First Jehovah's witnesses to knock at my door

[Logically]

…
The other thing I do is ask for their own address and phone number — never email to avoid them from copying and pasting. If they are coming to your door when you are busy, why not visit them at their home on an agreed upon time.

Wow. I would think a person was joking if they asked me for that!

Have people come to us? Awesome!

We do sometimes have people approach us on the street and ask for a Bible study. That is why we are doing more of the “Public stand” thing. We set up a table in a public place with a “Free Bible literature” sign, then sit and wait.
I think it solves the “Don’t engage JW’s because they will keep coming back!” problem. People who approach us are inn control and can leave whenever they want. It is having awesome results!

 

[PRmerger]

Hello.
First can i apologize for not answering a week ago (like when you asked the question) I am slack at logging on, and JW posts always attract a lot of comment, so when I do log on I find a dozen messages and am overwhelmed! Sorry.

Hey, i really like your question about:
“does The Watch Tower teach that The JWS were still around after the church went apostate?”

Can I quote a recent Watchtower magazine on that? :

In a parable, Jesus indicated that from the first century onward, there would always be some genuine anointed Christians on the earth. He compared them to “wheat” growing among “weeds.” (Matt. 13:30) Of course, we cannot say for certain which individuals or groups belonged to the anointed wheat class, but we can confirm that there have always been some who have courageously defended God’s Word and exposed the church’s unscriptural teachings. (WT 2012 1/15, pg 7.)

So Jesus said there would be “wheat and weeds” growing together. He was talking about his true followers and those who were counterfeit. Both at the same time!
Matthew 13:24-30 is where he gives the illustration. Then the disciples ask him to explain and he does from verses 36-43. It is a very interesting read!

So, Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly believe this prophecy came true. Certainly there have always been ones who have loved truth and tried their best to proclaim it. Often they have been fiercely persecuted for this.
Yet as the scriptures say, it wouldn’t be until the “conclusion of the system” that these would clearly be identifiable and separated from the false.

There you go! Disagree away my friend.

Can you give any example of ancient Christian groups who believed the same thing that JWs believe today?

 

[Logically]

Can you give any example of ancient Christian groups who believed the same thing that JWs believe today?

The First century Christian congregation believed much the same until the apostles died out.

That is why Jehovah’s Witnesses use their writings as an authority to argue against things like the Trinity, the immortal soul and hell-fire.
In fact we use the Bible as our authority on practically every aspect of our organisation and doctrines.

And over the centuries there have been many individuals, and ones who joined them, that have challenged “orthodox” teachings because they could see these did not match what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
The Watchtower article I quoted lists some examples: If I may quote further to answer your question:

I quote:

Archbishop Agobard of Lyons, France (779-840 C.E.), spoke out against image worship, churches dedicated to saints, and the church’s unscriptural liturgies and practices. One of his contemporaries, Bishop Claudius, also rejected church tradition and objected to prayers to saints and the veneration of relics.
In the 11th century, Archdeacon Berengarius of Tours, France, was excommunicated for rejecting the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Moreover, he held that the Bible is superior to church tradition.
16 The 12th century saw the arrival of two lovers of Bible truth, Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne. Peter resigned from the priesthood because he could not reconcile with the Scriptures the Catholic teachings of infant baptism, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and worship of the cross. In 1140, Peter paid for his beliefs with his life. Henry, a monk, spoke out against corrupt practices in the church as well as the unscriptural aspects of church liturgy. He was arrested in 1148 and spent the rest of his life in prison.
17 About the time that Peter of Bruys was burned alive for daring to criticize the church, a person was born who would later have a powerful influence on the spread of Bible truth. His last name was Valdès, or Waldo. Unlike Peter of Bruys and Henry of Lausanne, he was a layman, but he valued God’s Word so much that he divested himself of his material goods and arranged for portions of the Bible to be translated into a language commonly spoken in southeastern France. Some were so thrilled to hear the Bible’s message in their own tongue that they too gave up their belongings and devoted their lives to sharing Bible truth with others. The church found this deeply disturbing. In 1184 these zealous men and women, later called the Waldenses, were excommunicated by the pope and banished from their homes by the bishop. This action actually served to spread the Bible’s message to other areas. Eventually, the followers of Waldo, Peter of Bruys, and Henry of Lausanne as well as other dissenters could be found in many parts of Europe. Other champions of Bible truth rose up in the centuries that followed: John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384), William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536), Henry Grew (1781-1862), and George Storrs (1796-1879).

end of quote.

One I find interesting (not mentioned here) is Isaac Newton. He could see the Trinity was not in the Bible. he kept his beliefs pretty quiet though. It wasn’t until after his death that his notes on this were published. (likewise, I am sure there were many more who kept a low profile for fear of persecution)
Newton also foresaw a global Bible preaching work, but could not see how it could ever be accomplished with the Trinity teaching so unassailable. (He wouldn’t wonder that if he lived now)

May I ask: What do you understand Jesus parable of the wheat and the weeds refers to?

 

[PRmerger]

One I find interesting (not mentioned here) is Isaac Newton. He could see the Trinity was not in the Bible.

Catholics do not find it troublesome that anything, including the Trinity, is “not in the Bible”.

We do not get our doctrines from the Bible, but rather from Jesus and His Church. As such, Jesus and His Church did indeed profess a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.

 

[PRmerger]

The First century Christian congregation believed much the same until the apostles died out.

And then what happened? Was there a “remnant” Christian group that retained the teachings of Christ until the JWs emerged in the US in the 20th century?

Archbishop Agobard of Lyons, France (779-840 C.E.), spoke out against image worship,

Yes. It is important that an archbishop profess what the CC has always taught: worship of images is idolatry.

churches dedicated to saints

Can you give a quote from him saying this is wrong?

One of his contemporaries, Bishop Claudius, also rejected church tradition and objected to prayers to saints and the veneration of relics

Quote from the Bishop Claudius that says this, please?

 

[Porknpie]

Quote from the Bishop Claudius that says this, please?

Claudius was a bit of a heretic. See the attached Catholic Encyclopedia article on Inconoclasm which was a heresey. Claudius mentioned in the last paragraph.

PnP

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Hello.
First can i apologize for not answering a week ago (like when you asked the question) I am slack at logging on, and JW posts always attract a lot of comment, so when I do log on I find a dozen messages and am overwhelmed! Sorry.

Hey, i really like your question about:
“does The Watch Tower teach that The JWS were still around after the church went apostate?”

Can I quote a recent Watchtower magazine on that? :

In a parable, Jesus indicated that from the first century onward, there would always be some genuine anointed Christians on the earth. He compared them to “wheat” growing among “weeds.” (Matt. 13:30) Of course, we cannot say for certain which individuals or groups belonged to the anointed wheat class, but we can confirm that there have always been some who have courageously defended God’s Word and exposed the church’s unscriptural teachings. (WT 2012 1/15, pg 7.)

So Jesus said there would be “wheat and weeds” growing together. He was talking about his true followers and those who were counterfeit. Both at the same time!
Matthew 13:24-30 is where he gives the illustration. Then the disciples ask him to explain and he does from verses 36-43. It is a very interesting read!

So, Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly believe this prophecy came true. Certainly there have always been ones who have loved truth and tried their best to proclaim it. Often they have been fiercely persecuted for this.
Yet as the scriptures say, it wouldn’t be until the “conclusion of the system” that these would clearly be identifiable and separated from the false.

There you go! Disagree away my friend.

Thank you. I don’t mind that you answer late. We are all busy people. LOL. Well, I don’t dare disagree with Jesus’s words. I would disagree that Jesus is referring to anything other than those who obey him and do his will and Love him, in His church, Which I believe to be The Catholic Church, to be “The Wheat”. I often say to myself. when thinking about Catholics who are not practicing the faith “This is a Church of wheat and snares” I guess “Snares” means the same as weeds.

How about my other question? I will post it again. Take all the time to answer if you need it. Ask some of your elders if you want, and get back to me, if you want to.
"What sets The JW organization apart from all of the many other "denominations’ that claims to be The True restoration of The early Church? Does it only come down to that The JW organization believes that only it interprets scripture correctly? Are there other reasons/examples that you can give me? "

There are Baptists movements (They believe in something called Baptist succession) that claim all the same stuff you mentioned in another post on this thread about people who disagreed with The Catholic Church and held to The True Christian faith throughout the centurys. But they claim these were “Baptists” You seem to be saying that these are “Jehovah’s Witnesses” or at least held to JW teachings. Why should I believe that The JW movement as we know it today is also from that group and not The Baptist Successionists? The Waldenses were Trinitarian weren’t they? So it would make it more logical that They were early Baptists not early JWS. Not that I believe they were either of course. Thank you for your time. I know you get bombarded with a lot of questions, and some are not so friendly.

 

[Logically]

…I believe to be The Catholic Church, to be “The Wheat”. I often say to myself. when thinking about Catholics who are not practicing the faith “This is a Church of wheat and snares” I guess “Snares” means the same as weeds.

How about my other question? I will post it again. Take all the time to answer if you need it. Ask some of your elders if you want, and get back to me, if you want to.
"What sets The JW organization apart from all of the many other "denominations’ that claims to be The True restoration of The early Church? Does it only come down to that The JW organization believes that only it interprets scripture correctly? Are there other reasons/examples that you can give me? "

There are Baptists movements…that claim all the same stuff you mentioned in another post …But they claim these were “Baptists” …
…Thank you for your time. I know you get bombarded with a lot of questions, and some are not so friendly.

Hello again. I am prompt today!
I’m happy to reply to you. You are very polite and respectful of me and my strange bunch.

How about my other question? I will post it again. …
"What sets The JW organization apart from all of the many other "denominations’ that claims to be The True restoration of The early Church? Does it only come down to that The JW organization believes that only it interprets scripture correctly? Are there other reasons/examples that you can give me? ".

That would come across pretty arrogant if I replied: “Yes, only JW’s interpret the Bible correctly!” - Especially since parts of our interpretation has been adjusted frequently over the decades.
Many of the favourite things Charles Taze Russell and other early JW’s believed and taught have been left behind or adjusted as a better understanding has come to light. We don’t think any of our people are inspired prophets talking straight from Jehovah. We are just humans trying to understand God’s word as best we can.

The JW official website has one of its frequently asked questions as “Do you believe you have the one true religion?”
It says in part:
Jesus Christ didn’t agree with the view that there are many religions, many roads, all leading to salvation. Rather, he said: “Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” (Matthew 7:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they’ve found that road. Otherwise, they’d look for another religion.

It then links on to another article from a 2009 Watchtower that discusses the question: “Are all Religions Good?”
Here is the link for an official response that is related to what you asked.

jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20090801/are-all-religions-good/

But from my own studies, - I have come to see certain practices and teachings that set the JW’s apart as unique. In fact even non-JW’s see these as setting the JW’s apart from all others.

The Trinity. – Would I be close to estimate 90% of Christian groups believe the Trinity doctrine? JW’s have always taught it is not a Bible teaching and not believed by the early Christian congregation.

The immortal human soul. Again, from their beginning they have said “not in the Bible.” Yet probably 95% of religions, even non-Christian believe that.

United brotherhood and War. JW’s believe Christians shouldn’t get involved in human conflicts. They had to adjust this understanding and balance it with their obedience to the governments during WWI, but the stand they have made since is another that sets them apart from almost all others.

Preaching God’s Kingdom. They are known for it worldwide. They think it is a requirement. They are unique in this, and even they never expected the scale it has reached.

Those are four points that spring to mind. I could add others. Also I could add scriptures to support them.
I do not know of any other religion that holds to all four, except the early church Jesus apostles lead.
You mention the Baptists as an example of a restorative religion. I don’t think any of those four apply to them.
You could call those “JW interpretations,” - and since **we believe they are correct **and only the JW’s follow them all, maybe that answers your question:

Does it only come down to that The JW organization believes that only it interprets scripture correctly?

Thanks for your question. Sorry my post is long.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Hello again. I am prompt today!
I’m happy to reply to you. You are very polite and respectful of me and my strange bunch.

That would come across pretty arrogant if I replied: “Yes, only JW’s interpret the Bible correctly!” - Especially since parts of our interpretation has been adjusted frequently over the decades.
Many of the favourite things Charles Taze Russell and other early JW’s believed and taught have been left behind or adjusted as a better understanding has come to light. We don’t think any of our people are inspired prophets talking straight from Jehovah. We are just humans trying to understand God’s word as best we can.

The JW official website has one of its frequently asked questions as “Do you believe you have the one true religion?”
It says in part:
Jesus Christ didn’t agree with the view that there are many religions, many roads, all leading to salvation. Rather, he said: “Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” (Matthew 7:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they’ve found that road. Otherwise, they’d look for another religion.

It then links on to another article from a 2009 Watchtower that discusses the question: “Are all Religions Good?”
Here is the link for an official response that is related to what you asked.

jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20090801/are-all-religions-good/

But from my own studies, - I have come to see certain practices and teachings that set the JW’s apart as unique. In fact even non-JW’s see these as setting the JW’s apart from all others.

The Trinity. – Would I be close to estimate 90% of Christian groups believe the Trinity doctrine? JW’s have always taught it is not a Bible teaching and not believed by the early Christian congregation.

The immortal human soul. Again, from their beginning they have said “not in the Bible.” Yet probably 95% of religions, even non-Christian believe that.

United brotherhood and War. JW’s believe Christians shouldn’t get involved in human conflicts. They had to adjust this understanding and balance it with their obedience to the governments during WWI, but the stand they have made since is another that sets them apart from almost all others.

Preaching God’s Kingdom. They are known for it worldwide. They think it is a requirement. They are unique in this, and even they never expected the scale it has reached.

Those are four points that spring to mind. I could add others. Also I could add scriptures to support them.
I do not know of any other religion that holds to all four, except the early church Jesus apostles lead.
You mention the Baptists as an example of a restorative religion. I don’t think any of those four apply to them.
You could call those “JW interpretations,” - and since **we believe they are correct **and only the JW’s follow them all, maybe that answers your question:

Thanks for your question. Sorry my post is long.

Thank you for your answers. That answers one of my questions. LOL. Man, you make me think of more questions I want to ask but I don’t want to overwhelm you. What is your opinion on my other question on my last post? About the Waldeses being Trinitarian? Why use them as a example to try to back up your claims that this proves somehow, JWS have existed throughout the ages? That is what Baptist Succesionists do also. They take a group that existed in the past, that disagreed with The Catholic Church, and say “You See! This is proof that (enter the name of their denomination) has existed the whole time” even if that group held beliefs that their denomination teaches are heritical beliefs. It does not strike me as The JW movement being different if they do the same thing. You are very kind to answer me. I have to imagine you really love talking about your faith, as I do about mine. Like I said before, take all the time you need as necessary. I visit these forums all the time.

 

[adf417]

Hi Logically. I hope it is not too pushy to ask for response to my questions…when you get a chance.

Peace!!!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

One I find interesting (not mentioned here) is Isaac Newton. He could see the Trinity was not in the Bible. he kept his beliefs pretty quiet though. It wasn’t until after his death that his notes on this were published. (likewise, I am sure there were many more who kept a low profile for fear of persecution)
Newton also foresaw a global Bible preaching work, but could not see how it could ever be accomplished with the Trinity teaching so unassailable. (He wouldn’t wonder that if he lived now)

Hi Logically, A few quick thoughts on your post.
First, I think there are very good reasons why the Watch Tower did not include Newton in their article that you quoted, although his Unitarian views are well known, his notes pertaining to this were never meant for publication and are a compilation of his thoughts over many years and only part of these notes are written in his own hand. That being said, the only common ground between Newton and the Watch Tower is their shared Unitarian view. Did you know for example that Newton to support his views and after extensive research abandoned the entire New Testament as an unreliable text, he like the rest of us
could see that the New Testament supported Christ’s divinity, your statement that Newton could see that the Trinity doctrine was not in the Bible is not true, Newton understood perfectly well that the New Testament was full of references’ to Christ’s divine nature and that this is what the New Testament taught, Newton did not share the Watch Towers view that the Trinity doctrine was not in its pages and that the text was an inspired text. Newton through his own research came to the view that the entire text is uninspired and that this uninspired text was teaching a false doctrine namely the Trinity. These two views are polar opposites, and if anything Newton’s views of the contents of the New Testament support the Catholic position.
Logically, I could add reams more about Newton and his views as I am a bit of a fan of his and his time period, however I would like to share with you a little about Catholicism. As Catholics we do not blindly follow the Pope like lemmings over a cliff with the threat of excommunication at our backs, those of us who have been fortunate enough to receive a Catholic education were taught that the Church held and was the guardian of the fullness of the truth and that the best way to not only evangelise this fact but to also deepen our faith was by nurturing an inquiring mind.
With Christ’s divinity being at the centre of our faith nearly all Catholics I know have delved very deeply into the question that Christ asked Peter in Mt16:18, and have sifted through the various trends and responses to this question over the last 2000 years by some of the greatest minds the world has produced and those of us who practice the faith agree with Peters reply and just like Newton can see that the Divinity of Christ is what the New Testament and the Church teach.
Logically, I am glad you are here on the forum and are sharing your views and I for one encourage you to keep doing so. Newton’s theological views are interesting because they are the views of the great man himself however most critics concur that they added nothing new to the debate and I do not mean to be offensive to you or your faith, however Russell and the Watch Tower have added nothing new either. Most Catholics I know find it irritating and disingenuous when adherents to these views attempt to present the information as if it is a new revelation and an unassailable position and worse quote authorities that seemingly support their views without doing proper research and/or out of context.
Logically, in short, to defend your position you are going to have to lift your game. lol.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Logically,

While the Witnesses are quick to claim a Scripture basis for all they do, this does not guarantee the interpretation you posses is correct.

How many times did we Witnesses place our hope on the wrong date for the end? I was alive in the early 1970s, and I remember the 1975 fiasco. As you know Witnesses cannot make up their own doctrines. The belief that 6000 years of human existence would end in Armageddon in 1975 was developed by then-Watchtower president Franz, encouraged by several Watchtower and Awake! Articles, and nothing happened. Franz’s calculations were based on Scripture, but the interpretation was not correct.

We believed that the generation that lived to see World War I break out in 1914 would not pass away until the world came to an end. We used to print on the inside cover of the Awake! magazine that it was “God’s promise” that such a thing would happen. Again the belief was based on Scripture but this did not guarantee that we had the truth.

Based on their interpretation of scriptures such as based on their interpretation of scriptures such as Deuteronomy 17:6 and 1 Timothy 5:19, crimes committed by fellow Witnesses, including child sexual abuse, require the testimony of two material witnesses to establish validity of any claim from victims.

If a victim of sexual child abuse cannot produce two witnesses, elders, following the direction from the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, dismiss the allegations. Many recent legal cases have risen as a result as victims have come forward. The recent Candace Conti case, in which this exact thing happened to a young girl, brought to light how Witnesses are unwilling to bend to the detriment of others. The elders were wrong for what they allowed to happen to poor Candance, and the Watchtower has been order to pay $28 million in damages when this was proved in court.

Having beliefs from Scripture did not ensure that the elders were doing the right thing. They ended up being criminals themselves in the end, and this wrong interpretation has cost the organization of JWs dearly.

As a former Witness, I can attest to witnessing similar things I tried to stop—and became a victim myself in the process for doing so. When I was a ministerial servant (deacon), I stood up against my body of elders for abusing a brother with multiple sclerosis. He had been gifted in speaking, a regular pioneer, and given many privileges by the District Overseer that many twice his age never got. He was very faithful, but when he suddenly became too ill to care for himself and his duties (he was newly assigned as a ministerial servant as well), an elder spread a rumor about him, claiming he had committed fornication with a girl and was thus pretending to be ill so as to avoid punishment. The elders left this man for dead to fend for himself without any aid from other JWs until his non-Witness family came to collect him and save him from starvation.

Two years later this elder admitted to what he had done and stepped down from his privileges. But by then all sorts of evils had been committed against this man, including stealing, reading, and keeping mailed letters sent to him from others—a congregation in Houston, Texas still has one of these letters that the elder body won’t release to him.

When I stood up to them the elders used these and other Scripture texts to justify themselves. They then proceeded to have me followed at night, attempted to remove me on false charges of immorality, and even forbade other JWs from aiding me when I was seriously injured from being in an accident. I went without being able to feed myself properly for days until my non-Witness family could help me, just like the other man.

Some of these men are still serving as elders, others have been arrested for pedophilia, some removed or stepped down from serving, but none of the policies have been altered or changed that the elders used against the man with MS which the elders claim come directly from Scripture.

I have since received a few apologies from some of these elders, but most repeated the same offenses again toward others and worse, all in the name of “following Scriptural direction” from the Governing Body.

It is not a question about having teachings one pulls from the Bible, its a question of interpretation.

One of the last things I was told by two elders before leaving was: “We want to help you stay, but we will not even discuss things done to you by elders, even if there is evidence of wrongdoing on their behalf. This is the true religion, and we will help you stay as long as it doesn’t involve uncovering the truth about what happened to you and this brother with MS. We only want to help you stay in the one true religion.”

They wanted to next follow an outline of Scripture texts about how I would be rejecting a love for Bible truth if I left the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hmm, I thought to myself. One rejects Bible truth is they leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but one upholds Bible truth by refusing to set matters aright in the congregation?

My reputation and life was put at risk by several elders in two cities because of this. Apparently Bible truth does not include standing up and trying to set matters straight on behalf of the suffering.

 

[Porknpie]

The Trinity. – Would I be close to estimate 90% of Christian groups believe the Trinity doctrine? JW’s have always taught it is not a Bible teaching and not believed by the early Christian congregation.

Logically,

You are correct that the Trinity is not explicit in the bible but that doesn’t mean it is not there. The early Christians did believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Examples only below.

St Ignatius was a disciple of St. John, that apostle who was taught by Christ.
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

Justin Martyr writes in the early second century:
“For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).

And even before there was a bible the Church in Constantinople said:
“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father…” Creed of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

Justin Martyr also describes the Trinity in the early second century although the word Trinity was used to describe three persons in one being later in time.
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

Origin uses the word Trinity in the 3rd century
“[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages.” Origen, First Principles, 4:28 (A.D. 230).

And while that Trinity is not explicit in the bible, neither does the bible list what books should be in the bible. So similarly, what authority decided what books are in the bible and on what basis (I posed this question earlier to you)? The answer is that the Catholic Church decided what books are in the bible, first at the Council of Rome in 382 then confirmed at the Synod’s of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397ad and then later at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The Church decided what was the inspired Word of God based on which writings were written by apostles or those that knew the apostles and they looked at what readings were being used at the Catholic Mass throughout the world.

So it is a bit of a dilemma for you Logically. You trust that the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit to all Truth and got the bible right (actually 27 NT books out of several hundred writings in existence) but somehow the Holy Spirit led the Church to error on Christ being God and the Trinity.

Who better to put your trust in? Those closest to the time of Christ OR someone 1,900 years later who comes up with a different Gospel that what was passed on by the apostles and their descendants?

PnP

 

[Miriam1947]

PnP thank you for posting this.

And even before there was a bible the Church in Constantinople said:
“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father…” Creed of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

Nice to know that more than1600 years later we still recite that each Sunday at Mass. Ain’t it great to be part of the ancient Church?

I love being Catholic.

 

[Logically]

Yes it is and here again is where it comes from so you can get the context of “contexts”…
They did bow to Jesus in the few scriptures I quoted on the other thread which was the origin of this discussion so do you not see a double standard here?
…
Catholics like to use all of our senses to experience and worship God. If Images, art, architecture, incense, bells… brings someone closer to God how can that be bad? God understood our human senses enough to have things such as the tabernacle and the temple designed with such beauty and awe. Sure, if the people worshiped these things then that would obviously be idolatry but again, lets put it in context, right?

Peace!!!

Hi Adf417. You are passionate on this subject my friend! Fair enough.

I’m sure you realize how little my opinion matters on this subject?

It’s God’s opinion that counts.
We have some pretty clear instructions from the Bible. I think we must be careful not to try and find ways out of what is forbidden.

I found an interesting bit in our “insight on the scriptures” encyclopedia under idolatry:

quote:
Not All Images Are Idols. God’s law not to form images (Ex 20:4,*5) did not rule out the making of all representations and statues. This is indicated by Jehovah’s later command to make two golden cherubs on the cover of the Ark and to embroider representations of cherubs on the inner tent covering of ten tent cloths for the tabernacle and the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy. (Ex 25:18; 26:1, 31,*33)…The molten sea rested upon 12 copper bulls, and the sidewalls of the copper carriages for temple use were decorated with figures of lions, bulls, and cherubs. (1Ki 7:25, 28,*29)
…

Images as Aids in Worship. The Scriptures do not sanction the use of images as a means to address God in prayer. Such a practice runs counter to the principle that those seeking to serve Jehovah must worship him with spirit and truth. (Joh 4:24; 2Co 4:18; 5:6,*7) He tolerates no mixing of idolatrous practices with true worship, as is illustrated by his condemnation of calf worship, although the Israelites had attached his name thereto. (Ex 32:3-10) Jehovah does not share his glory with graven images.—Isa 42:8.
There is not a single instance in Scripture where faithful servants of Jehovah resorted to the use of visual aids to pray to God or engaged in a form of relative worship.

End of quote.

I guess i am missing something here.

What exactly do you do or say when you use aids in worship? Do you talk to the picture or crucifix? What is the procedure? I really don’t understand the practice.
Why are they necessary if it is stepping into such a grey area?

Sorry again for taking a while to answer, but I really don’t know much about this kind of thing.

 

[adf417]

Hi Adf417. You are passionate on this subject my friend! Fair enough.

I’m sure you realize how little my opinion matters on this subject?

It’s God’s opinion that counts.
We have some pretty clear instructions from the Bible. I think we must be careful not to try and find ways out of what is forbidden.

I found an interesting bit in our “insight on the scriptures” encyclopedia under idolatry:

quote:
Not All Images Are Idols. God’s law not to form images (Ex 20:4,*5) did not rule out the making of all representations and statues. This is indicated by Jehovah’s later command to make two golden cherubs on the cover of the Ark and to embroider representations of cherubs on the inner tent covering of ten tent cloths for the tabernacle and the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy. (Ex 25:18; 26:1, 31,*33)…The molten sea rested upon 12 copper bulls, and the sidewalls of the copper carriages for temple use were decorated with figures of lions, bulls, and cherubs. (1Ki 7:25, 28,*29)
…

Images as Aids in Worship. The Scriptures do not sanction the use of images as a means to address God in prayer. Such a practice runs counter to the principle that those seeking to serve Jehovah must worship him with spirit and truth. (Joh 4:24; 2Co 4:18; 5:6,*7) He tolerates no mixing of idolatrous practices with true worship, as is illustrated by his condemnation of calf worship, although the Israelites had attached his name thereto. (Ex 32:3-10) Jehovah does not share his glory with graven images.—Isa 42:8.
There is not a single instance in Scripture where faithful servants of Jehovah resorted to the use of visual aids to pray to God or engaged in a form of relative worship.

End of quote.

I guess i am missing something here.

What exactly do you do or say when you use aids in worship? Do you talk to the picture or crucifix? What is the procedure? I really don’t understand the practice.
Why are they necessary if it is stepping into such a grey area?

Sorry again for taking a while to answer, but I really don’t know much about this kind of thing.

Thank you for responding Logically. Before I address the questions you ask here there is still one question not answered and since it has been a disjointed conversation over a couple of threads and much delays I will ask it again here…

In Mt 2:11, Mt 28:9, Mk, 15:19 each have a double action verb used along with “proskyneo” where most of the time the first verb being translated as “fell down” or “bowed” and “proskyneo” being translated as worship or obeisance. My question is…were the people worshiping Jesus in these passages or was the first action, “falling down” or “bowing” not worship? If it was not worship, then why do JWs view **all **bowing as worship? Even the Watchtower states it very well here…

Bowing down to humans as an act of respect was admissible, but bowing to anyone other than Jehovah as a deity was prohibited by God. (Ex 23:24; 34:14) Similarly, the worshipful bowing down to religious images or to any created thing was positively condemned.

-bold mine

“worshipful” being the qualifier here and reading on pg. 29 of “You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth” we all agree with the statement “It is not any man, but God, who is the judge of what is true worship”, right?

Peace!!!

In the

 

[Logically]

Thank you for responding Logically. Before I address the questions you ask here there is still one question not answered …

Ooh 'eek!
I have just prepared an answer for another poster. I will post it first and then consider yours. Won’t forget this time! Even if my eventual answer is: “I don’t know!”
Thanks friend.

 

[PRmerger]

And then what happened? Was there a “remnant” Christian group that retained the teachings of Christ until the JWs emerged in the US in the 20th century?

Yes. It is important that an archbishop profess what the CC has always taught: worship of images is idolatry.

Can you give a quote from him saying this is wrong?

Quote from the Bishop Claudius that says this, please?

Hiya, Logically!

Would you mind addressing the above questions? Thanks so much!

 

[Logically]

Logically,
You are correct that the Trinity is not explicit in the bible but that doesn’t mean it is not there.

Hi there. Thanks very much for your post! Excellent reasoning.
I had to do quite a bit of study to answer it. I have learned a lot. (I’d never heard of Ignatius before)

The early Christians did believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Examples only below.

JW’s likewise believe Jesus was the son of God. No problem there.

St Ignatius was a disciple of St. John, that apostle who was taught by Christ.
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, (there is spurious stuff too) in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit. Instead, he showed that the Son is in subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.
He declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”
Ignatius has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.”

“There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.”

All the above statements directly contradict the Trinity doctrine declared 300 years later. Ignatius didn’t believe it.

True, Ignatius calls the Son “the Lord our God.” But using the word “God” for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son “God” at Isaiah 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son “the only-begotten god.”
Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed a “mighty one,” which is what “god” basically means.—Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2.

Ignatius contradicts the Trinity, as did his teacher John.

Justin Martyr writes in the early second century:
“For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).

A similar arguement can be put forward for where Ignatius used the word God to refer to Jesus. A mighty powerful being. But as Justin says in the next breath: “Son of the unbegotten God.” Not the same or equal.

And even before there was a bible the Church in Constantinople said:… Creed of Constantinople (A.D. 381).[/INDENT]

Nearly 300 years after the apostles died out. By which time the church had merged with the Polytheistic and greek philosophy obsessed Roman empire.

Justin Martyr also describes the Trinity…
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, … that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

Fine. “Son of the true God,” and “Second place to the true God.” I agree. It fits with the gospels.

And while that Trinity is not explicit in the bible, neither does the bible list what books should be in the bible. So similarly, what authority decided what books are in the bible and on what basis (I posed this question earlier to you)? The answer is that the Catholic Church decided what books are in the bible, …

This insistence the Catholic Church decided the Bible often comes up. I have finally done some research. The answer: No it didn’t.

Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune states: “Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council . . . The criteria were quite open and very sensible: . . . This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. It was the church of martyrs, not the church of power, that gave us the New Testament.”

and

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.”

So it is a bit of a dilemma for you Logically. You trust that the Catholic Church was led by the Holy Spirit to all Truth and got the bible right … but somehow the Holy Spirit led the Church to error on Christ being God and the Trinity.

No dilemma. What books were inspired was already known. The Church just agreed.

Who better to put your trust in? Those closest to the time of Christ OR someone 1,900 years later …

The apostles were closest. I will put together a post of their quotes soon.

 

[PRmerger]

No dilemma. What books were inspired was already known. The Church just agreed.

Who told the early Christians what books belonged in the Bible?