JW stopped by my house......

[david40]

I have met and spent time with many JWs in my home, maybe more than 200 times in the last few years…in different cities.

I used to be quite zealous in sharing the truth with them but I think now…I have given up that hope. I grow weary of their strong will to be forever blind of the truth.

Even after I explained the historical consistent false prophecies made by the Watchtower…I think they just decide to close their eyes and shut their ears from learning them.

I still try to welcome them to my home. I wonder why they are not as tired as me in meeting each other? Does it take 10,000 hours to get new JW member?

 

[Javl]

I have met and spent time with many JWs in my home, maybe more than 200 times in the last few years…in different cities.

I used to be quite zealous in sharing the truth with them but I think now…I have given up that hope. I grow weary of their strong will to be forever blind of the truth.

Even after I explained the historical consistent false prophecies made by the Watchtower…I think they just decide to close their eyes and shut their ears from learning them.

I still try to welcome them to my home. I wonder why they are not as tired as me in meeting each other? Does it take 10,000 hours to get new JW member?

Don’t despair, Dave. Like the Berlin wall, their wall will be torn down sooner or later ( sooner, I pray ). The JWs are so brainwashed into believing everything that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society ( WBTS ) tells them, that to do otherwise is anathema to them. They are told that the WBTS is God’s mouthpiece and if they object or refuse to do or say what the WBTS tells them it is the same as confonting God. They are not allowed to read anything other than what the WBTS publishes. This is a perfect example of mind control. They are all slaves of man instead of God and don’t know or realize it. The best we can do is to pray for them. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]Bob4BVM;
To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " . . . the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this “a shocking mistranslation,” “incorrect,” “monstrous,” and “evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar.” Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to “… by means of him all [other] things were created.” If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word “other” four times into the text. [/SIGN]

AGAIN!
The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:
Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,
“and was himself a divine person”
Newcome, 1808, “and the word was a god”
Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version “the Word was God’s”
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed’s An American Translation, 1939, “the Word was divine
Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, “the word was a god.”
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, “and god-ly/-like] was the Word.”
Concordant Version (Knoch) “God was the Word”
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, “the Word was god
New English Bible, 1961, “what God was,the Word was”
Moffatt’s The Bible, 1972, “the Logos was divine”
International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, “the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, “and the Word was a god”
The NET Bible, “and the Word was fully God.”
Simple English Bible, “and the Message was Deity”
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was”
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, “The Word was a God”
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
“[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word”
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, “And the logos was a god”
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, “the Word was Deistic =The Word was Godly]
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god”
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God.
The Message was deity.”
CEV, “the Word was truly God.”
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
“[A] Divine Person.”
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). “a God”
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). “a God”
Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). “a god”
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). “a God”
“At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order.” 21st Century NT Free
“and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god.” 21st Century Literal
George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word”
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, “[A]nd the Word was of divine nature”
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God”
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, “The Word had the same nature as God”
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, “The Word was divine”
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, “And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”

continued

 

[dj_dave]

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, “The Word had the same nature as God”
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, “The Word was divine”
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, “And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”

continued

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, “He was with God and in all like God”
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, “divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos”
Johannes Schulz, 1987, “a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word.” [As mentioned in William Loader’s The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, “The Word had the same nature as God”
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, “The Word was divine”
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, “And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”

continued

Translator’s NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
…with footnote, “There is a distinction in the Greek here between ‘with God’ and ‘God.’ In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means ‘The Word was divine’.”
William Barclay’s The New Testament, 1976, “the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God”
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield’s The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar’s Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, “the Word was a divine Being”
Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, “a God/god was the Logos/logos”
Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, “The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being.”
Bohmer, 1910, “It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being”
Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, “God of Kind/kind was the Word/word”
Baumgarten et al, 1920, “God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos”
Holzmann, 1926, “ein Gott war der Gedanke” [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, “itself a God/god was the Word/word”
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, “the Word was of divine kind”
Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, “was of divine Kind/kind”
Albrecht, 1957, “godlike Being/being had the Word/word”
Smit, 1960, “the word of the world was a divine being”
Menge, 1961, “God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word”
Haenchen, 1980, “God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos” [as mentioned in William Loader’s The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, “He was with God and in all like God”
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, “divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos”
Johannes Schulz, 1987, “a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word.” [As mentioned in William Loader’s The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
“And the Word was divine.”
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, “The Word of Speech was a God”
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, “the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god”
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, “And the Word was Divine”
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
“and the Logos was divine (a divine being)”
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’
Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript)

In short we can both call attention to so many different viewpoints.

So lets use your Bible
For John 1:1

The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other translators into English have added the indefinite article “a.” Consider, for example, Marshall’s interlinear translation of the following verses: “Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject].” (John 4:19) “Said therefore to him-Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]? Answered-Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject included].”-John 18:37.
Did you notice the expressions “a prophet,” “a king” (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article “a.” There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: “A devil” (Jn 6:70); “a slave” (Jn 8:34); “a murderer . . . a liar” (Jn 8:44); “a thief” (Jn 10:1); “a hireling” (Jn 10:13); “a relation” (Jn 18:26).

cont.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave;
Did you notice the expressions “a prophet,” “a king” (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article “a.” There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: “A devil” (Jn 6:70); “a slave” (Jn 8:34); “a murderer . . . a liar” (Jn 8:44); “a thief” (Jn 10:1); “a hireling” (Jn 10:13); “a relation” (Jn 18:26).

cont.[/SIGN]

Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: “The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ as a matter of course where it seems called for.” Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an “a” before “god” at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was “individual judgement,” which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation “a god.”
Let us look at other anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, to find their qualitative status. (taken from Harner’s article, page 82, footnote “19”). The information above and below have to do with anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, (in the Greek text) “I am” EIMI or any of its forms, such as HN “was”.
III Kings 18:27, LXX (Septuagint); (=1 Kings 18:27):
“And it was noon, and Eliu [Elijah] the Teshbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is a god;”. Here we have the same syntax as at John 1:1c; the word “god” is an anarthrous predicate nominative and it occurs before the verb “estin” (“is”) a form of “I am”.
Mark 11:32:
“They feared the people, for everyone held that John was a prophet.” (NIV). Here John has the qualities of the prophets of old.
John 6:70:
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (NIV). Was Judas really “a devil” i.e. Satan himself? No. He was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of Satan. B.F. Westcott comments on this: “Judas…partook of that which is essential to the devil’s nature.” (The Gospel According to St John, p. 253) Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite); he was not a devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is the devil’; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, ‘is devil’. Since the word order is, ‘devil is’, and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in these examples including John 1:1c.
JOHN 12:6
“He [Judas] said this, not out of any care for the poor, but because he was a thief he used to pilfer the money put into the common purse, which was in his charge.” (NEB) The information is given that Judas sought ways in which to gain money in a dishonest manner, (verse) 5). He was not merely a thief, one who stole; he was a thief. He wanted to steal, he planned to steal, his nature was to steal; stealing was in his heart. He was a thief!
In these examples, which have the same noun function (adjectival) as John 1:1c, we have seen that the main meaning is, a description of the nature, the disposition of, the subject, not the subject’s rank nor position nor title. In other words not who or what the subject was, but how the subject was.
If John really wanted to provide support for the trinity, why didn’t he write it something like this, “in the beginning was the Word, and he was with the Father, and they were both one God”? I think he would have, for he was not trying to hide God’s nature, but to reveal it, and the endless sea of dissertations, discussions, and exegetical extrapolations that have focused on this one tiny hymn testify to the problems trinitarians are faced with in trying to use this verse as a basis for their doctrine. If Harris can admit that “[theos en ho logos] could be rendered ‘the Word was a god’” (Jesus as God, p 60), and if C.H. Dodd can admit that “As a word-for-word translation it [the ‘a god’ rendering] cannot be faulted” (Technical Papers for The Bible Translator,Vol 28,
No.1, January, 1977), and if Robert Young can confirm that John 1:1c could literally be rendered “and a God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word” (Young’s Concise Commentary), and if Catholic Scholar John L. McKenzie is willing to go so far as to say that “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated…‘the Word was a divine being’”, and if all the above translators see something similar in John 1:1c, then why not simply accept the ‘a god’ rendering, which is the most natural. As William Loader puts it:
“It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are
two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this
second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is
the absolute over against which the second is defined. They
are not presented as two equal gods.”
Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of QEOS who is “with” TON QEON, thus he cannot be the God he is with! This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as a “begotten god,” and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word QEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.”
So either there was two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike (a quality) individual talking to the Almighty God. There is no other possible explanation.

 

[adelore]

dj dave,

Hi, thanks for the information, however I don’t agree with it, doesn’t seem like it’s just Bible History and nothing more. Seems as others have said, more a JW website of sorts.

It’s easy to see that you have much knowledge in the JW religion and without a doubt, as it shows, you truely believe in your religion and nothing, (or so it seems) will ever pull you away from the JW’s.

So with that said… I have 2 questions, that it would be nice to have two Answers right from your heart.

1. Are you afraid or forbided by the JW’s to have a Catholic Bible Study, with a Catholic or Catholics. (No JW material, just a Catholic Study. Remember I said from your heart, nothing more.)
2. If you aren’t forbided, or afraid, then what’s the problem in learning about what we teach and think? (After all it doesn’t mean we’ll put a spell on you and turn you into a Catholic… )

Again, I’m only asking for answers from your heart, not a lot of stuff from the JW’s. I’m also not asking for tons of Scriptures…I’m just asking from your heart…

Have a great evening…

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]…WEBSITES prove nothing… [/SIGN]

…ah…cides23…, this IS a website

[SIGN]… to get to the proof of the truth one must study Christian history… the truth even before Constantine before Arian came and practically took most of the church to follow his teaching before all that St Justin Martyr and men before him and after him taught what is taught still that Jesus is YWHW not the Father but the Son and that the HOly Spirit too is GOD… hence a Trinity to better explain… you can through out all these things heck, eveyone does that to try to support their belief… doesn’t make it the truth…
no threat to dig deep into bible history… for a Catholic would feel comfortable to dig deep why heck we see the good and the bad in our history… what triumph is that GOD always raises up holy Men and women to purify his Church… a humble devote Catholic would rejoice to dig deep in bible history!!! for it was the Church that the HOly Spirit guided to put the WOrd together…[/SIGN]

… did the “church fathers” believe in a trinity as held by Christendom? Note the following quotations from these men as published in The Church of the First Three Centuries, by Dr. A. Lamson.

CLEMENT, who died about A.D. 100, was severely castigated by certain Catholic theologians because he termed “the Son of God a creature.” He once stated that “the most perfect, and most holy thing, and most commanding, and most regal, and by far the most beneficent nature, is that of the Son, which is next to the only omnipotent Father.” “If thou wilt be initiated [become a Christian], then shalt thou join in the dance around the uncreated and imperishable and only true God, the Word of God hymning with us.”

JUSTIN MARTYR, who died about A.D. 165, explained his belief regarding Jesus to a Jew as follows: “There is another God or Lord under the Creator of the universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to men what the Creator of the universe . . . wishes to declare. He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob and to Moses, and is called God, is other than the God who made all things. I say, in number, but not in will, for he never did any thing except what the Creator of the universe willed him to do and say.”
IRENAEUS, who died about A.D. 200, reasoned that “if the Son did not blush to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father [Mark 13:32], neither do we blush to reserve the solution of difficult questions to God. Our Savior used this expression that we might learn from him that the Father is over all; for ‘The Father is greater than I.’”

TERTULLIAN, who died about A.D. 230, made similar observations: “The Father is different from the Son, as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent; he who does a thing, different from him by whom it is done.” And again, “God produced the Son, that by him he might produce the universe. Christ does nothing except by the will of the Father, having received all power from him.” “There was a time when the Son was not.” “Before all things, God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to himself.”

ORIGEN, who died about A.D. 253, said: “The Father and the Son are two things, as to their essence, but one in consent, concord, and identity of will.” “Compared with the Father, the Son is a very small light.” He explained John 10:30 (NW), which states, “I and the Father are one,” by referring to Acts 4:32: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” And also observed that “the Father who sent him is alone good, and greater than he who was sent.”

HIPPOLYTUS, who flourished in the first part of the third century, and who, says The Catholic Encyclopedia, “was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era,” held that “the Father is one God, the first and only One, the Maker and Lord of all. He had nothing co-eval with him. . . . But he was One, alone by himself, who, willing it, called into being what had no being before.”

LACTANTIUS, of the fourth century, wrote: “Before this glorious world arose, God, the Maker and Disposer of all, begat a holy, incorruptible, and incomprehensible Spirit, who is called his Son, and although through him, he afterwards created others—an innumerable host, whom we call angels,—yet he has thought that first-begotten alone worthy of the divine name of ‘Son.’”

Quotations by the foregoing could be multiplied and others, such as by Cyprian and Dionysius, could be given, to the same effect. And while not every statement of theirs may perfectly coincide with the light as it now shines on God’s Word, there can be no doubt about the fact that none of these believed in a trinity in which ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal.’

Are these quotes true? I didn’t write this book…so I don’;t know if he is mistaken.

 

[Bill_Pick]

1. I was visited by a handsome (white) young couple. They came in, sat down, discussed few things in good manner. I offered then food and drink. They did not take it. They gave me some booklets and went away. They had told me they were from England.
2. Later I found that they had hired a house nearby.
3. Then much later, another JW came to my house. He had been a Hindu and later had become a Muslim and then become a chrostian (?) and perhaps then he became a JW. He was quite old but in very good apparant health (shining bright brown fellow of Indian origin). He was not much educated but he had a bible, all pages marked (underlined) at different places. Seemed he had done much work on the bible.

I offered him food and drink. He took it all. We became friends and had some good time together.

1. Later while shopping, I found another good old (white) man with a car near to the place where that couple had earlier lived. I talked to the man and found out that he was the father of one person of the couple who had visited me earlier. But we did not discuss much.
2. The booklets I did not read for long time, until one day I started reading them. I found that the books were quite good. I found that JW’s were very peaceful people, not going near any fighting, killing, army work. That was my impression of those people from the booklets.
3. Otherwise, I had some experience of the effort of the JW’s in their bible study. They do a lot of work on bible. They are engaged in peaceful preaching quite well.

Are all your Muslim as nice as these peopleThey are engaged in peaceful preaching quite well.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]adelore;

1. Are you afraid or forbided by the JW’s to have a Catholic Bible Study, with a Catholic or Catholics. (No JW material, just a Catholic Study. Remember I said from your heart, nothing more.)
2. If you aren’t forbided, or afraid, then what’s the problem in learning about what we teach and think? (After all it doesn’t mean we’ll put a spell on you and turn you into a Catholic… )

Again, I’m only asking for answers from your heart, not a lot of stuff from the JW’s. I’m also not asking for tons of Scriptures **( that is the root of your problem…you don’t ask for tons of scriptures )…**I’m just asking from your heart…
.Prov 28:26…Jer 17:9

Have a great evening…[/SIGN]

adelore, I grew up Catholic–they never taught me God’s Name John 17:6, 26 see also Jer 23:27…nor did they teach me that “the meek will inherit the earth.” Ps 37:10 11, 29…

I also couldn’t accept the oceans of blood shed by Catholic killing Catholic in WWII

(1 John 4:20-21) 20**If anyone makes the statement: “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that the one who loves God should be loving his brother also*.

(John 13:33-35) … 34**I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”*

Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.”

Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church Fathers get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”—John 3:16; 14:28.

Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church Fathers were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church Fathers’ belief in an immortal soul? “

The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. … [Augustine’s doctrine] … owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”

I would be happy to have a study with you using YOUR Bible right here on the fourm. I have 17 different Bibles …which one do you use? If you want…why not open another post. We will start from the beginning… what is it you want mean to learn?

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]david40;6023684]I have met and spent time with many JWs in my home, maybe more than 200 times in the last few years…in different cities.

I used to be quite zealous in sharing the truth with them but I think now…I have given up that hope. I grow weary of their strong will to be forever blind of the truth.

Even after I explained the historical consistent false prophecies made by the Watchtower…I think they just decide to close their eyes and shut their ears from learning them.

I still try to welcome them to my home. **I wonder why they are not as tired as me in meeting each other? **Does it take 10,000 hours to get new JW member?[/SIGN]

(Galatians 6:9-10) ...So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due season we shall reap if we do not tire out. 10 Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.

that’s why…

 

[cides23]

[SIGN]…WEBSITES prove nothing… [/SIGN]

…ah…cides23…, this IS a website

[SIGN]… …[/SIGN]

CLEMENT, who died about A.D. 100, was severely castigated by certain Catholic theologians because he termed “the Son of God a creature.” He once stated that “the most perfect, and most holy thing, and most commanding, and most regal, and by far the most beneficent nature, is that of the Son, which is next to the only omnipotent Father.” “If thou wilt be initiated [become a Christian], then shalt thou join in the dance around the uncreated and imperishable and only true God, the Word of God hymning with us.”

JUSTIN MARTYR, who died about A.D. 165, explained his belief regarding Jesus to a Jew as follows: “There is another God or Lord under the Creator of the universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to men what the Creator of the universe . . . wishes to declare. He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob and to Moses, and is called God, is other than the God who made all things. I say, in number, but not in will, for he never did any thing except what the Creator of the universe willed him to do and say.”
IRENAEUS, who died about A.D. 200, reasoned that “if the Son did not blush to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father [Mark 13:32], neither do we blush to reserve the solution of difficult questions to God. Our Savior used this expression that we might learn from him that the Father is over all; for ‘The Father is greater than I.’”

TERTULLIAN, who died about A.D. 230, made similar observations: “The Father is different from the Son, as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent; he who does a thing, different from him by whom it is done.” And again, “God produced the Son, that by him he might produce the universe. Christ does nothing except by the will of the Father, having received all power from him.” “There was a time when the Son was not.” “Before all things, God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to himself.”

ORIGEN, who died about A.D. 253, said: “The Father and the Son are two things, as to their essence, but one in consent, concord, and identity of will.” “Compared with the Father, the Son is a very small light.” He explained John 10:30 (NW), which states, “I and the Father are one,” by referring to Acts 4:32: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” And also observed that “the Father who sent him is alone good, and greater than he who was sent.”

HIPPOLYTUS, who flourished in the first part of the third century, and who, says The Catholic Encyclopedia, “was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era,” held that “the Father is one God, the first and only One, the Maker and Lord of all. He had nothing co-eval with him. . . . But he was One, alone by himself, who, willing it, called into being what had no being before.”

LACTANTIUS, of the fourth century, wrote: “Before this glorious world arose, God, the Maker and Disposer of all, begat a holy, incorruptible, and incomprehensible Spirit, who is called his Son, and although through him, he afterwards created others—an innumerable host, whom we call angels,—yet he has thought that first-begotten alone worthy of the divine name of ‘Son.’”

Quotations by the foregoing could be multiplied and others, such as by Cyprian and Dionysius, could be given, to the same effect. And while not every statement of theirs may perfectly coincide with the light as it now shines on God’s Word, there can be no doubt about the fact that none of these believed in a trinity in which ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal.’

:

i will get you the writings tomorrow of the above… and the writings are from an awesome source from a 3 Volume book called Faith of the Early Father by William Jurgens… remember if a protestant is quoting church history mostlikely he is not writing the full content… how do i know this? well from converts who have converted from protestant churches have stated this. they were taught part of Augustine, they were taught part of Justin and etc…

how funny you mention Turtullian, he was not the first but one of the first to use the word Trinity…
But give me till tomorrow to post the writings of the above men you mention that they clearly taught in Jesus being diving… actually i remember one of St Justin Martyr’s writing that makes an analogy that as a torch lightens another stick w’ it’s flame not creating a new fire but that fire is of the same flame from the original torch and so is with the Word and the Father. the WORD was always in the bosom of the Father and it was not created but begotten…
sounds just like the creed we recite as Mass, begotten not made on in being with the Father. I went to show these JW’s who came to my house all the quotes that the above men clearly taught what Christianity still teaches on the Trinity and the refused to read or have me read it… i’m glad you will have a chance to read them tomorrow.

 

[cides23]

[SIGN]…WEBSITES prove nothing… [/SIGN]

…ah…cides23…, this IS a website

you state the 1st century Christians taught different then what Catholics teach now on Jesus and the Holy Spirit… well now here are just some of the quotes which differs from what the WTS will say on such people…

(Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Ephesians 110AD)
Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with the greatness by the fullness of God the Father, predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our GOD: abundant greeting in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy.

(same letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians)
There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and not born, who is GOD in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from GOD, first able to suffer and then unable to suffer, Jesus Christ our Lord.

(St Clement of Rome to the Corinthians 150AD)
Brothers, we must think of Jesus Christ as GOD and as the Judge of the living and the dead.

(St Justin Martyr First Apology 148 -155AD)
They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and is GOD. Formerly He appeared to Moses and to the other prophets in the form of fire and as an incorporeal image, and now, in the times of your reign, having become man, as we said, by Virgin and by the will of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He allowed Himself to be treated with contempt and to suffer so that by death and resurrection He might conquer death.

I’ll get more on St Justin since you mentioned him but when reading his writings just makes me praise YWHW for having me in the Catholic Faith, praise Christ!

(Tatian the Syrian – address letter to the Greeks 165/175AD)
We are not playing the fool, you Greek, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that GOD was born in the form of a man.

 

[cides23]

[SIGN]…WEBSITES prove nothing… [/SIGN]

…ah…cides23…, this IS a website

QUOTE]

continue

(St Melito of Sardes Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai, the guide chaptr 13) 171/190AD
It is in no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after His Baptism as proof that His soul and His Body, His human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after His Baptism, and especially His Miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in the flesh. Being GOD and likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by the miracles during the three years following after His Baptism; of hi Humanity, in the thirty years which came before His Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the True GOD existing before the ages.

(St Irenaeus against Heresy 140 – 202AD)
But not knowing Him, who, from the Virgin, is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is life eternal. And not receiving the Word of incorruption, they remain in mortal flesh and are the debtors of death, not having received the antidote of life. Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that He is Himself in His own right GOD and LORD and Eternal King and Only-begotten and Incarnate Word, proclaimed as such by all the Prophets and by the Apostles and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. The Scriptures would not have born witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere man. But that He had Himself what no other ever had, that pre-eminent generation by the Most High Father; and that He also experienced that pre-eminent birth from a Virgin, - the divine Scriptures testify to both His regard.

(Tertullian – Apology 197AD)
“We hold that this which was uttered by GOD, and which was begotten in that utterance, because of the unity of substance is called GOD and Son of GOD; for GOD too is Spirit……………… SO also, that which proceeds from GOD is GOD and Son of GOD, and both are one. Likewise, as He is Spirit from Spirit, and GOD from GOD…… Therefore, the Ray of GOD, as was ever foretold in the past, descended into a certain Virgin and was formed flesh in her womb, and was born GOD and man combined.

(Tertullian - - the soul 208/212AD)
GOD alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also GOD.

(Origen – the Fundamental Doctrines 220-230AD)
Although He was GOD, He took flesh; and having been made man, He remained what He was, GOD. He took a body like our body, differing only in this, that is was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit……………that the Holy Spirit is associated in honor of dignity with the Father and the Son.

these are just few i realize were saved in my documents here in my computer at work. i’ll come back tomorrow with more… Sorry the JW’s are not doing there research on the early church for there teachings are a off shoot of Arianism… A HERESY! again this will mean nothing to you unless we pray for you and for all JW’s, SDA’ etc all who do not know Jesus. =(

 

[Javl]

djdave:

Why does the WBTS insist that there is no trinity because the word it is not in the Bible? Just because the word is not in scripture does not mean that the Holy Trinity does not exist. The Bible abounds with references to the Holy Trinity, starting with Gen 1:26. Who is the “we” or “us”? God has revealed to us as much as we are capable of understanding.
The rest we consider a mystery and rightly so. We accept the existance of the Holy Trinity on faith because God has said so.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[cides23]

[SIGN]…WEBSITES prove nothing… [/SIGN]

…

(St Theophilus of Antioch 185/191AD to Autolyscus)God, therefore, having His own Word INternally in His very organs, begot Him, emitting Him alone with His own Wisdom, before all things. He had this Word for a Helper in the things which He made, and through Him were all things created. He is called Begining, because He rules and has dominion over everything which was fahioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of GOD and Begining and Wisdome and Power of the Most High descended upon the prophets and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all the rest; for the prophets did not exist when the world came to be, but there was Wisdome, which was in Him and which was of GOD, and His Holy WORD, who is eternally present with HIm.
The three days before teh luminaries were created are types of the TRinity: GOD, HIS WORD, AND HIS WISDOM.

again this sounds like our teaching of begotten not made one in being with the Father as we Catholics profess!

(St Hippolytus AD222 letter Refutation of all Heresies)For Christ is the GOD over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new.

(same letter from St Hippolytus) Only His WOrd is from Himself, and is therefore also GOD, becoming the substance of GOD.

(St Clement of Alexandria AD 200 Exhortation to the Greeks) The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient begining for He was in GOD and of our well being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both GOD and man, and the source of all our good things. It is by Him that we are taught to livewell and then are sent along to life eternal. …As GOD, He might furnish us abundantly with eternal life.

(Origen – The Fundamental Doctrines 220-230 AD) Although He was GOD, He took flesh; and having been made man, He remained what He was, GOD… (later on same letter) that the Holy Spirit is associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son.

(St Cyprian of Carthage-Letter to Jubaianus 254/256AD)"One who denies Christ is GOD cannot become His Temple. Of the Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, how were it possible for the Holy Spirit to be reconciled to him that is an enemy fo either the Son or of the Father? (wow St Cyprian alluding to the Trinity)

(same letter)“when Christ Himself commands the nation to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?”

(Tertullian Apology 197AD) "So also that which proceeds from GOD is GOD and Son of GOD, and both are one. Like wise, as He is Spirit from Spirit, and GOD from GOD…Therefore, that Ray of GOD, as was ever foretold in the past, descended into a certain Virgin and was formed flesh in her womb, and was born GOD and man combined.

WOW i can go on and on and on with many other writings before Arian, after Arian… Arian was the caused of the Council of Nicea because of his false teachings that was atracting many Christians from leaving the truth… Jesus is truth

 

[adelore]

**adelore, I grew up Catholic–they never taught me God’s Name **

So you never were taught Gods name by the Catholic Church? Did you miss them saying Gods name Yahweh in Mass or in CC Class? I’ve heard it a lot. By the way it’s also in the Catholic Bibles I read growing up, really, it’s in there. Maybe you didn’t read the Bible as you were growing up so maybe that’s why? Didn’t your parents read the Bible with you and such? Or did they leave it up to the CC classes to teach you everything? I’m not pointing fingers here…but I just can’t figure out any other reason you might have missed it.

Now speaking of Gods name. **Old Hebrew ** you know back in Jesus time, does not have the letter “J”. the Tetragrammaton (which my computer doesn’t make the Hebrew letters) is YHWH, **not **JHVH. (and I’m just waiting for you to ask me what Jesus name is in Hebrew, now that I’ve pointed out the “no J”. Ahhh…but before you do, remember that **according to JW’s **Jesus is not God, so I guess we shouldn’t get “hung up” on the fact that we don’t say Jesus name correctly… Remember we’re talking about the Divine Name, and since JW’s don’t believe Jesus to be God in human form, then we don’t have to worry about Jesus name, not being pronouced Yashusha. (thats the Hebrew form for his name.)

**Reasoning from the Scriptures.
**Many scolars favor the spelling “Yahweh”…(YHWH) to say t he name. End quote.

After all how do you get a “J” when there was no “J” in Hebrew? Even the Hebrews don’t use a “J”. (type in a search…just in case you really want to know… for Yahweh…Gods Name. And you’ll get tons of information…

Going farther on this topic…

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Jehovah---- The employment of this English (Notice the world english here) form of the Memorial name…in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being **Yahweh/B]: but solely from the practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch **with the public ear and eye **in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.

So in other words, if it keeps the public happy and it “tickles” their ears and eyes, it’s ok if we don’t teach them the correct pronunciation?

I also couldn’t accept the oceans of blood shed by Catholic killing Catholic in WWII Hint: it wasn’t just Catholics killing Catholics in WWII.

I’ve heard this a lot from several JW’s. No I don’t like “blood shed” by anyone, and I can promise you not too many of our military like “blood shed” either. But they do it to protect our country. Now grant you, no one, (or most everyone I know anyway) doesn’t like Blood Shed, but truely…Jesus came and Shed His Blood for all of us. Something to ponder along with the Old Testament stories…where there is a lot of Blood Shed that God approved of and even supported.

By the way keep reading your Bible, God says we do have the right to protect ourselves.

In the old testament you will find “Blood Shed” in Wars ect. You will even find that God caused a lot of “Blood Shed” too. Just read a lot of the Old Testament and you will find it there.

Now you say that maybe my problem is I didn’t ask for a lot of Scripture, when I asked the question…from your heart.

Truely dj dave, Scripture was not written with , : ; markes, nor was it seperated by Chapter and Verse. We have to be careful of “quoting” only one or a few Scripture verses…to “push” or “prove” our point of view, if you know what I mean. I mean after all it’s the “whole” Bible not just a few Scriptures here and there that “people” need to be into.

You and I, (and many others on here, who by the way can/could way out do me on “quoting” Scripture) could do this all day long, passing back and forth this Scripture and that Scripture…but to prove what point? So we can get “Our” point across?

I believe in the “Whole Bible” not just parts of it.

With a friendly note: Go back and study the Whole Bible and maybe your (early childhood) CC Classes (i’m not knocking you when I say early childhood, but truely that’s where we first leaned it. ) you’ll find you missed the class on Gods name. The CC Books are still printed today and you can get them at any Catholic Bookstore and I believe even off of the EWTN website.

Well it’s off to bed for me, work comes early.

Take care dj dave.**

 

[adelore]

Just a question…(dj dave)

If Jesus is not God, as you believe…and yet as a JW you do believe in the Bible, then why oh why did Thomas say, (when he saw Jesus after he had risen, mind you in front of others Thomas, our dear doubting Thomas, who didn’t believe Jesus had risen…) He said to Jesus once he touched him on his hands and his side, “My Lord and My God.”

Now if Jesus was not God, then Jesus should have corrected him, because after all, that would have been blaspheme. But instead Jesus reply was…“because you have seen… and blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.”

So do the JW’s think Jesus was a liar? Surely Jesus didn’t misunderstand what Thomas was saying.

So Jesus must be God, in human form.

I just don’t understand how JWs don’t believe God has the power to do anything He wants, after all He created the earth out of nothing, made Adam, out of dust and breathed life into him, created all of the animals, the air we breath, yet can’t we can’t see it.

So why can’t God and Jesus be one and the same? Do you really believe Gods powers are so limited?

Just because we don’t “understand” all of Gods powers doesn’t mean He can’t do something we don’t understand. I don’t understand how God made the earth, but He did. I can’t even begin to understand how He made a man out of “dust” but He did.

I don’t have to understand it…nor do I want to…my pea brain could never handle the “overload”… But do I believe it and have faith it’s real…Yep!

Now I really have to go to bed…I’m only going to get a nap now before it’s time to get up and go to work…

May God Bless you,

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]adelore;6034446]Just a question…(dj dave)

If Jesus is not God, as you believe…and yet as a JW you do believe in the Bible, then why oh why did Thomas say, (when he saw Jesus after he had risen, mind you in front of others Thomas, our dear doubting Thomas, who didn’t believe Jesus had risen…) He said to Jesus once he touched him on his hands and his side, “My Lord and My God.”

Now if Jesus was not God, then Jesus should have corrected him, because after all, that would have been blaspheme. But instead Jesus reply was…“because you have seen… and blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.”

So do the JW’s think Jesus was a liar? Surely Jesus didn’t misunderstand what Thomas was saying.

So Jesus must be God, in human form.[/SIGN]

(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. Question: What do the words “any time” mean to you?

(John 14:28) YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. Question: Did he just say this because he was in Human form? Compare Rev 3:12

(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’” AGAIN Compare Rev 3:12

(John 20:31) But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.

The following is an excerpt from an article I was recently reading. Don’t fault me for presenting a WT article:…It is exactly what I believe–WHY wouldn’t I want to display it?

*** w84 9/1 pp. 28-29 “We Worship What We Know” ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity. But they do not share the Trinitarians’ philosophical understanding of these terms. When Trinitarians speak of the “divinity of Jesus,” they do not mean that he is “a god” or “godlike,” but that he is “God,” one of the three co-eternal persons of the “Godhead.” Perhaps this explains why many of Christendom’s Bibles render John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (Revised Standard Version) The majority of the oldest Greek manuscripts show, not “the only Son,” but “the only-begotten god.” The Expositor’s Greek Testament admits: “The MS. [manuscript] authority favours the reading θεος [god]; while the versions and the [Church] Fathers weigh rather in the opposite scale.” Why? Because they feared anti-Trinitarians for whom “this appellation ‘only-begotten god’] happily distinguished Him [the Son] from the Father.”

Recognizing the Scriptural fact that Jesus is “a god” or “mighty one,” Jehovah’s Witnesses are not disturbed by John 20:28, where it is recorded that the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” For one thing, Thomas could have been using the word “God” like Manoah of old. (Judges 13:20-22) But even if this was not the case, there can be no confusion, for Jesus had recently sent a message to the apostles, stating: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17; compare 2 Corinthians 1:3.) And John says he wrote down these details (including Thomas’ exclamation) “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was “God incarnate,” a “God-man,” according to the philosophical Incarnation theory of the “two natures,” human and divine. In line with the Bible, they believe “the Word became flesh.” (John 1:14) So doing, “he emptied himself” of his previous spiritual existence and became a man, “lower than angels,” so as to offer himself as “a corresponding ransom for all.” (Philippians 2:7, 8; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:6) The Trinitarian idea that “the redemption of man from sin and death is only then guaranteed if Christ is total God and total man” is unscriptural philosophy. To redeem what Adam lost for mankind, Jesus needed to sacrifice a perfect human life, no more, no less. (Exodus 21:23; 1Corinthians 15:22, 45, 47; Romans 5:18,19, RS, Catholic and Protestant editions; Matthew 20:28)

Although “a god,” Jesus “did not count equality with God [Jehovah] a thing to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:6, RS, both editions) His submission to Jehovah is clear, now and in the future. (1 Corinthians 15:27,\ 28) He willingly recognized his Father’s superiority. (John 14:28; compare 1 Corinthians 11:3.) At his resurrection, he was “made alive in the spirit,” “crowned with glory and honor” and “exalted,” “so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth.” (1*Peter 3:18; Hebrews 2:9; Philippians 2:9, 10) This being the case, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not surprised to read in Hebrews 1:6 that the angels are invited to “do obeisance to him,” “pay him homage [The New English Bible]” or “worship him [JB].” (Compare Revelation 5:11,*12.) This in no way contradicts Matthew 4:10, where Jesus—quoting Deuteronomy—says that only Jehovah God must be worshiped. Interestingly, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, that says “worship him” in Hebrews 1:6, refers in its marginal references to Deuteronomy 32:43 (Greek Septuagint) and Psalm 97:7, where it renders the same words, respectively, “pay him homage” and “bow down.”

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

Yahweh

: but solely from the practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.

So in other words, if it keeps the public happy and it “tickles” their ears and eyes, it’s ok if we don’t teach them the correct pronunciation?[/SIGN]

Similar comments could be made regarding all the names we read in the Bible. We pronounce them in our own language and do not try to imitate the original pronunciation. Thus we say “Jeremiah,” not Yir·meya′hu. Similarly we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yesha‛·ya′hu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.

And the same is true with the name Jehovah. Even though the modern pronunciation Jehovah might not be exactly the way it was pronounced originally, this in no way detracts from the importance of the name. It identifies the Creator, the living God, the Most High to whom Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”—Matthew 6:9.

Different scholars have different ideas about how the name YHWH was originally pronounced.
In The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., page 74, Dr. M. Reisel said that the “vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHūàH or YaHūàH.”
Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the “evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jāhwéh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton . . . The Name itself was probably JĀHÔH.”—Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Periodical for Old Testament Knowledge), 1936, Volume 54, page 269.

In the glossary of the French Revised Segond Version, page 9, the following comment is made: “The pronunciation Yahvé used in some recent translations is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes into account personal names that include the divine name, such as the Hebrew name of the prophet Elijah (Eliyahou) the pronunciation might just as well be Yaho or Yahou.”

In 1749 the German Bible scholar Teller told of some different pronunciations of God’s name he had read: “Diodorus from Sicily, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Saint Jerome and Origenes wrote Jao; the Samaritans, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Jahe, or Jave; Ludwig Cappel reads Javoh; Drusius, Jahve; Hottinger, Jehva; Mercerus, Jehovah; Castellio, Jovah; and le Clerc, Jawoh, or Javoh.”

** Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God’s name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. **The important thing is to use God’s name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language.

Franz Schubert composed the music for the lyric entitled “The Almightiness,” written by Johann Ladislav Pyrker, in which the name Jehovah appears twice. It is also used at the end of the last scene of Verdi’s opera “Nabucco.”

CONT.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave]

Franz Schubert composed the music for the lyric entitled “The Almightiness,” written by Johann Ladislav Pyrker, in which the name Jehovah appears twice. It is also used at the end of the last scene of Verdi’s opera “Nabucco.”

CONT.[/SIGN]

Additionally, French composer Arthur Honegger’s oratorio “King David” gives prominence to the name Jehovah, and renowned French author Victor Hugo used it in over 30 of his works. Both he and Lamartine wrote poems entitled “Jehovah.”

In the book Deutsche Taler (The German Taler), published in 1967 by Germany’s Federal Bank, there is a picture of what is one of the oldest coins bearing the name “Jehovah,” a 1634 Reichstaler from the Duchy of Silesia. Regarding the picture on the coin’s reverse side, it says: “Under the radiant name JEHOVAH, rising up out of the midst of clouds, is a crowned shield with the Silesian coat of arms.”

In a museum in Rudolstadt, East Germany, you can see on the collar of the suit of armor once worn by Gustavus II Adolph, a 17th-century king of Sweden, the name JEHOVAH in capital letters.

Thus, for centuries the form Jehovah has been the internationally recognized way to pronounce God’s name, and people who hear it instantly recognize who is being spoken about. As Professor Oehler said, “This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments (Theology of the Old Testament).

Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah
Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova

Tell me adelore, have you ever said Hallelujah? Did you notice the “Jah”?
you are saying Praise Jehovah