logically, first I give you a lot of credit for being on this website. I encourage you to keep asking questions, state your beliefs and be open to the answers that you receive. A very good area on Catholic.com is the library on the landing page. You can search for subjects of your choice and read the applicable articles written.

You had a premise earlier (that you have been led to believe) and I’ll paraphrase: that what was scripture was “known” prior to the bible becoming canonized. What you have been taught in this is simply false. There was not agreement in the early Church as to what books were inspired and inerrant. The Shepherd of Hermas is only an example of a writing that some believed was inspired and inerrant. Others believed that the Book of Revelation and the Book of Hebrews was not scripture. You do not need to be a scholar (I’ll define that by meaning you need a theology degree) to come to this understanding, this truth.

So the questions become:

1. who decided what was scripture?
2. when did they decided this?
3. how did they decide?

I answered these questions earlier but I’ll repeat them:

1. Who: The Catholic Church decided
2. When: At the Council of Rome (382ad), the Synod Of Hippo (393ad), the Synod of Carthage (393ad). All three of these meetings of Catholic Bishops affirmed that there were 73 books in the bible, 46 of the OT and 27 of the NT. The canon was later affirmed by the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.
3. How: they held to the “Tradition” of The Church since the death of Christ…what writings were written by apostles or written by those that knew the apostles and they looked at what writings were being read in Church during the Catholic Mass. The canon was put together to both have a book for instruction and teaching, but to have a universal set of readings at Mass.

That’s really it in a nutshell Logically. The bible that you are using is a Catholic book, written by, for and about the Catholic Church and you implicitly acknowledge the infallibility of the Catholic Church in getting the canon of scripture right.

And I submit that the above premise above sets up quite a contradiction for you:
a) The Catholic Church was infallible in getting the canon of scripture right
b) The Catholic Church is apostate and has been led to error on faith and morals.

If b) is true, than how can you trust a) ? … that the books in your bible are the “right books”, all inspired and inerrant and that other books that were excluded should be included in your bible?

Of course, we respond and say that Jesus Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church to all truth, and to protect his Church until the end of time. We believe that Christ both led his Church to both get the canon of scripture right and led his flock without error on faith and morals (despite the sinful condition of individuals in the Church)

Why can’t you guys ask me nice simple questions like: “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why don’t you believe in hell?” -

Those are all good questions too. But there are many others.

Instead it’s stuff I almost need a doctorate in history, ancient languages and philosophy to unravel! Ha.

Not necessary Logically. A little bit of on-line research and being on Catholic.com can help you understand some things that you have never been exposed to. Interesting though that you speak this way. Do you know anything about the first JW translators who created the original New World Translation? See the wiki article here and read the paragraph titled “translators”. It references Walter Martin who was a famous Protestant Pastor and scholar. The point of bringing this up is that the original writings were written in Hebrew or Greek (eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome), yet the JW’s created a translation by a group of men, none of whom were educated in these languages. So … how could anyone trust their translation is true?

You don’t have to be a scholar Logically to think this one though. Reason can be your guide. How can you trust that the translation of your bible is accurate and true if those that did the translating, were not educated in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew? From what language were they translating from??

When we’re done talking about bible, would you mind talking about the Eucharist? Do you know what I am referring to?

PnP

 

[adf417]

So Logically, after reading my last post would you be able to logically conclude that if a Catholic says they do not worship Mary, this could very well be true?

Peace be with you brother!!!

 

[dronald]

Hi again.

Thanks for your reply. I have just read it. I’m afraid I am not a scholar on this subject, so I’m going to have to do some research. (I’ve never even heard of the shepard of Hermas!)

Why can’t you guys ask me nice simple questions like: “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why don’t you believe in hell?” -
Instead it’s stuff I almost need a doctorate in history, ancient languages and philosophy to unravel! Ha.

Talk later. Enjoy.

I admire your honesty.

Questions where the answer is, “my interpretation of Scripture based on this passage is [X]” isn’t nearly as interesting as deep theological and historical discussion.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Hi again.

Thanks for your reply. I have just read it. I’m afraid I am not a scholar on this subject, so I’m going to have to do some research. (I’ve never even heard of the shepard of Hermas!)

Why can’t you guys ask me nice simple questions like: “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why don’t you believe in hell?” -
Instead it’s stuff I almost need a doctorate in history, ancient languages and philosophy to unravel! Ha.

Talk later. Enjoy.

You don’t need a doctorate in history as the information we’ve been talking about is basic Church history.

Shouldn’t Jehovah’s Witnesses know some of these basics–especially since you are being asked (and asking other people) to accept a doctrine that lacks education in the basics of the history of Bible canonization?

I know the Governing Body claims you are practicing true Christianity like they did in apostolic times, but wouldn’t that mean you would know this history even better than us?

We know our Church history–all 2000 years of it–some better than others. Maybe the reason you’ve never heard of the Shepherd of Hermas or these other points is that the early Church history isn’t the history of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. None of this would be news to you.

As a Catholic, I believe that the canon of Scripture is inspired of God.

But that canon was established and finalized by Church authority. There is no canon list in the written Word of God.

If one accepts that the canon is of God, one is accepting that God’s truth is not limited to that canon, for the canon did not decide itself.

And if one claims that they only accept what is found in the canon of Scripture as the basis for true religion, one must reject all of Scripture, because the canon is not part of Scripture.

Accepting the book the Church calls Scripture means you accept the Tradition of the Church.

 

[Logically]

So Logically, after reading my last post would you be able to logically conclude that if a Catholic says they do not worship Mary, this could very well be true?

Peace be with you brother!!!

I accept that you are not worshiping her. (This whole debate on images or idols seems to boil down to a choice of words.)

I going to start using the word “adoration”. Is that a correct term? The JW’s publication “Reasoning from the scriptures” calls it: “*Using images as aids in worship.” *
Is that be an acceptable phrase?

But that is not in line with the Bible. Jesus was clear who we should pray to: “Our Father who art in heaven…” Matt 6:9,10. Not through Mary or other Saints.

The “Reasoning” book quotes these scriptures under the title:

Should we venerate “saints” as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship?

Acts 10:25, 26, JB: “As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. ‘Stand up,’ he said ‘I am only a man after all!’” (Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, would he encourage us to kneel before an image of him? See also Revelation 19:10.)

John 14:6, 14, JB: “Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.’” (Jesus here clearly states that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus’ name.)

1 Tim. 2:5, JB: “There is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.” (There is no allowance here for others to serve in the role of mediator for the members of Christ’s congregation.) (end of quote)

So it is through Jesus we should pray to God. Not through Saints. (another contradiction of the Trinity if Jesus is God)

With Mary the mother of Jesus, it is clearly the Trinity doctrine that has catapulted her from a humble servant of God to the “mother of God”.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21)

The Bible says she was the mother of Jesus, but “Jesus is really God” wasn’t believed until later. We all now the Trinity wasn’t adopted into the church until the fourth century. (And even then through much controversy)

The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The title ‘mother of God’] seems to have arisen in devotional usage, probably in Alexandria, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century . . . By the end of the 4th century, the Theotokos had successfully established itself in various sections of the church.”
The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the doctrine was accepted officially “since the Council of Ephesus in 431.”

At one point during Jesus’ ministry, a woman in the crowd called out praise of his mother. If Jesus wanted his mother to be revered, he had here a golden opportunity to recommend that form of devotion. But note his reply.
“Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” Jesus replied: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”—Luke 11:27, 28.

Peace to you friend!

 

[Logically]

Well, since you are offering, can you explain your understanding of why you do not believe there is a hell. … I would really like to only hear answers from the New Testament, since even JWs know that a fuller understanding of God’s Kingdom only came since Jesus Christ was born.

Ooh. That is an interesting one.

But I can’t spend the time now sorry. I will put something together later.

 

[Logically]

…

Accepting the book the Church calls Scripture means you accept the Tradition of the Church.

What do you do when the tradition of the church contradicts the scriptures the same tradition claims to have confirmed?

 

[dronald]

I accept that you are not worshiping her. (This whole debate on images or idols seems to boil down to a choice of words.)

I going to start using the word “adoration”. Is that a correct term? The JW’s publication “Reasoning from the scriptures” calls it: “*Using images as aids in worship.” *
Is that be an acceptable phrase?

But that is not in line with the Bible. Jesus was clear who we should pray to: “Our Father who art in heaven…” Matt 6:9,10. Not through Mary or other Saints.

The “Reasoning” book quotes these scriptures under the title:

Should we venerate “saints” as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship?

Acts 10:25, 26, JB: “As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. ‘Stand up,’ he said ‘I am only a man after all!’” (Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, would he encourage us to kneel before an image of him? See also Revelation 19:10.)

John 14:6, 14, JB: “Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.’” (Jesus here clearly states that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus’ name.)

1 Tim. 2:5, JB: “There is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.” (There is no allowance here for others to serve in the role of mediator for the members of Christ’s congregation.) (end of quote)

So it is through Jesus we should pray to God. Not through Saints. (another contradiction of the Trinity if Jesus is God)

With Mary the mother of Jesus, it is clearly the Trinity doctrine that has catapulted her from a humble servant of God to the “mother of God”.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21)

The Bible says she was the mother of Jesus, but “Jesus is really God” wasn’t believed until later. We all now the Trinity wasn’t adopted into the church until the fourth century. (And even then through much controversy)

The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The title ‘mother of God’] seems to have arisen in devotional usage, probably in Alexandria, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century . . . By the end of the 4th century, the Theotokos had successfully established itself in various sections of the church.”
The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the doctrine was accepted officially “since the Council of Ephesus in 431.”

At one point during Jesus’ ministry, a woman in the crowd called out praise of his mother. If Jesus wanted his mother to be revered, he had here a golden opportunity to recommend that form of devotion. But note his reply.
“Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” Jesus replied: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”—Luke 11:27, 28.

Peace to you friend!

There is ample evidence that the Trinity was believed throughout the second century and greater evidence that Jesus is God.

Answer me this, who is the first and the last? Also, who created the Heavens and the Earth?

 

[adf417]

I accept that you are not worshiping her. (This whole debate on images or idols seems to boil down to a choice of words.)

Thanks…for the first part of this statement. I can’t tell you how much this makes my heart glad. :hug1: I only wish my JW family members could use the same words.

As for the 2nd part, it is a little confusing. Earlier I quoted you quoting the Watchtower saying something to the effect of “everything had to be taken in CONTEXT” so this confuses me.

I going to start using the word “adoration”. Is that a correct term? The JW’s publication “Reasoning from the scriptures” calls it: “*Using images as aids in worship.” *
Is that be an acceptable phrase?

But that is not in line with the Bible. Jesus was clear who we should pray to: “Our Father who art in heaven…” Matt 6:9,10. Not through Mary or other Saints.

The “Reasoning” book quotes these scriptures under the title:

Should we venerate “saints” as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship?

Acts 10:25, 26, JB: “As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. ‘Stand up,’ he said ‘I am only a man after all!’” (Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, would he encourage us to kneel before an image of him? See also Revelation 19:10.)

John 14:6, 14, JB: “Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.’” (Jesus here clearly states that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus’ name.)

1 Tim. 2:5, JB: “There is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.” (There is no allowance here for others to serve in the role of mediator for the members of Christ’s congregation.) (end of quote)

So it is through Jesus we should pray to God. Not through Saints. (another contradiction of the Trinity if Jesus is God)

Yes we have heard all these arguments many times but if you object to this sort of intercessory then you must object to my praying for you or you asking your friend to pray for you. Its all the same thing. We ask those with us and those who have gone before us to pray for us. There is no difference.

This may help…catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

With Mary the mother of Jesus, it is clearly the Trinity doctrine that has catapulted her from a humble servant of God to the “mother of God”.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21)

The Bible says she was the mother of Jesus, but “Jesus is really God” wasn’t believed until later. We all now the Trinity wasn’t adopted into the church until the fourth century. (And even then through much controversy)
The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The title ‘mother of God’] seems to have arisen in devotional usage, probably in Alexandria, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century . . . By the end of the 4th century, the Theotokos had successfully established itself in various sections of the church.”
The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the doctrine was accepted officially “since the Council of Ephesus in 431.”

At one point during Jesus’ ministry, a woman in the crowd called out praise of his mother. If Jesus wanted his mother to be revered, he had here a golden opportunity to recommend that form of devotion. But note his reply.
“Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” Jesus replied: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”—Luke 11:27, 28.

About the bolded above…The Trinity was not adopted in the fourth century it has been forever. It wasn’t till the fourth century the Church infallibly defined this as doctrine. Just like in math we have the Pythagorean theorem. Greek mathematician Pythagoras (ca. 570 BC—ca. 495 BC), defined the formula of what has been around forever but he puts it into terms we can better understand and use.

But if the analogy of the Pythagorean theorem is of no relevance to you on this subject then I will suggest you following through with the dialogue you have going with Porknpie on the canon. As he will definitively show the doctrine of the canon of scripture did not come along until the end of the 4th century itself and maybe this realization of how important the Church is and how through divined revelation the magisterium can reveal God’s truths.

BTW we really don’t care what Encyclopedia Britannica, or other non-Catholic organizations, have to say about our doctrines as I’m sure the Watchtower would feel the same way when it comes to say, Rush Limbaugh reports, on the Watchtower teachings, right?

Peace to you friend!

Back you you!!

 

[adrift]

Acts 10:25, 26, JB: “As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. ‘Stand up,’ he said ‘I am only a man after all!’” (Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, would he encourage us to kneel before an image of him? See also Revelation 19:10.)

The question that needs to be asked her is why did Cornelius kneel? Was it out of reverence or superstition? The context of the scripture shows the latter. I thought you understood that we don’t worship the saints? Both scripture condemn worshiping them not veneration. The difference? Worship believes that they are gods veneration it is a mere honor

John 14:6, 14, JB: “Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.’” (Jesus here clearly states that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus’ name.)

Another question what do you think we are asking when we ask a saint for their intercession?
OH that’s right we are asking them to ask Jesus.

1 Tim. 2:5, JB: “There is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.” (There is no allowance here for others to serve in the role of mediator for the members of Christ’s congregation.) (end of quote)

see above.

So it is through Jesus we should pray to God. Not through Saints. (another contradiction of the Trinity if Jesus is God)

Not if IS.

Isaiah 48:16-17John 15:26 John 10:33 John 8:59 John 1:1-9 Matthew 28:19 Acts 20:28 John 20:28 Luke 1:43

The Bible says she was the mother of Jesus, but “Jesus is really God” wasn’t believed until later. We all now the Trinity wasn’t adopted into the church until the fourth century. (And even then through much controversy)

I believe you mixing up when a belief is defined to when it was believed. The Trinity was believed and taught by the Apostles not until there is a controversy are concepts defined.

“Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” Jesus replied: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”—Luke 11:27, 28.

Peace to you friend!

Are you saying that Mary didn’t keep the word of God? She did of course and Jesus was emphasizing that it was her obedience that mattered most.

 

[Porknpie]

But that is not in line with the Bible. Jesus was clear who we should pray to: “Our Father who art in heaven…” Matt 6:9,10.

Logically, let me note a couple of things about this passage…if I may:

5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 **But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door **

When you pray, do you always go to your room and shut the door? Jesus’ says to do this and he does not give any exceptions. Maybe JW do do this and I don’t know?

and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.[a]

7 “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this:

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.

God’s Kingdom is not on earth, it is in heaven. God calls all to heaven, not just 144,000, it’s symbolism is 12x12x1000 to mean a lot. You do understand that the JW belief originally was only 144K JW’s would be saved and then when your church continued to expanded beyond 144,000, the idea was then brought forward that some would be saved on an earthly paradise. This change of doctrine is not biblical. God calls YOU to be saved, with him forever in Heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread;**** In the OT, God saved his people by provide real food from heaven in the manna. This prefigures something much greater in the New Testament, Christ giving us his body and blood in the Eucharist. As Christ says, those that ate the manna died, those that eat the food that I give will have eternal life. In the Lord’s Prayer, prayer is given to receive the heavenly food that Christ promised.

John 6 below

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58** This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”** 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
​

12 And forgive us our debts,
As we also have forgiven our debtors;
13 And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.[c]