John 1:1

[twb1621]

What does a Jehovah’s Witness do when he/she can no longer have the upper hand? He/ she puts you on the “ignore” list. I guess when the truth hurts there is no other means of remaining in their monologue. I hope that the other Catholics out there will take over in showing Dan Parker the truth about Jesus Christ and His true Church. Imagine a JW coming on a Catholic forum and when he cannot continue to monologue with his rules then he ignores the Catholic. He never squarely answered any of my questions, ever. I’m leaving this thread with the hopes and prayers that you all will continue to point Dan in the right direction and I will continue to pray for him as I have been. This post is not meant to derail the thread. Please do not respond to it. I posted so much here to try to speak with a JW and, as usual, I got spoken to. And then, as usual, when he would not answer most of my questions, he ignores me. God bless all of you here… teachccd

I’ve offered a great deal in scriptural verses showing the interpretations he presents are in error but he refuses to respond to any while jumping to another poster or beginning another thread to avoid acknowledging the scriptures. I guess his ignore list is growing because he only wants to make his own points. As do you, I hope our brothers are providing the support necessary to show the misrepresentations being offered all over the forum.

 

[Tomster]

Dan Parker
As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

I thought that is what you would come up with and it does not prove your claim that Russell claimed to be a native speaker of the original languages. Your quote does not say this. In addition there is no proof of what Russell actually claimed, only an attempt to discredit him.

It is obvious from the dialogue you present that Russell did not claim that he would not make mistakes with the Greek alphabet. You have failed my litmus test.

BTW. Russell was not involved with any translation. The fact that the claims against him are so exaggerated is proof that the truth of what happened is not good enough to condemn him!

As I promised, you are now on ignore.

“The loyalty test: God gave C.T. Russell to the church as a mouthpiece for him. Those who claim to have learned the truth apart from C.T. Russell are deceivers. Satan will cause people to think Russell was not the channel.” WT 9/15/1922, p. 279

“Russell held the position of steward; we hold this as a fact and a necessity of faith.” WT 12/15/1922, p. 396

" . . . we believe it is a safe rule to follow Brother Russell’s interpretation, for the reason that he is the servant of the church, so constituted by the Lord for the Laodicean period; and therefore we should expect the Lord to teach us through him." WT 2/15/1918, p.6212

 

[twb1621]

The one making the accusation bears the burden of proof. Would you expect a snippet carefully selected from a much longer court case, presented by opponents of JWs to be unbiased? What if it was about Catholics?

Your right about the burden of proof, which means the burden of proof is on you to support your accusations and respond to what is offered you in scriptural response.

 

[Dan_Parker]

“The loyalty test: God gave C.T. Russell to the church as a mouthpiece for him. Those who claim to have learned the truth apart from C.T. Russell are deceivers. Satan will cause people to think Russell was not the channel.” WT 9/15/1922, p. 279

“Russell held the position of steward; we hold this as a fact and a necessity of faith.” WT 12/15/1922, p. 396

" . . . we believe it is a safe rule to follow Brother Russell’s interpretation, for the reason that he is the servant of the church, so constituted by the Lord for the Laodicean period; and therefore we should expect the Lord to teach us through him." WT 2/15/1918, p.6212

At the time, yes, but remember, one of Russell’s trademark passages was Proverbs 4:18
NJB Proverbs 4:18 The path of the upright is like the light of dawn,** its brightness growing to the fullness of day**;

He taught that this would continue and that his doctrine would change and be refined. So he would have expected what you now criticize.

 

[twb1621]

At the time, yes, but remember, one of Russell’s trademark passages was Proverbs 4:18
NJB Proverbs 4:18 The path of the upright is like the light of dawn,** its brightness growing to the fullness of day**;
He taught that this would continue and that his doctrine would change and be refined. So he would have expected what you now criticize.

He had to teach that. He knew although deceitfully claiming to be inspired by God what he preached would eventually fall apart requiring revised philosophies along the way to keep his followers .

 

[Tomster]

At the time, yes, but remember, one of Russell’s trademark passages was Proverbs 4:18
NJB Proverbs 4:18 The path of the upright is like the light of dawn,** its brightness growing to the fullness of day**;

He taught that this would continue and that his doctrine would change and be refined. So he would have expected what you now criticize.

Dan,

Doctrine by definition does not change. You now claim that it can and does. It seems that you not only have problems with Greek but with English as well.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Doctrine by definition does not change. You now claim that it can and does. It seems that you not only have problems with Greek but with English as well.

The Greek word for “doctrine” is “teaching.” Justin Martyr taught that the Son was not the Creator, only the Father was the creator. He also taught that the Father could not have been on the earth, but only the Son because the Father was so much greater.

Do Catholics teach this today?

 

[JeanneH]

The Greek word for “doctrine” is “teaching.” Justin Martyr taught that the Son was not the Creator, only the Father was the creator. He also taught that the Father could not have been on the earth, but only the Son because the Father was so much greater.

Do Catholics teach this today?

Could you please supply the source for this? I would like to read it in its entirety.
Thanks

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting. I’d also like to have that quote.

I found this comment from Justin.

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign,(8) having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, hat by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,”

Now here Justine is applying the great words, “I am that I am” to Christ, come in the form of an Angel to Moses. The fathers, rightly saw this as an indication of the oneness of God, and Justine applies these words to the Word.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

Interesting. I’d also like to have that quote.

I found this comment from Justin.

Now here Justine is applying the great words, “I am that I am” to Christ, come in the form of an Angel to Moses. The fathers, rightly saw this as an indication of the oneness of God, and Justine applies these words to the Word.

God bless,
Ut

Lionheart777 and I hashed this out not too long ago. He and I both provided quotes. If I get a chance I will perform a search. It may have in the Dialogue with Trypho.

 

[LionHeart777]

Lionheart777 and I hashed this out not too long ago. He and I both provided quotes. If I get a chance I will perform a search. It may have in the Dialogue with Trypho.

yes we did. I believe that your position was that according to Justin, Christ was just speaking a script of the Fathers words. I’m surprised I let that position slide w/o further scrutiny if that’s the case

Let’s go back to that; is that your position?

“Eisegesis…is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis) (accessed 9/ 15/ 09)

 

[Dan_Parker]

yes we did. I believe that your position was that according to Justin, Christ was just speaking a script of the Fathers words. I’m surprised I let that position slide w/o further scrutiny if that’s the case

Let’s go back to that; is that your position?

“Eisegesis…is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis) (accessed 9/ 15/ 09)

Do you have links for those threads for the benefit of those who would like to read the quotes?

Feel free to respond to the position I took back then. No need to repeat it again, is there? It prevailed the first time

 

[teachccd]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Jesus was Michael the archangel prior to his coming to earth. They assert: “Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return” (Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1971, 1152).

They arrive at this erroneous belief primarily through a misinterpretation of (1) Daniel 10:13, 21, where reference is made to a “great prince,” Michael; and (2) First Thessalonians 4:16, where the Lord Jesus is described as descending from heaven at the sound of the archangel’s voice. The JWs’ own New World Translation of the Bible reads, " . . . the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice."

According to the JWs, Michael is the only angel other than Gabriel mentioned in the Bible, and Michael is the only one who is called an archangel. (The angel Raphael is mentioned in the book of Tobit, but since the Jehovah’s Witnesses sprang from Protestantism, they use the Protestant canon of Scripture, which is missing this Old Testament book plus six others.)

Since the Lord Jesus descends from heaven “with an archangel’s voice,” the JWs understand this passage as “suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1152).

While there are several problems with this line of reasoning, two points in particular easily reveal its fallacy. First, the fact that the Lord Jesus descends “with an archangel’s voice” does not automatically mean that it is his own voice spoken of. This passage simply says that an archangel’s voice will accompany the Lord’s descent from heaven, in the same manner that the bailiff’s voice (“All rise!”) accompanies the judge’s entrance into the courtroom.

Second, Hebrews 1:6 says, “For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’?” (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, “none.”

Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael–who is an angel–cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a “higher order” of angel, but an angel nonetheless; “arch-” simply means “ruling” or “high ranking.”

 

[Tomster]

The Greek word for “doctrine” is “teaching.” Justin Martyr taught that the Son was not the Creator, only the Father was the creator. He also taught that the Father could not have been on the earth, but only the Son because the Father was so much greater.

Do Catholics teach this today?

Dan,

"The Greek word for ‘doctrine’ is ‘teaching’ " - Dan

So, what are we teaching Dan? Truth? Does Truth change? Of course not. But, according to J.W. tradition truth does change.

 

[twb1621]

Do you have links for those threads for the benefit of those who would like to read the quotes?

Feel free to respond to the position I took back then. No need to repeat it again, is there? It prevailed the first time

Dan’s position is “I want to say what I want by myself with out any other distracting scriptural verses presented by defenders of the Catholic Faith”. The problem is his references are all from one key auther, Russell with edited quotes from the JW library.

 

[Tomster]

Dan’s position is “I want to say what I want by myself with out any other distracting scriptural verses presented by defenders of the Catholic Faith”. The problem is his references are all from one key auther, Russell with edited quotes from the JW library.

Ah yes! The ever shifting, completely unstable, maze of contradiction, “doctrinal - teaching”, authority of the JWs.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Ah yes! The ever shifting, completely unstable, maze of contradiction, “doctrinal - teaching”, authority of the JWs.

I excommunicated twb1621.

 

[Tomster]

(Edited)

Dan,

Sadly, I must inform you, that by your denial of the Trinity, you are not a member of Christ’s Mystical Body. And, it also must be said, that I had nothing to do with it. All of the Catholics on these message boards hope and pray that some day you will see the errors of your sect and come home to the true Church founded by Jesus, the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The doors will be open for you, Dan. And the sanctuary light will always be lit directing you to His awesome majesty in the Most Holy Eucharist.

During your door to door work, if you pass a Catholic Church, stop in. You are invited. Stop in, sit down and rest your feet. Sit in silence and allow Him to speak to your very being.

May God bless you abundantly Dan!,
Tomster

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Sadly, I must inform you, that by your denial of the Trinity, you are not a member of Christ’s Mystical Body. And, it also must be said, that I had nothing to do with it. All of the Catholics on these message boards hope and pray that some day you will see the errors of your sect and come home to the true Church founded by Jesus, the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The doors will be open for you, Dan. And the sanctuary light will always be lit directing you to His awesome majesty in the Most Holy Eucharist.

During your door to door work, if you pass a Catholic Church, stop in. You are invited. Stop in, sit down and rest your feet. Sit in silence and allow Him to speak to your very being.

May God bless you abundantly Dan!,
Tomster

Hey, Id did not excommunicate you!

 

[teachccd]

Dan’s position is “I want to say what I want by myself with out any other distracting scriptural verses presented by defenders of the Catholic Faith”. The problem is his references are all from one key auther, Russell with edited quotes from the JW library.

If you notice, Dan now “excommunicated” you as well. You have become the infamous “goat” that is doomed to annihilation. JW’s do not go to church. They attend meetings at their Kingdom Hall. I have listened in on those meetings. They are scrutinized beyond words. They are taught how to talk, walk and act. They set up scenerios whereby they are speaking with other faiths and told exactly what they are to say. I speak the truth here and Dan knows this.

JW’s are not interested in anything that you have to say because they are taught that anything that you say is from satan. They are taught that the Blessed Trinity is an idea founded by satan so that we will not worship the one true Jehovah. JW’s are only interested in promoting their doctrines (which continue to change) and are almost never interested in what you have to say. They are taught this from day one.

My JW friend that I conversed with at work for almost three years would rewind daily. I would mention something and he would ponder it and then the next day he would start all over again as if I had never spoken to him before. He would pull out his bible and start quoting all kinds of stuff relating to whatever and then follow it with a " so that would indicate that…" and then complete his thought. It is incredibly frustrating because it is as if you don’t even exist except as a receptacle for their teachings.

Anyway, I just thought that since Dan “excommunicated” you , you might want to know some of this if you didn’t already…Peace my friend and keep praying for Dan. I said a rosary for him and I will offer up the next Mass for him as well. Nothing is impossible with God…teachccd