Jehovah's Witnesses

[excaliber]

The catholic church not only has apostolic succession…but also the athority of peter…nice resume!!

jw’s have admited that KNOWONE in that organization is infalible or inspired. There organization was built on error, so they have gone against what there own founder Charles T.Russel has taught. The Jw have changed SO much that they split and the bible students still follow Charles T.Russel.

Why would God build a church on error?
Why do the jw’s send there members out to peoples homes…distributing magazines that
end up containing false information that will be changed every time there organization goofs up? (only teachings of men need to be constantly corrected)

Why dose the Jw organization send members to recruit when the jw organization can’t care for the few members it has now. The catholic church looks after more then a billion people. The watchtower has only a few thousand full time workers at there headquarters in newyork, could the Jw organization at least care for these? NO. Just last year in 2007 around april, the governing body announced that they could no longer care for there fulltime UNPAID workers,who left there jobs and homes so they could live and work in the jw organization headquarters. How horrible for those poor people who trusted the watchtower only to find themselves without jobs or homes.

So not only can the jw organization not get there own doctrine right…they can’t even care for there own workers (called bethelites) who work for free.

The jw organization was a mess when it started with the first president C.T. Russel having to change its doctrins because they were false from the beginning.
And it remains a mess to this very
day with president M.H.Larson,
and last years layoff of there own free labor.

Can anyone who is sober actually trust an organization this slopy with there lives?
Can anyone SOBER actualy think Almighty God chose one of the most slopy denominations on the planet to represent him?

 

[fhansen]

The problem with JW theology is that, like their protestant ancestors, their only source of authority is the bible. This is why their reasoning comes mainly from that source and why they seek to become expert in it and why they argue so vigorously from it. They are usually quite sincere and dedicated people. The problem is that scholars far more educated than the average JW disagree on the meaning of scripture. This is why there are 20-30000 non-catholic denominations, including JWs, who all think they have the right take on it. Any faith based on the bible alone is destined to be in error because it has no life, no history, which can be traced back to the beginning. One either has to come to see the validity of the catholic position-by prayer and study and seeking truth in general-or finally come to reject all forms of christianity.

 

[buc_fan33]

First of all, a very sincere thanks to all of you for your responses. I’ve found them quite helpful. One of the other problems that I am running into though is the way Catholic apologetics are typically done. Let me explain and I would appreciate responses from anyone who has had similar problems and how they dealt with them.

First, a little about myself. I studied to be a priest for four years and I have degrees in philosophy and Catholic Studies. I have by no means ruled out the priesthood; I’m just taking a break from seminary. It may be a one year break; it may be a lifetime break. That part is in the Lord’s hands. But, suffice it to say that I consider myself well-read in the Catholic intellectual tradition. I have studied Aquinas extensively as well as Augustine, Newman, John Paull II, Ratzinger, Therese of Lisieux, John of the Cross, and others. I have also read many contemporary apologetic works by such authors as Hahn, Madrid, Cavins, and Tim Gray (whom I have had as a professor as well). All of these writers have produced wonderful works that explain and expound what I am convinced is the truth of Catholicism much more clearly and articulately than I possibly could.

However, apologetics today are structured very Protestant-like. What I mean is that we as Catholics all too often accuse Protestants of isolating single Biblical verses, yet is that not what we do in Catholic apologetics? For example, every good Catholic can quote for you Matthew 16: 18 when talking about Petrine authority and the institution of the papacy. But often times that is the extent of it. No one wants to dig any deeper and examine such support verses as Isaiah 22: 22 or the entire book of Acts for example. Those with whom we debate are just as fixated on individual verses as we often times are. The end result is that the discussion goes nowhere because both parties simply quote Bible verses back and forth to each other, both of whom will interpret each verse differently. This is a Protestant mentality. Why? Because of the people I mentioned above. Catholicism encompasses the FULLNESS of truth. Not simply the Truth of the Bible. Yet, in our apologetic debates, we often times simply scratch the surface and don’t want to dig any deeper into that rich intellectual tradition that we have.

I don’t know if I explained that as well as I wanted to, but essentially, my point is that Catholic apologetics are often times one line Biblical responses that our Protestant (or in my case JW) brothers and sisters will simply have a different interpretation of. How have you guys dealt with this?

Also, please don’t let this post sidetrack anyone from answering my original request. The more information I can obtain about the JW’s, the better. I lift the JW’s that I am meeting with up in prayer daily, knowing that I can’t change their hearts. God can and He can use me to do it if He so chooses.

Blessings,
buc_fan33

 

[justinthemartyr]

I think that Tim Staples and Hahn both go very deep in their proofs of Catholic teaching, just not in the form of beginning apologetics type books. Although debates on the radio do not allow more time for in depth study, Tim Staples went pretty deep with his last debate with Steve Gregg.

You should listen to it.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Although, with the scriptures (and reasoning) you have outlined above may, in your view, fully support your position, I would also hope that you too (along with others looking on) would perhaps consider that **we too have scriptures **

 

[fhansen]

It’s a tall order. The problem is that people have to be very aggressive in their search for truth in order to become convinced of the Catholic Churches’ claims for itself. In order to be free to explore catholicism, they need to shed their fear of “apostate literature” for example. They have to challenge themselves more fully in order to overcome popular mythology about the church. They need to recognize their own failings to be able to accept the reality of a church which can be imperfect in it’s actions at times while still being capable of teaching the truth perfectly. Some of this comes simply from maturity but humility is always a key along with perseverance. Coming to the Catholic Church is the equivalent of coming to the faith-one can’t fully know the faith in any other way. Debating scripture with JWs and others is what led me back to the Church. Sola scriptura, or the idea that a group or an individual can know the truth by studying scripture alone-which is the way the Witnesses began when Charles Russell broke away from the group he was studying with-will prove itself to be an untenable doctrine if followed to its’ logical end. One must have a preconceived notion that they are RIGHT, to begin with, in order to follow this doctrine. Each person becomes a “pope” in their own right, interpreting scripture as they will. Therefore, there has to be a central authority here on earth, under the auspices of God, which can hold, preserve, interpret and deliver the “deposit of faith” which God has given us. Catholics and Mormons both understand this and adhere to this idea but with obviously different views on it. Like I said, it’s a tall order-you’re trying to pierce thru ignorance- and of course only the Holy Spirit can pull this off. Our part to begin with, I believe, is to work on demonstrating the error in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[JohnOneOne]

…I don’t know if I explained that as well as I wanted to, but essentially, my point is that Catholic apologetics are often times one line Biblical responses that our Protestant (or in my case JW) brothers and sisters will simply have a different interpretation of. How have you guys dealt with this?

Blessings,
buc_fan33

Dear buc_fan33,

With respect to your observation above, I sometimes like to use statements from other sources as well:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God.”

Taken from: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

In my opinion, the import of this statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during or close to the same time period as the Apostles themselves – perhaps, with even some of them having been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if among the writings of “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then, surely, this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught any such radically new concept about God.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

If you can answer this question, we might be better able to understand why JW views are not considered to be Christian by our Church.

Thanks

Robert

PS Alan: forget the LINK ploy: just ANSWER the question!

BUMP.

 

[JohnOneOne]

Alan:

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

No, but it is because of our efforts to accquire a more accurate translation of the Bible (along with other factors) which has caused a change in our “world view.”

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Alan:

How about if we start with the JW position that:

“Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him.”

Thanks!

Robert

 

[excaliber]

Dear buc_fan33,

With respect to your observation above, I sometimes like to use statements from other sources as well:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God.”

Taken from: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

In my opinion, the import of this statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during or close to the same time period as the Apostles themselves – perhaps, with even some of them having been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if among the writings of “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then, surely, this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught any such radically new concept about God.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

I don’t get it about jw…I just mentioned how slopy jw are in teaching and there very own organizational decisions did I not.

But now you go so far as to question the very HOLY TRINITY!!!

Before questioning an established teaching on the nature of Holy God. Mabey you should question your slopy organization.

You don’t have the freeness of speech! You canot attack the tachings of the Catholic church, when your church is famous for error.

Tell me how your own church members that wer laid off by your organization last year are doing??
( ofcourse you don’t know)

So why are you all going door to door with a changing message…trying to convert MORE people when you obviously canot keep up with your own (bethelites)

You are quick to question everyone else…but slow to qustion your own organization, which is an embarrassment to christianity.

 

[buc_fan33]

I don’t get it about jw…I just mentioned how slopy jw are in teaching and there very own organizational decisions did I not.

But now you go so far as to question the very HOLY TRINITY!!!

Before questioning an established teaching on the nature of Holy God. Mabey you should question your slopy organization.

You don’t have the freeness of speech! You canot attack the tachings of the Catholic church, when your church is famous for error.

Tell me how your own church members that wer laid off by your organization last year are doing??
( ofcourse you don’t know)

So why are you all going door to door with a changing message…trying to convert MORE people when you obviously canot keep up with your own (bethelites)

You are quick to question everyone else…but slow to qustion your own organization, which is an embarrassment to christianity.

excaliber,

With all due respect, please stop. This type of “debating” is exactly what turns people OFF to the Catholic Church. To the JW’s, the Trinity is NOT an established doctrine. Simply asserting that it is is no more effective at converting them than is their assertion that the Trinity is false effective in converting you. You can point to their laid off employees; non-Catholics can point to children abused by priests and other workers of the Church.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am in no way, shape, or form questioning the truth of the Trinity, or the holiness and infallibility of the Church. I am simply saying that often times this is what apologetics and ecumenism degrades into. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, I don’t think that this type of debate is what JPII had in mind. They throw mud, we throw mud. They quote a Bible verse, we quote a Bible verse. They get angry and call the Pope the anti-Christ, we get angry and say they aren’t real Christians. None of this serves to answer our Lord’s prayer, “That they may all be one.”

All that being said, what is the name of the work by Tim Staples that was referenced above? Also, who published it and where can I get a copy?

 

[JohnOneOne]

It’s a tall order. The problem is that people have to be very aggressive in their search for truth in order to become convinced of the Catholic Churches’ claims for itself. …Our part to begin with, I believe, is to work on demonstrating the error in the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Dear fhansen,

Permit me, if you will, to once again quote from Scripture:

“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” – 1 Corinthians 1:10 (Catholic New American Bible).

Quite interestingly, the online source for this (New American Bible), has this footnote:

[1:10-4:21] The first problem Paul addresses is that of divisions within the community. Although we are unable to reconstruct the situation in Corinth completely, Paul clearly traces the divisions back to a false self-image on the part of the Corinthians, coupled with a false understanding of the apostles who preached to them (cf 1 Cor 4:6, 9; 9:1-5) and of the Christian message itself. In these chapters he attempts to deal with those underlying factors and to bring the Corinthians back to a more correct perspective.

And to such, we fully agree. We see the Scriptures teaching that the source for such ‘agreement’ derives solely from Jehovah God Himself, thru His Son, Jesus, the Christ, by means of His Word, the Holy Bible, as given to us by way of the direction of His anointed, foot-step followers.

With respect to the importance and usefulness of Scripture, we read:

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 (NAB).

Interestingly, they present these footnotes:

[16-17] Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

[16] All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Then, at 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NAB), we read:

“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

Along with the following footnote:

[20-21] Often cited, along with 2 Tim 3:16, on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 and clever tales (2 Peter 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Peter 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, some manuscripts read “holy ones of God.”

It may interest you to know that Jehovah’s Witnesses actually do believe all of the above.

And yet, we also believe:

“Anyone who is so ‘progressive’ as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.” – 2 John 9 (NAB).

Their note to “progressive” explains:

[9] Anyone who is so “progressive”: literally, “Anyone who goes ahead.” Some gnostic groups held the doctrine of the Christ come in the flesh to be a first step in belief, which the more advanced and spiritual believer surpassed and abandoned in his knowledge of the spiritual Christ. The author affirms that fellowship with God may be gained only by holding to the complete doctrine of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:22-23; 4:2; 5:5-6).

And, to this, we also fully ascribe. And yet, going back to 1 Corinthians 1:10, such unity of thought comes about by means of the influence of God, that is, as in contrast to “…works of the flesh,” resulting in “dissensions, factions” (Galatians 5:19, 20 NAB).

When we speak with Catholics throughout the world, we see much division in beliefs, word and practice among them; therefore, in our view, giving clear evidence that they neither listen to nor follow the lead of their own Church nor of the Bible itself. In my view, such facts speaks volumes against any claim to a greater power emenating from the “Catholic Church”; and so, not a very good recomendation to others in search of “Truth.”

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

 

[justinthemartyr]

John

The fact that a Catholic misrepresents the teachings of the church is the fault of that person, that individual. They will deal with God on that.

The teachings of the church do not change and never have changed to mean anything other than what they do at the root of each teaching.

To equate misteaching by individuals in the Catholic Church with the outright reversals of doctrine and regular changing of teaching within your leaders of your organization is ludicrous.

Now if it were individuals misrepresenting the current teachings of the watchtower society, that would be a comparison. Yet as was previously stated, the teachings of your organization change frequently and that in itself would be difficult to keep up with. That should be questioned and you should stop pointing out the sliver in others eyes until the WT straightens out that plank in hers.

 

[fhansen]

Dear buc_fan33,

With respect to your observation above, I sometimes like to use statements from other sources as well:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God.”

Taken from: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

In my opinion, the import of this statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during or close to the same time period as the Apostles themselves – perhaps, with even some of them having been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if among the writings of “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then, surely, this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught any such radically new concept about God.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

A serious study of the early church fathers will always help to lead one to the catholic faith, as their attitude towards a variety of things such as the Eucharist, Mary, and the Trinity had the same flavor as the modern church. Read “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens, a Liturgical Press publication. Councils such as Nicea and most others sat to define issues (such as the nature of God in the case of Nicea) as these questions came up and became devisive.

 

[justinthemartyr]

radically new concept? The fact that it was declared official in the 4th century means nothing of the sort. The belief and teaching that Christ is God was from the beginning. let me give you an example.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian the Syrian

“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

 

[excaliber]

excaliber,

With all due respect, please stop. This type of “debating” is exactly what turns people OFF to the Catholic Church. To the JW’s, the Trinity is NOT an established doctrine. Simply asserting that it is is no more effective at converting them than is their assertion that the Trinity is false effective in converting you. You can point to their laid off employees; non-Catholics can point to children abused by priests and other workers of the Church.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am in no way, shape, or form questioning the truth of the Trinity, or the holiness and infallibility of the Church. I am simply saying that often times this is what apologetics and ecumenism degrades into. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, I don’t think that this type of debate is what JPII had in mind. They throw mud, we throw mud. They quote a Bible verse, we quote a Bible verse. They get angry and call the Pope the anti-Christ, we get angry and say they aren’t real Christians. None of this serves to answer our Lord’s prayer, “That they may all be one.”

All that being said, what is the name of the work by Tim Staples that was referenced above? Also, who published it and where can I get a copy?

Ok, I will try. My intention was not to sling mud…but to get jw to wake up and look at there own organization first THEN question others.

But I will watch you do it your way.
I know I needed a kick in the pants to wake up.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dear Catholic Dude,

First of all, I do want to sincerely thank you for bringing to others’ attention the above points of contention, that is, between some of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses and those of others who also view themselves as Christian.

Along with you, I also think it is very imporant to know about the reasons/basis for anyone’s beliefs - especially if they call themselves a Christian.

Although, with the scriptures (and reasoning) you have outlined above may, in your view, fully support your position, I would also hope that you too (along with others looking on) would perhaps consider that we too have scriptures (and reasoning) which we feel fully supports our position as well.

And this is where, in our view, God’s spirit comes into play. It is our belief that if a person is, indeed, sincere in their efforts to get to know God and what we are to know about Him thru His Word, the Holy Bible, then He will surely answer that prayer. (Proverbs 2) And, I must admit, you are likely to feel/believe the same.

So, where does that leave us? Perhaps the key lies in what was just said - that this is not so much about how we two may explain our positions than to encourage any in search of “Truth” to not be in fear of asking the hard questions. Otherwise, it should be our duty to not only allow the questions to be asked, but also to not allow ourselves the opportunity to mis-represent the other side, only to make ourselves look good/right/correct.

I understand what you are saying. The truth for me though is that there have been these discussions not too long ago with some JWs here where we went over some of these issues.
Many of the verses I chose are ones in which I have brought up in the past but the JWs around here didnt answer.

To my knowledge nothing I said was a distortion of JW beliefs, if they were I assure you it was unintentional and I ask you to point the misrepresentations out clearly.

On the other hand, for those who may wish to learn more about just what it is that make’s Jehovah’s people different, the following links might be of some help:

watchtower.org/

watchtower.org/e/beliefs_and_activities.htm

watchtower.org/e/current_topics.htm

jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

I have looked through many of those pages before, the problem is I dont recall seeing answers to the claims I made. I assure you I and others around here have been in many JW discussions around here before.

%between%

<<< FOR THE RECORD: When you said, “Do NOT waste your time arguing things like Jn 1:1, there is bigger, better, stronger arguments you can make,” mind you, I was initially only writing in reply to what I perceived as a sincere inquiry from one of your own Catholic brethern. And yet, I now wonder how he might have felt if, in response to his genuine plea, you would have been the first he would have heard from. >>>

I honestly meant no offense to you whatsoever nor was I specifically talking to you. My point is simply this, the Jn 1:1 debate, which has taken place many times before in these forums, doesnt really go anywhere because it turns into a “my greek scholar versus your greek scholar” argument.
In my judgment there are clear and powerful arguments to make that can be done by looking at generally undisputed texts (eg not having to worry about “was a god” vs “was god”) and can be just as decisive.

My sole intent was to help Catholics around here better focus their time and energy based off of my own experience with these issues.

The verses I picked out in my original post were no accident, I can honestly say I have yet to see those main verses addressed in a convincing manner by any JWs around here, and some verses have still not been addressed at all.

I honestly would love to see you address the specific passages I quoted if you have the time and ability.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all, a very sincere thanks to all of you for your responses. I’ve found them quite helpful. One of the other problems that I am running into though is the way Catholic apologetics are typically done. Let me explain and I would appreciate responses from anyone who has had similar problems and how they dealt with them.

First, a little about myself. I studied to be a priest for four years and I have degrees in philosophy and Catholic Studies. I have by no means ruled out the priesthood; I’m just taking a break from seminary. It may be a one year break; it may be a lifetime break. … …

However, apologetics today are structured very Protestant-like. What I mean is that we as Catholics all too often accuse Protestants of isolating single Biblical verses, yet is that not what we do in Catholic apologetics? For example, every good Catholic can quote for you Matthew 16:18 when talking about Petrine authority and the institution of the papacy. But often times that is the extent of it. No one wants to dig any deeper and examine such support verses as Isaiah 22:22 or the entire book of Acts for example. Those with whom we debate are just as fixated on individual verses as we often times are. The end result is that the discussion goes nowhere because both parties simply quote Bible verses back and forth to each other, both of whom will interpret each verse differently. This is a Protestant mentality. Why? Because of the people I mentioned above. Catholicism encompasses the FULLNESS of truth. Not simply the Truth of the Bible. Yet, in our apologetic debates, we often times simply scratch the surface and don’t want to dig any deeper into that rich intellectual tradition that we have.

I fully understand what you are saying, but the issue here is when we are dealing with people who go by Sola Scriptura our other tools (eg Church Fathers, Councils, etc) wont work. I have become convinced however that even on the Sola Scriptura plane that Catholicism can offer better explanations for key teachings using Scripture Alone than any non-Catholic groups can.

As for the issue of isolating texts which non-Catholics often do, I dont think that is much of a problem for Catholics because if you have the correct doctrine (which I believe we do) then the context is no problem.

I don’t know if I explained that as well as I wanted to, but essentially, my point is that Catholic apologetics are often times one line Biblical responses that our Protestant (or in my case JW) brothers and sisters will simply have a different interpretation of. How have you guys dealt with this?

I hear what you are saying about different interpretations, but I assure you if you go through many older JW threads you will see the Catholic side has made a constant solid case.

Also, please don’t let this post sidetrack anyone from answering my original request. The more information I can obtain about the JW’s, the better. I lift the JW’s that I am meeting with up in prayer daily, knowing that I can’t change their hearts. God can and He can use me to do it if He so chooses.

Hopefully your main questions have been answered already, if not go ahead and ask.