Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[SteveVH]

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.”

PRmerger beat me to it, but you really need to learn some history. Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Mass, it existed from the beginning. Justin Martyr’s writings (about 150 AD) demonstrate this without a doubt and he was speaking about a practice that was common. His writing was only about 50 years subsequent to the writing of much of the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

"Canonicity is recognized by men of God.

Indeed. This is very Catholic, Nick.

Inspiration determines canonicity.

Now, this is begging the question. Circular.

“I know what’s inspired because it’s in the bible” and “I know what’s in the bible because it’s inspired.”

One must first have an outside authority to determine what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

You would not know that this passage, “My breath is offensive to my wife” is inspired, would you?

Yet, it clearly is, because the Catholic Church discerned it to be. And whenever you quote from Job, you give tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church.

If a book was authoritative, it was so because God breathed it and made it so.

Again, this is quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

How a book received authority, then, is determined by God.

Again, true, and quite Catholic.

How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether

Exactly! How did they? Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And what men were they? They were Catholic men. Catholic bishops.

He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up."

Quite Catholic. But, you must ask yourself, Nick, how doe God let humanity know what was* theopneustos*?

He had to use people. Catholic people. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Did the Jews try to stone the blind man when he said that?

Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said I AM?

Clearly, if the blind man was saying he was God, they would have attempted to stone him. Yet, they did not. For he was not claiming to be God, as Jesus was.

 

[NickBatchelor]

PRmerger,

God’s written inspired word has revealed truth about God, His Son, and purpose. Jesus said in prayer, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) I think the truth we find in God’s word is all we need. It is the truth. We are encouraged to “handle the word of the truth aright.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Since the Bible is “god-breathed, inspired,” it can be counted on as reliable. Man-made teachings go beyond the Scriptures. Something we are told to avoid. “Do not go beyond the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Even Pope John Paul II (who of course believes the Church should interpret Scripture) spoke of the need for Scripture to be “accepted by the faithful in the full depths of its truth and as the supreme rule of our faith.”

If that doesn’t satisfy you I suppose nothing will.

Do you have a Bible verse that states this, Nick?

 

[SteveVH]

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.”

Why would you think any Catholic would lend any credibility to Norman Geisler. He has written some very anti-Catholic material in his time. What does he have to say about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Just not sure why you would bring him up to defend your position.
As far as J. I. Packer is concerned I’m not familiar with him but I’ll bet I can make a good guess. His statement is nonsense. Do you and he think that the Bible fell out of heaven with a little note attached saying “this is the word of God”?

Of course the Bible is the word of God, it was the Catholic Church that proclaimed it so, but God also lead men, Catholic men, by the Holy Spirit, in determining just which writings out of all that were circulating at that time, were indeed the the word of God. You can deny it all you want but you cannot change the truth.

 

[NickBatchelor]

PRmerger,

Let’s read the content and context of John 8:57-59:

John 8:57-59 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

57The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. 59They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

It is noteworthy that in the Douay-Rheims did not not CAPITALIZE “I am” as it is in many Trinitarian Bible translations as they try to imply a connection to Exodus 3:14.

I was just talking with someone recently about this text and when I asked them if “I am” was a title they said it was. Then what would happen if we substituted a title like “Lord” for “I am.” It would sound like this: “Before Abraham was, Lord.” Does that make any sense whatsoever? How should this text be understood? What is the context?

Jesus was clearly talking about his age in time in relation to Abraham’s existence. He was telling them that he had seniority over Abraham not telling these men he was the same being as Jehovah, His God and Father. “Before Abraham was born, I have been.” Age in time, not identity.

As you know, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus had a pre-human existence. After all, he was “alongside his Father before the world was.” (John 17:5)

Some, like yourself, like to point out the reaction to these Jews. However, these were crazed men looking to pin anything they could on Jesus. They tore their garments when Jesus said he would come down with the power of God and that he would be sitting at the right hand of God. They were willing to stone people on all sorts of things. Saying he existed before “their father” Abraham was blasphemous to them.

Did the Jews try to stone the blind man when he said that?

Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said I AM?

Clearly, if the blind man was saying he was God, they would have attempted to stone him. Yet, they did not. For he was not claiming to be God, as Jesus was.

 

[PRmerger]

Did the Jews try to stone the blind man when he said that?

Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said I AM?

Nick, please note this:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."

** So they picked up stones to throw at him.**

Now, contrast that with how the Jews responded to the blind man in John 9:9

Some said, "It is," but others said, "No, he just looks like him." He said, "I am."

So they said to him, "(So) how were your eyes opened?"

Quite a difference, no? When Jesus claims to be I AM, the Jews understood exactly what he was saying, and for that great blasphemy, they tried to kill him.

Yet, not a single murmuring among the Jews about the blind man saying, “I am he.”

 

[NickBatchelor]

T-More,

In Jesus ministry when talking to the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus told her, “ego eimi,” to establish what? That he was God or simply that he was the long-awaited Messiah, the Christ? (John 4:25, 26) Read the context and tell me what you see. Many “scholars” and Bible translators realize Jesus was just responding saying, “ego eimi,” I am he.

John 4:25, 26 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

25The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

Jesus was merely confirming he was the Messiah who had come. Check any Greek Interlinear and see if “he” is there in the Greek. Why are you not coming down hard on your esteemed Catholic Bible translators?

QUOTE=thecone137;7866529]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.

 

[PRmerger]

If that doesn’t satisfy you I suppose nothing will.

Ah. So here it is. The edging towards the exit, with not even 30 posts to your name.

I pray, Nick, that I am wrong and this is not your pre-emptive, “Well, folks, I can see that you are not willing to dialogue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, so my time here is done”.

We have much to discuss. Please stay!

 

[NickBatchelor]

How did I imply I am leaving this forum or discussion? Such antics you employ don’t work on me. Maybe someone else but not me.

QUOTE=PRmerger;7868260]Ah. So here it is. The edging towards the exit, with not even 30 posts to your name.

I pray, Nick, that I am wrong and this is not your pre-emptive, “Well, folks, I can see that you are not willing to dialogue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, so my time here is done”.

We have much to discuss. Please stay!

 

[PRmerger]

How did I imply I am leaving this forum or discussion? Such antics you employ don’t work on me. Maybe someone else but not me.

As I said, Nick, I pray I am wrong and you actually do stay and learn here for a very long time!

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

God’s written inspired word has revealed truth about God, His Son, and purpose

Indeed.

Jesus said in prayer, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Amen!

I think the truth we find in God’s word is all we need. It is the truth.

No doubt that God’s word is the truth, but could you please cite a Bible verse that says “God’s word is all we need”? It seems to me that this is a man-made tradition that cannot be found in a single verse in Scripture.

(NB: Catholicism proclaims that “God’s Word is all we need”, but, of course, we say that God’s Word is a Person.)

We are encouraged to “handle the word of the truth aright.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Since the Bible is “god-breathed, inspired,” it can be counted on as reliable.

Yes. This is very Catholic to say!

Man-made teachings go beyond the Scriptures. Something we are told to avoid. “Do not go beyond the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Well, yes and no. Some man-made teachings go beyond the Scriptures–like proclaiming the Gospel via computer. This is clearly “beyond” the Scriptures. But they are not contrary to Scripture, and thus, even if man-made, are not evil.

JWs do not believe that chatting on an Catholic Forum is evil, right? But, clearly, there is nothing at all mentioned in Scripture about this, and thus is “beyond” the Scriptures.

(Not to mention, as previously discussed, as the Gospels were not yet written, St. Paul clearly could only have been talking about the OT).

Even Pope John Paul II (who of course believes the Church should interpret Scripture) spoke of the need for Scripture to be “accepted by the faithful in the full depths of its truth and as the supreme rule of our faith.”

Amen!

Yet you still did not provide a verse which says we “could orally be taught God’s Word but it must be based on the Scriptures”.

Also, where does Scripture state that Scripture is “how we measure truth.”

Chapter and verse, please.

(I thought the Scriptures say that the pillar and foundation of truth is…

the Church.)

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.

Do you have a Bible verse that states this, Nick?

 

[NickBatchelor]

Mackbrislawn,

Please know that I do believe in the divinity or deity of Christ. I just do not believe he is the Almighty God or part of a three in one God. I appreciate your honest observation that early Christians didn’t think of the Trinity as many do today. QEOS has a wider meaning than the Western world view of “god.”

The thing for me is my God has no God. The moment you begin to worship someone other than yourself you cannot be that God… At every stage of Jesus’ life he has someone who is God to him. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that Jesus is the same identity as God himself. He is not that Supreme individual or Being.

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.

 

[NickBatchelor]

T-More,

I must say your tactic reminds me of the desperation of someone who just throws a bunch of balls at a target in the hope that something will hit it.

Jude 4 cannot be ripped from its context and misapplied. The whole context of Jude 1-4 is the CONTRAST between being “slaves” of the Master Christ, and bondage to the apostates who were slipping into the Christian congregation. Against those, Jude warned Christians to “put up a hard fight for the faith,” and he is contrasting those false brothers who wanted the ownership of Christians, to “our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jesus was the only Owner and Lord of Christians in comparison to or distinction from human owners or lords, the false brothers who wanted control and mastery over them and their faith.

Therefore, at Jude 4, Jesus is not being compared or equated with Jehovah, but contrasted with men, the “ungodly men” who were trying to turn “the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct,” and bring Christians into slavery to sin. Context, always context.

And John 17:3 is specifically a prayer of Jesus directed to his Father (John 17:1) where Jesus calls his Father the “ONLY TRUE God.” There is no sense in trying to argue away what Jesus clearly and specifically says here. Jude 4 is not in the same class as John 17:3 at all. The contexts are totally different.

That’s it for today. Will check in sometime later this weekend if I get a chance. Take a break and get some fresh air.

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]

PRmerger,

God’s written inspired word has revealed truth about God, His Son, and purpose. Jesus said in prayer, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) I think the truth we find in God’s word is all we need. It is the truth. We are encouraged to “handle the word of the truth aright.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Since the Bible is “god-breathed, inspired,” it can be counted on as reliable. Man-made teachings go beyond the Scriptures. Something we are told to avoid. “Do not go beyond the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Even Pope John Paul II (who of course believes the Church should interpret Scripture) spoke of the need for Scripture to be “accepted by the faithful in the full depths of its truth and as the supreme rule of our faith.”

If that doesn’t satisfy you I suppose nothing will.

NIck, John 17:17 is about Christ Himself, not Sacred Scripture. The Word is not a something, it is a somebody. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

[T_More]

Mackbrislawn,

Please know that I do believe in the divinity or deity of Christ. I just do not believe he is the Almighty God or part of a three in one God. I appreciate your honest observation that early Christians didn’t think of the Trinity as many do today. QEOS has a wider meaning than the Western world view of “god.”

The thing for me is my God has no God. The moment you begin to worship someone other than yourself you cannot be that God… At every stage of Jesus’ life he has someone who is God to him. Nowhere are we told in Scripture that Jesus is the same identity as God himself. He is not that Supreme individual or Being.

Wow! Polytheism, Nick?

Isaiah 44

6 “This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Your understanding of the Trinity doctrine is understandably flawed. Typical of JW’s, they confuse modalism with the Trinity. I think you need to figure out exacty what you’re arguing against.

 

[T_More]

T-More,

I must say your tactic reminds me of the desperation of someone who just throws a bunch of balls at a target in the hope that something will hit it.

And I must say you sure have an interesting way of avoiding select questions, Nick. Where did the Church Christ spoke about in Matthew 16 go that I asked you about sometime ago?

Jude 4 cannot be ripped from its context and misapplied. The whole context of Jude 1-4 is the CONTRAST between being “slaves” of the Master Christ, and bondage to the apostates who were slipping into the Christian congregation. Against those, Jude warned Christians to “put up a hard fight for the faith,” and he is contrasting those false brothers who wanted the ownership of Christians, to “our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jesus was the only Owner and Lord of Christians in comparison to or distinction from human owners or lords, the false brothers who wanted control and mastery over them and their faith.

How many Lords are there, Nick?

Deuteronomy 6:4 (New International Version)

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Therefore, at Jude 4, Jesus is not being compared or equated with Jehovah, but contrasted with men, the “ungodly men” who were trying to turn “the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct,” and bring Christians into slavery to sin. Context, always context.

And your context is right because…? I’d rather trust the Church that has been there from the beginning rather than one that sprouted up 1900 years later by a snake oil salesmen from Pittsburgh, PA. But hey, that’s just me.

And John 17:3 is specifically a prayer of Jesus directed to his Father (John 17:1) where Jesus calls his Father the “ONLY TRUE God.” There is no sense in trying to argue away what Jesus clearly and specifically says here. Jude 4 is not in the same class as John 17:3 at all. The contexts are totally different.

Again, your grasp of what the Trinity teaches is really flawed.

That’s it for today. Will check in sometime later this weekend if I get a chance. Take a break and get some fresh air.

I’ll be here, ready to take whatever insults you want to throw my way.

 

[pablope]

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.”

Well, PR and Steve beat me to it…it is not a canard, Nick…where you learned or who told you it is not true is the canard.

There was no printing press then. All copies had to be handmade. Whatever writing was present, had to be hand copied, so writings were not widespread and were few. And it was expensive to make copies, only those with wealth could afford it.

So reading was not widespread, as you think.

Learning to read too was expensive. Christians relied on the oral traditions, not writings, Nick.

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

You need to re-learn history, nick. It was also called 'breaking of the bread" then. It looks like you are losing your cool that you resort to such unsubstantiated statement. Show your proof then that it was a Catholic invention, why it did not exist since the time of the apostles.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

“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.”

From the Didache (earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) ) Teachings of the Apostles…instructions regarding the Mass…

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
Did the Jews try to stone the blind man when he said that?

Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said I AM?

I was just talking with someone recently about this text and when I asked them if “I am” was a title they said it was.

Actually, that answer given to you by this “someone” was inadequate.

What Catholicism professes regarding the great “I AM”, is infinitely more sublime and exceedingly profound. IOW, it is more than “a title.”.

The great “I AM”

• refers to the Divine Essence.
• is where the “known and the known aspects of God coalesce in the revelation of the divine name to Moses” -Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope B16).
• in revealing his name, God makes known the riches contained in the ineffable mystery of his being. He alone is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the One who transcends the world and history. It is he who made heaven and earth. He is the faithful God, always close to his people, in order to save them. He is the highest holiness, “rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4), always ready to forgive. He is the One who is spiritual, transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, personal, and perfect. He is truth and love. (CCC206)
• "is not metaphysical speculation, but the self-revelation of God’s reality in the midst of history for us”--Ratzinger

Thus, saying “I AM” is merely a title misses the profound implications of the Great I AM. It is akin to replacing the ocean with a thimble of water.