JW's came to visit me today

[MH84]

Well, we can also ask why would Jesus be asking himself why he foresoke himself if he is god? It seems that there were two distinct personages, Jesus and Heavenly Father.

The Catholic doctrine is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fully possess the one nature (the nature of God). However, each of those Persons are distinct from each other.

This means that Jesus couldnt have been talking to Himself.

 

[I_am_not_Yours]

Bible Steve,

I eagerly await a response to the post I directed at you back on page 4.

 

[archangelboutiq]

When they come to my door, I challenge them on their belief that only 144,000 will get into heaven. When they affirm that they believe that’s true, I say,

“If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to keep this thing quiet?”

I so will remember this comment. My Brother in laws family is JW and they have a hard time dealing with our family knowing we are Catholic.

 

[archangelboutiq]

When they come to my door, I challenge them on their belief that only 144,000 will get into heaven. When they affirm that they believe that’s true, I say,

“If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to keep this thing quiet?”

I so will remember this quote! So true!

 

[cascherman]

Dear SD Catholic,

First, let me thank you for your nice compliment in post #91 I think you deserve the gold star award for exhibiting a Christian personality in your comments.

Now to this point. Rev 1:17, 18; 2:8 “I died” obviously refers to Jesus. Trinitarian reasoning will then say, but then Jesus is called by a descriptive title “First and Last” and that phrase has been used for Jehovah, so Jesus = Jehovah. See this post.

The problem with this reasoning is the Bible explicitly shows that Jesus is not Jehovah. Psa 110:1-3 shows Jehovah talking to Jesus, asking Jesus to sit at his right hand. Acts 3:13 shows Jehovah (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was the one who resurrected Jesus and He considers Jesus to be His servant.

I have read the whole response Steve, I am just snipping some of the quote for a reference.

My impressions from your answer is that you don’t have a good explanation for the first and the last having died.

The problem with this reasoning is the Bible explicitly shows that Jesus is not Jehovah

… you didn’t think this answer would fly do you? You can’t shelve some of the Bible and preach the parts you like.

The Bible is a kind of puzzle and it does all fit together with the right explanation. Christ not being God does not fit in the Bible just like Christ being Michael the archangel doesn’t fit when there is explicit evidence in Hebrews that Christ and angels are entirely separate beings.

Christ’s mission here was not just to be identified as God and be worshipped and adored before his ascension. His mission here was to be a servant (Phil. 2:7) and to be **hated **by most and killed by that hate.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Dear SD Catholic,

The problem with this reasoning is the Bible explicitly shows that Jesus is not Jehovah. Psa 110:1-3 shows Jehovah talking to Jesus, asking Jesus to sit at his right hand. Acts 3:13 shows Jehovah (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was the one who resurrected Jesus and He considers Jesus to be His servant.

With explicit scriptures like these,** it’s illogical to think that because a highly symbolic book like the book of Revelation uses a similar descriptive title for two people, that Jesus must be Jehovah**. The Bible provides many examples of descriptive phrases like this being used for different people which was discussed in this thread, posts 3-5. It would be silly to conclude that these descriptive titles proved one person was the other.

.

One of the reasons Jesus was sent was to set an example for all Christians to live by. Many of the things he does is to show us the way we are to live.

Also In Exodus 20:10 the seventh day is called the Sabbath of the Lord your God. Jesus calls himself the “Lord of the Sabbath” in Mark 2:28. Yet another reference to his being equal to God.

SD

 

[BibleSteve]

The Trinity teaches Three Persons, One God. Jehovah was a name given to God – not just to God the Father. Jesus is a name given to only one Person of the Trinity – the Son who became Man. So your reasoning is flawed.

Sometimes I really feel like I’m living in an episode of Twilight Zone when people I talk to about the Trinity don’t see the obvious. I’m sure as a Trinitarian you feel the same about me.

7,000 times throughout the “Old Testament” Almighty God is identified by his personal name YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah. (Psa 83:18)

Psa 110:1-5 then shows Jehovah asking Jesus to sit at his side.

Jehovah is talking to Jesus. Jehovah is sitting next to Jesus. Thus Jehovah is a different person than Jesus. For you to think Jesus is Jehovah, would mean that Jehovah is sitting next to Himself, talking to Himself… Jehovah talking to Jehovah.

The Bible teaches that Jehovah sends Jesus forth as a Son, as an Apostle, as a Servant. The angels anounce Jesus is the Son of the Most High, Jehovah’s own voice booms from heaven saying “This is my Son.” Jesus says he’s “God’s Son”, Jesus prays to Jehovah, worships Jehovah, subjects himself to Jehovah, and calls Jehovah “my God and your God”.

The Trinitarian conclusion? Jesus is Jehovah!?! “God The Son”

It’s truly the most bewildering things I’ve ever seen in life.

Really, no offense… this kind of of reminds me of the story of the Emperors’ New Clothes. The majority of people think the Emporer is wearing the finest clothes while the child see’s the obvious… that there’s nothing there.

We don’t need to go on here. In over 30 years of talking with others about the Trinity, I’ve observed that some people look at what the Bible says and see it’s obvious that Jesus is what he claims to be, The Son of God.

While, Trinitarians (for some absolutely unknown reason to me), believe something completely different.

It’s truly baffling to me. I never cease to be amazed at this.

But, please go ahead with your belief. I don’t want to be disrespectful at all.

 

[VWcrazy]

Sorry, BibleSteve, but reading posting which are ant-Trinitarian - I have to wonder if one reads the entire Bible or just the parts on agrees with.

Belief in the Trinity is very ancient and is also backed up in Scripture.

You seem to be very, very confused at what the Trinity actually is. Several times it has been explained to you that the Trinity is three persons in one God. However, you fail to grasp this at all.

Psa 110:1-5 then shows Jehovah asking Jesus to sit at his side.

Jehovah is talking to Jesus. Jehovah is sitting next to Jesus. Thus Jehovah is a different person than Jesus. For you to think Jesus is Jehovah, would mean that Jehovah is sitting next to Himself, talking to Himself… Jehovah talking to Jehovah.

Jehovah talking to Himself??? Where in the world did you come up with that? It’s the Father speaking to Jesus. THREE persons. Three as in one, two, and three. Not on person with three manifistations.

 

[BibleSteve]

Sorry, BibleSteve, but reading posting which are ant-Trinitarian - I have to wonder if one reads the entire Bible or just the parts on agrees with.

Belief in the Trinity is very ancient and is also backed up in Scripture.

You seem to be very, very confused at what the Trinity actually is. Several times it has been explained to you that the Trinity is three persons in one God. However, you fail to grasp this at all.

No, I understand the Trinity dogma very well. I’ve read far more pro-Trinity books than most Trinitarians have. I completely disagree with the Trinity dogma, viewing it as the most illogical, unreasonable, non-sensical, non-Biblical concept I’ve ever read. It’s about a non-sensical as claiming that Abraham and Isaac were a “Trinity” instead of a simple Father/Son relationship.

Jehovah talking to Himself??? Where in the world did you come up with that? It’s the Father speaking to Jesus. THREE persons. Three as in one, two, and three. Not on person with three manifistations.

Psa 110:1-5 shows Jehovah is talking to Jesus. It doesn’t say “The Father” talking to Jesus, it says “Jehovah” is talking to Jesus. If you believe that Jesus is Jehovah, what does this scripture say? It becomes “Jehovah says to Jehovah”.

Perhaps your confusion is because the Divine name YHWH has been removed from your Bible?

“The LORD says to my Lord” is pretty silly.

It’s YHWH says to my Lord…

Anyways, I’m going to wrap up my participation Trinity discussion before I say something too uncharitable…

I wish you well on your Bible studies and your Trinitarian belief.

 

[cascherman]

Perhaps your confusion is because the Divine name YHWH has been removed from your Bible?

It is simple to know where YHWH was used in the Old Testament, LORD all uppercase. No lowercase letters. Simple reverence for the name of God, instead of butchering it and using Jehovah.

 

[VWcrazy]

Jehovah is a misspelling.

I will continue to pray for you, BibleSteve, that you will leave the utter confusion the Falsetower has placed in your mind and that the Lord deliver into His Church.

 

[cascherman]

I have a question BibleSteve.

How would you use YHWH in common conversation if you had respect for the name of God and wanted to not mis-speak it? Since Yahweh is wrong, Jehovah is wrong, and YHWH is not speakable, how would you verbalize it? Is it better to get it wrong like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do?

In regards to the ‘LORD saying to the Lord’. That verse has been used by many to prove the Messiah is made equal with God *by *God by giving him the seat beside him.

 

[BibleSteve]

I have a question BibleSteve.

How would you use YHWH in common conversation if you had respect for the name of God and wanted to not mis-speak it? Since Yahweh is wrong, Jehovah is wrong, and YHWH is not speakable, how would you verbalize it? Is it better to get it wrong like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do?

Thank you for your question. I would recommend you will find your answer in the following brochure:

The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever

Apparently you object to using “Jehovah” as God’s personal name in English, because it’s not the exact way it was written or spoken in the original Hebrew.

Do you also object to the following list of names, all based on the same English version of Jehovah and found throughout Catholic Bibles? If so, have you expressed your concern to the Catholic translators that all these names are incorrect?

Jeho-addah [possibly, Jehovah Has Decked Himself]
Jeho-addan [Jehovah Is Pleasure]
Jeho-addin [Jehovah Is Pleasure]
Jeho-ahaz [May Jehovah Take Hold; Jehovah Has Taken Hold]
Jeho-ash
Jeho-hanan [Jehovah Has Shown Favor; Jehovah Has Been Gracious]
Jeho-iachin [probably, Jehovah Has Firmly Established]
Jeho-iada [May Jehovah Know]
Jeho-iakim [possibly, Jehovah Raises Up]
Jeho-nadab [Jehovah Is Willing]
Jeho-nathan [Jehovah Has Given]
Jeho-ram [Jehovah Is High (Exalted)]
Jeho-shabeath [Jehovah Is Plenty]
Jeho-shama [Jehovah Has Heard (Listened)”]
Jeho-shaphat [Jehovah Is Judge]
Jeho-shua [Jehovah Is Salvation]

 

[BibleSteve]

I have a question BibleSteve.

How would you use YHWH in common conversation if you had respect for the name of God and wanted to not mis-speak it? .

Dear Cascherman,

I found the following section of that brochure to be appropriate for your question.

God’s Name - It’s Meaning and Pronunciation

Under the Section, Which Pronunciation Will You Use? it reasons:

…consider the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus’ family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or perhaps Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus.

However, when the accounts of his life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve that original Hebrew pronunciation. Rather, they rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous’. Today, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos’). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo’). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay’soos).

Must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation? So far, no translator has suggested this. We like to use the name, for it identifies the beloved Son of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his lifeblood for us. Would it be showing honor to Jesus to remove all mention of his name in the Bible and replace it with a mere title like “Teacher,” or “Mediator”? Of course not! We can relate to Jesus when we use his name the way it is commonly pronounced in our language.

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 Yeshae·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.

 

[MH84]

Psa 110:1-5 shows Jehovah is talking to Jesus. It doesn’t say “The Father” talking to Jesus, it says “Jehovah” is talking to Jesus. If you believe that Jesus is Jehovah, what does this scripture say? It becomes “Jehovah says to Jehovah”.

This is actually a good point in my opinion. We as Catholic assume it is God the Father speaking, but the Old Testament writer didn’t know that God was Triune.

But BibleSteve, I think I can answer this. You need to remember that for traditional Christians each of the Persons are fully God, or in other words, each of the Persons fully possess the nature of God.

Now, having considering that, it is still compatible with the Trinitarian doctrine to say that “YHWH says to my Lord…” for two reasons (IMO):

1. God the Father is fully God. So He Himself can be called God, or YHWH.
2. Ps 110 is a Messianic psalm. This means that God the Father was addressing His Son from a Messianic perspective.

Another point you have not yet addressed is what you think Jesus Himself asking his disciples to baptise in the ONE Name, not “names” means:

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=MAtthew+28&section=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ps&NavGo=110&NavCurrentChapter=110

 

[BibleSteve]

Another point you have not yet addressed is what you think Jesus Himself asking his disciples to baptise in the ONE Name, not “names”

Dear MH84,

Note the same singular expression “name” here in Gen 48:16

(Genesis 48:16) The angel who has been recovering me from all calamity, bless the boys. And let my name be called upon them and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, And let them increase to a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

Certainly the singular use of “name” doesn’t mean that Abraham and his son Isaac are a Trinity, right? Then, why read anything into it’s use here for YHWH and his son, Jesus?

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A “name” can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common sense,” we have no reference to a person as such. By “name” in these expressions we mean ‘what the law stands for or its authority’ and ‘what common sense represents or calls for.’ The Greek term for “name” (o′no·ma) also can have this sense.

Even Trinitarians realize this…Thus, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

 

[sklemetti]

When they show up it generally listen to their little talk, accept their literature and tell them what church I attend and they leave.

Today was not really any different, yet I see threads like this and people say they got into long interesting conversations. What sort of things do you guys bring up to get such a conversation going? (they said they may come back sometime)

My question is:

Why do you wait for them to visit you?

Why don’t you visit them at the Kingdom Hall?

Why don’t you accept a bible study and learn something?

Afterall, isn’t it a shame that the Catholics don’t preach but JWs come to you?

 

[sklemetti]

When they come to my door, I challenge them on their belief that only 144,000 will get into heaven. When they affirm that they believe that’s true, I say,

“If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to keep this thing quiet?”

Why?

Your believing that you are going to heaven does not make it so?

So you actually believe that when you die you will go to heaven as a spirit being an be with Jesus? Why would you believe that when you don’t know a thing about the Bible? Where does your belief come from?

 

[sklemetti]

Bible Steve, it has always confused me why JW’s carry Bibles with them and claim to be Christian when they reject so much of the Gospels in place of the heresy of Arianism.

We don’t know what Arianism is and don’t care.

JWs are Christians. The only Christians.

I would suggest that you listen to the
2007 District convention about Follow the Christ.

That is available at www.jwproclaimers.org

 

[sklemetti]

Jesus is my Lord and my God, so on that fundamental truth we are at an impasse. Thanks for the information.

I’m sorry to read that. If you learn the truth, that Jesus is the son of Jehovah God, that is the start to being saved. If Jesus is your God, you can not be saved. Sorry, but that is the way it is.