JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[DelsonJacobs]

The title “Pontifex Maximus” was originally annexed to the Roman pagan high priests when the Republic was in existence, before Emperors!..

Peter was never the first so-called “Pope” as he was the “Petros” (masculine) and means a small rock, easily lifted, whilst Christ was the actual “Rock” it being “Petra” (feminine) and meant a massive stone, not easily lifted, a cliff edge of rock, also at least 39 so-called Catholic “Popes” were married and one a confirmed heretic and another suspected of heresy, which poses a problem for so-called “papal Infallibility”!

The Catholic Church acknowledges such facts. So your pointing them out is just endorsing what we as Catholics*** already believe and know.***
**
Latin: It’s All They Had to Work With**

Because Latin was the official language when the Catholic Church became the official religion of Rome, the idiomatic expression “pontifex” became the Latin word used to translate the koine Greek word “epískopos” (which in English is “bishop”). Latin did not have a word to describe what “epískopos” meant that made since in the common vernacular, so “pontifex” is what people used.

And while the title of “Pontifex Maximus” was applied to the Pope as its chief bishop, it is not included as one of the Pope’s official titles. In Latin it merely means “chief episkopos.”

It is common for Jehovah’s Witnesses to employ similar words of pagan origin within their own language. For example, in the United States the days of the week are named after pagan gods as are the planets in our solar system. Just because a Jehovah’s Witness employs these terms in English doesn’t mean he or she is engaged in pagan worship, does it? Of course not!

The same goes for the use of the vernacular terms of Latin that were employed to describe bishops and the pope. Rome was a nation with pagan origins, but that did not mean that the Roman Christians felt a need to change their entire language. They just employed it the best they could to their new Christian circumstances.

More Than Just One Meaning for Catholics

And the Church officially teaches that Matthew 16:18 has several meanings in reference to the use of the word “rock.” Catholics believe that the “rock” is:

• First and foremost Jesus
• That the declaration of Jesus as Messiah is the rock foundation of our faith
• That Simon’s name was changed to “rock” or “Kephas” because he was a stone built upon this foundation cornerstone of Christ

So we also believe that Christ is the “Rock.” But since we are all supposed to imitate Christ the Rock, Jesus named the chief apostle Simon “Kephas,” which means “Rock” or “Peter.” Peter himself talked about how we should also likewise be rocks, stones used as he describes in 1 Peter 2:4-6:

Come to him [Jesus], a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

The Pope Can TEACH Infallibly, NOT That the Pope Is an Infallible Person

And finally the Church does not teach that popes themselves are infallible. The teaching of “papal infallibility” is not that popes are preserved from being sinful or making errors or being imperfect. There have been several infamous popes who proved to be unworthy of the office in the history of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of papal infallibility is that popes can declare that an article of faith (what you would call a “teaching” or “doctrine”) that the Church has always believed must be universally accepted by all Catholics (declared to be “dogma”), and that when a pope does this it is impossible for such a specific declaration to be without error. The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says, teaches, and does.

I am writing this using terms that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be familiar with here, but basically it has nothing to do with the pope being perfect (he is an imperfect man). It can only be applied to the office and a very unique situation. In fact, officially speaking ,such an “infallible” declaration only occurred twice in the past 2000 years–once in 1854 and 1950 (and it *may *be able to be applied to only five other instances before this).

Such an infallible teaching:

• Cannot be a new teaching, only one the Church has always cherished and believed
• Has come to need to be defined in a special way (perhaps it has been challenged)
• Regards the Church’s teachings regarding faith and/or morals
• Becomes unquestionably binding at this point

It has nothing to do with making a pope incapable of sin.

Learn from the Source

It is good that you are here to discuss this because it is important to go to the source to learn the truth about Catholicism. I am sure you wouldn’t want a Catholic to learn about your religion from a Baptist or a Mormon. The same is true about learning about Catholicism. You are here to learn directly from us. And that is what all people should do, go to the source. Just as the Catholic Church is not the authority on what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, one cannot learn the truth about Catholics by listening and learning only from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, their elders, their people or even their Governing Body–because they are not the source. Am I not right?

 

[seanman611]

Sounds like pretty solid historical evidence to me! I think the JWs used the wrong quote, or maybe they just figured nobody would ever look it up in context.

You hit the nail on the hand, they do this kind of thing all the time when it comes to sources, quotes, and context. The “Should Believe in the Trinity” booklet is a prime example of this.

searchingthescriptures.net/main_pages/answering_cults/jehovahs%20witnesses/examining-should_you_believe_in_the_trinity.htm

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Much of what is written on here about JWs is untenable!

An example of Catholic mentality!

Take the term “God”, Catholics say that God is one but is constituted of three persons!

However, the term “God” is used with singular personal masculine pronouns (absolutely no exceptions) such as “I, you, who, he, him, his…” this is so in both the OT and NT, such usage of the pronouns is a compelling piece of evidence in itself, that “God” is constituted of one person in the “one God” and not three persons in the “one God”, otherwise, why not a single use of any plural pronoun or pronouns and trying to use Gen 1:26 will not work, as v 27 uses the masculine personal pronoun “he” for the term “God” and the expression in v 26 “…let us make man in our image”, the term “make” is the Hebrew term “asah”, whereas, the term “bara” (create) is only ever used of the Father in the creative process, the two terms are not the same, the term “asah” can and is applied to both Father and Son, but only “bara” of the Father, as we also see in the NT, where “ek” (out of/from…) or “ktizo” (create) is only used of the Father, never the Son, but the preposition “di” (a contraction of “dia”) is used of both Father and son (John 1:3; Rom 11:36) it is used of the Son in the ordinary sense of “through, by-means of, instrumentality, causal instrument…”, but of the Father, in the sense of Final Cause, Efficient Cause, Hypo…"

Also, if the Trinitarian “Holy Spirit” is also a person, such as is the Father and Son, of which singular personal pronouns are used e.g. “I, you, who, he, him, his…”, many, many times, just why is there not a single use (in the original Greek, not biased translation English) of any personal pronoun used of such so-called “Holy Spirit”!

If any Catholic wishes to answer, please tell me which translation you use, with chapter and verses, and how you reached your conclusion!

First of all, unlike your religion which is based solely on the Bible, the religion of Catholics is based on Jesus Christ himself. So to learn how and why Catholics have to come to believe in the Trinity you must recognize the following:

• For Jehovah’s Witnesses the ultimate source of revelation is the written Word of God
• For Catholics the ultimate source of revelation is the Person known as the Word of God, Jesus Christ himself
• Jehovah’s Witnesses believe true religion is limited to what can be read in Scripture
• Catholics believe true religion was first revealed by what Jesus said and did and preceded the writing of Scripture
• The religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has a theology that depends on Scripture and therefore could only exist after Scripture was written and completed
• The religion of Catholicism began with Jesus’ ministry and his immediate followers practiced true religion before any of them wrote and canonized a single word of Scripture
• Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Scriptures are an exhaustive collection of Christian doctrine
• Catholics believe the deposit of faith was given to the Church and that the Scriptures are but part of this deposit

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God speaks lastly through the Bible as interpreted by the Governing Body (the spokesmen of God’s organization):

“We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval.”–The Watchtower 2011 July 15, 2011, Simplified English Edition

“The life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.”—The Watchtower November 15, 2013.

Catholics believe that God spoke lastly through Jesus Christ and that he is God’s final spokesman:

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe.–Hebrews 1:1-2.

So I am more than willing to take your challenge and provide you with answers on our faith in the Trinity. But you have to realize that for us there is more than Scripture that proves this to us.

But I will limit myself to Scripture as you Jehovah’s Witnesses do who believe it was written to be an exhaustive declaration of all doctrine and teachings and practices of true religion (even though it doesn’t teach things like where an elder gets the authority to marry people and more things like that).

Yet I will not rely on a translation of the Bible. I am a Hebrew and am quite familiar with my native tongue and koine Greek. No translation of the Bible is as accurate as the original texts. You must agree to do the same.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I suggest a new thread to discuss the Trinity and the use of the following:

For the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament:

The JPS Tanakh: Hebrew-English Edition by the Jewish Publication Society

For the New Testament or Christian Greek Scriptures:
The UBS Greek New Testament 4th edition

Is that okay for starters?

 

[seanman611]

double post

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

The title “Pontifex Maximus” was originally annexed to the Roman pagan high priests when the Republic was in existence, before Emperors!

Historical and Empirical Fact 1

When Augustus was Emperor, the title “Pontifex Maximus” was annexed to him, so that from the time of the Emperor Augustus to the time of the 4th century Emperor Gratian all Emperors were the pagan Roman high priests and all the authority, rights and power such office dictated…!

Historical and Empirical Fact 2

No Roman bishop prior to and including Damasus was ever called Pope or Pontiff or Pontifex Maximus in the traditional sense, all Bishops of the various “sees” i.e. jurisdictional areas under their control were called “papa” i.e. “pope” i.e. Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Athens and so on, no one bishop (papa/pope) dominated, all were as equal as each other!

Historical and Empirical Fact 3

In the late 4th century CE the Roman Emperor Gratian threw out the pagan (annexed) title “Pontifex Maximus” as it was not fitting, that a Christian Emperor to hold such a pagan title…!

Historical and Empirical Fact 4

The bishop of Rome at the time was called Damasus and without any scruples grabbed the pagan title for himself and his successors and from his time, the bishops of Rome were now “Pontifex Maximus” and it was as time passed, that Roman bishops began to demand that the other “sees” (bishops) accept the Roman bishop as the heads of all bishops, this was opposed, but in the end, with the power of the Roman political system behind it, the Roman Primate was declared bishop of bishops, over the other Primates!

Peter was never the first so-called “Pope” as he was the “Petros” (masculine) and means a small rock, easily lifted, whilst Christ was the actual “Rock” it being “Petra” (feminine) and meant a massive stone, not easily lifted, a cliff edge of rock, also at least 39 so-called Catholic “Popes” were married and one a confirmed heretic and another suspected of heresy, which poses a problem for so-called “papal Infallibility”!

And your point is what exactly?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

While Jehovah’s Witnesses are genuine in their faith and among the most courteous and zealous people you will find, they aren’t aware of the amount and type of religious education Catholics have.

The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to blame for giving their people the poor and wanting impression that posters like “andrewgraham195” have about Catholics. The Governing Body has taught them that what little filtered information they receive about Catholicism—which amounts to blurbs and poorly edited “quotes” from a few of our publications (much from publications about Catholicism that are not official)—is sufficient and makes experts about us out of them.

But “andrewgraham195” is more than just some anonymous poster who doesn’t realize he is incorrect about our faith. He’s a human being that God loves and for whom Christ died.

One of the things I am trying to do these days is attempt to get Jehovah’s Witnesses to learn that to us they are more than their doctrine or the message they preach. While they are definitely a product of what they believe, some of this includes a desire to publicize the truth about God and his Kingdom to others–things we also believe in and practice. Despite this, “Andrew”'s zeal is still misdirected and his knowledge still incomplete.

What worries me is that “andrewgraham195” appears to be filled with a hatred for Catholics and doesn’t realize it. His comment, “An example of Catholic mentality!” speaks volumes.

‘We don’t hate Catholics,’ one Jehovah’s Witness wrote on another website. ‘We only hate what they believe because their Church is false.’

But like them, we Catholics are the product of what we believe. Because of that if you hate what we believe then you hate us. You can’t separate the two.

These odd comments about papal infallibility that this Jehovah’s Witness wrote is reflective of just part of the type of anti-Catholic rhetoric and prejudice we face daily. It is not only incorrect but by its inference that a true connection between pagan worship and our beliefs exists it shows how deeply despising they are of Catholics.

I refuse to act the same way towards Jehovah’s Witnesses. While their teachings may be incorrect, this does not mean they fail to be beloved of God. Christ died for them too. Their false teachings don’t make them servants of Satan (though they claim that we Catholics are blinded by the Devil into worshipping him). I don’t preach that their salvation can’t happen unless they join my religion because Jesus has not assigned me to preach such a message. He will judge them according to the same standards that I will be judged, and Jesus will make that judgment when and how our Lord sees fit. Until then I am assigned to love and minster to their needs, not call them blinded by Satan and worshippers of a false God.

I will continue to defend the truth of Catholicism, but I will not imitate them and give in to hate. Nor will I be blinded to the fact that hate can be a real possibility for me about them if I do not constantly work to root it out of me (and for this I ask for everyone’s prayers).

I ask “Andrew” and all others who don’t care enough about Catholics to ensure they have the facts straight about us and our teachings before preaching falsehoods about us: Wake up! Your words have made you the persecutors and we the persecuted. We are people just like you despite our differences. Jehovah has not called you to hate us, which you are really doing and refuse to acknowledge. Please change before it is too late because it is written:

If anyone says, I love God, and hates a brother or sister, he is a liar, because the person who doesn’t love a brother or sister who can be seen can’t love God, who can’t be seen. –1 John 4:20, Common English Bible.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi All, may God Bless you. My JW friends say the Catholic Church admits there is no definitive line of succession from St. Peter to the present day pope. They quote Jesuit John McKensie professor of theology Notre Dame 1969 and New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967.
Is there a strong Catholic response to these points or is it just “it’s reasonable to assume” which to me is not a very strong argument. I understood the church was definite about the line of succession and I have strenuously argued this point. Cristo

If a question about the validity of apostolic succession is suppose to prove something about the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church then where does this leave the Bible and Tract society? Where is their claim to apostolic succession? It either matters or it doesn’t and if it does then they are out of luck completely. This is not the best argument for them to put forward.

 

[SteveVH]

. You are here to learn directly from us.

I quite seriously doubt that. Judging from his post he is here to do nothing more than bash the Catholic Church.

 

[adf417]

I quite seriously doubt that. Judging from his post he is here to do nothing more than bash the Catholic Church.

I do not see it this way Steve. He, Andrew, came here to CAF and posted on the most current thread about JW’s in an attempt, I believe, to courageously defend his own faith and I admire him for that. If he were here to simply bash the Catholic Church I think he would have chose from the many threads pounding on our doctrines.

As Delson has spelled out above, they simply spew out the only defense they have been taught which is the wrong understanding of our faith and consider it absolute truth. It is our duty to prove to them their teaching are wrong about our faith in the face of their “absolute truth” in the manner Delson has described above. It is the duty of their organization to constantly spew the hatred that this love and kindness can only be the deception of Satan and it is their individual duty to discern the differences.

Peace!!!

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I do not see it this way Steve. He, Andrew, came here to CAF and posted on the most current thread about JW’s in an attempt, I believe, to courageously defend his own faith and I admire him for that. If he were here to simply bash the Catholic Church I think he would have chose from the many threads pounding on our doctrines.

As Delson has spelled out above, they simply spew out the only defense they have been taught which is the wrong understanding of our faith and consider it absolute truth. It is our duty to prove to them their teaching are wrong about our faith in the face of their “absolute truth” in the manner Delson has described above. It is the duty of their organization to constantly spew the hatred that this love and kindness can only be the deception of Satan and it is their individual duty to discern the differences.

Peace!!!

Indeed. I would also add that posts like Andrew’s, when greeted by posters like DelsonJacobs, do all of us, and all seekers, a great favour.

By laying out all the most common mini-quotes and ideas included in JW literature, word for word, Andrew ensures that this thread is likely to come up when other people search these phrases to check their veracity. And so, Delson’s explanation and links will reach people who are looking for them.

This is much more efficient and effective than nearly anything else we could do, unless we spent all our days creating slick websites with seo.

I think we should all bear in mind just how visible these forums tend to be on websearchs, and consider (when replying to someone who regurgitates the troubling things they have been taught) whether we want the reply we write to be the impression given of the Catholic Church to everyone searching for information on the topic.

 

[adf417]

Indeed. I would also add that posts like Andrew’s, when greeted by posters like DelsonJacobs, do all of us, and all seekers, a great favour.

By laying out all the most common mini-quotes and ideas included in JW literature, word for word, Andrew ensures that this thread is likely to come up when other people search these phrases to check their veracity. And so, Delson’s explanation and links will reach people who are looking for them.

This is much more efficient and effective than nearly anything else we could do, unless we spent all our days creating slick websites with seo.

I think we should all bear in mind just how visible these forums tend to be on websearchs, and consider (when replying to someone who regurgitates the troubling things they have been taught) whether we want the reply we write to be the impression given of the Catholic Church to everyone searching for information on the topic.

I like it when Delson, Steve, and some others post. It keeps my fingers where they belong - on the mouse and not over the keys. I have learned my posts may do more harm than good so I will try to leave the details to the more experience.

Peace!!!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I quite seriously doubt that. Judging from his post he is here to do nothing more than bash the Catholic Church.

Steve, I was actually speaking in what “Andrew” would identify as “Watchtower-speak,” for lack of a different phrase.

From the outside reading what I wrote you are correct, if you read what I wrote as addressed to the public at large. But look at it again after you read what I’ve posted here and you will note something.

The manner in which I wrote this statement was to make “Andrew” think about a common argument and line of reasoning that the Watchtower uses. When talking to people about their own religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses often raise the point that people’s perception of them is usually based on second-hand information. “You should go to the source,” is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses follow this up with, “and that is why we are talking to you today, so you can learn from us what we as Jehovah’s Witnesses *really *believe.”

I paraphrased these expressions and turned the argument around by applying it to Catholics and how Jehovah’s Witnesses also get their information about Catholicism second-hand through the filter of their Governing Body.

If there is anything a Jehovah’s Witness truly despises is being pointed out a hypocrite. So if you point out that they do not live up to the same standards they demand of others they generally work to correct this–it’s part of their religion.

By raising this argument in a way “Andrew” would understand, it forces him to come to grips that he might be posting out of negative emotion and not using reason. The fact that he is here posting at all is evidence that he has chosen to act independently of the direction from the Governing Body that has repeatedly stated that faithful Witnesses do not join forums like this, make comments, or even read what is posted. He knows deep down inside that he shouldn’t be doing this in the first place…and that by so doing he was committing what is often described by them as “bringing reproach upon Jehovah and his organization” by his actions. A Witness can be disciplined and even expelled for this.

I often include phraseology in my comments to Witnesses that only they recognize. The comment didn’t mean what it looked like on the surface. The comment was part of the entire context, reminding him by employing Watchtower reasoning that his posted comments belie any claim that he is well equipped to speak about Catholicism. They actually prove he has never truly ‘gone to the source.’

So you are correct in how you describe “Andrew’s” comments, but the phrase and argument I wrote were mainly for “Andrew’s” benefit.

 

[KathleenGee]

My parish was having a big event and requested if we could have access to their parking lot during a time that they do not meet.

They refused.

These Restorationist movements do not follow history, and that in itself is unusual considering the claims they make.

I have tried to dialogue with them as the same with SDA’s, and as I am on the emotional side, it was the cause of personal affliction to me. So I try not to get into it too much with them. They will invalidate anything I say.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I have answered “Andrew” and his objections (plus a related one from another Jehovah’s Witness) in another thread to avoid throwing this one off subject.

The thread can be found HERE.

Since “Andrew” has not responded to my offer to forgo the use of translations and use the original language texts, I have employed the use of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) when quoting.

 

[SteveVH]

Very well. I will keep an open mind as this thread unfolds. Time will tell.

This isn’t my first rodeo with the JW’s. I have answered their accusations against the CC in great detail without ever getting a response. In my experience they have no interest in even considering a different view, but rather spewing the Bible & Tract Society’s venom against our Church.

We will hope it is different this time.

Peace.

Steve

 

[mackbrislawn]

I just looked up the second quote in my copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and look what the "…"s are hiding: “While the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate, there is no doubt about the fact that from the 2d century to the Protestant Reformation Christianity unanimously recognized in its bishops the divinely-established successors of the Apostles.”

Sounds like pretty solid historical evidence to me! I think the JWs used the wrong quote, or maybe they just figured nobody would ever look it up in context.

The Watchtower is famous for cherry-picking and taking quotes out of contest. They figure most of their prospective converts will assume the Watchtower is honest and not bother to check things out for themselves.

 

[KathleenGee]

My Baptist employer wanted us to have a prayer study regarding a certain psalm, but when the former JW 's and members found out I was Catholic, the group did not return together. The JW lady appeared to be rather negative towards me…but I also live in a state that has a number of anti-Catholics in it as well.

 

[Logically]

Well I don’t want to be accused of Catholic bashing by answering and admitting I am one of Jehovah’s witnesses.
The Catholics I have met have always been really nice people, and I must say I admire the new Pope Francis with his rejecting a lot of the showy display decorations. (I hear he sneaks out of the Vatican and eats with homeless sometimes, how cool is that?)

But as for papal succession, I understand that depends on the apostle Peter being the first Pope, the first bishop of Rome and head of the early church. (Am I wrong yet?)

Certainly Jesus singled out the apostles as special in the early church. Peter was given the “keys of the kingdom”. He was an outspoken fellow who often appears in the gospels as the spokesman for the apostles, and is included with James and John in several special occasions. (The transfiguration for example)

But was he Pope? Of course the word “Pope” is not in the Bible.

When the council of Jerusalem met to discuss the circumcision issue, (Acts 15) Peter was present and spoke, but it seems James the brother of Jesus (which won’t suit the “Mary ever virgin” camp) had the final word and specified what the necessary taboos for Christians included (“abstain form blood” being one which is still insisted on by one disliked group I know of).

So was Peter Pope then? (surely not Bishop of Rome yet at any rate)

Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and, as such, making decisions for the disciples as a group. In his letter, he called himself “an apostle” and “an older man”—nothing more. 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1. Why not “Pope” ?

Is it necessary that Peter moved to Rome for him to be Pope. (correct me if Pope and Bishop of Rome is not the same thing) because…

When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he included an extensive list of Christians there. Yet, he did not mention Peter at all. (Romans 16:1-23) Why not? Presumably because Peter was not there.

When (if ever) does the Catholic church say Peter moved to Rome?

Paul wrote six letters from Rome, all without any mention of Peter. (was he Bishop of Rome during Pauls writings?)

About 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of a successor of Peter.

Infact about 62 AD Peter signs off his first inspired letter from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) thousands of miles from Rome!

So is the only proof Peter was the Pope (in the Bible) Jesus words at Matthew 16:18 where he says in reply to Peter: “and you are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church.”?
Because the conversation there was about Jesus identity, not Peter’s. (Verse 13) Peter had answered “you are the Christ, the son of the living God” (Which won’t suit the Trinity promoters)

I hope I won’t be decried as a “Catholic basher” or personally insulted for asking this, but:

Are you certain Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock on which the church was built, and not himself here?

Others in this thread have already admitted the Catholic Church agrees Jesus is the “main cornerstone” on which the church was built. Jesus is called the “head of the congregation” at Ephesians 1:22, (made so by “God who seated himself at his right hand,” which again won’t suit the Trinity camp)

Please try to answer with facts and reason instead of personal anti JW attacks.

 

[mackbrislawn]

First of all, unlike your religion which is based solely on the Bible, the religion of Catholics is based on Jesus Christ himself. So to learn how and why Catholics have to come to believe in the Trinity you must recognize the following:

• For Jehovah’s Witnesses the ultimate source of revelation is the written Word of God
• For Catholics the ultimate source of revelation is the Person known as the Word of God, Jesus Christ himself
• Jehovah’s Witnesses believe true religion is limited to what can be read in Scripture
• Catholics believe true religion was first revealed by what Jesus said and did and preceded the writing of Scripture
• The religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has a theology that depends on Scripture and therefore could only exist after Scripture was written and completed
• The religion of Catholicism began with Jesus’ ministry and his immediate followers practiced true religion before any of them wrote and canonized a single word of Scripture
• Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Scriptures are an exhaustive collection of Christian doctrine
• Catholics believe the deposit of faith was given to the Church and that the Scriptures are but part of this deposit

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God speaks lastly through the Bible as interpreted by the Governing Body (the spokesmen of God’s organization):

“We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval.”–The Watchtower 2011 July 15, 2011, Simplified English Edition

“The life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.”—The Watchtower November 15, 2013.

Catholics believe that God spoke lastly through Jesus Christ and that he is God’s final spokesman:

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe.–Hebrews 1:1-2.

So I am more than willing to take your challenge and provide you with answers on our faith in the Trinity. But you have to realize that for us there is more than Scripture that proves this to us.

But I will limit myself to Scripture as you Jehovah’s Witnesses do who believe it was written to be an exhaustive declaration of all doctrine and teachings and practices of true religion (even though it doesn’t teach things like where an elder gets the authority to marry people and more things like that).

Yet I will not rely on a translation of the Bible. I am a Hebrew and am quite familiar with my native tongue and koine Greek. No translation of the Bible is as accurate as the original texts. You must agree to do the same.

Actually, JW’s do not limit themselves to the Bible; they also draw upon secular events and geography to construct their theology. For instance, measurements inside the Great Pyramid of Egypt were used at one time! Also the year 1914 and the outbreak of WWI was a major part of Watchtower teaching for many years. Jesus was supposed to have returned in 1914. Didn’t you notice? It is because He returned invisibly! Funny, though, they didn’t start teaching that until 1929. It must have taken JW’s a long time to notice, as well. Any more, I suppose in WT teaching about 1914 is de-emphasized, or re-interpreted.

Unlike Protestants, JW’s claim a form of divine guidance, or angelic guidance, in their teachings. The Watchtower is “God’s channel of communication to mankind,” and “the faithful and discreet slave,” that provides “meat in due season.” Meat in due season means changes in doctrine when that doctrine is no longer believable even to JW’s. JW’s are taught to think of changes of doctrine as a good thing. But that is understandable, the same doctrines year after year, century after century, boring!