Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[mackbrislawn]

This was a very fair and balanced comment. True, there are some teachings in the Bible that are implicit. I commend you for bringing out that the Trinity doctrine is NOT an explicit teaching of the Bible. Strange to me for something that is suppose to be “the central doctrine” of Christianity. After pouring hundreds of hours studying this doctrine I find many unsubstantiated Trinitarian assertions based on nothing more than Greek philosophy. Never do I find the idea of a triplex God in Scripture. I agree with you that many do not really understand how the Trinity doctrine developed over the years and was formulated. I firmly believe it was an idea foreign and absent to first-century followers of Christ.

Thanks, Nick.

No, the Trinity is not explicit in the Bible. An evangelical I know said that the Trinity is taught in the Bible, but not defended in the Bible. So the point is that just because there is no exact verse in the Bible that defines the Trinity, is not an argument against it, because there are so many other beliefs many people have that are not stated directly in scripture either.

To stick with the Trinity for a moment longer:
Actually, “trinity,” or “triplex” is somewhat incidental to the doctrine. This was mentioned by someone earlier in the thread, that Augustine put it this way:
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Holy Spirity.
There is only one God.

That is a succinct summary of the idea. Notice there is no mention of three, or trinity.

No, I’m sure that the first century Christians didn’t think of the Trinity as we do today. But, of course, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ nor of the Holy Spirit. So I don’t think the idea was foreign and absent for them. In my opinion they did accept Jesus’ Godship, because they were told that orally by the apostles and missionaries of that time. This means that Christians didn’t have to puzzle over scripture to discover that, because they already knew it. Heck, they couldn’t even, because they didn’t have a New Testament to puzzle over!

Ignatius of Antioch in about 110 speaks of Christ being God. This is way too early for that belief to have come about from reading scripture. It could only have come from the direct apostolic teaching in his church. Subsequent early writers bear similar witness.

The belief that Jesus was God, I believe, came easily to the first century believers, both orthodox or not. This is because if Jesus is God the Father, how could the Father suffer and die? He couldn’t, it would make no sense. Therefore, it was only in appearance, not in actuality. He only seemed to suffer and die. Kind of a phantom, not in the flesh at all. This was the gnostic or docetic viewpoint. That is why, in 1John 4:2, John warns us about false prophets, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”

These were those who so firmly believed in Christ’s Godship, that they didn’t see how He could have come in the flesh, but must have only appeared to have done so! And so John warns against those who didn’t believe in Christ’s flesh. In that way the gnostics and docetists were not orthodox.

I think this is evidence of first century belief in the deity of Christ.

 

[thecone137]

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)

1 Cor 8:5-6 demands it and John 17:3 doesn’t deny it.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul wrote, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.”

Jesus is called both the one Lord and he is called creator of all things. There can be no doubt the context refers to our Lord’s divinity. Every Jew knew the truth of the great Sh’ma of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” There is only one Lord in Israel. And according to 1 Corinthians, Jesus is that one Lord. Moreover, Jesus is called the creator of all things. Genesis 1:1 cannot make any clearer that it is almighty God who is the creator of all things. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The title kurios applied to Christ as creator of all things in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is clearly a title of divinity for Christ. It is the context that makes this so apparent.

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805btb.asp

John 17:3. In this verse, Jesus said, “Now this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

Trinitarians say the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. All three Persons are the one, true God, as opposed to three Gods.
Why does John 17:3 speak only of the Father as “the only true God” if Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God? To answer this, we must look at how Scripture speaks of the triune God.
The bible frequently attributes to one Person of the Trinity a title or name which actually belongs to all three. Theologians call this appropriation. This is how the biblical writers, in lieu of more technical, philosophical language, distinguished the Persons in God.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002chap.asp

 

[pablope]

Certainly someone could orally be taught God’s Word but it must be based on the Scriptures. The same is true when we preach, we are encouraged to do so orally but the basis of such teaching is on the written inspired Word given to us from God. This is what we consult, this is how we measure truth.

Sorry, wrong premise Nick.

None of the gospels had been written when Timothy was instructed by Paul. So how could Paul instruct Timothy about Jesus and what Jesus words were, what Jesus taught unless it was done orally-the Sacred Tradition that Paul received. So, what Scriptures would Paul base his teaching/instruction to Timothy? The Septuagint, what would eventually be the OT, just contained the prophesies of about Jesus, but none of Jesus’ teachings.

Again the question to you…where did Paul get his knowledge about Jesus and His teachings, if nothing had been written yet?

And the Word of God is not confined to those that are written, it is both Oral (Sacred Tradition) and Written (Bible).

 

[pablope]

I have heard this one before. Nicea simply accepted what was already considered canonical by Christians at the time. Popular use, not Nicea, made the decision. To answer your other questions let’s examine some Scriptures together and then I’ll make a few remarks.

We have kept the primary doctrines that Russell established with the original Bible Students. Some we have tweaked, because we have followed the advice of Acts 17:11. As the research teams have grown in knowledge of the original languages, manuscripts, history and so on, they have had to humbly make adjustments. But again, they have kept almost all of the basic core findings of Russell and the International Bible Students as they were called at that time.

Question for you Nick…how was an ordinary Christian before Nicea was to truly know which writing to consider as Scripture (as you know it today)?

Besides, not everyone could read then. Those who could read were very few and these were the rabbis, ministers, the learned or scholars.

There were over 200 writings all claiming to be Scripture. So, how was an ordinary Christian to decide which writing to listen to during the Mass then?

There was no uniformity, and consider, that all the writings could not be gathered in one place. The Catholic Church was largely under persecution for the first 300 years of its existence, and so was mainly underground.

 

[NickBatchelor]

I will ignore the spiritual bullying. The Word of God did not need your Catholic church (which deviated from the Word of God) to validate it, nor the Ante-Nicene fathers. And yes, as a matter of fact I am very familiar with the “Ante-Nicene fathers.” One thing for sure, they were not always in agreement themselves. For example, “Church father” Jerome did not want to add apocryphal books to the canon.

The book, “All Scripture Inspired by God” (p. 302 par. 17 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon) had this to say:

“The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.”

I do not believe the Catholic church resembles the first-century Christian congregation as you think. I would encourage you to consider the illustration Jesus used of the wheat and weeds and include Revelation chapters 2 and 3. The “church” was filled with apostasy according to Jesus. This would not change until the Last days/Harvest.

Nick, have you read the Early Church/Ante Nicene Fathers? You know, the ones mentioned in the “Insight on the Scriptures” volumes? They utterly refute this statement of yours.

Nick, please answer my question. Who decided what makes up Sacred Scripture, ie, the Bible? Let me help you out. It was decided by an “organization” 60 years after DEFINING (not INVENTING) the Trinity. Do you realize, then, that that would mean you as a JW, accepting this canonization of Sacred Scripture, would be drinking milk from an apostatized cow? Every time you go in field service you are toting a book from door to door that was decided upon by someone else.

Who is the Church that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 16 founded upon Peter that would never fail? Who is the Church that Paul spoke about in 1 Tim.3:15 that he described as THE pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[NickBatchelor]

Rinnie,

You said: “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?”

There is nothing in the Bible that says they brought gifts because of his BIRTH. They did not come simply because a child had been born. They said they came to honor the one who had (ALREADY BEEN BORN sometime previously) because he was to be king of the Jews. Thus it is was his position, and not the simple fact of his birth that they intended to honor. The Bible’s description suggests that the star appeared AFTER Jesus birth, which is why when the astrologers finally did arrive at the house, they found the young child and his mother. Also, those men were not faithful worshipers of the True God. They were pagan astrologers. So, even if they did bring “birthday gifts” for the child, that should not be used as an example for Christians to indicate that celebration of birthdays has God’s approval, any more than someone reasoning that if pagan astrologers honored the young child and were mentioned in the Bible, then it must be ok for Christians to observe clearly pagan customs or to practice astrology as long as they also honor Christ, right?? Also, it is a well established historical fact that the Jews as a people did not celebrate birthdays although the pagan nations around them did. So again, even if one sees these as birthday gifts, that in no way justifies Christ followers later following a clearly pagan custom. That birthdays are and have always been of pagan origin can be verified in any good encyclopedia.

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

The magi in the Bible account said nothing at all about having gotten their idea about “his star” from the Old Testament, never mentioned Balaam, nor does the Bible record itself even hint that the magi made such a connection to the prophecy in Numbers 24:17. The prophecy itself is valid and true. But the Bible record of the magi visiting Jesus makes absolutely no mention of it or even hints at it. So that account cannot be used to validate somehow the magi’s actions. It just doesn’t work.

You then said, “And if this is also true” (it is not, so the question as asked is invalid) 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?

The Bible is very clear on these points, Herod new about prophecies of a coming Messiah who would rule the Jews. That is why when he heard tell of the child from the astrologers, he and all Jerusalem were disturbed by it. Jewish and other histories of the period make overwhelmingly clear that Herod as a person was insanely jealous of his position and didn’t hesitate to murder even family members and close friends at the hint that they might try to usurp some of his power. Herod wanted NO ONE, least of all the prophesied Messiah, to threaten his rule. Herod clearly asked the religious leaders for information about where the promised Christ was to be born. When they told him, he acted on the information in order to try to kill the usurper. This description of Herod and his obsession with his own power and readiness to kill to protect it, fits perfectly the historical picture we have of the man even outside the Bible.

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

I think this last part of the question is meant in ridicule. But I’ll still comment briefly on it. There is no evidence that the astrologers knew Herod personally before this, or knew of his well established tendency to kill supposed rivals. The astrologers may simply have believed that Herod had motives similar to their own if they believed that he was the long promised King of the Jews. The Bible itself records a number of occasions where Kings in surrounding nations sent emissaries or official congratulations to a nation when a new king took the throne, perhaps in an effort to try to cement good relations. If the astrologers believed Herod to be Jewish (which in fact he was not) and to believe the Jewish scriptures about a coming Messiah who he and all Israel would welcome – which in fact he did not) they would have no reason not to do as he requested, thinking that he too would want to honor the long awaited Messiah upon his arrival.

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?

 

[NickBatchelor]

TheCone137,

How many “Lords” do you see in Psalms 110:1? Let’s start here.

1 Cor 8:5-6 demands it and John 17:3 doesn’t deny it.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul wrote, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.”

Jesus is called both the one Lord and he is called creator of all things. There can be no doubt the context refers to our Lord’s divinity. Every Jew knew the truth of the great Sh’ma of Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” There is only one Lord in Israel. And according to 1 Corinthians, Jesus is that one Lord. Moreover, Jesus is called the creator of all things. Genesis 1:1 cannot make any clearer that it is almighty God who is the creator of all things. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The title kurios applied to Christ as creator of all things in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is clearly a title of divinity for Christ. It is the context that makes this so apparent.

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805btb.asp

John 17:3. In this verse, Jesus said, “Now this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

Trinitarians say the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. All three Persons are the one, true God, as opposed to three Gods.
Why does John 17:3 speak only of the Father as “the only true God” if Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God? To answer this, we must look at how Scripture speaks of the triune God.
The bible frequently attributes to one Person of the Trinity a title or name which actually belongs to all three. Theologians call this appropriation. This is how the biblical writers, in lieu of more technical, philosophical language, distinguished the Persons in God.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002chap.asp

 

[T_More]

Nick, from the New World Translation:

Jude 4 (emphasis mine)

4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[T_More]

Nick, the Holy Spirit is personified throughout all the New Testament. It’s called a “he” and “him” and acts on it’s own. Let’s take one example from the New World Translation, so you feel comfortable. Acts 13:1-2. Note how the Holy Spirit is speaking (emphasis mine):

1 Now in Antioch there were prophets and teachers in the local congregation, Bar´na·bas as well as Sym´e·on who was called Ni´ger, and Lucius of Cy·re´ne, and Man´a·en who was educated with Herod the district ruler, and Saul. 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

Since WTBS theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is “God’s inactive force”, or His power or “electricity”, how can it speak and act on it’s own here? This is just one of many, many examples.

 

[T_More]

Nick, from the New World Translation:

John 8:21-28

21 Hence he said to them again: “I am going away, and YOU will look for me, and yet YOU will die in YOUR sin. Where I am going YOU cannot come.” 22 Therefore the Jews began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going YOU cannot come.’” 23 So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.” 25 Therefore they began to say to him: “Who are you?” Jesus said to them: “Why am I even speaking to YOU at all? 26 I have many things to speak concerning YOU and to pass judgment upon. As a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” 27 They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father. 28 Therefore Jesus said: “When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.

Why is [he] added after the “I am” when the WTBS’s own interlinear shows that [he] does not appear? It was added by the translation committee. Why do you think that is? If you’d like, I’d be more than happy to post a scan from both the 1969 and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear’s that I own to show you what I mean.

 

[thecone137]

TheCone137,

How many “Lords” do you see in Psalms 110:1? Let’s start here.

Excellent place to start, but I’m going to need some clarification on what mean by “Lord(s)” before answering that question. Are you referring to human, earthly masters or God Almighty? In addition, this passage has meant different things to different people, depending on the age, so please provide the historical context to which you are referring (i.e. traditional Hebraic,post-ressurrection Christian, etc).

 

[Teresita99]

Again the question to you…where did Paul get his knowledge about Jesus and His teachings, if nothing had been written yet?

It seems to me that Jesus met him one night on Damascas Road and gave him the straight scoop personally.

 

[pablope]

It seems to me that Jesus met him one night on Damascas Road and gave him the straight scoop personally.

Yes, but later, he still went to confer with Peter prior to going to his first missionary journey, to make sure what he was going to proclaim was not in vain (account in Galatians). The point was, nothing was written as far as the NT is concerned.

 

[thecone137]

Nick, from the New World Translation:

John 8:21-28

21 Hence he said to them again: “I am going away, and YOU will look for me, and yet YOU will die in YOUR sin. Where I am going YOU cannot come.” 22 Therefore the Jews began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going YOU cannot come.’” 23 So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.” 25 Therefore they began to say to him: “Who are you?” Jesus said to them: “Why am I even speaking to YOU at all? 26 I have many things to speak concerning YOU and to pass judgment upon. As a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” 27 They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father. 28 Therefore Jesus said: “When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.

Why is [he] added after the “I am” when the WTBS’s own interlinear shows that [he] does not appear? It was added by the translation committee. Why do you think that is? If you’d like, I’d be more than happy to post a scan from both the 1969 and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear’s that I own to show you what I mean.

The word [he] is added, because it’s grammatically correct in respects to the English language. Everyone adds or removes words from the original languages to clarify the translation. The problem with this addition is that it leads the reader into thinking that Jesus is not associating himself with the great “I AM” found in the Old Testament.

 

[T_More]

The word [he] is added, because it’s grammatically correct in respects to the English language. Everyone adds or removes words from the original languages to clarify the translation. The problem with this addition is that it leads the reader into thinking that Jesus is not associating himself with the great “I AM” found in the Old Testament.

Precisely! Which is why the Jews tried to kill Him to begin with. They knew he was taking on the title of “I AM”, which was blasphemy to them. It’s why Caiphas tore his garment when Jesus replied to the question as to His identity, and is also why they fell to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane when they came to seize Him when he answered again, “I AM He”. Christ’s divinity is all over Sacred Scripture, and this is just scratching the surface, as you well know.

 

[Nicea325]

I have heard this one before. Nicea simply accepted what was already considered canonical by Christians at the time. Popular use, not Nicea, made the decision. To answer your other questions let’s examine some Scriptures together and then I’ll make a few remarks.

The above statement is a perversion of history,which is typical of JW’s… The above statement totally undermines the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Popular use determined it is canoncity? You got to be joking! If it was popular based on usage,then what purpose would any coucil serve? Time to study and learn the correct history my friend,not from the bogus JW organization. The councils determined and ratified doctrines,not popular use or the common person. But to bad your statment is absurd and totally false!

The Council of Nicea DECIDED…not POPULAR USE!

 

[NickBatchelor]

Pablope,

That “those who could read were very few” in the first century is a continuing unsubstantiated canard. Especially among the Jews, spiritual education was greatly valued. From the time of Moses, at least, reading, meditating upon, and applying the Word of God was mandatory for all Israel.

“Listen to during the Mass then”??? There was no Mass then. Mass is a Roman Catholic invention. But the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles demonstrate the eagerness for reading and applying the Scriptures and the teachings of the apostles on the part of the earliest Christians in their house “churches.”

Question for you Nick…how was an ordinary Christian before Nicea was to truly know which writing to consider as Scripture (as you know it today)?

Besides, not everyone could read then. Those who could read were very few and these were the rabbis, ministers, the learned or scholars.

There were over 200 writings all claiming to be Scripture. So, how was an ordinary Christian to decide which writing to listen to during the Mass then?

There was no uniformity, and consider, that all the writings could not be gathered in one place. The Catholic Church was largely under persecution for the first 300 years of its existence, and so was mainly underground.

 

[NickBatchelor]

Nicea325,

It appears regardless of what I say I am not going to influence you. Your tone and attitude is beyond the idea of seeing the truth in anything.

Are you familiar with Geisler who was a leading apologist in the world throughout the 20th century, and is a leading authority on the Bible. He said something worthy of consideration:

“Canonicity is recognized by men of God Inspiration determines canonicity. If a book was authoritative, it was so because God breathed it and made it so. How a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether (see discussion in chap.13). As J. I. Packer notes, ―The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.”

The above statement is a perversion of history,which is typical of JW’s… The above statement totally undermines the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Popular use determined it is canoncity? You got to be joking! If it was popular based on usage,then what purpose would any coucil serve? Time to study and learn the correct history my friend,not from the bogus JW organization. The councils determined and ratified doctrines,not popular use or the common person. But to bad your statment is absurd and totally false!

The Council of Nicea DECIDED…not POPULAR USE!

 

[PRmerger]

There was no Mass then. Mass is a Roman Catholic invention.

This is absolutely not true, Nick.

Have you read from St. Justin Martyr, a 1st century Catholic. (There were, incidentally, no Jehovah’s witnesses in the 1st century, and thus we have none of their writings).

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[NickBatchelor]

T-More,

What did the blind man say at John 9:9? Greek “ego eimi.”

John 9:9 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

9But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.

Any special meaning or connection? It was a very common expression.

Precisely! Which is why the Jews tried to kill Him to begin with. They knew he was taking on the title of “I AM”, which was blasphemy to them. It’s why Caiphas tore his garment when Jesus replied to the question as to His identity, and is also why they fell to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane when they came to seize Him when he answered again, “I AM He”. Christ’s divinity is all over Sacred Scripture, and this is just scratching the surface, as you well know.