JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[pablope]

Reply,

It doesn’t wash!

Re: “Pope Callistus”?

The problem here, is as I pointed out previously, is that there was no so-called “Pope”, never mind a so-called “Pope Callistus”!

You seem to be using the title “Pope” in its traditional sense, that is clearly wrong. here is how and why!

All bishops, before and including Damasus, who were Primate Bishops, having jurisdiction over their “sees” i.e. areas (e.g. Rome, Antioch, Athens…) were called “papa” or “pope”, no one bishop was over another and no bishop had authority over another; the apostle Peter was never a “Pope” and the “Church” was founded on Christ ( [Petra, feminine and meaning an unmovable Rock Mass, a Massive Rock…] whereas, Peter [Petros, masculine and meaning small stone, small rock, easily lifted]) NOT Peter, who went out and denied him some time later and then had to be publically reprimanded by the apostle Paul for his hypocrisy…!

The title “Pope” in the traditional sense was a later invention, by power hungry Roman Primate Bishops, starting especially with the violent, ambitious and corrupt Damasus, it was only when the Roman church began to be very powerful, that she began to exert her influence and demand for herself excusive rights and with the help of the Roman Political System (James 4:4)

It does not wash or disprove the papacy, even in the name or title of Pope was applied later.

I would believe St. Optatus, writing against the Donatist Heresy in AD 300 or so…before any historian or opinion of the AD2000 or anyone claiming to have founded the true church sometime in the 1870s or so:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

B. St. Peter and his Successors in Rome hold the Keys

Who then, in St. Optatus’ time, holds the Keys of the Kingdom? Repeatedly St. Optatus declares that the one holding the Keys must receive them from St. Peter. First, he points out that among all the Apostles, only St. Peter received the Keys. He writes:

*When He * praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the one which is the true Catholc Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up. Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed.24

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25*

Having established the unique authority of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome, and its divinely established role as the visible principle of unity of the Catholic Church, St. Optatus then lays out the succession from St. Peter to the present pope in Rome (Pope St. Damasus [366-383] in the first edition, but Pope St. Siricius [384-399] in the second edition). He writes:

[SIGN]To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus; to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom the whole world, through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion.

Now do you show the origins of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves.26
[/SIGN]

Conclusion then:

St. Optatus traces the line of bishops occupying the Cathedra in Rome from St. Peter down to his own time to explain why Pope St. Damasus is the present steward of those Keys, and that by setting up a Chair in opposition to Pope St. Damasus, the Donatists had put themselves in schism from the Church Christ founded, that is, from the Catholic Church.28

The one on schism and heresy is the one who sets up a separate authority that is not in union with the Chair of Peter.*

 

[andrewgraham195]

So, your response to the rejection of your non-Greek claim about Greek is an ad hominem, followed by a complete failure to address the linguistic issue? The rest is quoted from a translation.

More accurately, readers of Greek can see that the appositive το πνευμα της αληθειας is conjoined with εκεινος, demonstrating that the Gospel writer did not make the non-Greek discrimination between genders which you are claiming.

Reply,

It is quite clear, you are simply ignoring what the original Greek says:

“our response to the rejection of your non-Greek claim about Greek is an ad hominem, followed by a complete failure to address the linguistic issue?”

Nonsense, I have given you exact and specific data regarding the Greek grammar, the pronouns and antecedent nouns!

Your reply is typical of Trinitarians and comes as no surprise; your next failure is with “Paidion”?

Here is a short reply, I had to give another Trinitarian on Jan 2013, but the same applies here in regard to “paidion” [child]!

This is a discussion betwen myself and some Trinitarians, who try to use the neuter noun “pneuma” to convince themselves and others, that the “holy spirit” has personality, and they do this, by use of the Greek neuter noun “paidion” (child)…

PAIDION in the NT, what does it mean?

Steve, You said,

"Andrew you talk such drivel , the word child is neuter , neither male or female , so grammatically it is an " it " , but if you know what sex the child happens to be , say for example a girl , then you can call it " she " also. It is the same with the Holy Spirit , Spirit is neuter , neither male or female , but Jesus more than once uses a masculine Greek pronoun " He “. Obviously because the Holy Spirit is a person. If you really knew Greek then you would be aware of this truth. Any amateur Bible scholar also knows that NONE of the modern trinitarian Bibles are based on the 1611 King James. Get yourself an education before you drivel all over these threads.”

“Drivel” & “Get yourself an education…”

First mistake this Trinitarian makes, is that neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers, ever calls the “pneuma hagion” (holy spirit) “he”, they never use the masculine pronoun; the “holy spirit” is never called “he” or “He”…!

Classic example of lay Trinitarian ignorance and bias, and here is how!

The Greek term for the English “child” is “paidion” Just because the pronoun is neuter does not mean that the referent of the PN is neuter. In other words, grammatical gender does not always correspond to the sex of gender of a referent being thus described. So, for instance, the holy spirit is described by a feminine term in the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (ruah). However, in the Christian-Greek Scriptures, the writers use masculine and feminine morphological Greek forms to delineate the spirit of God.

But this language is a result of linguistic accidents (morphology). It technically does not speak to
the being or ontological constitution of an entity. After all, Qoheleth of
Ecclesiastes is a feminine term. Yet it describes the son of David.

Your first mistake Steve! “If you really knew Greek then you would be aware of this truth. Any amateur Bible scholar also knows that NONE of the modern trinitarian Bibles are based on the 1611 King James.” <<

see Part II

 

[andrewgraham195]

Part II

Second mistake

" Any amateur Bible scholar also knows that NONE of the modern trinitarian Bibles are based on the 1611 King James. Get yourself an education before you drivel all over these threads."

Wrong again, as these translations carry over the very same errors from the KJV, as they are based on such; an example is to be seen in how they mistranslate certain Greek pronouns into the wrong English pronouns, as they change an “it” or “which” into a “who” or “whom” the abstract into the non-abstract…! Some of these translations may give the wording a modern gloss, doing away with archaic English, but it is still a gloss and KJV based…!

They are influenced by the KJV translation tradition; a couple of examples: Modern Trinitarian English translations, like the NKJV (KJV) NIV, NASB, GNB, etc, mistranslate Greek pronouns into the wrong English pronouns for the term “pneuma” and “paracletos”; Greek pronouns out of necessity have to follow and agree with the grammatical gender of their antecedent nouns e.g. the term “pneuma” (spirit) is a neuter noun and the pronoun that is antecedent to it must also be neuter, so its must be an “it”, not a “she” or “he”; the term “paracletos” is a masculine noun, so its associated pronoun must agree with the grammatical gender of its antecedent noun and since “paracletos” is a masculine Greek noun its associated pronoun must therefore, agree with its antecedent noun’s grammar gender, therefore, the pronoun will be masculine, so “he/him” must be used, not a “she” or “it”! Modern Trinitarian translators follow in the footsteps of the KJV tradition and mistranslate using the wrong English pronouns, turning an “it/which” into an “he/him”, turning the abstract into the non-abstract and it is clearly wrong, as the above has nothing to do with actual gender, only grammatical gender and Trinitarians bring in confusion!

When a pronoun in the Greek text is referring back to it
associated [antecedent] Greek noun ‘parakletos’ it [the pronoun] will look back
to the gender of its antecedent noun, and in our case it is the Greek noun
‘parakletos’ and ‘parakletos’ is ‘masculine’! When we come to the Greek noun
‘spirit’ [pneuma] we find that ‘it’ is in the neuter. So likewise, as with
‘parakletos’, the Greek pronoun associated with its [antecedent] noun ‘pneuma’
will be ‘neuter’ and will not be ‘male’ or ‘female’. It will be an ‘it’, and
not a ‘he…’ or ‘she…’! It will not take long to find out, that certain of the
Greek pronouns in the Greek NT associated with the term ‘[holy] spirit’ [pneuma
[hagion]] texts are in the ‘neuter’, and as noted previously, the pronoun
associated with the noun [antecedent] looks to the gender of its associated
parent noun and that is ‘pneuma’, which is neuter, hence the gender of the
pronoun will respond accordingly, because of the gender of the noun
[antecedent]!"

Now (Steve) do you understand, that out of grammatical necessity the Greek term “paracletos” (helper/advocate) demands that its associated pronoun must be masculine, it has nothing to do with actual gender, as spirit beings have no actual gender! I will send the full essay which utterly destroys your bias and your glaring incompetence on this subject; you are not only mislead, you also in your turn mislead others and it is clear in your blog and on this forum and I expect your usual spin, cliché and rhetoric, seen in your other replies!

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 06:17:22

Steve and others Trinitarians tried hard to refute the evidence and all I received was more clichés, spin and rhetoric, they, in reality had nothing of substance to say! <<

 

[adf417]

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!!!

I now stand corrected!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

"Andrew" Is Not Well Versed in What He Claims

I guess I need to stick around longer than I planned because there are significant problems with “Andrew’s” claims.

First he claims that he was a Catholic for 20 years and is very well studied in the religion. But then he does something very odd–he tries to disprove papal infallibility by discussing the immortality of the soul.

Catholic doctrine regarding the immortality of the soul is NOT infallible dogma.

There are only two officially defined ex cathedra statements that are examples of a pope making an infallible statement:

1854: The Immaculate Conception
1950: The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

While there is no formal agreement on the subject, there is a possibility that five other declarations from popes may technically qualify, and they are 1) “The Two Natures of Christ,” 449 A.D., 2) “The Two Wills of Christ,” 680 A.D., 3) A definition of the “Beatific Vision,” 1336 A.D., 4) the condemnation of Jansenism as heretical in “Cum occassione,” and “Auctorem fidei,” 1653 and 1794 A.D. respectively.

The fact that “Andrew” chose the doctrine of the immortality of the soul to disprove papal infallibility is evidence that he is not as well-educated in Catholicism as he is making claim to.

Catholics Don’t Use the NASB

Then “Andrew” tells us in a post today: “I will choose another Catholic bible, the NASB and we will look at John 16:1-16.”

The NASB is NOT a Catholic Bible. The NASB is a Protestant translation, otherwise known as the New American Standard Bible. The NASB is not approved by Church authority for use by Catholics. It does not even contain the deuterocanonical books required of Catholic Bibles.

It is the NABRE, the New American Bible, Revised Edition, that Catholic use. Anyone learned in Catholicism will tell you that.

He actually cut and pasted from the NASB and claimed he was using a Catholic Bible edition. This along with the above belies his claim to being well-educated in Catholicism.

His comments regarding Greek usage are also incorrect. But I suggest he move that subject over to either the thread I began on the subject or create a new one. (Stick to the subject of the OP on each thread or you risk violating your welcome.)

Before any of us go any further with Andrew, let’s make sure his answers this:

1. 
   *]If you are so well educated in Catholicism, why would you raise the issue of the immortal soul when discussing papal infallibility when the immortality of the soul is not a dogma defined by papal infallibility?
   
   *]And why would you choose a Protestant translation and claim it was a Catholic one? Catholics would never make that mistake. The New American Standard is a Protestant version. How could a person well-educated in Catholicism make such a horrible mistake?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Reply,

Mere word play!

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

“<1,4073,petra>
denotes “a mass of rock,” as distinct from petros, “a detached stone or boulder,” or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, “because it had been well builded”); Rev. 6:15,16 (cp. Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6,13, used illustratively; 1 Cor. 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the Apostle, is clear.”

But you forget. Simon was NOT REALLY named “Petros.” He was named “Kepha.”

You are arguing Greek when in reality the words spoken by Jesus to Simon were in Hebrew/Aramaic.(You may be proud to be a Jehovah’s Witness, but this Catholic is very proud to be a Jew who knows a lot more about the languages and history of his own people.)

When we read this phrase in Hebrew/Aramaic the phrase reads:

“You are KEPHA, and on this KEPHA will I build my Church.”

In the original Aramaic that Jesus spoke the words are identical.

The only reason that in Greek the first KEPHA in reference to Simon is masculine is because, if you know Koine Greek, the word for an actual “rock” is in the feminine gender.

In Koine Greek you speak of a “rock” as you do with a “table” in Spanish, which is also in the feminine gender in that language:

The table (Spanish “mesa”), she is over here.

The rock (Koine Greek “petra”), she is over here.

But in Aramaic the word for “rock” is in the masculine gender.

The rock, (Aramaic "kepha), he is over here.

Because Simon was a man, he could not be called “Petra” in Koine Greek as that would violate the rules of Greek grammar. Greek is an inflectional language, and this called for the word for rock “petra” to be masculine in the case of a male: “petros.” But they are the same gender word in the original Aramaic of Jesus’ day.

(Most who own a copy of the film The Passion of the Christ may want to view the film again and note that Peter is called “Kepha” by the characters because they are speaking in Aramaic. Greek did not come into the picture until the Gospels were put into written form beginning some 30 years after the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord.)

So if you are going to argue the issue, you need to go back to the ORIGINAL language: Aramaic. And because of that your argument is incomplete and your post and point of view are incorrect.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

From EWTN:

EWTN Catholic Q&A
Apostolic Succession
Question from Michael Sullivan on 10-07-2001:

Are you familiar with the writings of John McKenzie, Jesuit professor of theology at Notre Dame.

He wrote in his book, “The Roman Catholic Church” p.4

“Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.”

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 10-07-2001:

I am familiar with John McKenzie, and am not surprised he made such an absurd statement. See my volume THE FOUNDING OF CHRISTENDOM for full, documented proof that he is wrong. - Dr. Carroll

COPYRIGHT 2002

I have his book at home, so I can’t look it up yet. I hope to remember to tonight.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“no personal pronouns are ever used of the pneuma hagion (holy spirit) except in biased ENGLISH translations, where the pronouns are deliberately changed from the impersonal to the personal, from the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [which/it] to the English “he, him…” giving the false impression, that the English is the same as the Greek “hos” [he. him…] it isn’t, but then one would have to know Greek to verify this!”

IgnatianPhilo (Catholic Answers) said:

The above goes under the nickname “Mystophilus” on the “Catholic Answers” forum.

Jn 16:13 οταν δε ελθη εκεινος το πνευμα της αληθειας

Do you speak Spanish? I do, here are links to 5 Spanish translations that use “el” for John 16:13. El, us un pronombre personal.

Vatican Bible
Bible Gateway
Biblia Catolica

Parle Francais? Here are 2 French translations that use “il” a personal pronoun for John 16:13
John 16:13

Говорит по-русски? Russian uses “oh” as a personal pronoun for John 16:13
John 16:13

As much fun as this is, I’m going to stop here

Also,

Did you know that in the English language it is common to use the masculine pronoun “he” as a gender neutral pronoun as well?

I guess we will add the Spanish, the French, the Russians and the English Linguistics to the biased list…

And by the way, εκεινος is not “it”, it is “that one”.

 

[SteveVH]

I now stand corrected!

Too bad. I was hoping you were right.

 

[Faith1960]

With such groups, you really get no where. They will simply ignore whatever facts you give them. That leaves you feeling worse than before.

Anybody who can reason with them where they can open and hear, let us know.

God bless!

I’m not good at apologetics, but thought that if I was, I’d try to set them straight. Apparently, they wouldn’t listen anyway. How can they be so hard headed, when they’re often proven wrong?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

And if you want one more thing to think about, “Andrew,” just ask yourself what good is it to argue the Greek text of John 16:13?

Again was Jesus speaking in Greek or Aramaic when he talked to his disciples? It was not Greek.

What is the gender pronoun for “spirit” in Hebrew-Aramaic and throughout the Jewish Scriptures? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not neuter or “it.”

What you are arguing is Koine Greek syntax gender and not proving or disproving whether the Spirit is a Person or God. If you want to claim that the neuter of pronouns in Koine Greek mean that the Spirit is not a person then I can argue the opposite with even greater weight. Why? Because in the Aramaic and Hebrew languages “Spirit” is feminine and always requires the pronouns “she” and “her,” never “it.”

 

[SteveVH]

And if you want one more thing to think about, “Andrew,” just ask yourself what good is it to argue the Greek text of John 16:13?

Again was Jesus speaking in Greek or Aramaic when he talked to his disciples? It was not Greek.

What is the gender pronoun for “spirit” in Hebrew-Aramaic and throughout the Jewish Scriptures? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not neuter or “it.”

What you are arguing is Koine Greek syntax gender and not proving or disproving whether the Spirit is a Person or God. If you want to claim that the neuter of pronouns in Koine Greek mean that the Spirit is not a person then I can argue the opposite with even greater weight. Why? Because in the Aramaic and Hebrew languages “Spirit” is feminine and always requires the pronouns “she” and “her,” never “it.”

Glad you stuck around, Delson. We’ll see if Andrew responds to your points specifically. I hope that there are many JW lurkers who may silently consider these points.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Delson and others.

Why people would think that only the JW’s got it right here in the good ol USA after almost 2000 years of false teachings…well…I find that well…inflated.

About them not listening…it came to me this am…that John Paul II taught, as we have known…God creates our soul…but he goes on to say that our souls are made out of love and truth…and hunger for truth.

So if at present, people do not listen, like the JW’s, SDA’s, and others of the 1800’s Restorationist movement…truth is grace that moves slowly down into the heart of the soul…and so we must pray for their conversion to the Lord Who is the life of the universal Church.

 

[Mystophilus]

I have given you exact and specific data regarding the Greek grammar, the pronouns and antecedent nouns!

Your “exact and specific data” was the assumption “Trinitarians think that the antecedent noun that is seen with pronoun “ἐκεῖνος” [ekeinos] is “pneuma” (“Spirit” Dy)”, which is inaccurate given that a/ I believe in the Trinity, and b/ I have already described the relationship as most likely one of apposition. You followed your incorrect assumption with an English translation. The data were neither exact nor specific.

Your reply is typical of Trinitarians and comes as no surprise

Oh, look, another ad hominem.

your next failure is with “Paidion”

The alleged failure is never demonstrated.

Classic example of lay Trinitarian ignorance and bias, and here is how!

Yet another ad hominem.

Greek pronouns out of necessity have to follow and agree with the grammatical gender of their antecedent nouns

No. See Iliad 18.514-4, Euripides’ Medea 853, Xenophon’ s Memorabilia 2.7.2, Sophocles’ Trachiniae 206-7, the Orphic Argonautica 263, κ.τ.λ. Greek grammar usually pairs the substantive with an attributive of the same gender, but there is no “necessity” to it.

e.g. the term “pneuma” (spirit) is a neuter noun and the pronoun that is antecedent to it must also be neuter, so its must be an “it”, not a “she” or “he”

No. See κατα συνεσιν, already mentioned.

The Greek term for the English “child” is “paidion”

No. Παιδιον is a Greek term for a child, one of the dozens which they had. Even the tiny subset which constitutes Biblical Greek used at least half a dozen.

Just because the pronoun is neuter does not mean that the referent of the PN is neuter. In other words, grammatical gender does not always correspond to the sex of gender of a referent being thus described. So, for instance, the holy spirit is described by a feminine term in the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (ruah). However, in the Christian-Greek Scriptures, the writers use masculine and feminine morphological Greek forms to delineate the spirit of God.

This, at least, is true, although a/ it was the very point which I made, and b/ it appears to have come from your correspondent Steve.

To reiterate, in the vast quantity of samples of Greek literature which are still extant, a Greek neuter does not mean in Greek that the referent is sexless, let alone impersonal, and so it is simply illogical to claim that the Holy Spirit is impersonal because πνευμα is neuter.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Disputing the unbroken line of papal succession with Jehovah’s Witnesses on this forum has made one thing very clear to me–as I am sure it has to many of you others reading this thread: attempting a civil and reasonable exchange with Jehovah’s Witnesses is not only fruitless but seemingly impossible.

I don’t expect them to agree with Catholic teachings. I don’t expect them to be converted. While civility is often lacking in debates on forums like this one, something different happens with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s like a Jekyll and Hyde effect of sorts, one more evident with these people because of who they are. And there is psychology that explains what is happening here.

"On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog"

There’s a famous *New Yorker *magazine cartoon illustration by Peter Steiner that shows two dogs in the frame. One sits on the floor while another sits in a chair at a computer and, turning to his dog friend on the floor, says: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

What has made this cartoon so famous is how it rings true. Behind their chosen screen names people on the Internet feel free to get away with things they never would dare to do in real life. We can’t really tell who these people are, if they are human or even—well, even a dog!

People become somebody else on the Internet because of it. I’m sure we all do to some extent. But for others a form of disassociation with who they really are or are supposed to be occurs.

While not a problem exclusive to them, it has come to be apparent that many of these Jehovah’s Witnesses become too perfect examples of what is known as the “online disinhibition effect.” Hidden by screen-name anonymity, dissociation occurs where suddenly these Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer sound like themselves.

Gone the Well-Polished Fellow

Again while this is not limited to the Jehovah’s Witnesses by any means, it can be most striking in them. Instead of the courteous well-dressed Bible handling door-knocker we are confronted with nastiness, sarcasm, name-calling, insults, demonizing, and other types of communication they would never otherwise engage in while in their public ministry.

Ignoring the direction of the Governing Body the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer strive to act Christian. They become outright rude and unpleasant. Their words are constantly accusatory and they publish an assault of their doctrinal ideas with significantly noticeable amounts of aggression.

One of the biggest problems appears to be the narcissistic tone in which they write: “I’ve made a study of this or that, and* I* thus* know what I* am talking about because* I’ve *done the painstaking research and therefore I know exactly this and that!”

The online disinhibition effect actually turns some of them into people who inflict a thread with comments meant to raise emotions instead of calmly appeal to reason, one that follows a pattern that seems to repeat itself in many of them.

"You Will Know Them By Their Fruits"–Matthew 7:16.

The pattern is often something like this:

• They generally post with a hit-and-run trademark: they state their case, bring a lot of fuel to the fire, then run off for hours, days, weeks, even months before returning—if at all.
• A barrage of information is presented in their posts, often far too much to comfortably read, with many questions raised.
• When points they have raised are disproven by others this is rarely if ever admitted to.
• Should and when they return their new post is often filled with red herrings, giving the impression that they cannot stay on subject even if their lives depended on it.
• They show no interest in dialogue, just debate and proving others wrong to demonstrate how right they are.
• They legitimize their presence on the site, even though their presence is in stark contrast to their religion’s demands.

They don’t realize that they are making their religion less and less appealing by continuing in this manner. It is a shame since not all Witnesses are like this. But these ones have failed to realize that the rest of their religion will be judged by their own actions on the forum by all who comment and the many more who pass by without saying a thing.

Hoping to Build Bridges

But I hope to build bridges. I hope these two posters, Logically and Andrew, can see that they have made some inexcusable errors that belie their claims. Logically stated that the JWs have always claimed 1914 the beginning of the end when in fact I quoted his own official religion’s words to show this was never true. And Andrew’s claim to having been a knowledgeable Catholic is impossible to reconcile with his inability to know the difference between doctrine and infallible dogma, not to mention his enormous error in stating that the NASB is an official Catholic Bible before quoting from it.

True dialogue needs to begin, and it needs to get past the bickering. It won’t happen without a little more honesty on the part of some. It would help if these two acknowledged their mistakes and adjusted their tone. We will attempt to ensure the same from ourselves.

Knowing the true religion does not guarantee you are a member of it. Only those who faithfully practice it can make that claim. You cannot be taken serious at your word if you do not take that word seriously in the first place. No one will believe the truth of your doctrines if you are cruel and difficult and dishonest with those you bring your message to.

 

[andrewgraham195]

And if you want one more thing to think about, “Andrew,” just ask yourself what good is it to argue the Greek text of John 16:13?

Again was Jesus speaking in Greek or Aramaic when he talked to his disciples? It was not Greek.

What is the gender pronoun for “spirit” in Hebrew-Aramaic and throughout the Jewish Scriptures? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not neuter or “it.”

What you are arguing is Koine Greek syntax gender and not proving or disproving whether the Spirit is a Person or God. If you want to claim that the neuter of pronouns in Koine Greek mean that the Spirit is not a person then I can argue the opposite with even greater weight. Why? Because in the Aramaic and Hebrew languages “Spirit” is feminine and always requires the pronouns “she” and “her,” never “it.”

Reply,

As Hebrew has only 2 genders, no neuter and the ruach is not masculine, what are you left with!

When translated into koine (LXX) the translators immediately assigned ruach (pneuma) to the neuter gender!

" Because in the Aramaic and Hebrew languages “Spirit” is feminine and always requires the pronouns “she” and “her,” never “it.”

That is because, Hebrew…grammatically demands the feminine, Greek demands the neuter and again…

…none of you have answered one of the original questions regarding the terms “God” and “spirit”, with God, only singular personal masculine pronouns (OT & NT) are used, such noun also being construed with singular verbs and elohim means “gods”, also in the NT, there is not a single instance of the pneuma being used with a singular personal pronoun or verb, as is with the Father and Son many times, surely, if the pneuma was a person, had personality, as is the Father and Son, there should be at least one instance of such, but I ask again, show me and I will become a Catholic again, but all I seem to get on this matter is silence, omission and the run around and specious reasonings…the run around, so if any of you would care to show me please…indulge me, why in the OT is the term “God” used with only singular pronouns and verbs, thus denoting one person constituting God and not three persons constituting God, also the same for the NT; notice, the use of singular terms for God, used by Jesus in John 17:3, such as “you” (se) and “only” (monon) i.e.

“…you, the only true God”

If Jesus calls another, using the singular terms “…you, the only true God” then what sort of God is Jesus in relation to the one he calls, “you, the only…” is he a false God or is he “a god”, the same expression being used of the angels and men; so what is Jesus, as he cannot possibly “you, the only true God” he calls the Father such?

2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Heb 1:9; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 3:12, 14?

"And if you want one more thing to think about, “Andrew,” just ask yourself what good is it to argue the Greek text of John 16:13?

Again was Jesus speaking in Greek or Aramaic when he talked to his disciples? It was not Greek."

Red Herring!

Mathew under direct inspiration recorded Jesus words in Greek, hence the rebuttal on John 16:13 still stands!

 

[Augustine3]

Forgive me but I don’t see the significance of this thread. What’s the big deal if the succession of popes has been broken? That doesn’t undermine apostolic succession in the slightest and hence the Catholic Church. A pope is already an existing bishop before being elected as the bishop of Rome. History has shown there was once three popes elected during the same reign. Did that damage the Church? Nope. In fact pope John XXIII chose his name to demonstrate the continuation of the papal succession, despite the ugly history.

 

[ShanPO]

Reply,

As Hebrew has only 2 genders, no neuter and the ruach is not masculine, what are you left with!

When translated into koine (LXX) the translators immediately assigned ruach (pneuma) to the neuter gender!

" Because in the Aramaic and Hebrew languages “Spirit” is feminine and always requires the pronouns “she” and “her,” never “it.”

That is because, Hebrew…grammatically demands the feminine, Greek demands the neuter and again…

…none of you have answered one of the original questions regarding the terms “God” and “spirit”, with God, only singular personal masculine pronouns (OT & NT) are used, such noun also being construed with singular verbs and elohim means “gods”, also in the NT, there is not a single instance of the pneuma being used with a singular personal pronoun or verb, as is with the Father and Son many times, surely, if the pneuma was a person, had personality, as is the Father and Son, there should be at least one instance of such, but I ask again, show me and I will become a Catholic again, but all I seem to get on this matter is silence, omission and the run around and specious reasonings…the run around, so if any of you would care to show me please…indulge me, why in the OT is the term “God” used with only singular pronouns and verbs, thus denoting one person constituting God and not three persons constituting God, also the same for the NT; notice, the use of singular terms for God, used by Jesus in John 17:3, such as “you” (se) and “only” (monon) i.e.

“…you, the only true God”

If Jesus calls another, using the singular terms “…you, the only true God” then what sort of God is Jesus in relation to the one he calls, “you, the only…” is he a false God or is he “a god”, the same expression being used of the angels and men; so what is Jesus, as he cannot possibly “you, the only true God” he calls the Father such?

2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Heb 1:9; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 3:12, 14?

"And if you want one more thing to think about, “Andrew,” just ask yourself what good is it to argue the Greek text of John 16:13?

Again was Jesus speaking in Greek or Aramaic when he talked to his disciples? It was not Greek."

Red Herring!

Mathew under direct inspiration recorded Jesus words in Greek, hence the rebuttal on John 16:13 still stands!

Poster DelsonJacobs started an entirely new thread on this topic and you have yet to post on it, why is that? This thread is about the unbroken line of Papal succession, how’s about you read his thread and respond there so this one doesn’t get closed down?

 

[andrewgraham195]

Poster DelsonJacobs started an entirely new thread on this topic and you have yet to post on it, why is that? This thread is about the unbroken line of Papal succession, how’s about you read his thread and respond there so this one doesn’t get closed down?

Reply,

“Poster DelsonJacobs started an entirely new thread on this topic and you have yet to post on it…”

I did not know about it, a link would be appreciated, many thanks!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Reply,

“Poster DelsonJacobs started an entirely new thread on this topic and you have yet to post on it…”

I did not know about it, a link would be appreciated, many thanks!

It was all the way back in post #34.

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.

You aren’t really reading any of the posts are you? You would have noticed my post if you really were.