Jehovah's Witnesses

[JohnOneOne]

Actually, although regular and frequent use of any punctuation with the Koine Greek did not fully develope until centuries later, it may interest you to know that a few marks did appear within some of the earliest manuscripts of the “New Testament.”

With regard to Luke 23:43, there is this:

“Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found in some MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lower point (hypostigme) after SHMERON. Regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general “B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause.” (A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters in codex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribe traced over many of the letters and punctuation marks. However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.”

Taken from: Luke 23:43 - Where does the comma go?

On this, you may wish to also examine:

Luke 23:43 - Where should the comma be placed?

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

To all:

For more on the placement of the comma within Luke 23:43, you may wish to also visit “A View from the Catholic Trenches,” under heading, “Even the Commas Count,” and the reply offered by Ron Rhoades:

catholictrenches.blogspot.com/2007/11/even-commas-count.html

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

 

[JohnOneOne]

“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,

I found where the other clause appears. Under the heading, “Trinitarian Problem as Posed Today,” subheading, “The Pastoral Question,” there is this:

"There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.

If ‘the Trinity’ here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not peach it at all – not, it should be added, because the audience is insuficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration. In this strictly pastral context, and for the greater part in catechetical instruction as well, the purpose of theology is to give the preacher’s expostion a pedagogical control, but hardly to supply its content.

If ‘the Trinity’ means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma ‘one God in three Persons,’ what should be said in reply has not a[l]ways been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and catechesis."

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. 304. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

In addition to the above, I will add this (vol. 14, p. 295) –

"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other [apparently, referring to “Protestants”], presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette.

Two thing have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins [of the first century] to, say the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “One God in three Persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.

Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula “one God in Three Persons” that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins [of the first century Christians]; it was the product of three centuries of doctrinal development. But current preoccupation and current emphasis is far less with the subsequent articularions of Christian dogma than with the primitive sources, chiefly the Biblical. It is this contemporary return to the [Biblical] sources that is ultimately responsible for the unsteady silhouette."

Then, from vol. 14, pp. 299, 300, there is this:

“N[ew] T[estament] exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic [the early “Church Fathers”] and concilian [the later Church Councils] development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the N[ew] T[estament] writers.”

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

 

[JohnOneOne]

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.

Dear fhansen,

I respectfully thank you for that perspective. On the other hand, we are talking about what had transpired throughout some 300+ years. It is my opinion that, as Christianity grew, so did the influence of the philosophical mind-set of those coming in. And, just as a doctor giving a misdiagnosis - that is, even in view of the, otherwise, clear evidences before him - within the culture of certain pre-conceived theories, so too within the Church. The sad thing is, “the winners write the history.” Then, when adacity steps in with, “but this is the only way this can be explained/understood,” that’s too much, even from a doctor. Who is to be faulted with simply asking, “I want a second opinion”?

Now, I am in no way suggesting that this means “truth” cannot be discerned. Its just that,

“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

Taken from: Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Bampton Lectures. Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87-025507.

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

 

[JohnOneOne]

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.

One need only to do a cursor search, using any WEB search engine, the terms “origin of Easter” only to find that, when Jehovah’s Witnesses tell people of its pagan origins, they are, indeed, telling the truth.

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

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

I respectfully thank you for that perspective. On the other hand, we are talking about what had transpired throughout some 300+ years. It is my opinion that, as Christianity grew, so did the influence of the philosophical mind-set of those coming in. And, just as a doctor giving a misdiagnosis - that is, even in view of the, otherwise, clear evidences before him - within the culture of certain pre-conceived theories, so too within the Church. The sad thing is, “the winners write the history.” Then, when adacity steps in with, “but this is the only way this can be explained/understood,” that’s too much, even from a doctor. Who is to be faulted with simply asking, “I want a second opinion”?

You can’t be faulted for asking for a second opinion-it’s just that there is no reliable way to get one in spite of the fact that many continue to try. If Arianism had won the day, there might now be Trinitarians arguing from your angle (that of the persecuted minority) but I doubt the church would still be in existence because it would’ve meant that it had caved in to a popular myth/opinion. Christianity, like all truth, is not a matter of popular vote. That is why the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and birth control, for example, will never change even as the separated “churches” around them do.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that this means “truth” cannot be discerned. Its just that,

“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

This is just self-serving. If his particular religion were the larger one he’d probably use that as evidence of it’s validity. By his “logic”, JWs should pray and strive to remain small and out of the mainstream and anything but successful, which doesn’t appear to be the case, at least not anymore. The Catholic Church was once small and persecuted, too, of course, but it grew, mainly through circumstances out of it’s control-praise God. And it may well become a smaller persecuted church again. JWs and many others through time have clearly proven that the Church continues to be hated anyway.

Taken from: Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Bampton Lectures. Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87-025507.

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

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Easter has pagan origins. Bunk.
With all due respect, that is a crock of nonsense.

Easter is simply the name by which the church refers
to Resurrection Sunday, the completion of the Christian
Pasch festival. The word Easter itself isn’t even universally used
the different rites of the Catholic Church. In the East, for example, it is more commonly referred to as Pasch, although in countries where Latin influence has spread, many have adopted the word, Easter.

In the East, “Easter” is always celebrated close to Nisan 14.
In the Western Church, the date is calculated by the equinox.

Resurrection Sunday happens to occur in the Spring season, called the Easter from of old in many cultures, the NAME Easter, possibly being derived from a pagan fertility goddess.
My point is celebration of what is now commonly CALLED “Easter” Sunday was universal in the Christian church from the very beginning of the Church, and this is documented to hundreds of years before the birth of Constantine.
In fact, in the mid 2nd century A.D., Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons had to go to Rome and argue with Pope Victor of Rome to plead with him NOT to excommunicate the Eastern Churches. He had threatened to do so because he wanted Resurrection (Easter) Sunday celebrated on the same date throughout the entire Church, East and West, but the Easterners were steadfast in wanting to keep their custom of observing it as close to Nisan 14 as possible. In the end, Irenaeus convinced the Bishop of Rome to back down and accord was reached.

The Christian celebration of Easter has no “pagan” root whatsoever.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[fhansen]

Dear fhansen,

I respectfully thank you for that perspective. On the other hand, we are talking about what had transpired throughout some 300+ years. It is my opinion that, as Christianity grew, so did the influence of the philosophical mind-set of those coming in. And, just as a doctor giving a misdiagnosis - that is, even in view of the, otherwise, clear evidences before him - within the culture of certain pre-conceived theories, so too within the Church. The sad thing is, “the winners write the history.” Then, when adacity steps in with, “but this is the only way this can be explained/understood,” that’s too much, even from a doctor. Who is to be faulted with simply asking, “I want a second opinion”?

You can’t be faulted for asking for a second opinion-it’s just that there is no reliable way to get one in spite of the fact that many continue to try. If Arianism had won the day, there might now be Trinitarians arguing from your angle (that of the persecuted minority) but I doubt the church would still be in existence because it would’ve meant that it had caved in to a popular myth/opinion. Christianity, like all truth, is not a matter of popular vote. That is why the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and birth control, for example, will never change even as the separated “churches” around them do.

JohnOneOne:

Now, I am in no way suggesting that this means “truth” cannot be discerned. Its just that,

“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

This is just self-serving “logic”. If his particular religion were the larger one he’d probably use that as evidence of its validity. By his reasoning, JWs should pray and strive to remain small and out of the mainstream and anything but successful, which doesn’t appear to be the case, at least not anymore. The Catholic Church was once small and persecuted, too, of course, but it grew-praise God- sometimes through circumstances out of its control. And it may well become a smaller persecuted church again. JWs and many others through time have clearly proven that the Church continues to be hated anyway.

 

[fhansen]

JohnOneOne:

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."

I couldn’t find this quote from the latest version of the New Catholic Encyclopedia- or from the old one for that matter- under headings concerning the Trinity. If we assume that everyone’s being honest and that the excerpt was taken from an earlier version of the New Catholic Encyclopedia then it was probable that it was removed or altered in later versions as it seems to be misleading or just plain historically inaccurate. The first and second century fathers were close to unanimous on the issue of Jesus’ deity. The idea that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God can be found throughout their writings; they reference scripture, tradition, and sometimes previous fathers in support of that belief. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t fully formulated and formally defined until Nicaea, as an answer to Arianism, tells us that it wasn’t much of an issue until that time or somewhat earlier (the Gnostics had some pretty strange ideas but they weren’t taken too seriously). The Apostolic fathers simply could not deny the fact that Jesus had the very nature of God, that somehow when one had met Him they had met God and that when the Holy Spirit was spoken of He was spoken of as God and this was revealed and handed down to them from the earliest experiences of the church. Whether one agrees with the concept or not, that was by far the general consensus from the earliest period on. The latest version of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, while confirming some of the difficulties in struggling to conceptualize and communicate the doctrine of the Trinity nonetheless seems to present the issue with more historical accuracy than the source which you referenced. Arriving at the doctrine of the Trinity was not the act of an arrogant church or a foolish church or an authoritarian church or a deluded church, or an evil church, or of a church compromised by being accepted by the mainstream political system. It was an act of humility before God in light of a truth which He had revealed to her.

 

[johnpilhaoh]

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…

JWs claim St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) taught that Jesus was only an angel. They quote him as calling Jesus ‘‘other than the God who made all things.’’ They give no reference for this quotation.

We know in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, St Justin lists the many titles Sacred Scripture gives to the Son of God, one of which is ‘‘Angel’’ (along with ‘‘Son,’’ ‘‘Wisdom,’’ ''God,’’ ‘‘Lord,’’ and ‘‘Word’’). When God appeared in the Old Testament, He was sometimes represented by an angel (for example, see Genesis 18:1-19:1); this is all Justin is referring to. Justin clearly believed that Jesus is God. In his First Apology, he writes:

     *Our Teacher of these things, born for this end, is Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the procurator in Judea in the time of Tiberius Caesar. ** We will prove that we worship Him reasonably;** for we have learned that He is the Son of the True God Himself . . .
      . . .  the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and **is God.**

 

[justinthemartyr]

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]).

 

[JohnOneOne]

You can’t be faulted for asking for a second opinion-it’s just that there is no reliable way to get one in spite of the fact that many continue to try. If Arianism had won the day, there might now be Trinitarians arguing from your angle (that of the persecuted minority) but I doubt the church would still be in existence because it would’ve meant that it had caved in to a popular myth/opinion. Christianity, like all truth, is not a matter of popular vote. That is why the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and birth control, for example, will never change even as the separated “churches” around them do…

Dear fhansen,

With respect to your comment,

“You can’t be faulted for asking for a second opinion-it’s just that there is no reliable way to get one in spite of the fact that many continue to try.”

I believe what the Bible tells us:

“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 (Catholic New American Bible).

Quite interestingly, one of their footnotes to this has:

“[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.”

And to this, I fully agree.

With respect to your comment:

“Christianity, like all truth, is not a matter of popular vote.”

And yet, as history testifies, on the road to the eventual development of the Trinity doctrine, a vote was taken in 325c.e.

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

 

[JohnOneOne]

Dear fhansen,

With respect to the quote:

“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

Taken from: Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Bampton Lectures. Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87-025507.

You say:

…This is just self-serving “logic”. If his particular religion were the larger one he’d probably use that as evidence of its validity. By his reasoning, JWs should pray and strive to remain small and out of the mainstream and anything but successful, which doesn’t appear to be the case, at least not anymore. The Catholic Church was once small and persecuted, too, of course, but it grew-praise God- sometimes through circumstances out of its control. And it may well become a smaller persecuted church again. JWs and many others through time have clearly proven that the Church continues to be hated anyway.

I think you have missed his point. He is saying just the opposite in that, those within the “mainstream” and “successful” should not be the factors in determining who has “truth,” no matter who they are, large or “small.” Quite interestingly, he is also saying that, just because a belief has been held throughout a long period of time does not, in and of itself, prove the correctness of that belief. And, as he had also so pointedly expressed, "Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

As for your suggestion that JW’s hate the Catholic Church, this is simply not true. Within our literature, what you will find is that we typically take issue with are the practices and teachings of any religious body, especially any which makes claims to representing God and His Holy Word, the Bible - regardless of who that might be.

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

 

[marlo]

As a former bible study of a JW, use their own publication and bible to show them they are wrong, as far as i know, they will not consider any church father, or early writings aside from what was given to them by the watch tower, they are trained to teach. So, if you can show them using their own resources that what they are teaching is wrong, then you can prove your point.

Start on the small things…my favorite is the Cross, they call it torture stake, use their bible to show they are wrong.

Mat 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

on the JW publication, “live forever in paradise on earth” or any picture of christ on their torture stake, shows that the accusation is over his hands. which is indeed wrong as per their own bible.

And in John 20:25, you can see that the nails are in plural form which shows the traditional cross (T), unlike in the torture stake it shows only one

Jhn 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

 

[JohnOneOne]

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]).

Dear justinthemartyr,

In view of the above, I would ask that you would also please consider:

"Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.1

He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”2

And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”3

Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.”4

Similarly, Ignatius said: “There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’ and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, ‘by whom are all things.’”5

He also writes: “There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. ... Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.”6

True, Ignatius calls the Son “God the Word.” But using the word “God” for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son “God” at Isaiah 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son “the only-begotten god.” Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed a “mighty one,” which is what “god” basically means.—Matthew 28:18; 1*Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2

1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VolumeI, page52.
2. Ibid., page*58.
3. Ibid., page*62.
4. Ibid., page*108.
5. Ibid., page*116.
6. The Apostolic Fathers, Volume*4, by Robert M.Grant, 1966, page63.

Taken from: The Watchtower, 1992 2/1, p. 21. Part 2 — “Did the Apostolic Fathers Teach the Trinity Doctrine?”

Furthermore, with respect to any of the “Fathers” calling Jesus “God,” it might be good to remember that, even within the Bible:

“The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elōhîm) could refer to various exalted begins besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…”

Taken from:Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?). The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Therefore, even though we might find some mention of Jesus being called “God” by any of the early Church “Fathers,” when taken along together with many of their other, qualifying, often, balancing statements, these cannot be used as support for the notion that they had, in actuality, viewed Jesus in the same way in which they viewed the Almighty God, the Father.

Sad to say, when I see discussions like this, more often than not, those who are inclined to quote from the “Fathers,” that is, from many of their statements which would appear to support the idea that they had, indeed, called Jesus “God,” apparently they are only saying/claiming so because they have not really taken the time to examine many of their other statements which, as I said above, provide the balances to this, otherwise, seemingly unquestionable position.

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

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

. 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. 304. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

Alan:

Here’s the problem:

You are putting together random quotes from sources that address issues other than the point you are laboring to make.

Sorry, friend, but you are being disingenuous.

Your first quote cited ONE SOURCE. Your later CORRECTIONS admit to other articles.

But YOU put them together AS IF they came from the same article (which doesn’t exist in the form you quote).

Yet, you still use the same bogus imprint for the CUA’s New Catholic Encyclopedia. McGraw-Hill did not publish any edition I have of it: the University’s Press did, however.

Also, in the subsequent edition you claim ( “1989”) I CANNOT find your quotations.

Did you get these quotes from a tertiary source, like some elder of your church? Who maybe got it from his boss?

What is your game here, Alan?

Robert

 

[JohnOneOne]

As a former bible study of a JW, use their own publication and bible to show them they are wrong, as far as i know, they will not consider any church father, or early writings aside from what was given to them by the watch tower, they are trained to teach. So, if you can show them using their own resources that what they are teaching is wrong, then you can prove your point…

To any who have been following the dialogue preceeding this comment, it should be clearly observed that what marlo has said above is simply not true.

I would sincerely invite him to return to his Bible studies with the Witnesses, that is, in order to learn more correctly.

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

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

If ‘the Trinity’ means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma ‘one God in three Persons,’ what should be said in reply has not a[l]ways been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and catechesis."

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. 304. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

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

That to me is an unacceptable use of an ellipsis (…) it was a single half sentence separated by 5 pages. Now the question is what was said between pages 299 and 304, I can only imagine, but what is clear at this point is that the source is not making the Trinity out to be some un-Biblical pagan invention, you seem to have highlighted the purely “negative” references giving the impression there is no support for the Divinity of the Son either in the Apostolic Fathers or Scripture.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Sad to say, when I see discussions like this, more often than not, those who are inclined to quote from the “Fathers,” that is, from many of their statements which would appear to support the idea that they had, indeed, called Jesus “God,” apparently they are only saying/claiming so because they have not really taken the time to examine many of their other statements which, as I said above, provide the balances to this, otherwise, seemingly unquestionable position.

 

[JohnOneOne]

Alan:

Here’s the problem:

You are putting together random quotes from sources that address issues other than the point you are laboring to make.

Sorry, friend, but you are being disingenuous.

Your first quote cited ONE SOURCE. Your later CORRECTIONS admit to other articles.

But YOU put them together AS IF they came from the same article (which doesn’t exist in the form you quote).

Yet, you still use the same bogus imprint for the CUA’s New Catholic Encyclopedia. McGraw-Hill did not publish any edition I have of it: the University’s Press did, however.

Also, in the subsequent edition you claim ( “1989”) I CANNOT find your quotations.

Did you get these quotes from a tertiary source, like some elder of your church? Who maybe got it from his boss?

What is your game here, Alan?

Robert

Dear Robert,

I am sorry for any confusion and any misinformation (concerning publishers) that I might have posted here. I would hope that you would have seen by now that I, otherwise, do try my best to be thorough.

With respect to your not being able to locate the fact that The New Catholic Encyclopedia was ever published by “McGraw-Hill,” and, along with it, claim that this reference is “bogus,” please, I would suggest that you check the following Library of Congress record:

New Catholic encyclopedia. Prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic…

LC Control No.: 66022292
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Main Title: New Catholic encyclopedia. Prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America.
Published/Created: New York, McGraw-Hill [1967]-
Related Names: Catholic University of America.
Related Titles: Catholic encyclopedia.
Description: v. <1-18 > illus. (part col.), facsims., maps, ports. (part col.) 29 cm.
ISBN: 007010235X (v. 17)
Notes: Vol. 16: Supplement, 1967-1974; v. 17: Supplement, Change in the Church; v. 18: Supplement, 1978-1988.
Vol. 16-17 have imprint: Washington, Publisher’s Guild.
Vol. 18 has imprint: Palatine, Il. : J. Heraty ; Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America.
Includes bibliographies.
Subjects: Catholic Church–Dictionaries.
LC Classification: BX841 .N44 1967

You can also search for this item (and their other edition) at the following link:

Library of Congress

With respect to your observation:

“in the subsequent edition you claim ( “1989”) I CANNOT find your quotations.”

To be honest with you, since I could not locate my own photo-copy of the pages I’ve been referencing, I went to a local theological seminary and made a copy of the complete section on the “Trinity” within their own copy of The New Catholic Encyclopedia, which, by the way, came from that very same edition.

If you cannot locate a copy of that edition of The New Catholic Enclopedia, if you write me privately (at my email address: john1one@earthlink.net), and give me your home address, I’d be more than happy to send you photo-copies of the material I found, with those specific sections marked.

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

[P.S. - If you find anything else within my posts that you also feel I am being “disingenuous” about, as you have done here - contrary to what you and others might think - I do welcome your pointing this out to me.]

 

[JohnOneOne]

Dear Robert,

With respect to what you have said below:

Alan;

And “sad to say” that you support your non-traditional, unChristian ideas with self-serving JW documents.

Further, that you do not read in context, quote in context or understand any of the patristic writings you so cavalierly dismiss.

You follow a sect founded by a man who predicted the end of the world, what, four specific times in the early 20th century?

You think the Bible (even your grossly redacted one) is a secret code that only the initiates (the 144,000) who interpret it correctly will get the goods on the New Earth.

You think a construct of two Aramaic/Hebrew terms for God is His real name (even though NO EVIDENCE of it exists prior to the committee which used it for the Authorized Version in the Jacobean period.

You pick and choose among OT and NT references, giving literal adherence to this but symbolic to that in order to fit into your sect’s “salvation history.”

You do all this and still feel a need to attack Catholics and Christian tradition by selective proof texting.

Gee, we must be doing something right!

Robert

I begin with:

“You follow a sect founded by a man who predicted the end of the world, what, four specific times in the early 20th century?”

Might I suggest your consideration of the contents within the following link:

The Churches, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Question of Unfulfilled Prophetic Expectations

With respect to your claim that I am using “selective proof texting” to argue my position, I would say this: As you must know, most anyone who makes any attempt to find support for the Trinity doctine within the Bible does, indeed, start with a verse, and that, followed by others.

In other words, we have to start somewhere; and, if by ‘selecting one of these proof texts’ to begin the discussion with is to be found fault with, then I cannot see the point of those who wish to list them.

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