JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[Logically]

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.

Not totally correct, but regardless: Who do you understand the “faithful and discreet slave” of (Matt 24:24) to be?

To scoff at Jehovah’s Wintesses, understanding, you must have a better one.

 

[Logically]

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?

Again, to scoff at Jehovah’s Witnesses understanding of when the “gentile times” ended you must have a better one.

(Because nothing significant happened around 1914 eh? )

Jesus mentioned the gentile times ending. (Luke 21:24) You tell us JW’s have it wrong.
So when do they end, ?

Surely you are not just ridiculing the Jehovah’s Witnesses understanding of the scriptures without providing a better one.

 

[Logically]

To start off, here are the two quotes they use:

John McKenzie - “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.” — The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia - “ . . . the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate . . . ” — (1967), Vol. I, p. 696.

Those wicked Jehovah’s Witnesses with their quotes form reputable Encyclopaedias and scholarly books that contradict what we believe!

Next they will be quoting the Bible to disprove what we teach!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Again, to scoff at Jehovah’s Witnesses understanding of when the “gentile times” ended you must have a better one.

(Because nothing significant happened around 1914 eh? )

Jesus mentioned the gentile times ending. (Luke 21:24) You tell us JW’s have it wrong.
So when do they end, ?

Clever, putting the onus back on me! Of course I never mentioned the Gentile Times, nor does one have to have a better understanding of something to “scoff” at another understanding of it. Scoffing, satire and sarcasm are tools used by the Watchtower, so why can’t someone else use them too?

Did I say nothing significant happened around 1914? I said WWI began, didn’t I? But, now, what else significant happened then, and when was it recognized?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not totally correct, but regardless: Who do you understand the “faithful and discreet slave” of (Matt 24:24) to be?

To scoff at Jehovah’s Wintesses, understanding, you must have a better one.

What is “not totally correct”?

And the faithful and discreet slave? Why me, of course.

 

[Logically]

What is “not totally correct”?

And the faithful and discreet slave? Why me, of course.

So do you admit you don’t know when the “gentile times” ended, or who the “faithful and discreet slave” are?

If so, how do you know the JW’s understanding is incorrect?

You have posted publicly scoffing at the silly Jehovah’s witness understanding of both! What do you believe?

Surely you will not say: “I actually have no idea myself. But JW’s are massively wrong!”

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

The Watchtower claims the notion of apostolic succession is unbiblical. However, the Society does have its own form of apostolic succession in the form of a succession of presidents of the Society, which is a legal corporation. Or corporations, as there is more than one. And that succession is important as it establishes a recognizable, visible organization on earth, “God’s organization.” When Jesus returned invisibly to earth, He looked around and decided the Watchtower organization would become His organization. That is why a succession is important for the Society, even if they don’t call it that.

In some respects, the Watchtower Society is like a miniature Catholic Church. The president is like the pope, the governing body the college of cardinals, district and circuit overseers bishops and archbishops, elders like priests, and ministerial servants like deacons.

And, unlike Protestants, the Watchtower recognizes the need for an authoritative interpreter of the Bible, and the Society fills that need. It does not claim infallibility, but JW’s must accept whatever the current teaching is. “New light” as it is called.

 

[mackbrislawn]

So do you admit you don’t know when the “gentile times” ended, or who the “faithful and discreet slave” are?

If so, how do you know the JW’s understanding is incorrect?

You have posted publicly scoffing at the silly Jehovah’s witness understanding of both! What do you believe?

Surely you will not say: “I actually have no idea myself.”

An interesting form of argument. For one thing, I never said the JW understanding was incorrect. I of course don’t believe it to be true, but I never said it was incorrect. And I never scoffed at the ending of the gentile times because I never mentioned it. That must be something you inferred.

You also have not explained what it is that is not totally correct.

I said who the faithful and discreet slave is. What is my evidence? Well, what is the evidence of the Watchtower Society?

 

[Logically]

I said who the faithful and discreet slave is. What is my evidence? Well, what is the evidence of the Watchtower Society?

So who the faithful and discree slave? Apologies, I missed it.

And who is the president of the Watchtower organisation these days?
(I am unaware it is so unimportant.)
Is it someone named Muggeridge?

 

[Logically]

For one thing, I never said the JW understanding was incorrect. I of course don’t believe it to be true, but I never said it was incorrect.

Well that is good, because they have some fairly logical evidence supporting it.

If 607 BCE is the fall of Jerusalem and therefore the end of the representative of Jehovah’s Kingdom, plus 7 times of 360 years, we come to 1914 pretty easily. (when the biggest war in human history to that date happened to start) .

And if we read Matthew 24 and the stuff that would happen *if that is *the start of the “time of the end” - again, it seems to fit better than any other time period I can think of.

So shall we move on unless we can suggest a better date?

Who is the “faithful and discreet slave” Jesus prophesied in the same chapter? (Presumably appearing about the same time.)
A figure who would be providing spiritual food at the required time it seems, and surely aware of when the “end of the gentile times” began.

Who is this?

What bunch were proclaiming 1914 as the start of the end (and not actually fighting and killing members of the same religion, for one political faction or the other instead?)

Were they the same bunch the Nazi’s gave the “Purple Triangle” badge to, as the only religion that would not support them in World war two?

Oops, my mind has wandered, I suppose I should get back to discussing “Apostolic seccesion.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

Well that is good, because they have some fairly logical evidence supporting it.

If 607 BCE is the fall of Jerusalem and therefore the end of the representative of Jehovah’s Kingdom, plus 7 times of 360 years, we come to 1914 pretty easily. (when the biggest war in human history to that date happened to start) .

And if we read Matthew 24 and the stuff that would happen *if that is *the start of the “time of the end” - again, it seems to fit better than any other time period I can think of.

So shall we move on unless we can suggest a better date?

Who is the “faithful and discreet slave” Jesus prophesied in the same chapter? (Presumably appearing about the same time.)
A figure who would be providing spiritual food at the required time it seems, and surely aware of when the “end of the gentile times” began.

Who is this?

What bunch were proclaiming 1914 as the start of the end (and not actually fighting and killing for one political faction or the other instead?)

Wow, you’ve really come out swinging. This seems to be a deflection from my question of what is “not totally correct.”

You are posing questions, and the hidden assumption seems to be that if someone cannot provide better answers, then the answers you provide must be the correct ones. Yes, I know, many people fall for that kind of thinking, and maybe you did yourself, but you must realize the fallacy of that.

Some logical evidence supporting what?

But, I’m convinced, your logic has to be right. It is so totally logical all right, and it demonstrates my initial statement that the WT uses more than the Bible.

It is logical all right, if you accept that using the Bible in that way is valid. But one wonders, since so many in the past have used similar logic, multiplying and adding dates and years, to come up with a prediction, and it all seemed logical at the time. But all that is human reasoning. Fallible human reasoning. It depends of what a fallible human mind can “think of.”

Yes, if 607 BCE is the fall of Jerusalem. Yes, if. But if not, then the chain of reasoning breaks down. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know, but some sources say it happened in something like 586 BCE.

 

[andrewgraham195]

Just a quick note, before I go to work!

I was a Catholic for over 20 years, studied church history, patristics, classical and koine Greek, the major Greek philosophies and philosophers, Buddhist and Hindu (philosophy) and metaphysics…and after 3 years research confronted my local priests (before I ever became, by choice, a JW) with my finding, now they knew they could not pull the wool over my eyes with words and to my surprise, admitted quit a lot, as of pagan origin, especially, when I showed them Cardinal Newman’s “Essays on Christian Doctrine” and Newman’s admissions, as to several of the Catholic Dogmas and beliefs originating in pagandom and then sanctified into the church, not only that, the frank admissions of scholars from across the religious divide!

But, as I said, I will return later!

NB,

The above replies do not was and are typical Catholic responses, spin and rhetoric, but I agree with one of the responders, that it is better to get it from the mouth of a Catholic, than a non-Catholic!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Just a quick note, before I go to work!

I was a Catholic for over 20 years, studied church history, patristics, classical and koine Greek, the major Greek philosophies and philosophers, Buddhist and Hindu (philosophy) and metaphysics…and after 3 years research confronted my local priests (before I ever became, by choice, a JW) with my finding, now they knew they could not pull the wool over my eyes with words and to my surprise, admitted quit a lot, as of pagan origin, especially, when I showed them Cardinal Newman’s “Essays on Christian Doctrine” and Newman’s admissions, as to several of the Catholic Dogmas and beliefs originating in pagandom and then sanctified into the church, not only that, the frank admissions of scholars from across the religious divide!

But, as I said, I will return later!

NB,

The above replies do not was and are typical Catholic responses, spin and rhetoric, but I agree with one of the responders, that it is better to get it from the mouth of a Catholic, than a non-Catholic!

The trouble with looking into pagan roots is that you open up a bucket of worms. The more you look, the more you find pagan roots for everything. The Ten Commandments come from Hammurabi’s Code, for instance. And Noah’s flood is similar to many pagan flood stories. So, how much did the ancient Jews borrow from gentile sources to form their theology and stories of origins?

In other words, by doing this, one his cutting his own throat, cutting off the limb he himself is sitting on.

Everybody admits that Jesus is the Son of God, but that very idea itself has pagan counterparts!

 

[adf417]

The trouble with looking into pagan roots is that you open up a bucket of worms. The more you look, the more you find pagan roots for everything. The Ten Commandments come from Hammurabi’s Code, for instance. And Noah’s flood is similar to many pagan flood stories. So, how much did the ancient Jews borrow from gentile sources to form their theology and stories of origins?

In other words, by doing this, one his cutting his own throat, cutting off the limb he himself is sitting on.

Everybody admits that Jesus is the Son of God, but that very idea itself has pagan counterparts!

Indeed! When a JW friend of mine brought this up in an attempt to stump me on the same issues, I pointed to the wedding ring on his finger, you know, the wedding he says is made with him, his wife and God, and proved it too, the ring, was from pagan origin. His response was . I quickly reassured him that I did not think his marriage was not of God. Told him either his marriage should not be considered covenantal or maybe stop wearing the ring if he still felt the same about ALL things from pagan origin. He is still wearing the ring.

Peace!!!

 

[pacloc]

To the JWs thinking that somehow Pagan origin means that it is evil “now” I would suggest reading 1 Cor 8 and surrounding. You will quickly discover that it is your weak faith that does not allow you to recognize that all things are God’s and therefore there really is no such thing as Pagan or Pagan origin.

And just another funny thing to consider about the idea that it is bad to use something originally wrong and continue forward with it, such as holidays or customs. Does the Watchtower claim that Charles Taze Russell is still the Laodicean messenger, or “Pastor Russell,” or that his claims about the Egyptian Pyramids are true, or his predictions in his Studies in the Scriptures and references of himself being the faithful servant and typified by the ancient prophets. No, the watchtower has gone as far as to exclude him from ever being part of the faithful and discreet class by starting it at 1919 which is after his death (a recent JW flip flop). So this religion would not exist without CTR who founded it, yet if he was alive today he would be told to change his strange beliefs to conform to the current light given by some men in New York! JWs have to admit that their current belief structure is based on “False” origins and yet it is okay to correct these false origins, but the rest of the world can not.

 

[pablope]

Just a quick note, before I go to work!

I was a Catholic for over 20 years, studied church history, patristics, classical and koine Greek, the major Greek philosophies and philosophers, Buddhist and Hindu (philosophy) and metaphysics…and after 3 years research confronted my local priests (before I ever became, by choice, a JW) with my finding, now they knew they could not pull the wool over my eyes with words and to my surprise, admitted quit a lot, as of pagan origin, especially, when I showed them Cardinal Newman’s “Essays on Christian Doctrine” and Newman’s admissions,

Could you cite an example of Newman’s admissions?

as to several of the Catholic Dogmas and beliefs originating in pagandom and then sanctified into the church, not only that, the frank admissions of scholars from across the religious divide!

But, as I said, I will return later!

Why don’t you provide who these so called scholars are?

You do realize, that pagans had also ritual washings of their own, similar to baptisms-so following your logic, should Christians stop doing baptisms since pagans had forms of batisms too?

Likewise, pagans knelt, raised their hands, sang, prayed instruments, looked up to the heavens, prayed to their gods…so a christian who kneels, raises their hands in prayer, who sings, uses instruments and looks up when praying should stop because pagans were doing the same?

And following your logic, the Lord is pagan also:

a). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14).

b). Pagans worshipped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2).

c). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16).

d). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Psa. 91:4).

 

[pacloc]

Just a quick note, before I go to work!

I was a Catholic for over 20 years, studied church history, patristics, classical and koine Greek, the major Greek philosophies and philosophers, Buddhist and Hindu (philosophy) and metaphysics!

In 20 years of studying I hope you would learn that nothing, not even Michael the Archangel could ever “learn” to be divine as your version of John 1:1 claims to say that Jesus was a god, completely separate of “Jehovah”. The typical story goes, “God made his first born son billions and billions of years ago, and being with him for so long he learned to by a perfect reflection of God and is able to reveal him to us.” St. Basil wrote about this preposterous idea in his work on the Holy Spirit written over 1600 years ago:

1. When then He says, I have not spoken of myself, John 12:49 and again, As the Father said unto me, so I speak, John 12:50 and The word which you hear is not mine, but [the Father’s] which sent me, John 14:24 and in another place, As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do, John 14:31 it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a commandment a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things, John 5:20 so that all things that the Father has belong to the Son, not gradually accruing to Him little by little, but with Him all together and at once. Among men, the workman who has been thoroughly taught his craft, and, through long training, has sure and established experience in it, is able, in accordance with the scientific methods which now he has in store, to work for the future by himself. And are we to suppose that the wisdom of God, the Maker of all creation, He who is eternally perfect, who is wise, without a teacher, the Power of God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, needs piecemeal instruction to mark out the manner and measure of His operations? I presume that in the vanity of your calculations, you mean to open a school; you will make the one take His seat in the teacher’s place, and the other stand by in a scholar’s ignorance, gradually learning wisdom and advancing to perfection, by lessons given Him bit by bit. Hence, if you have sense to abide by what logically follows, you will find the Son being eternally taught, nor yet ever able to reach the end of perfection, inasmuch as the wisdom of the Father is infinite, and the end of the infinite is beyond apprehension. It results that whoever refuses to grant that the Son has all things from the beginning will never grant that He will reach perfection. But I am ashamed at the degraded conception to which, by the course of the argument, I have been brought down. Let us therefore revert to the loftier themes of our discussion.

So along with your denouncing of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, prospects of seeing and being with God, you go around trying to ensnare other weak Catholics to follow down the same road? Luckily, as I have mentioned in the previous post, there is no such thing as another God, so not all that you have learned from JWs is useless, but quite the contrary. God has allowed you to go through all kinds of experiences in your search for Truth (Jesus) as I can see with your doubts of Christianity totally (If in fact you really were considering the truth in Buddhism and Hinduism, not just trying to learn how to reject it) Your current trust in the Watchtower can fade if you allow God to guide you. You can always return to Christ and you might even be a better Christian now that you have left him and see what you were missing.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Just came back to say good-bye and thank you, and behold…Look at the posts from “Andrew” and “Logically”!

This is known as perfect examples of “red herrings” that misleads or distracts from the issue at hand. It is what is known as a diversionary tacit often used in rhetorical strategy among politicians.

As in politics, the Jehovah’s Witnesses here have not replied to the points raised or the challenges met. Instead they have thrown new questions into the thread in order to pull the discussion away into territory they are familiar with. It is often done subconsciously by some people when they are in self denial regarding being unable to answer objections effectively; therefore this strategy is taken as a self-preservation and defense mechanism of sorts.

Note that “Andrew” raised challenges about the use of pronouns for the Holy Spirit. That is a “red herring” because the thread is about the JW claim that papal succession is not true.

Even when “Andrew’s” challenge about pronouns is taken, yet he does not reply to thread offered or even to the selection of Hebrew and Greek texts to avoid reliance on a Bible translation as he requests. He also goes off to discuss how pagan the Catholic Church is and how everything here is Catholic rhetoric (but doesn’t say what is or proves it is merely rhetoric). In all this note he never touches on the subject of papal succession being an unbroken line. Not once does he raise any evidence to disprove it. His only reason to add comments? It was merely to toss a **red herring **into the ring.

“Logically” does the same thing. He tosses “1914” into the ring and the Witnesses’ dispensational formula for arriving at this date. He asks questions that have nothing to do with disproving that the line of papal succession.

All these Jehovah’s Witnesses have done is proven they can’t stay on subject.

And finally, “Logically” proves once again that he knows nothing of his own religion’s history. And “Andrew” is not better at correcting it.

“Logically” writes:

What bunch were proclaiming 1914 as the start of the end?

Not Jehovah’s Witnesses. They taught that 1914 was not going to be the “start of the end” but that the world was going end in that year, stating:

“We see no reason for changing the figures–nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.”-- Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226.

They believed that Christ returned in 1874 due to their belief that 6000 years of human history ended in that year. --“The Second Hand in the Timepiece of God,” The Golden Age magazine, March 27, 1935, pp. 412–413.

It was not until 1925 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that Christ was ruling as King from 1914 onward. (Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1993, pp. 138-9.) And it was not until 1969 did they teach that Christ’s return also began in 1914. (The Watchtower, September 1, 1969, p. 521.) They also later changed the 1874 date for the end of 6000 years of human history to 1975 with confusing results.-- Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966, pp.26-30.

In the end none of this has anything to do with disproving the Church’s claim of papal succession. I suggest these Jehovah’s Witnesses get back on track or I will report them directly to the moderator for violation of the rules they promised to follow when they joined this forum.

If anything, this proves that these posters have no qualms of bringing Jehovah’s name and organization into disrepute. By not living up to the forum’s agreement they are very bad examples of what an honest Jehovah’s Witness is.

I suggest you gentlemen explain why you are misrepresenting the Jehovah’s Witnesses like this. Why do you not have your facts about your own religion correct? Why are you not staying on subject?

I won’t stay away forever. If needed I will help the forum or anyone on it. Right now I remind these Jehovah’s Witnesses that you can hide from us with your “anonymous” names here, but you cannot hide what you are doing from Jehovah. Eventually other Jehovah’s Witnesses will find out who you are and what you have been doing in this forum and the bad examples you have set and misinformation you have spread. If you really believe in your religion as the truth, I would be frightened.

 

[andrewgraham195]

I asked two questions and I see that certain Catholics irresistibly and immediately go into digression mode…is it possible (and I get this a lot with many Catholics…) and I realise it must be difficult for some, but could you simply, stay on track, what you have said is really old boring stuff, I get it time and again, and I’m sure, if any one of you asked a question on “Mary and Joseph” and all I immediately did was go on about Rodrigo Borgia" or the fact that 39 Catholic Popes were married, you would be rather annoyed!

I came on here, hoping to find a better quality of Catholic and some with some knowledge, rather than the usual spin, rhetoric, cliché and off the shelf worn out retorts, so, you will understand, that I will ignore, those who do not stay on track, as you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression!

The two questions I asked were regarding the title for the Pope, “Pontifex Maximus” and its pagan origin and "why masculine singular pronouns e.g., “I, you, who, he, him, his…” are used with the term “God”, signifying that only one person is constituted God and not three persons (otherwise, where is the a single use of any PLURAL pronoun(s)) there being no exceptions to this and that (in koine Greek, not biased English translation) there is not a single instance of any singular personal pronouns being used with the “pneuma hagion” [holy spirit] i.e. “hos” [he, his…] but that, and without exception the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [it/which] is used in connection with such holy spirit; one Catholic, instead of meeting the question head on, immediately digressed with non-related Catholic rhetoric…!

To be fair, one Catholic began a reply on “Pontifex Maximus” and I will reply to him with one of my mini thesis papers, I couldn’t reply immediately, s I went off to work, but did say, I would reply later, so I will reply to him, but if any one of you care to give a reply with examples on the pronoun issue, I would be happy to read it!

NOTE!

If any Catholic CAN PROVE me wrong on the pronouns issue and with examples of the use of any plural pronoun or plural verbs, instead of God being used with singular pronouns and construed with singular verbs, I will become a Catholic again. but if you can’t, what will you do in return?

 

[andrewgraham195]

Just came back to say good-bye and thank you, and behold…Look at the posts from “Andrew” and “Logically”!

This is known as perfect examples of “red herrings” that misleads or distracts from the issue at hand. It is what is known as a diversionary tacit often used in rhetorical strategy among politicians.

As in politics, the Jehovah’s Witnesses here have not replied to the points raised or the challenges met. Instead they have thrown new questions into the thread in order to pull the discussion away into territory they are familiar with. It is often done subconsciously by some people when they are in self denial regarding being unable to answer objections effectively; therefore this strategy is taken as a self-preservation and defense mechanism of sorts.

Note that “Andrew” raised challenges about the use of pronouns for the Holy Spirit. That is a “red herring” because the thread is about the JW claim that papal succession is not true.

Even when “Andrew’s” challenge about pronouns is taken, yet he does not reply to thread offered or even to the selection of Hebrew and Greek texts to avoid reliance on a Bible translation as he requests. He also goes off to discuss how pagan the Catholic Church is and how everything here is Catholic rhetoric (but doesn’t say what is or proves it is merely rhetoric). In all this note he never touches on the subject of papal succession being an unbroken line. Not once does he raise any evidence to disprove it. His only reason to add comments? It was merely to toss a **red herring **into the ring.

“Logically” does the same thing. He tosses “1914” into the ring and the Witnesses’ dispensational formula for arriving at this date. He asks questions that have nothing to do with disproving that the line of papal succession.

All these Jehovah’s Witnesses have done is proven they can’t stay on subject.

And finally, “Logically” proves once again that he knows nothing of his own religion’s history. And “Andrew” is not better at correcting it.

“Logically” writes:

What bunch were proclaiming 1914 as the start of the end?

Not Jehovah’s Witnesses. They taught that 1914 was not going to be the “start of the end” but that the world was going end in that year, stating:

“We see no reason for changing the figures–nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.”-- Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226.

They believed that Christ returned in 1874 due to their belief that 6000 years of human history ended in that year. --“The Second Hand in the Timepiece of God,” The Golden Age magazine, March 27, 1935, pp. 412–413.

It was not until 1925 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that Christ was ruling as King from 1914 onward. (Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1993, pp. 138-9.) And it was not until 1969 did they teach that Christ’s return also began in 1914. (The Watchtower, September 1, 1969, p. 521.) They also later changed the 1874 date for the end of 6000 years of human history to 1975 with confusing results.-- Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966, pp.26-30.

In the end none of this has anything to do with disproving the Church’s claim of papal succession. I suggest these Jehovah’s Witnesses get back on track or I will report them directly to the moderator for violation of the rules they promised to follow when they joined this forum.

If anything, this proves that these posters have no qualms of bringing Jehovah’s name and organization into disrepute. By not living up to the forum’s agreement they are very bad examples of what an honest Jehovah’s Witness is.

I suggest you gentlemen explain why you are misrepresenting the Jehovah’s Witnesses like this. Why do you not have your facts about your own religion correct? Why are you not staying on subject?

I won’t stay away forever. If needed I will help the forum or anyone on it. Right now I remind these Jehovah’s Witnesses that you can hide from us with your “anonymous” names here, but you cannot hide what you are doing from Jehovah. Eventually other Jehovah’s Witnesses will find out who you are and what you have been doing in this forum and the bad examples you have set and misinformation you have spread. If you really believe in your religion as the truth, I would be frightened.

Reply,

the reason why I did not immediately reply to the “papal” point, is, s I said to one poster, who replied, that I was off to work and would reply later; you were too hasty with your comment…!

I have now returned from my work and will answer the “papal” issue, asap; rather than post lengthy replies, I will post a link to my mini thesis papers Parts I, II, III, which will address the true origins of the PAPAL title “Pontifex Maximus”!