JW's - Proving to JW's that Jesus is God

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

BibleSteve, do you have any intention whatsoever of converting to the Catholic faith and leaving JWs?

if the answer is yes, then you need to have a more humble opinion and a more open mind and receptive heart.

if the answer is no, then why are you here? to convert us? or to argue? both reasons are contrary to forum objectives.

the former JWs who are now Catholic LEFT JWs to get away from the lies and bad feelings—you are just 'stalking ’ us with the vomit we have left behind. why? to win us back? or to continue the harrassment because you must feel like you still have the control and power over us? is the only way you can feel good to make us feel bad?

I have nothing left to say to JWs. If any JW wants to leave and find the truth they can do just like I did–Google it, research, read, DO something–put in the work, make the effort. Why should I give all my hard work away for free to anyone who does not respect or appreciate it? Pearls before pigs.

Ravyn

 

[BibleSteve]

i wouldn’t let an organization dictate to me what i can and cannot read. i’d have the mind to do my own research and if someone asked me to be open minded about a topic …

Is there any truth to this quote?
newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions of councils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Is there any truth to this quote?
newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions of councils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.

so by your own admission JWs are practicing something that went out with the Middle Ages?
Ravyn

 

[BibleSteve]

i wouldn’t let an organization dictate to me what i can and cannot read. i’d have the mind to do my own research and if someone asked me to be open minded about a topic and to research it i would. iam a fair individual. i think you are also. .

What I don’t understand is your motive to complain about JW’s regarding things that are done to an even more extreme in your own church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

How do you feel about your churches policy here?

Steve

 

[TraditionalCath]

Isn’t it far better to actually diligently research whether a charge is true before just passing it along?

are you claiming then what wikipedia has and what CAF has on the society is false then? iam quite sure CA has diligently and truthfully gotten that information. they would never publish something that was not true. are you saying that they have obtained it form a less than reputable source?? i don’t think so. as for wikipedia, the same goes for them. they would not publish false articles.

false prophecy and changing the Bible to suit ones belief is alot worse of a sin than someone claiming the earth is the center of the universe steve. it is a serious thing to change a scripture and make it ones belief and to make false prophecies than it is to go after galileo. much more serious don’t you agree? the book of Revelation clearly states what happens to those who take or add away from it. that is a serious issue. very serious.

 

[TraditionalCath]

What I don’t understand is your motive to complain about JW’s regarding things that are done to an even more extreme in your own church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

How do you feel about your churches policy here?

Steve

iam unfamiliar with that article, but since iam honest and fair, i will gladly read it. and after i read it, i will comment to you about it.

 

[TraditionalCath]

Is there any truth to this quote?
newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions of councils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.

i cannot comment on that until read further. iam a far minded person, and i will give it my utmost attention, and when i do, i will gladly post to you my reply. even you witnesses will take time to read things over before giving a reply. let me read it, and i will post my reply to you.

 

[BibleSteve]

You only prove my point. If you are truly concerned about the “truth” Scriptural and historical, why bring up the behavior of one Catholic person in history? Athanasius taking action against the arians was not uncommon to his day. I referrenced Wikipedia (a secular site) simply to show you that looking at one persons behavior doesn’t get to the facts of which church is the one Christ established (1 Tim 3:15). ."

 

[BibleSteve]

The fact that Charles Taze Russell didn’t know Greek is a great concern as the New World Translation attempts to translate John 1:1 as saying Jesus “The word was a god” which is following the same theology as Russell and which contradicts ALL of the Christian Scripture scholars of the past who affirm “The Word was God.”

 

[TraditionalCath]

Is there any truth to this quote?
newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal,but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions of councils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.

ok, here is my take on this article. if the popes condemned a certain book as heretical, then it is heretical. what specific book were you speaking of? if i knew, i could look it up. itis their sacred duty to protect the purity of faith and the souls of the faithful. i see no wrong doing in this statement.

however, regarding the publicized dates in the past by the society of the end, well, that is wrong to publicize something they no nothing about. they cannot tell when the end will come, and to give a definitive date as to when it will come is wrong. also to state with absolute certainty when Christ will come or in your opinion has come, is also wrong. because the scriptures clearly state that no man knows the hour or the day when the end will come. did the society in times past have some kind of inside knowledge as to the exact end dates that others didn’t? not as far as i know, because the end date is not known by us at all, and to publicize it is wrong. so they have misled millions over that until they changed their position on the end date. they also do not know when Christ will return, and they cannot say definitively that He has returned “invisibly”. to claim otherwise is ludicrous. also they try to invalidate Gods word when it is clearly stated that every eye will see Him. Christ Himself says He is coming in power and glory, and when He does, we will see it. it is promised. so no, He has not returned “invisibly” as your society tells you.

 

[TraditionalCath]

nope. i check believe me. yes, i do my homework my friend. iam very familiar with what the society has and continues to teach. i’ve been familiar with it for 21 years. so no, iam no noob believe me. i do not have any complaints other than the fact that they teach falsehoods to millions of people and lie about the divinity of Jesus Christ, and lie about His return. Jesus said Himself, if you deny me, you deny Him who sent me. your society denies Christ as God, denies the Trinity, lies about His divinity, so what do you expect us to think? yes, we check our facts out carefully believe me. i also read every single line of what the Catholic Answers library posted in their library. They have told the truth.

 

[BibleSteve]

Think about this verse for a moment. Jesus establishes a church Mt 16:15-19. History shows His church in Scripture and moreover in the post Apostolic age throughout history until we reach the 1800’s where out of nowhere Charles Taze Russell suddenly God reveals the “truth” to him that Jesus is “a god” and the truth is finally revealed. Now “logically” does this make sense at all?

 

[TraditionalCath]

The previous post dismiss Russell because he didn’t know Greek. I have never got the impression that deciding who has Bible truth is a function of measuring their academic knowledge.

Jesus said something similar:

(Matthew 11:25) At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.

When someone says we should disregard someone view about the Bible because of a lack of secular knowledge, or lack of degrees, I believe that is contrary to the way Jehovah and Jesus view matters. Higher Education, like riches, can make a person feel superior to others… not a quality Jehovah and Jesus are interested in.

Ah yes, the problem with higher education! this has come up alot i see on these forums! jw’s don’t want their members to have a higher education, why is that? because as you stated, it “can make a person feel superior to others”? no. ther eis nothing wrong with higher education! there is no superiority complex either when one has a higher education, and no one i know ever lorded it over someone else who didn’t have a higher education in our faith.

God is interested in anyone, doesn’t matter where or what their educational level is! iam quite sure your society lawyers have a form of higher education otherwise they wouldn’t be lawyers now would they? even the hardest sinner can become welcome in God’s eyes believe me. even those who do feel superior can become humble and serve God.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

BibleSteve do JWs believe that the original Church is the one that is today called the Catholic Church? or do they believe that the original Church was a group of people who would be called modernly Jehovah’s Witnesses and in fact the Catholic Church is the great apostasy that set in- in earnest- after the death of the last Apostle?

I ask because if you believe the Catholic Church is the original Church (even if you also believe that it eventually somehow went wrong) then all the history of the Catholic Church before whatever time you feel there was a split is also the history of JWs.

If you do not believe you ever shared the origins with the Catholic Church then can you please show me where that is recorded in the Bible or anywhere else?

As far as I know (St.) Matthew 28:19 and 20 is very clear that there is one Church and Jesus will be with it until the end of time- (not that the Church will apostasize and Jesus will abandon it to thousands of splits and sects and confusion, and then in the mid 1800’s He will establish a new Church and in the 1930’s call it Jehovah’s Witnesses who will deny that Jesus is God.)

Ravyn

 

[TraditionalCath]

Perhaps Yessisan would like to comment on this. I just went through this with her, showing her Watchtower articles from 1880 through the 1950’s showing her this statement on the Catholic site is false.

JW’s and the WTS have explicity said on many occassions they are not inspired, and don’t claimed to be inspired. They read the Bible and give their interpretation of prophesy.

If you are so quick to want to throw stones at JW’s for having an incorrect understanding about a subjective topic like prophetic interpretation, are you similarly concerned over the Churches incorrect view about the earth being the center of the Universe and harassing Galileo over his heretical view the earth went around the Sun?

Steve

P.S. You don’t to ask if I know about this or that complaint about the WTS, Russell, Rutherford, Miracle Wheat, etc. I’ve studied each and every topic diligently for over 30 years. Most JW-critics are simply passing along quotes from others without checking the original WT articles (Is this what you are doing too?).

Isn’t it far better to actually diligently research whether a charge is true before just passing it along?

the charge is true that they have made false prophecies. and one point, you claim witnesses are not inspired right? well, your governing body claims it is the mouthpiece for God. not inspired then? then how can they claim they speak for God if they do not feel inspired to speak on His behalf? baloney steve! they are not inspired as you yourself said so, and they are not the mouthpiece for God. there is no untruth with God, and there is provable untruth with the society. so no, the governing body is not inspired by anyone other than themselves. they certainly do not speak for God. uh uh no way!

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Bishopite;2308553:

Please read a little more history. There have been millions of people from the time of Christ until the time of Russell who didn’t believe the Trinity doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian

Read the section at the bottom under NonTrinitarian Churches and People.

Claiming that EVERYONE believed the Trinity up until Russell started studying the Bible isn’t accurate at all.

Steve

Natalius [2], ~200
Sabellius, ~220
Paul of Samosata, 269
Arius, 336
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Constantine
Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
Antipope Felix II, 365
Aëtius, 367
Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
Juan de Valdés, 1541
Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
Sebastian Castellio, 1563
Ferenc Dávid, 1579
Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
John Biddle, 1662
Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
John Locke, 1704
Isaac Newton, 1727
William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710
Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
Benjamin Franklin, 1790
Joseph Priestley, 1804
Joseph Smith, 1805
Thomas Paine, 1809
Thomas Jefferson, 1826
James Madison, 1836
William Ellery Channing, 1842
Robert Hibbert, 1849
John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
Benjamin Wilson, 18??
James Martineau, 1900
Charles Taze Russell, 1916
Neville Chamberlain, 1940
William Branham, 1965
Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986

oh come on! how many of these people are also Christian? What difference does it make to find a non-Christian who does not believe in the Trinity? I see some on this list who are claimed by Universalists, Unitarians, and Humanists and Secularists. How many Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, or Orthodox Catholics were non-Trinitarians? The 1800’s was the Age of Enlightenment and saw many new sects springing up, some have become mainstream out of sheer numbers, others still remain 200 years later fringe groups. JWs among them.

Ravyn

 

[BibleSteve]

are you claiming then what wikipedia has and what CAF has on the society is false then? iam quite sure CA has diligently and truthfully gotten that information.

Yes, The Catholic article specifically says “it claims to be God’s inspired prophet” This is 100% false.

I showed Yessisan multiple articles from 1880 forward where the the WTS says over and over and over:

“We are not inspired”
“We do not have the gift of prophcy”
“Not Inspired”
“Not Infallible like Pope claims”
“No Inspiration in Speaking or Writing”

She’s seen it with her own eyes now. Ask her. If anyone wants to see for themselves, please PM me.

For the Catholic Church or anyone else to fraudulently claim JW"s claim to being “inspired” or “inspired prophets”, while ignoring the absolustely explicit statements mentioned above shows an agenda.

And yes, I doubt the Catholic Church gathered up the original articles and reviewed them before posting the false charge about claiming to be “inspired” or “inspired prophets”.

Steve

 

[TraditionalCath]

Yes, The Catholic article specifically says “it claims to be God’s inspired prophet” This is 100% false.

I showed Yessisan multiple articles from 1880 forward where the the WTS says over and over and over:

“We are not inspired”
“We do not have the gift of prophcy”
“Not Inspired”
“Not Infallible like Pope claims”
“No Inspiration in Speaking or Writing”

She’s seen it with her own eyes now. Ask her. If anyone wants to see for themselves, please PM me.

For the Catholic Church or anyone else to fraudulently claim JW"s claim to being “inspired” or “inspired prophets”, while ignoring the absolustely explicit statements mentioned above shows an agenda.

And yes, I doubt the Catholic Church gathered up the original articles and reviewed them before posting the false charge about claiming to be “inspired” or “inspired prophets”.

Steve

what Catholic article steve are you referring to? the one from CA library, or from wiki? please make yourself clear if you would be so kind?

 

[TraditionalCath]

Yes, The Catholic article specifically says “it claims to be God’s inspired prophet” This is 100% false.

I showed Yessisan multiple articles from 1880 forward where the the WTS says over and over and over:

“We are not inspired”
“We do not have the gift of prophcy”
“Not Inspired”
“Not Infallible like Pope claims”
“No Inspiration in Speaking or Writing”

She’s seen it with her own eyes now. Ask her. If anyone wants to see for themselves, please PM me.

For the Catholic Church or anyone else to fraudulently claim JW"s claim to being “inspired” or “inspired prophets”, while ignoring the absolustely explicit statements mentioned above shows an agenda.

And yes, I doubt the Catholic Church gathered up the original articles and reviewed them before posting the false charge about claiming to be “inspired” or “inspired prophets”.

Steve

ok so if your not inspired then, then how do you know that what your society teaches is the “truth”? how can they then claim to speak for God? how? Did God give them permission to speak on His behalf? no. so how can they claim that they are God’s mouthpiece then? they can’t! think about it steve! use your wealth of knowledge that you possess, and sincerely think about that for a minute! your basically stating that CA information in the library is wrong, and your claiming that it is false, so are you accusing the people who put it up on the site as promoting falsehood? and lies? they are telling the truth steve! are you accusing them then of promoting falsehood? say so. your honest right? say so if that is what you think. be honest and be blunt.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Thomas Paine, 1809 **

Steve, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with many of the names you listed, and ESPECIALLY with Thomas Paine.
Do yourself a favor, go to the library and get a copy of Thomas Paine’s book THE AGE OF REASON.

You will be horrified at this man’s unspeakable blasphemies against God Almighty, blasphemies and ridicule of the bible itself, and hatred for the notion of the atoning death of Jesus for our sins.

I hope you are not under the illusion that this horrible blasphemer was in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER just a Christian who merely didn’t believe in the Trinity.

And why on EARTH would you list
the False Prophet Muhammad ???
What’s wrong with you???
Are you THAT desperate???