Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[rinnie]

Ok i am split between two Religions. The Catholic Church, and Jehovah’s WItnesses. Reason being the Catholic Church is the oldest Church there is and it can be traced back Jesus. The first Pope was supposedly Peter. Then Jehovah’s WItnesses have done more research than any more religion and they use the Bible more than another religion i have seen. I could just close off to the Catholic Church and continue being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses but there is a chance that the Catholic church is true and it might be where God wants me. I don’t know for sure yet but I am going to ask you people many questions. I will judge where I go on how the get answered and how reliable they are. I do not mean to bash any religion i am just trying to find the truth. I ask my questions out of kindness. So please answer out of kindness. Thank you

RULES:
You must know what the Witnesses teach. I have been studying for a long time and i will know if you telling the truth.

Do not contradict Bible verse. I give with others in the bible because they have already been explained. So you must first explain the bible verses I give you and then show me others in the bible.

Do not say things degrading the Witnesses only answer the questions i give you or i will not listen.

Let me say I am doing this out of love for God and i need to know the truth with out a doubt in my mind. So if the Catholic Church is where God is calling me He will keep me there.

My First Question why not use the Name of God? That is Jehovah or Yahweh or what ever. Jesus name was probably pronounce said Yeshua. Or something like it. Jesus is just the english way of saying it. In the Bible it is used many times. nearly 7,000 times in the OT and even in the NT it has been implied. Romans 10:13 Psalms 83:18 KJ Joel 2:32 So out of that how is there any question whether or not to use God’s Name?

Simple answer where does the Catholic Church not use the name of God. The Catholic Church acknowledges God as he revealed himself in the word, in the Spirit and being both Human and Divine.

He is the Father in the word, the Son in the word that became flesh, and the Spirit as he is now leading the Church.

THe reason the Church teaches God in the 3 Persons is because that is how God revealed himself in the 3 Person. 3 Person ONE GOD.

The Church has no way but to teach the truth in the way God told us. God did not choose to reveal himself in the N.T until he said. It is not for us to ask God why he did this or that it is for us to obey his commands.

God does what he does when he wants and how he wants. He said he would send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us until the end of age and thats how it is. He is leading us by the Power of the HS in the CC un til he comes back again. It is not our right to question it is our duty to obey. He said he was sending his Holy Spirit to guide us in the CC at Pentecost, it written and its his word. We are taught to believe in his word not question it.

 

[SteveVH]

Simple answer where does the Catholic Church not use the name of God. The Catholic Church acknowledges God as he revealed himself in the word, in the Spirit and being both Human and Divine.

He is the Father in the word, the Son in the word that became flesh, and the Spirit as he is now leading the Church.

THe reason the Church teaches God in the 3 Persons is because that is how God revealed himself in the 3 Person. 3 Person ONE GOD.

The Church has no way but to teach the truth in the way God told us. God did not choose to reveal himself in the N.T until he said. It is not for us to ask God why he did this or that it is for us to obey his commands.

God does what he does when he wants and how he wants. He said he would send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us until the end of age and thats how it is. He is leading us by the Power of the HS in the CC un til he comes back again. It is not our right to question it is our duty to obey. He said he was sending his Holy Spirit to guide us in the CC at Pentecost, it written and its his word. We are taught to believe in his word not question it.

It doesn’t matter. If you don’t call Him Jehovah (an erroneous name anyway) you’re missing the boat. He is more properly called “Lord” as His name is too sacred to be pronounced. What I find kind of funny is that they act as if they discovered His name and the rest of us are in the dark.

 

[rinnie]

It doesn’t matter. If you don’t call Him Jehovah (an erroneous name anyway) you’re missing the boat. He is more properly called “Lord” as His name is too sacred to be pronounced. What I find kind of funny is that they act as if they discovered His name and the rest of us are in the dark.

So then Jesus missed the boat when he called him is Father? At least we are on the same boat as Jesus.

 

[jlhargus]

jl; Mark

 

[NickBatchelor]

Hi Lenny,

My name is Nick and I belong to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. How is your evaluation going? Was there any other questions you have not resolved yet?

I see some keep pretending that Jehovah is not a legitimate name for God. It is just as appropriate than any other name we find in the Bible including Jesus.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in 1913, Vol. VIII, page 329 admits: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”

 

[T_More]

Hi Lenny,

My name is Nick and I belong to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. How is your evaluation going? Was there any other questions you have not resolved yet?

I see some keep pretending that Jehovah is not a legitimate name for God. It is just as appropriate than any other name we find in the Bible including Jesus.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in 1913, Vol. VIII, page 329 admits: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”

It always fascinates me how many JW’s disregard the WTBS about instructing their members to not come on to website’s such as this…

 

[NickBatchelor]

We have been encouraged not to get involved in fruitless debates. Lenny has humility behind his questions so we are happy to answer any of his questions.

 

[Jehoshua]

The Catholic Encyclopedia in 1913, Vol. VIII, page 329 admits: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”

One needs to remember that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an exposition of doctrine from the magisterium of the Church. It is merely an encyclopedia relating to catholic topics that incidentally also includes the opinions of the writers of the times it is written.

Thus considering the timeframe of its writing the name Jehovah was at that time considered a valid transliteration of the tetragrammaton, whereas later scholarship on classical hebrew grammar and literary usage eventually determined otherwise.
to be exact scholarship by jewish and christian scholars both determined that hebrew scribes in the late classical era and the middle ages (and to this day) sustituted the vowel marks of the word adonai into the tetragrammaton in the current hebrew alphabet (no vowel letters). to remind the reader of the usage of the word adonai. The paleo-hebrew alphabet in which most of the old testament was originally written has no vowel marks and is likewise an alphabet that only transcribes constanants and thus the correct pronunciation was never transcribed and was lost in time.

Therefore I can say that previous posters are totally correct in saying that the word Jehovah is a defective pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, as the word itself is merely a product of a certain time-frames less-informed scholarship (ie - they thought the contemporary vowel marks of the current hebrew alphabet [adonai marks in the tetragrammaton] were the actual pronunciation and that the tetragrammaton was always written that way, without consulting the rules for hebrew grammar)

 

[Jehoshua]

We have been encouraged not to get involved in fruitless debates. Lenny has humility behind his questions so we are happy to answer any of his questions.

Does that not lead to the conclusion that one of your persuasion is encouraged not to engage in an honest dialogue with a person of another religion as such an honest dialogue could lead one to realise the defectiveness of a number of your religions teachings and thus by your definition be “fruitless”.?

 

[arabic_catholic]

I would like to know how can JW explain this verse

10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Is that Jehovah the Father ? or Jehovah the son?

because i think they believe that who was killed on the cross is an angel, so how can here Jehovah is talking about himself being the one .

 

[T_More]

We have been encouraged not to get involved in fruitless debates. Lenny has humility behind his questions so we are happy to answer any of his questions.

The July 15, 2011 WT, page 16, paragraph 7 (emphasis mine)

7 What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them.We also refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs.

 

[jlhargus]

Their physical bodies are resurrected. You may have seen drawings of cemeteries and bodies coming up out of their graves, but of course for most of the bodies of everyone who has ever lived will have long mouldered to dust ("Dust thou art, and to dust thou wilt return). Therefore there is no longer a body to be raised! It has turned to dust. So, what the resurrection means is that God will create new glorified bodies for us that will not be subject to death, sickness nor sadness. QUOTE]

JL: mack your post was good, but the same body is raised, even if it has turned to dust and been scattered to the four winds. See CCC 017 “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

If it were a different body then that would not be a resurrection of the body and we would not really be the same person as before. Recall the last part of the Apostle’s Creed, I believe in the … the resurrection fo the body. Our bodies are transformed to a glorified spiritual body, but it is the same body placed in the grave.

Man is BOTH body and spirit (soul). [Mt 10:28 And fear not them which KILL THE BODY, but are NOT ABLE TO KILL THE SOUL: but rather fear him which is able to destroy **BOTH soul AND body

in hell.] Destroyed does not mean annhilation or out of existance, just as substance abuse can literally destroy man’s body and life, to the point he is only existing, yet not bodily dead.

 

[rinnie]

I have a question. Now is JW and Mormons the same thing? If they are is it not true that Mormons believe that marriage is a sacrament just like we do?

If this is true how could Marie Osmond get married in the Mormon Church for the 3rd time?

 

[SteveVH]

I have a question. Now is JW and Mormons the same thing? If they are is it not true that Mormons believe that marriage is a sacrament just like we do?

If this is true how could Marie Osmond get married in the Mormon Church for the 3rd time?

No, JW’s and Mormons are not the “same thing”. One group is Jehovah’s Witnesses, the other group is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are both far removed from traditional Christianity but both have their unique beliefs in relation to one another.

Your question regarding Marie Osmond remains valid, however.

 

[rinnie]

No, JW’s and Mormons are not the “same thing”. One group is Jehovah’s Witnesses, the other group is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are both far removed from traditional Christianity but both have their unique beliefs in relation to one another.

Your question regarding Marie Osmond remains valid, however.

Thanks SVH.

 

[icamay]

I have a question. Now is JW and Mormons the same thing? If they are is it not true that Mormons believe that marriage is a sacrament just like we do?

If this is true how could Marie Osmond get married in the Mormon Church for the 3rd time?

Marie’s 3rd marriage is to her 1st husband, so maybe it’s not looked at as a separate marriage? All marriages were in an LDS temple, but for some reason, I’m noticing that this relationship’s reconciliation is being highly celebrated.

 

[rinnie]

Marie’s 3rd marriage is to her 1st husband, so maybe it’s not looked at as a separate marriage? All marriages were in an LDS temple, but for some reason, I’m noticing that this relationship’s reconciliation is being highly celebrated.

Don’t get me wrong I have no problem with the First and 3rd marriage. What I am asking what about the 2nd.

Was it in the temple to begin with, and if it was how it this explained. Thanks.

 

[icamay]

Don’t get me wrong I have no problem with the First and 3rd marriage. What I am asking what about the 2nd.

Was it in the temple to begin with, and if it was how it this explained. Thanks.

According to my Google research, the 2nd marriage did happen in an LDS temple. I have the same questions that you do. I was always under the impression that the LDS belief system is against divorce? Her public statements say that neither party in the 2nd marriage were unfaithful, which can be grounds for divorce in the LDS system. Very confusing to me.

 

[rinnie]

According to my Google research, the 2nd marriage did happen in an LDS temple. I have the same questions that you do. I was always under the impression that the LDS belief system is against divorce? Her public statements say that neither party in the 2nd marriage were unfaithful, which can be grounds for divorce in the LDS system. Very confusing to me.

I started another thread on this so we don’t get into trouble. We will see what they say. Thanks

 

[NickBatchelor]

T-More,

That article you forwarded is talking about speaking with those who are viewed as “apostates” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Read the paragraphs before in context, namely paragraph 5.

What are you so worried about? Do you really want me to leave this discussion?