J
- Status
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear Bill G,
Whereas, it would appear that you wish to minimize the significant implications of the following:
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective….” – Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], pp. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.
…I do not. Within such a concise statement as this, I see irrefutable proof that it would have been impossible for the Christ or any of His disciples to have ever introduced or ever taught any of such new notions of God as a Trinity (even without ever having used this term); no, not even among those as taught by the Apostles themselves, as these did not ‘even remotely approach such a mentality or perspective.’ In other words, the focus of Richard’s statement was my focus as well. To bring in other issues as somehow relating to this, is in my view, an attempt at obfuscation of the relevance I was giving to the powerful implications of such a clearly stated observation.
Whereas, although it would appear that you would hope to interject a connection of ones acceptance of the Biblical canon with also accepting the full authority of the “Church,” is, in my view, quite disingenuous; especially on the notion that to accept one aspect of the “Church” position/teaching on one thing (the Biblical canon) must then require it incumbent upon an individual to the acceptance of all other teachings/views brought forth (e.g., “the Trinitarian dogma”). Acceptance of the one does not, in my view, require acceptance of them all.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
po18guy
Well-known member
There is one true faith, correct? Any faith that suddenly and without warning popped up in America must be subject to intense scrutiny. Any faith that changes the beliefs and teachings of those who were eyewitnesses must be viewed circumspectly. Any faith whose “prophecies” have failed or fallen short time after time and which, by its own authority, ordered the modification (NOT mere translation) the Word of God cannot be held to be free of the antichrist. All faiths who have rejected the Church which Christ founded have also (knowingly or otherwise) rejected the Christ Who founded that Church. The Church, being Christ’s body, is inseparable from its head, Christ Himself. This includes the Church Militant on earth, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven. Inseparable. To do so separates and kills the body, while retaining only the head - which that “organization” has modified to suit its own worldly aims and goals.
We are called to lead others - especially those who have been lead astray by false prophets with false teachings, to the truth. In many cases, it remains leading a horse to water.
We are called to lead others - especially those who have been lead astray by false prophets with false teachings, to the truth. In many cases, it remains leading a horse to water.
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear po18guy,
Yes; but, before any of such claims can be fairly and effectively addressed, they must first be substantiated as true themselves.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
po18guy
Well-known member
I note, with interest piqued, that your user name is the most fraudulently modified verse of the NWT. All of us here are praying that your love of God continues; that your faith in Christ is secure, but that your eyes are opened to the fulness of truth.
po18guy
Well-known member
Since the Catholic faith is ancient, and the JW belief system is so recent, please lay a foundation for the existence of the JW organization. Without an unassailable foundation, why should anyone, most especially you, believe in it? In all honesty, the JW organization does indeed appear to represent a “new gospel”. The modifications to long-settled scripture serve only to reinforce this notion. We are to deny any such new gospel, even though an Angel should preach it to us. (Galatians 1:6-11)
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear po18guy,
Or, on the other hand, JohnOneOne is to draw attention to the fact that,
“The simple sentence of verse 1 [of John] is the most compact and pulsating theological statement in all of Scripture.”
As taken from: Hughes, R. Kent (b.?-d.?), Senior Pastor of College Church in Wheaton, Illinois. John: That You May Believe. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1999), p. 17. BS2615.3 .H77 1999 / 99-25801.
In fact, concerning the whole prologue, it’s been said that,
“The first eighteen verses of St. John’s Gospel are in depth the majesty peerless in all the world’s literature, peerless even in the Book of God himself.…In this prologue profoundest philosophy and loftiest poetry are divinely wedded.”
As taken from: Boardman, George Dana (b.1828-d.1903). The Divine Man, From the Nativity to the Temptation. (New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887), p. 11. BT301 .B58 / 33035974.
Therefore, rather than signifying the meaning you wish to see as attached to my ID, I’d rather see it as an opportunity to encourage some prayerful thoughtfulness, that is, on such an inspiring, reflectful passage.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
po18guy
Well-known member
Deceit, either accidental as in your case or intentional, is counter to the truth, and furthers the cause of evil. It serves only to expose a corrupt or rotten foundation of belief. It attempts to conceal the “new gospel” which YOU are to reject. We already reject it. If your new beliefs have a foundation, then so does the altered bible. Lay your foundation!
A series of links to JW sites, or copies and pastes do not suffice. I have as much credibility to promulgate my own set of beliefs: None!
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear po18guy,
Thank you for that question, as I can certainly understand how you (and others) might view our appearance on the scene in just such a way; and so, also deserves to be respectfully addressed. As short and succinct as my reply might be, my method of explaining this is, in no way, meant to minimize the importance nor gravity of your inquiry.
When examining the Holy Scriptures, these bring to the fore the histories of the vast record of many faithful witnesses of Israel’s God, YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah).
After discussing so many men and women of faith, such further mention of them can be found at Hebrews 12:1 as, “With so many witnesses in a great cloud all around us…” - (The New Jerusalem Bible, bold italics mine).
Quite interestingly, even Jesus was spoken of as such, within Revelation 1:5 - “Jesus Christ, the faithful witness.” - (The New Jerusalem Bible, bold italics mine).
Therefore, it is our view that, for having eventually taken on the name, Jehovah’s witnesses, this was not such a novel idea.
Now, as simply put, in view of Jesus’ own warnings (Matt.13:24-30; 36-43) and the Apostle Paul’s own statements (Acts 20:29, 30), as we see some concern was being uniformly expressed by them about an eventual falling away of many of the true Christian teachings, that is, shortly after their death, it is our view that, in order for “This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed to the whole world as evidence to the nations” (Matt.24:14, NJB) to occur during the time of “the end” (Matt.24:3), the truth of Christ’s message must first be in need of being re-discovered, that is, away from the centuries of the foretold trappings of man-made traditions and the corruptions of the first true doctrines - hence, the arrival and appearance of these early Bible Students, later identified as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.
Although I do believe that, to you and others, this may seem to be a bit too simplistic, and, for some of you, even laughable, in short, this is how we do, indeed, view it.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
In response to some suggestion to a reason for my ID name (JohnOneOne), I wrote:
*~~~~~*
Dear po18guy,
Or, on the other hand, JohnOneOne is to draw attention to the fact that,
“The simple sentence of verse 1 [of John] is the most compact and pulsating theological statement in all of Scripture.”
As taken from: Hughes, R. Kent (b.?-d.?), Senior Pastor of College Church in Wheaton, Illinois. John: That You May Believe. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1999), p. 17. BS2615.3 .H77 1999 / 99-25801.
In fact, concerning the whole prologue, it’s been said that,
“The first eighteen verses of St. John’s Gospel are in depth the majesty peerless in all the world’s literature, peerless even in the Book of God himself.…In this prologue profoundest philosophy and loftiest poetry are divinely wedded.”
As taken from: Boardman, George Dana (b.1828-d.1903). The Divine Man, From the Nativity to the Temptation. (New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887), p. 11. BT301 .B58 / 33035974.
Therefore, rather than signifying the meaning you wish to see as attached to my ID, I’d rather see it as an opportunity to encourage some prayerful thoughtfulness, that is, on such an inspiring, reflectful passage.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
*~~~~~*
You then state:
Although I do respect your right to your own opinion, in view of the above, I must at this point in time respectfully decline from any further discussion with you.
I sincerely wish you well in your endeavors to cling to and remain close to your God and Church.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
*~~~~~*
Dear po18guy,
Or, on the other hand, JohnOneOne is to draw attention to the fact that,
“The simple sentence of verse 1 [of John] is the most compact and pulsating theological statement in all of Scripture.”
As taken from: Hughes, R. Kent (b.?-d.?), Senior Pastor of College Church in Wheaton, Illinois. John: That You May Believe. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1999), p. 17. BS2615.3 .H77 1999 / 99-25801.
In fact, concerning the whole prologue, it’s been said that,
“The first eighteen verses of St. John’s Gospel are in depth the majesty peerless in all the world’s literature, peerless even in the Book of God himself.…In this prologue profoundest philosophy and loftiest poetry are divinely wedded.”
As taken from: Boardman, George Dana (b.1828-d.1903). The Divine Man, From the Nativity to the Temptation. (New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887), p. 11. BT301 .B58 / 33035974.
Therefore, rather than signifying the meaning you wish to see as attached to my ID, I’d rather see it as an opportunity to encourage some prayerful thoughtfulness, that is, on such an inspiring, reflectful passage.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
*~~~~~*
You then state:
Dear po18guy,
Although I do respect your right to your own opinion, in view of the above, I must at this point in time respectfully decline from any further discussion with you.
I sincerely wish you well in your endeavors to cling to and remain close to your God and Church.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JeanneH
Guest
Hi Alan
I found this remark interesting. How do you substantiate the truth of the WT teachings?
Who do you study? You obviously use other publications and not solely those of the Watchtower.You are the first JW I am aware of that actually knows about and reads the CF.(other than the elders and their theologians and WT authors)This is what makes me think that you are more than just a congregant.
It surprises me that a person of your apparent intelligence can honestly read the CF and still remain in the dark.
Peace
Jeanne
po18guy
Well-known member
Thank you. Now, as to all the American faith traditions that claim to be “restorations”, and/or “rediscoveries” of some purportedly lost or corrupted truth, for the sake of your own soul, you must delve deeply into the earliest days of the Church. In order to avoid the purely human temptation to grasp the innovative and new, the oldest form of any teaching must be examined. I have seen nothing to indicate that Jesus’ teachings were corrupted, lost or changed, EXCEPT in the American faith communities that sprung up in the 1800-1900 time frame. That era was peculiar in all of world history as to the corruption and heresies that were introduced. Some, as with the JW, appear as no more than simply Arianism redefined. All have been put forth before, examined and rejected. Their adherents fell away and the ideas faded. - until the advent of America, where no Church authority was recognized and it was a faith free-for-all.
As with the LDS, the JW organization has not demonstrated , to theological, scientific or legal standards, the who, what, when, where and why of the corruption or loss of Jesus’ teachings, or the apostasy of His Church. Entire belief systems are founded on this claim, which is never proven, because it is a nebulous claim by nature. Quite simply, “Where’s the beef?”
All claims of a loss of Jesus’ “true teaching” attempt to disprove Catholic Church authority. However, they then replace it with an ersatz authority of their own based on the personal opinions of that particular faith’s founder. Catholics always assert that Matthew 16:18 is definitive - because, if we believe Jesus, we MUST believe every word He said, not just those we agree with.
The Watchtower organization supports its claims with mere opinions. I have opinions, too, but I do not put them forth as inspired. If they are not inspired, and go directly against what Jesus said, why on earth cling to them?
Remember: it is not your faith or love of Christ that is being challenged. It is the unique and never before heard set of beliefs that the WTO puts forth which are questioned. I have seen opinions, which can be evidence, but never rise to the level of proof. I will not bet my eternity on opinions.
po18guy
Well-known member
So, you are somehow offended (none was intended by excepting you from any and all culpability - an act of charity in itself) and no longer wish to seek the truth, or to lead me to it? OK, but we have all seen this pattern of behavior many times before. You do not have to interact with me ever again, but I would certainly hope that you might just ask a question or two of the WTO. The truth does not shrink from questions - it embraces them.
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear po18guy,
When you stated:
Again, although it is your view that “It is the unique and never before heard set of beliefs that the WTO puts forth which are being questioned,” that happens to be one of the purposes of my being here, to “put forth,” as best I can, the basis of those, seemingly, “never before heard of set of beliefs.”
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear Jeanne,
First of all, it needs be said that whatever the WT teaches and/or believes is first precipitated by what is discovered, that is, from first within the Bible itself. Any causes for some reexamination began there; including considerations being given to a number of indications/evidences of some tampering of the Holy text (even by some well meaning individuals), as being carried out and down throughout the centuries.
Then, when it came to consideration of the ‘Early Church Fathers,’ these too, although being collectively surmised by those within ‘Christendom’ as being in full support of the later developed doctrines (e.g., the Trinity doctrine), when examined afresh, they tell us something different than what also, for centuries, had been regularly supposed.
The problem with most thinking individuals is that, all the while they are given the impression that such things have already been fully assessed, and so, are in no need of any further reexamination, the “truth,” once seen, does, indeed, venture quite far from their supposed “reality.”
Quite interestingly, when it was also discovered that even a source as much respected as the New Catholic Encyclopedia, states much of what we (and others throughout the past few centuries) have been stating, as might be expected, we will do what we can to exploit that truth (i.e., when it was that they stated, when comes to “the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective…”). Powerful indeed!
Sad to say, most honest hearted inquirers are very seldom encouraged to take a second look, in fact, are more often discouraged in doing so; and so, by way of such intimidating factors, little are they able to find the willingness within themselves to question those, seemingly, concrete conclusions.
As must be appreciated, although within the Unitarian movement there were some who, during the pendulum swing of extremist ideas, did much disservice and dishonor to the respect of God and the Bible, but, out of it all, there also arose many a thoughtful, extensive inquiry into many of these very matters - and, little known to some, offering some very startling revelations.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
po18guy
Well-known member
All I am saying is they lack foundation.
The Catholic faith is worth defending and I darned sure will defend her! And we need never go elsewhere to defend her. Plenty come right here to challenge.
I do not blame you at all. Questioning is a very healthy trait in a believer.
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear po18guy,
Apparently, by what you’ve stated above, you have already examined and discussed such issues with others, and so have come to thoroughly conclude as you have.
Therefore, because I suspect that nothing I might contribute to your knowledge would ever change your mind, I am, again, convinced that there need be nothing more to be said between us.
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and views.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JeanneH
Guest
Hi Alan
B
bigbaldone
Guest
You are missing the point!
po18guy
Well-known member
I have discussed this with no one else. If you are seeking those who are neutral and might come to embrace the JW, I bid you visit the forum rules. I also pray that you will question the WTO, as we continue to question what we do not understand about Catholicism. Here, questions are welcomed.
Still no foundation laid for the WTO beliefs.
- Status