Jehovah's Witnesses

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

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

The problem is in knowing WHO should interpret scripture. In order to find the church which Christ established and the gates of hell would not prevail against, one either has to come to trust in a church which can trace it’s history to the beginning or one has to create a church and then fabricate a link to that time. Either way, we all want to be a member of THAT church. And the Catholic church is the only one which can rightfully claim to be that church. If I were to cease to be Catholic I would give up on christianity altogether because there IS no other church, other than separated ones. The Jws put on a good show of holiness? Fine-now start doing it WITHIN the true church of God. We need you and your zeal-we need all of the churches which have divided from the Catholic church so we can have the unity you speak of. Division within the church? If Paul couldn’t stop it at Corinth or the Lord had to address it in the Book of Revelation, do you think we’d necessarily be better at it now? It would be great if we were better but heresy as always been around. Aside from that, JWs as well as other non-catholic christian religions have repeated most of the abuses at one time or the other that the Reformers were originally so upset about. Catholics don’t need to argue scripture because we belong to the church which accurately teaches the gospel-from it’s twin authorities of scripture and tradition, obeying Paul’s exhortation to hold fast to what was written as well as what was handed down by tradition. Study. Read the early works. Read church history. Read Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and Willaim Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers and Ludwig Otts Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and conciliar documents and papal encyclicals and catechisms and the lives of the saints and afterwards if you still believe the same way then fine. But if your faith was challenged then maybe it wasn’t so strong to begin with -at least your faith in the Watchtower’s take on things. I’ve read plenty of Watchtower material (I actually studied some of it quite seriously once) and wasn’t much impressed in the end but I am impressed by a lot of the JW faith I’ve seen-a strong general zeal for God.

 

[johnpilhaoh]

I had a question for the apologetic staff which was not answered. I’m hoping you guys can help me. I have a jw friend who questioned why we have the holiest day named after a pagan goddess. Namely Easter. The bunny and the egg also represents pagan rites of fertility. It is good and holy to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus but why have anything to do with something pagan? She is smart and logical and believes the bible wholeheartedly. I know Catholics have answers for everything. I just have to find it. Even the Catholic encyclopedia confirms the origin of the word easter as having pagan origin. Stumped.

 

[excaliber]

I don’t think anyone is worried that God is offended by his own creation eggs and bunnies.

As for the name of the celebration…there is an answer to that, Im gona look it up. but ofcourse Christians don’t name holy days after false gods.

The jw organization says this day is named after a false god…and as usual they are wrong.

 

[excaliber]

Here some false assumption on Easter:

Easter alleged a Babylonian festival

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

Some suggest an etymological relationship between Eostre and the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (variant spelling: Eshtar) and the possibility that aspects of an ancient festival accompanied the name, claiming that the worship of Bel and Astarte was anciently introduced into Britain, and that the hot cross buns of Good Friday and dyed eggs of Easter Sunday figured in the Chaldean rites just as they allegedly do now. [8] These claims fail to account for a complete lack of any evidence of transmission from Mesopotamia through the rest of Europe to Britain. Instead, they posit a sudden appearance in the British Isles without any effects or records anywhere in the intervening continent. Such claims are more likely to be an example of a false etymology.

Non-Catholic source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter

Just found that on another thread.

For an organization that seems to be so worried about false gods and the occult…there founder Charles T. Russel sure loved pyramidology…I guess its ok for them to do it.
LOL jw’s accused everyone else for having pagan roots…but they in truth are probably one of the few groups that actualy had leaders in the occult lol.

 

[JohnOneOne]

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…

Before I respond, I will cite the quote again:

“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. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

If you will notice, something more than the Trinity being “declared official in the 4th century” is being explained here. When they said that, “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” this, in my view, would fly in the face of any claim that “The belief and teaching that Christ is God was from the beginning.”

With respect to the quotes of the individuals you mention, taken in light of the above, something different must be understood than how you interpret their words. I will attempt to address them seperately.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
“What About John 1:1?”
Good Companion Books

 

[fhansen]

Before I respond, I will cite the quote again:

“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. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

If you will notice, something more than the Trinity being “declared official in the 4th century” is being explained here. When they said that, “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” this, in my view, would fly in the face of any claim that “The belief and teaching that Christ is God was from the beginning.”

With respect to the quotes of the individuals you mention, taken in light of the above, something different must be understood than how you interpret their words. I will attempt to address them seperately.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
“What About John 1:1?”
Good Companion Books

What they are saying is that the concept of Trinity had not been formed yet. That was an idea which came about as the church struggled with the mystery of what had been revealed to her. There was little doubt that Jesus was God, although that possibility had its supporters as well. After all, its a much easier and cleaner approach to deny His deity. No one would probably have chosen the Trinitarian model unless they felt they had no choice if they were to be faithful to the revealed truth -which the historical church had experienced-had been a part of-not just read about 2 millennia later.

 

[excaliber]

Before I respond, I will cite the quote again:

“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. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

If you will notice, something more than the Trinity being “declared official in the 4th century” is being explained here. When they said that, “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” this, in my view, would fly in the face of any claim that “The belief and teaching that Christ is God was from the beginning.”

With respect to the quotes of the individuals you mention, taken in light of the above, something different must be understood than how you interpret their words. I will attempt to address them seperately.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
“What About John 1:1?”
Good Companion Books

It seems to my That the Holy Trinity was learned over a period of time. It is better to learn truth slowly with the Catholic church,
then to learn false teachings with Jw’s.

How many early church fathers interpreted scripture to confuse
St Micheal with Jesus Christ?

How many early church fathers interpreted scripture to mean only
144,000 will go to heaven.
etc…etc…etc…etc…

johnoneone your attempt to prove Catholics wrong by reading early church fathers will only prove that
it is Watchtower who is guilty of interpreting scripture VERY DIFFERENTLY then the early church fathers.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Dear buc_fan33,

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

 

[JohnOneOne]

Alan:

 

[fhansen]

Does anyone know if there are any “New Catholic Encyclopedia” sites as there are for the Catholic Encyclopedia, sometimes known as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia? I’ve heard that the New can be found online but I’ve not been able to locate it.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

“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.”/**QUOTE]

Alan,

What I have emboldened is what I am curious about.

What is missing in the ellipsis ( the three dots) and what comes after “the word of God.”

Thanks

Robert

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Thats a good question about the ellipsis,
because the Society is a past master at quoting people and books out of context.

In their booklet, SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?,
they boldly state that Justin Martyr (died around 175 A.D. I think) taught that Jesus was a created angel.

Well, I have Justin Martyr’s writings, and he never called Jesus a created angel even once. And in his description of Jesus being God just like the Father, Justin describes the context as fire being kindled from a fire source WITHOUT SEPARATING from the fire source, just as The Word shares the eternal nature of the Father, being eternally–GENERATED (monoGENES, only-BEGOTTEN) by the Father, begotten, not “made.”

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[BibleSteve]

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Here is chapter 56. First some background, Justin is talking with a Jew who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, because of this Justin goes throught the OLD Testament to prove his case. If you go through this chapter however you will see that St Justin is attempting to prove that this Angel is Jesus and equal with God. St Justin is going through the OLD Testament in places like Gen 18 where “three angels appeared” to Abraham and Justin claims the middle Angel is Jesus who is God but distinct from the Father “numerically, not in will”. For example the first paragraph:“Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: ‘God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said;’” Genesis 18:1-2 (and so on "
Matching up the colors, Justin is saying “He who appeared…is God” and was “sent…by Another…whom we believe to be Maker and Father”.

Justin NEVER intended to mean Jesus was literally an angel, ONLY that that is how Jesus appeared in the Old Testament before becoming man.

 

[BibleSteve]

I really don’t have time to keep up a debate on this topic, but I do just want to point out a couple things.

A previous poster said Justin Martyr “never called Jesus a created angel even once”. I think it’s rather clear he did …

"There is, and that there is said to be, **another God **and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also **called **an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I really don’t have time to keep up a debate on this topic, but I do just want to point out a couple things.

A previous poster said Justin Martyr “never called Jesus a created angel even once”. I think it’s rather clear he did …

"There is, and that there is said to be, **another God **and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also **called **an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

No. He is saying that Jesus was called an angel because he appeared as one. That does not mean he was called a created angel.

 

[BibleSteve]

No. He is saying that Jesus was called an angel because he appeared as one. That does not mean he was called a created angel.

So you are now arguing there are “uncreated” angels? The only angels I’m aware of were created… thus if Jesus appeared as an angel and was called an angel… he would be appearing as (and called) a created angel. Which the poster incorrectly said “never” occurred in Martyr’s writings.

What Martyr meant by all of this can be interpretted and debated. However,what is beyond debate is that he referred to Jesus as being called an angel.

The reason is because both the Hebrew mal·’akh′ and the Greek ag′ge·los words for “angel” literally mean “messenger.” As Martyr continues: “because He[Jesus] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them…”

Which is confirmed by Heb 1:1, 2

(Hebrews 1:1-2) God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2*has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son,

 

[ABostonCatholic]

So you are now arguing there are “uncreated” angels? The only angels I’m aware of were created… thus if Jesus appeared as an angel and was called an angel… he would be appearing as (and called) a created angel. Which the poster incorrectly said “never” occurred in Martyr’s writings.
,

I said that Jesus appeared as an angel, not that he was an angel. There’s a difference. Just as if I say that the sun appears to move, that does not mean it does.

I took contention at your use of the word created with respect to Christ, not with respect to angels. I did not in any way imply that some angels were uncreated. When you say that Justin claims Christ appeared as a created angel, you’re saying something much more loaded than what he really said. Justin was referring to the phenomenological aspect of Christ’s appearance, namely, that he appeared as an angel. To stick the word “created” in there is for you to beg the question in your argument, namely, you’re assuming already that Christ was created; furthermore, you’re putting words into Justin’s mouth.

 

[JohnOneOne]

“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.”/**QUOTE]

Alan,

What I have emboldened is what I am curious about.

What is missing in the ellipsis ( the three dots) and what comes after “the word of God.”

Thanks

Robert

Dear Robert,

Here are the two paragraphs the above quote was taken from:

"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; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality [two] within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from conclusive."

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.

Regarding the comment, “.…it is not directly and immediately the word of God,” I am still trying to locate where, within the same article, this is from.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
“What About John 1:1?”
Good Companion Books

 

[BibleSteve]

Poster: "I have Justin Martyr’s writings, and he never called Jesus a created angel even once. "

Justin Martyr: ""There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel…(Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Did Justin call Jesus an Angel? Yes or no?
Are all angels created? yes or no?
Are there any angels that are uncreated? yes or no?

To say that Justin Martyr “never” called Jesus an angel is incorrect. He certainly did. Why he did that, and what he meant, and how we are to interpret this is another discussion. But, Martyr certainly did call Jesus an angel. And all angels are created.

The poster is simply incorrect…