Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[NickBatchelor]

Jehoshua,

What do you think of “theophoric” Bible names. (A person’s name with God’s name incorporated in it). Here are a few examples:

Jehoaddah (literally YEHOADDA)
Jehoaddan (literally YEHOADDAN)
Jehoahaz (literally YEHOAHAZ)
Jehoash (literally YEHOAS)
Jehohanan (literally YEHOHANAN)
Jehoiachin (literally YEHOYAKIN)
Jehoiada (literally YEHOYADA)
Jehoiakim (literally YEHOYAQIM)
Jehoiarib (literally YEHOYARIB)
Jehonadab (literally YEHONADAB)
Jehonathan (literally YEHONATAN)
Jehoram (literally YEHORAM)
Jehoshabeath (literally YEHOSABAT)
Jehoshaphat (literally YEHOSAPAT)
Jehosheba (literally YEHOSEBA)
Jehoshua (literally YEHOSUA)
Jehozabad (literally YEHOZABAD)
Jehozadak (literally YEHOSADAQ)

For example, look how the very Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates 2 Kings 12:2, “All his life Jehoash did what Yahweh regards as right, having been instructed by Jehoiada the priest.”

The New Jerusalem Bible should be commended for at least using the form “Yahweh” but why are they so inconsistent? Why did they not render other names in the Bible such as Jehoash as “Yehoas” or Jehoiada as “Yehoyada?”

Incidentally, shouldn’t you be calling yourself “YEHOSUA” instead of the “defective” Jehoshua?

 

[Nicea325]

Jehoshua,

What do you think of “theophoric” Bible names. (A person’s name with God’s name incorporated in it). Here are a few examples:

Jehoaddah (literally YEHOADDA)
Jehoaddan (literally YEHOADDAN)
Jehoahaz (literally YEHOAHAZ)
Jehoash (literally YEHOAS)
Jehohanan (literally YEHOHANAN)
Jehoiachin (literally YEHOYAKIN)
Jehoiada (literally YEHOYADA)
Jehoiakim (literally YEHOYAQIM)
Jehoiarib (literally YEHOYARIB)
Jehonadab (literally YEHONADAB)
Jehonathan (literally YEHONATAN)
Jehoram (literally YEHORAM)
Jehoshabeath (literally YEHOSABAT)
Jehoshaphat (literally YEHOSAPAT)
Jehosheba (literally YEHOSEBA)
Jehoshua (literally YEHOSUA)
Jehozabad (literally YEHOZABAD)
Jehozadak (literally YEHOSADAQ)

For example, look how the very Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates 2 Kings 12:2, “All his life Jehoash did what Yahweh regards as right, having been instructed by Jehoiada the priest.”

The New Jerusalem Bible should be commended for at least using the form “Yahweh” but why are they so inconsistent? Why did they not render other names in the Bible such as Jehoash as “Yehoas” or Jehoiada as “Yehoyada?”

Incidentally, shouldn’t you be calling yourself “YEHOSUA” instead of the “defective” Jehoshua?

And all of the above proves or serves what purpose?

 

[NickBatchelor]

Arabic Catholic,

The point of dispute in Zechariah 12:10 is on the word “me.” Some manuscripts say “me” others “him.”

What I find interesting is the testimony of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers” such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian who repeatedly rendered Zechariah 12:10 as “him whom they pierced.”

Even more important and outstanding is how the Apostle John himself understood this text. He quotes it at John 19:37

“And again another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

Hope this helps.

 

[NickBatchelor]

Nicea325,

The purpose or point of my reply was to demonstrate that “Jehovah” is no more defective or erroneous than other Hebrew names in Scripture. Hebrew is Hebrew and English is English. Even “Yahweh” is just a scholarly guess.

 

[T_More]

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?

I’m not worried about a thing, Nick. I would love for you to stick around!

The paragraph reads “false teachers”. Regardless of what it says in the previous paragraph, does not the WTBS state that the Catholic Church, which this website promotes the teachings of, is a false teacher? They attack with such regularity in their publications that perhaps you don’t even notice it anymore (?).

 

[SteveVH]

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?

I, for one, am very happy that you have joined this discussion as it is very rare that we find Jehovah’s Witnesses taking part. I find the prohibition against participating in religious discussions a bit disturbing. No one likes to participate in fruitless discussions, so I wonder what you believe would constitute a “fruitfull” discussion. I find this strange especialy because JW’s are known for “knocking on doors”. In my experience, I have never had a JW return to my door after the first discussion, even when invited to do so. Keep in mind I go overboard in making sure that I am charitable in our discussions. Does “fruitfull” mean a potential convert and if that potential does not seem to exist then it becomes “fruitless”?

 

[NickBatchelor]

Hi SteveVH,

I appreciate your welcoming spirit. Thank you. My intention is not to force feed you, Lenny who asked the original question, or any other sincere Catholic on this forum to believe anything. If all I do is better clarify our Scriptural position, and help answer many questions and misconceptions out there, then I say that is “fruitful.” Please know I write to generate light not heat. Jehovah’s Witnesses are encouraged to do more than go house to house but this is certainly a first-century Christian method that yields great results. (Acts 20:20) My aim is not to convert but to have a respectful, productive discussion.

Kind regards,

Nick

 

[NickBatchelor]

T-More,

None of us feel each others faith is worshiping God “with spirit and truth,” agreed? However, there is a difference in talking with others of another faith and those who have defected from the faith and are apostates. That was the contextual meaning of that article as anyone can see. I live much of the year in Italy where I enjoy speaking to many Catholics and we are encouraged to do so. I speak with many others of different faiths, why not? Vigorous discussions are fine as long as they remain civil and do not end up berating one another.

Sincerely,

Nick

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Make sure we read the above sticky on Proselytizing.

 

[NickBatchelor]

Did not the Magi or astrologers present birthday gifts to Jesus? No. Their gift-giving was simply a way of paying their respects to a person of note, a common custom in Bible times. (1 Kings 10:1, 2, 10, 13; Matthew 2:2, 11) In fact, they did not even come on the night that Jesus was born. Jesus was, not a babe in a manger, but many months old and living in a house when they arrived.

you are missing a very important birthday! Jesus’s birthday is celebrated in the Bible. Shepherds praised him, 3 wise men gave him birthday presents, Angels sang at his birth. Sounds like a whole lot of celebrating going on. You don’t know that they didn’t celebrate with special foods either since it just doesn’t mention it.

As to why Christ’s birth is celebrated on the Solstice is easy to explain. Catholics and Christians are not celebrating Christ’s birthDAY, but Christ’s BIRTH. Since Christ is also the ‘light of the world’ it made a lot of sense to celebrate his birth when the days would begin to lengthen in the liturgical year. It clearly illustrates his light entering a world that was previously dark. Also since Easter takes place in the spring it didn’t make sense to have two major Holy Days ( yes the word is HOLY day and shortened by language use to holiday) in the same season of the year. Nothing, not even the Holy Day of Christ’s Birth should detract from the Holiness of Easter.

don’t get so tripped up on language. Words and customs age and change among people. There is nothing wrong with that. I still hate Mondays even though I don’t worship the moon. Learn the meaning behind the words and customs. The swastika is a hated symbol around the world but it wasn’t exclusive to the Nazis. Native Americans used it as a religious symbol. Which culture has prior claim?

That the early Germanic tribes worshiped trees. Does that mean Christians can’t use a tree to symbolize the future cross?

 

[NickBatchelor]

Where in the Bible exactly does it tell us there are three persons in one God?

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.

 

[rinnie]

Where in the Bible exactly does it tell us there are three persons in one God?

Well if you want to put it that way, where does it say in the bible that the written scripture is all we need?

I can show you where it says to stick to the Teaching’s of the early Fathers of the Church rather written or WORD OF MOUTH.

ITs that WORD OF MOUTH that we call Sacred Tradition that the Trinity was taught from the beginning of time.

Do you disagree that God is the Father\ the Son/ and the Holy Spirit?

 

[rinnie]

Did not the Magi or astrologers present birthday gifts to Jesus? No. Their gift-giving was simply a way of paying their respects to a person of note, a common custom in Bible times. (1 Kings 10:1, 2, 10, 13; Matthew 2:2, 11) In fact, they did not even come on the night that Jesus was born. Jesus was, not a babe in a manger, but many months old and living in a house when they arrived.

Oh so they gave him gifts when he was born but they were not Birthday Gifts. And you are saying this was a common custom in bible times for them to come to every infant or what?

And why then did they feel that the New Star that appeared tied into the Old Testament story of Balaam that prophesiied that A star shall advance from Jacob. Nm:24, 17 .

And if this is also true why was Herod so concerned with the Jewish legend and how it was so similar to the story of Moses? And why did Herod want Jesus dead?

Also why did Herod want word sent back so he himself could do him homage? Are you saying this is also common custom?

 

[icamay]

Where in the Bible exactly does it tell us there are three persons in one God?

We all need to be very careful of the logic we use to debate one’s faith, as that same logic may be used to tear down our own.

I believe that using one single part of scripture is very dangerous. Scripture must be used as a whole to learn what Jesus taught us. And when we look at the Gospels as a whole, we see that Christ was teaching us that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is where it is in the Bible. Fortunately, many posters have put the key verses to this right in this thread, so that I don’t have to repost the entirety of the Gospels.

 

[Phyllo]

Where in the Bible exactly does it tell us there are three persons in one God?

Matt.28:19… Baptise them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

 

[PRmerger]

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

Not at all, Nick! Welcome to the CAFs!

It’s just that many of us have had multiple dialogues with Jehovah’s Witnesses here and just when the discourse becomes interesting, and in our view, untenable for the JWs, they leave.

I don’t know of a single poster here who lists his religion as “Jehovah’s Witness” who’s stayed around more than 6 months. It seems they leave when confonted with truths which make them uncomfortable. :sad_yes:

So, we’re happy to have you and hope you’ll post often and provide your apologia. Just don’t leave when the going gets tough!

 

[NickBatchelor]

Rinnie,

You ask me to show you where exactly does the Bible state that Scripture alone is to be the final authority for Christ followers? Didn’t one of his faithful followers the Apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “…Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·pol′los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.”

n Acts 17:2, 3 it tells us: “According to Paul’s custom….he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references (from the Scriptures).” Paul wrote at 2 Timothy 3:15-17: “From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

No mention here of oral tradition fully equipping us. What is making us wise for salvation? Isn’t it the “holy WRITINGS?” What, then, are we to conclude when we see human tradition being given an equal rating with God’s inspired Word, and when, even though contrary to the Bible, tradition is accepted and followed instead of the Bible?

True, there were some traditions, or teachings, that Paul urged Christians to maintain, but these were based on the Scriptures and were totally in harmony with them. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)

Sincere truth seekers do what Luke wrote of the Beroeans: “They were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11, 12)

Of course, Christ himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” (Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27) Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching.

I think you know what I believe when it comes to God’s identity. Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High. (Psalms 83:18) Jesus Christ is God’s Son, “the Son of the Most High.” (Luke 1:32) God’s spirit is God’s applied power in action and since it comes from God it can be spoken of as God himself.

Respectfully,

Nick

Well if you want to put it that way, where does it say in the bible that the written scripture is all we need?

I can show you where it says to stick to the Teaching’s of the early Fathers of the Church rather written or WORD OF MOUTH.

ITs that WORD OF MOUTH that we call Sacred Tradition that the Trinity was taught from the beginning of time.

Do you disagree that God is the Father\ the Son/ and the Holy Spirit?

 

[NickBatchelor]

PRmerger,

Thank you for that. I will try my best not to make a dash for the exit door when the heat is on. I will check responses periodically. I respect all Catholics and have had great discussions with priests and nuns in Italy.

Not at all, Nick! Welcome to the CAFs!

It’s just that many of us have had multiple dialogues with Jehovah’s Witnesses here and just when the discourse becomes interesting, and in our view, untenable for the JWs, they leave.

I don’t know of a single poster here who lists his religion as “Jehovah’s Witness” who’s stayed around more than 6 months. It seems they leave when confonted with truths which make them uncomfortable. :sad_yes:

So, we’re happy to have you and hope you’ll post often and provide your apologia. Just don’t leave when the going gets tough!

 

[NickBatchelor]

Phyllo,

I would like at this time to point something out. Grammatically, the term “name” can be applied to each person so as to read “in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the holy spirit.”

The fact that the word “name” is singular is really irrelevant. This can be seen by citing examples like Genesis 48:16 which reads, “in the NAME of my fathers Abraham and Isaac.” (King James Version)

I have recently discussed this with a Catholic apologist and all the Catholic Bible translations we have been using in our dialogue says “names” but “name” is the true translation.

When I asked one of my Christian brothers who used to be Trinitarian and has taught Hebrew on a college level about this passage he wrote me:

"Yes, the word for “Name” is singular in the Hebrew text at Gen 48:16, that is, it is “shem” (pronounced like “shame” which rhymes with “name”) not “names” as is found at Ex 1:1 (She-MOTH’/ plural) Gen 48:16 uses “name” in the distributive sense, meaning NAME of Abraham, NAME of Isaac and NAME of Jacob. You have the same phenomenon at Matt 28:19 with the singular Greek word O-no-mah. It must be distributive there like it is at Gen 48:16 since we are given 3 distinct names to those men and we are given distinct names for the Father and the Son. --Rev 14:1 and Prov 30::4. Anyone ignoring this is ignoring the very Word of God.” (unquote)

Incidentally, “In the name of” can mean “in recognition of,” “in the authority of.” In recognition of the Father, in recognition of the Son and in recognition of the holy spirit.

Perhaps these 2 references will help:

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.”

“[Matt. 28:19] proves only that there are the three subjects named,…but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor…This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1987, Vol. X, p. 552).

The expression “in the name of” really means “by the authority of” or “recognizing the position of.” Being baptized “in the name of the Father,” means accepting without question the sovereignty of God in our lives. Baptism “in the name of the Son,” means accepting Jesus as Redeemer, Exemplar, and King. And baptism “in the name of the holy spirit,” involves relying on the spirit and submitting to its power.

Whatever you choose to believe it definitely can be understood in a very different, yet consistent light.

Matt.28:19… Baptise them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

 

[NickBatchelor]

Icamay,

Yes I agree. We should be careful not to read a scripture or text in isolation. It is best to see what the entire Bible combines to say. However, is there any Scriptural definition of God that we can point to that does not demand the idea of a Trinity? (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) Who did Jesus say was “the only true God” in Scripture? (John 17:3)

We all need to be very careful of the logic we use to debate one’s faith, as that same logic may be used to tear down our own.

I believe that using one single part of scripture is very dangerous. Scripture must be used as a whole to learn what Jesus taught us. And when we look at the Gospels as a whole, we see that Christ was teaching us that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is where it is in the Bible. Fortunately, many posters have put the key verses to this right in this thread, so that I don’t have to repost the entirety of the Gospels.