J
JeanneH
Guest
Hi Alan,
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
excaliber
Guest
Hi Alan,
Thank you for you thoughts, that is, on this matter of the Watchtower methods of quoting others. On the chance that you might not be aware of this, in actuality, some years in the past, it was somewhat a regular practice of citing the sources for every reference; but, even today, if there are materials being quoted, and someone wanted to learn of their sources, they’d only have to write to the Watchtower Society and ask - oftentimes, they will even provide a photo-copy of the materials themselves.
It can be fun to look at different religious materials.I didn’t know this. I have often written the Watchtower siting articles that I felt were misrepresented , my point of view and sources of reference. I have never thought to ask them for there sources. Thanks for this.
Jeanne
However I think its obvious why Mormons and watchtower society
dosent have sources, its because there teachings never existed before they were thought up by
J.Smith or C.T.Russel. There are no references, connecting such teachings to the apostles.
J
JeanneH
Guest
JeanneH;5157358:
Hi,Hi Alan,
It can be fun to look at different religious materials.
However I think its obvious why Mormons and watchtower society
dosent have sources, its because there teachings never existed before they were thought up by
J.Smith or C.T.Russel. There are no references, connecting such teachings to the apostles.
The Watchtower would have even have problems siting their own history because from time to time generation to generation they change what they believe. ie: They once believed that Jesus died on the cross now they believe that Jesus died on a stake.
Just take a look at their 1914 teaching. By their own writings in Watchtower their starting date for this “coming” of Jesus in wrong. But that is another topic.
Jeanne
They need our prayers for God to open their hearts to the truth.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Dear Gottle of Geer,
With respect to the issues you’ve raised concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation rendition of Colossians 1:16 & 17, there is much in explanation/justification of it. Perhaps, if you wish, you might want to examine the contents of the following:
Does the New World Translation Add Words to Colossians 1:16, 17?
Col 1:15-20 NWT . “other”. Why?
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
Those pages don’t meet the objection. I’m well aware of how difficult, & usually, how impossible an art translation is; and that there are different types of translation. But none of that meets the case. Paul’s Christology & his argument in that passage don’t allow the insertion of the word “other” in that passage - not on textual grounds, not given the argument he is making. It’s not the sort of insertion that is required when a proper name followers a personal name in the genitive: “person X “of” person Y” requires some word, such as “son” to be inserted, if the result is to be recognisable as English; the genitive case of the second word has the function of relating the two names one to the other.
An example to demonstrate all this is Acts 1.13 (the ESV is quoted) :- And when they had entered, they went up to(A) the upper room, where they were staying,(**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#cen-ESV-26925B”)) Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon(C) the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
- personal name in nominative singular + personal name in genitive singular.
- accusative singular pronoun + verb + subject is typical of NT Greek.
In Col.1.16, the text is perfectly intelligible, in both Greek & in English, as it stands - the “other” after “all” in the phrase “…all [other] things were made through him…” is otiose - instead of clarifying the meaning of the Greek, it changes it, & changes it drastically. Paul is made to say something he does not say - his declaration of the primacy of Christ becomes, at the highest, a primacy among creatures & not above them. That is to change not only his Christology, but everything that flows from it.
more…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
…more…
What Paul says in Col. 1, and in verses 15-23 of it, drives a coach and horses through all attempts to give Jesus Christ any position that, in effect,makes him one creature among others - even if he is allowed to be the most exalted of all of them. That is to give him the position of the BVM: & that position is not enough; he is far more exalted & glorious than any mere Saint. “St. Jesus Christ”, which is what he becomes, is not the Jesus Christ of the NT. Here’s the passage:
…more…
What Paul says in Col. 1, and in verses 15-23 of it, drives a coach and horses through all attempts to give Jesus Christ any position that, in effect,makes him one creature among others - even if he is allowed to be the most exalted of all of them. That is to give him the position of the BVM: & that position is not enough; he is far more exalted & glorious than any mere Saint. “St. Jesus Christ”, which is what he becomes, is not the Jesus Christ of the NT. Here’s the passage:
- 15(AI) He is the image of(AJ) the invisible God,(AK) the firstborn of all creation. 16 For byf] him all things were created,(AL) in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether(AM) thrones or(AN) dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created(AO) through him and for him. 17And(AP) he is before all things, and in him all things(AQ) hold together. 18And(AR) he is the head of the body, the church. He is(AS) the beginning,(AT) the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For(AU) in him all the(AV) fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and(AW) through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,(AX) making peace(AY) by the blood of his cross.
- **For by him all things were created - **
- in heaven and on earth
- visible and invisible
- whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities
- all things were created through him and for him
- And he is before all things
- and in him all things hold together
- And he is the head of the body, the church
- He is the beginning
- the firstborn from the dead
- that in everything he might be pre-eminent
…more…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
…end…
Any phrase that might suggest that Jesus Christ is, after all, pre-eminent among creatures, but no greater in kind than they, and so, still a creature after all, appears side by side with language that does not allow this interpretation: a creature cannot be the one “by [whom] all things were created” - and the point is rammed home by the words “all things were created through him and for him”. If that were not enough, “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” - the three phrases follow one another without interruption.
That the Christ of Colossians is not a creature, could hardly be stated more unambiguously. Its argument does not allow Jesus Christ to be one, but is packed with phrases that give every appearance of being chosen to exclude that very idea. A Creator-God can become man & be crucified, “foolish” as that may be in man’s eyes - a mere creature cannot be the Creator. So a creature cannot create “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities”. He whom Paul preaches did both that, and overcame them by his Cross - both points needed making: for by so speaking Paul overthrows all ideas that Colossians might have that they are under the dominion of heavenly bodies or angelic powers: that is, his words are of a Christ Who has destroyed all astrological determinism.
Why does he not call him God ? Because that is reserved for the Father, as in verse 1. Most often, Jesus Christ is called Lord, as elsewhere in the NT; as in verse 10. To call Him Christ (as in the same verse), is to say that He is the Christos, the Messiah - & a Messiah who does all that Paul ascribes to this one is more even than the highest of creatures.
That there was One God Alone was a certainty - so the distinction of Persons had to start from that. The use of the title “Lord” in distinction from the Name “God” was one of the results of this.
- For
- in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell
- and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
- whether on earth or in heaven
- making peace by the blood of his cross
Any phrase that might suggest that Jesus Christ is, after all, pre-eminent among creatures, but no greater in kind than they, and so, still a creature after all, appears side by side with language that does not allow this interpretation: a creature cannot be the one “by [whom] all things were created” - and the point is rammed home by the words “all things were created through him and for him”. If that were not enough, “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” - the three phrases follow one another without interruption.
That the Christ of Colossians is not a creature, could hardly be stated more unambiguously. Its argument does not allow Jesus Christ to be one, but is packed with phrases that give every appearance of being chosen to exclude that very idea. A Creator-God can become man & be crucified, “foolish” as that may be in man’s eyes - a mere creature cannot be the Creator. So a creature cannot create “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities”. He whom Paul preaches did both that, and overcame them by his Cross - both points needed making: for by so speaking Paul overthrows all ideas that Colossians might have that they are under the dominion of heavenly bodies or angelic powers: that is, his words are of a Christ Who has destroyed all astrological determinism.
Why does he not call him God ? Because that is reserved for the Father, as in verse 1. Most often, Jesus Christ is called Lord, as elsewhere in the NT; as in verse 10. To call Him Christ (as in the same verse), is to say that He is the Christos, the Messiah - & a Messiah who does all that Paul ascribes to this one is more even than the highest of creatures.
That there was One God Alone was a certainty - so the distinction of Persons had to start from that. The use of the title “Lord” in distinction from the Name “God” was one of the results of this.
A
ann94063
Guest
There’s a great book by Jason Evert titled Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses, which I am reading right now.
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
JohnOneOne;5156895:
In my opinion the Watchtower actually lies by not honestly quoting from their sources.Hi Alan,
Thanks for the link.
Here is another link Should You Believe in The Trinity.jwfacts.com/index_files/trinity.htm
Some one actually took the time to do this work.
God Bless
Jeanne
Dear Jeanne,
And I also thank you for the above link.
After looking at the claimed examples of ‘misquoted sources,’ I’m sorry, but I see no dishonesty among them.
For me, one way to prove this is to ask the question, ‘Is what the WT is quoting untrue, that is, from the standpoint of what was said, as intended within the original statement?’ In other words, does the portion quoted misrepresent any ideas to which the writer had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated? As can be seen, although what was originally said may, indeed, include some further clarifying observations, I do not find these omitted portions as invalidating any of the points being quoted.
Granted, although something more might have been said, that is, in addressing the comments within the portions left out; but, when it comes to those parts which were being quoted, they, in my view, can and do stand on their own as they are, that is, as accurately representing even if only a part of what was being attested to by their original writers.
Now, that does not mean to say that something more could have been quoted, that is, in order to discuss the other parts of the intended purpose of the original writers’ statements. But again, taking each on their own merits, what was quoted does, in my view, still remains as a true and accurate statement.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear excaliber,sincere is an under statement!
If a man was walking on rail road
tracts and a train was coming at him. Would you not sound the warning?
The train is The Holy Catholic Church. The man is you. I am in know way joking. Listen to what I am about to say carefully, if you
don’t listen to anything else listen to this!
I understand that you don’t fully know what you are doing, its ok take your time and study. But becarfull not to directly speak against The Holy Spirit! That is blasphemy! Don’t speak against the Catholic Church in your door to
door activities for fear that you may stumble someone! Speak against any other church but not The Catholic Church, because to do that would be to fight against God.
Simply don’t do or say anything against The Church until you first do a FULL investigation, and Fully understand what you are doing.
I want you to be on your guard against serious sin.
Thank you again for your loving expressions of concern, I truly appreciate it.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JeanneH
Guest
JeanneH;5157231:
within the original statement?’ In other words, does the portion quoted misrepresent any ideas to which the writer had actually, in more fullness, specifically stated? As can be seen, although what was originally said may, indeed, include some further clarifying observations, I do not find these omitted portions as invalidating any of the points being quoted.Dear Jeanne,
And I also thank you for the above link.
After looking at the claimed examples of ‘misquoted sources,’ I’m sorry, but I see no dishonesty among them.
For me, one way to prove this is to ask the question, 'Is what the WT is quoting untrue, that is, from the standpoint of what was said, as intended
Granted, although something more might have been said, that is, in addressing the comments within the portions left out; but, when it comes to those parts which were being quoted, they, in my view, can and do stand on their own as they are, that is, as accurately representing even if only a part of what was being attested to by their original writers.
Now, that does not mean to say that something more could have been quoted, that is, in order to discuss the other parts of the intended purpose of the original writers’ statements. But again, taking each on their own merits, what was quoted does, in my view, still remains as a true and accurate statement.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
I haven’t taken the time to re-read the Should You Believe in The Trinity link but if memory serves the WT are trying to use the Church Father’s own words to say that they (CF) didn’t believe in the Trinity. If the entire paragraph was quoted the truth would have been revealed. It surprises me that you couldn’t see this for your self. But the WT made their erroneous point and mores the pity that the congregation studying from this magazine trusts the WT and won’t question them.
May I ask if you are an elder or a theologian or is this none of my business?
Peace
Jeanne
B
bigbaldone
Guest
From the age of 11 II was a part of the JW’s. My parents left the Catholic church and thus began a journey.
After I left, I spent the better part of 15 years in study of this organization; it’s history, dogma, changes, etc.
As an individual who has a degree in Theology (and I say this only for validity of my statement), I can say that the NWT is lacking in credibility among leading Greek linguist, both Christian and secular. It is a biased version established to line up with the dogma of the WTBTS.
I was always impressed at the sincerity among JW’s. They truly have a love for God and a desire to live their lives in accordance with the scriptures. However, it was mentioned earlier that JW’s are encouraged to think for themselves in manners of doctrine. This is a half truth!
Yes, think before joining, but after baptism takes place, questioning the Faithful and Discreet Slave is not wise. In fact, many have been dis-fellowshipped because of this act. Also, any doubts which are brought out to an Elder or one who informs an Elder, may be considered apostate.
An individual who is a part of the WTBTS will do everything to defend the organization. However, the average JW does not venture outside of the organizations publications to conduct research in order to qualify their established belief system. It is already done for them in the Society’s publications…there is not any need to go anywhere else for spiritual food.
Note: If in fact JohnOneOne is a JW, he is in direct violation of the established “Society” edicts by joining, and participating in, this thread.
To JohnOneOne, yes, this is my opinion, yet it is an opinion of one who has lived the life, researched the issues and then researched some more…and some more, studied the original languages; their grammar and syntax, and arrived at a conclusion. I have read just about every link available on every major doctrine concerning the Society. I do not mean any attack or disrespect towards you.
To all interested in further study, look up the name “Raymond Franz”. Ray was a member of the Governing Body for many years. He was forced to leave and for disquieting reasons. His insight is educational.
After I left, I spent the better part of 15 years in study of this organization; it’s history, dogma, changes, etc.
As an individual who has a degree in Theology (and I say this only for validity of my statement), I can say that the NWT is lacking in credibility among leading Greek linguist, both Christian and secular. It is a biased version established to line up with the dogma of the WTBTS.
I was always impressed at the sincerity among JW’s. They truly have a love for God and a desire to live their lives in accordance with the scriptures. However, it was mentioned earlier that JW’s are encouraged to think for themselves in manners of doctrine. This is a half truth!
Yes, think before joining, but after baptism takes place, questioning the Faithful and Discreet Slave is not wise. In fact, many have been dis-fellowshipped because of this act. Also, any doubts which are brought out to an Elder or one who informs an Elder, may be considered apostate.
An individual who is a part of the WTBTS will do everything to defend the organization. However, the average JW does not venture outside of the organizations publications to conduct research in order to qualify their established belief system. It is already done for them in the Society’s publications…there is not any need to go anywhere else for spiritual food.
Note: If in fact JohnOneOne is a JW, he is in direct violation of the established “Society” edicts by joining, and participating in, this thread.
To JohnOneOne, yes, this is my opinion, yet it is an opinion of one who has lived the life, researched the issues and then researched some more…and some more, studied the original languages; their grammar and syntax, and arrived at a conclusion. I have read just about every link available on every major doctrine concerning the Society. I do not mean any attack or disrespect towards you.
To all interested in further study, look up the name “Raymond Franz”. Ray was a member of the Governing Body for many years. He was forced to leave and for disquieting reasons. His insight is educational.
B
billg3436
Guest
Hello Alan,
In order to have any meaningful discussion regarding of the doctrine of the Trinity with a Catholic person, one must engage Catholic presuppositions in addition to stating your own, which you do quite well above. Catholics would make a distinction between what one would call a true Biblical doctrine, say the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and a true doctrine of Christianity. One guiding presupposition of the Catholic is that full doctrinal Christianity did not march forth from the Apostles complete - exhaustively expounded, explained and understood. Nor, according to the Catholic, was all set down in writing in the Bible.
The position that the “formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ … has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma” is accurate as long as one is careful to include the italics. The soundness of the contention that “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective…” hinges upon one’s threshold of what constitutes “remotely approaching”. From the Apostolic Fathers we have some quotes to offer, most of which could be construed to imply the deity of Jesus. The Apostolic Father Polycarp is said to have uttered what appears to be a praise of the Trinity:
“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155]).
Statements like these appear to become more explicit among the Early Church Fathers, some of whom were thought to have been taught by those who were taught by the Apostles:
“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]).
Can one rationally contend that among the Apostolic Fathers “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective”? It doesn’t seem likely. But I do not claim that these and other statements represent the fullness of the Trinitarian doctrine among the Apostolic Fathers or Early Church Fathers. And while it is true that full Trinitarian doctrine was not formalized until the end of the 4th century, the doctrine of Christ’s deity, a component of Trinitarian doctrine which you as a Jehovah’s Witness reject, was itself formalized in the early 4th century – in 325 ad at the First Council of Nicea. But post-Apostolic formulation of true Christian doctrine is not a problem for me as a Catholic…and shouldn’t be for you as a Jehovah’s Witness.
The reason this is so is because Jehovah’s Witnesses do accept and hold as doctrine one particular post-Apostolic proclamation of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium – that of the correct composition of the New Testament canon. This was first formally stated at the Synod of Hippo in 393 ad and formally defined by the First Council of Carthage in 397 ad. No complete list exists among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Through the first few centuries of the Church’s life different teachers and communities make reference to differing, though not radically differing, New Testament canons – some rejecting books you and I now accept and others including some books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, that we reject as being canonical. Regarding the NT canon, I believe you could also contend that it was unequivocally substantiated that “neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept” of the Word of God. And yet, the NMT New Testament has the canon that wasn’t formalized by Catholic Church until the end of the 4th century. How is this so?
You quoted this from the Watch Tower magazine: “We do not object to changing our opinions, on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,–in fact, it is as important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth." Is the composition of the NT canon in your NWT Bible a mere tradition that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be willing to discard if necessary or otherwise desirable? Given that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society claims no special charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, “applications of prophecy, or any other scripture”, is each Jehovah’s Witness free to decide for himself what the correct composition of the New Testament canon is? Why should the Jehovah’s Witness be bound to uphold the NT canon found in the NWT Bible? Why does the Jehovah’s Witness organization uphold the Catholic Church’s late 4th century doctrine of the composition of the NT canon? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Catholic Church was protected from error in the late 4th century when it formalized this doctrine? If so, why then do they not also believe the Catholic Church was so protected when it formalized the doctrine of Christ’s divinity in 325 ad? Is it not utterly arbitrary to accept one while rejecting the other?
I look forward to reading any response you post and thank you for your time, Alan.
Bill G
In order to have any meaningful discussion regarding of the doctrine of the Trinity with a Catholic person, one must engage Catholic presuppositions in addition to stating your own, which you do quite well above. Catholics would make a distinction between what one would call a true Biblical doctrine, say the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and a true doctrine of Christianity. One guiding presupposition of the Catholic is that full doctrinal Christianity did not march forth from the Apostles complete - exhaustively expounded, explained and understood. Nor, according to the Catholic, was all set down in writing in the Bible.
The position that the “formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ … has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma” is accurate as long as one is careful to include the italics. The soundness of the contention that “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective…” hinges upon one’s threshold of what constitutes “remotely approaching”. From the Apostolic Fathers we have some quotes to offer, most of which could be construed to imply the deity of Jesus. The Apostolic Father Polycarp is said to have uttered what appears to be a praise of the Trinity:
“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155]).
Statements like these appear to become more explicit among the Early Church Fathers, some of whom were thought to have been taught by those who were taught by the Apostles:
“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]).
Can one rationally contend that among the Apostolic Fathers “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective”? It doesn’t seem likely. But I do not claim that these and other statements represent the fullness of the Trinitarian doctrine among the Apostolic Fathers or Early Church Fathers. And while it is true that full Trinitarian doctrine was not formalized until the end of the 4th century, the doctrine of Christ’s deity, a component of Trinitarian doctrine which you as a Jehovah’s Witness reject, was itself formalized in the early 4th century – in 325 ad at the First Council of Nicea. But post-Apostolic formulation of true Christian doctrine is not a problem for me as a Catholic…and shouldn’t be for you as a Jehovah’s Witness.
The reason this is so is because Jehovah’s Witnesses do accept and hold as doctrine one particular post-Apostolic proclamation of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium – that of the correct composition of the New Testament canon. This was first formally stated at the Synod of Hippo in 393 ad and formally defined by the First Council of Carthage in 397 ad. No complete list exists among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Through the first few centuries of the Church’s life different teachers and communities make reference to differing, though not radically differing, New Testament canons – some rejecting books you and I now accept and others including some books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, that we reject as being canonical. Regarding the NT canon, I believe you could also contend that it was unequivocally substantiated that “neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept” of the Word of God. And yet, the NMT New Testament has the canon that wasn’t formalized by Catholic Church until the end of the 4th century. How is this so?
You quoted this from the Watch Tower magazine: “We do not object to changing our opinions, on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,–in fact, it is as important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth." Is the composition of the NT canon in your NWT Bible a mere tradition that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be willing to discard if necessary or otherwise desirable? Given that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society claims no special charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, “applications of prophecy, or any other scripture”, is each Jehovah’s Witness free to decide for himself what the correct composition of the New Testament canon is? Why should the Jehovah’s Witness be bound to uphold the NT canon found in the NWT Bible? Why does the Jehovah’s Witness organization uphold the Catholic Church’s late 4th century doctrine of the composition of the NT canon? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Catholic Church was protected from error in the late 4th century when it formalized this doctrine? If so, why then do they not also believe the Catholic Church was so protected when it formalized the doctrine of Christ’s divinity in 325 ad? Is it not utterly arbitrary to accept one while rejecting the other?
I look forward to reading any response you post and thank you for your time, Alan.
Bill G
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
excaliber;5157636:
Dear Jeanne,Hi,
The Watchtower would have even have problems siting their own history because from time to time generation to generation they change what they believe. ie: They once believed that Jesus died on the cross now they believe that Jesus died on a stake.
Just take a look at their 1914 teaching. By their own writings in Watchtower their starting date for this “coming” of Jesus in wrong. But that is another topic.
Jeanne
They need our prayers for God to open their hearts to the truth.
Thank you for your expressions of loving concern for Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.
With respect to the other things you’ve stated above, perhaps, this might help towards putting these into proper perspective. The following is some of which was printed within a early edition of the Watchtower magazine, stated in an issue of its first year:
“We do not object to changing our opinions, on any subject, or discarding former
applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the
change,- in fact, it is as important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere
traditions, as to learn truth.”
As taken from:“The Ten Virgins,” article within, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, October 1879, reprint, p. 38.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear Bill G,Hello Alan,
In order to have any meaningful discussion regarding of the doctrine of the Trinity with a Catholic person, one must engage Catholic presuppositions in addition to stating your own, which you do quite well above. Catholics would make a distinction between what one would call a true Biblical doctrine, say the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and a true doctrine of Christianity. One guiding presupposition of the Catholic is that full doctrinal Christianity did not march forth from the Apostles complete - exhaustively expounded, explained and understood. Nor, according to the Catholic, was all set down in writing in the Bible.
The position that the “formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ … has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma” is accurate as long as one is careful to include the italics. The soundness of the contention that “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective…” hinges upon one’s threshold of what constitutes “remotely approaching”. From the Apostolic Fathers we have some quotes to offer, most of which could be construed to imply the deity of Jesus. The Apostolic Father Polycarp is said to have uttered what appears to be a praise of the Trinity:
“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155]).
Statements like these appear to become more explicit among the Early Church Fathers, some of whom were thought to have been taught by those who were taught by the Apostles:
“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]).
Can one rationally contend that among the Apostolic Fathers “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective”? It doesn’t seem likely. But I do not claim that these and other statements represent the fullness of the Trinitarian doctrine among the Apostolic Fathers or Early Church Fathers. And while it is true that full Trinitarian doctrine was not formalized until the end of the 4th century, the doctrine of Christ’s deity, a component of Trinitarian doctrine which you as a Jehovah’s Witness reject, was itself formalized in the early 4th century – in 325 ad at the First Council of Nicea. But post-Apostolic formulation of true Christian doctrine is not a problem for me as a Catholic…and shouldn’t be for you as a Jehovah’s Witness.
The reason this is so is because Jehovah’s Witnesses do accept and hold as doctrine one particular post-Apostolic proclamation of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium – that of the correct composition of the New Testament canon. This was first formally stated at the Synod of Hippo in 393 ad and formally defined by the First Council of Carthage in 397 ad. No complete list exists among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Through the first few centuries of the Church’s life different teachers and communities make reference to differing, though not radically differing, New Testament canons – some rejecting books you and I now accept and others including some books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, that we reject as being canonical. Regarding the NT canon, I believe you could also contend that it was unequivocally substantiated that “neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept” of the Word of God. And yet, the NMT New Testament has the canon that wasn’t formalized by Catholic Church until the end of the 4th century. How is this so?
You quoted this from the Watch Tower magazine: “We do not object to changing our opinions, on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,–in fact, it is as important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth." Is the composition of the NT canon in your NWT Bible a mere tradition that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be willing to discard if necessary or otherwise desirable? Given that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society claims no special charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, “applications of prophecy, or any other scripture”, is each Jehovah’s Witness free to decide for himself what the correct composition of the New Testament canon is? Why should the Jehovah’s Witness be bound to uphold the NT canon found in the NWT Bible? Why does the Jehovah’s Witness organization uphold the Catholic Church’s late 4th century doctrine of the composition of the NT canon? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Catholic Church was protected from error in the late 4th century when it formalized this doctrine? If so, why then do they not also believe the Catholic Church was so protected when it formalized the doctrine of Christ’s divinity in 325 ad? Is it not utterly arbitrary to accept one while rejecting the other?
I look forward to reading any response you post and thank you for your time, Alan.
Bill G
‘Apples and Oranges.’ Although you may see a corelation betwee the two, I do not.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear BigBaldOne,From the age of 11 II was a part of the JW’s. My parents left the Catholic church and thus began a journey.
After I left, I spent the better part of 15 years in study of this organization; it’s history, dogma, changes, etc.
As an individual who has a degree in Theology (and I say this only for validity of my statement), I can say that the NWT is lacking in credibility among leading Greek linguist, both Christian and secular. It is a biased version established to line up with the dogma of the WTBTS.
I was always impressed at the sincerity among JW’s. They truly have a love for God and a desire to live their lives in accordance with the scriptures. However, it was mentioned earlier that JW’s are encouraged to think for themselves in manners of doctrine. This is a half truth!
Yes, think before joining, but after baptism takes place, questioning the Faithful and Discreet Slave is not wise. In fact, many have been dis-fellowshipped because of this act. Also, any doubts which are brought out to an Elder or one who informs an Elder, may be considered apostate.
An individual who is a part of the WTBTS will do everything to defend the organization. However, the average JW does not venture outside of the organizations publications to conduct research in order to qualify their established belief system. It is already done for them in the Society’s publications…there is not any need to go anywhere else for spiritual food.
Note: If in fact JohnOneOne is a JW, he is in direct violation of the established “Society” edicts by joining, and participating in, this thread.
To JohnOneOne, yes, this is my opinion, yet it is an opinion of one who has lived the life, researched the issues and then researched some more…and some more, studied the original languages; their grammar and syntax, and arrived at a conclusion. I have read just about every link available on every major doctrine concerning the Society. I do not mean any attack or disrespect towards you.
To all interested in further study, look up the name “Raymond Franz”. Ray was a member of the Governing Body for many years. He was forced to leave and for disquieting reasons. His insight is educational.
Out of all that you have said, I believe your statement, “Yes, think before joining,” is key to so much, that is, in offering the balance to the base of what you’ve expressed.
As you well know, those of whom agree to study with Jehovah’s Witnesses are, yes, encouraged to do much ‘thinking before joining,’ with some even taking years before concluding that the Witnesses are teaching people the “Truth” of what the Bible contains. Why, even many a Catholic priest and nun are also among their ranks.
Now, as both you and I know, this, in itself, does not prove the correctness of either of our two positions, as I know there are those who, at one time, had also been JW’s, those who left us to become or return to the Catholic system of belief.
Perhaps, needless to say, what really matters is what and how God thinks about any of us,…and, in the face of and apart from what you or I might present, that is, as proofs of our position, that’s where I leave it.
I sincerely wish you well on your journey,
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
JohnOneOne;5164453:
Dear Jeanne,I haven’t taken the time to re-read the Should You Believe in The Trinity link but if memory serves the WT are trying to use the Church Father’s own words to say that they (CF) didn’t believe in the Trinity. If the entire paragraph was quoted the truth would have been revealed. It surprises me that you couldn’t see this for your self. But the WT made their erroneous point and mores the pity that the congregation studying from this magazine trusts the WT and won’t question them.
May I ask if you are an elder or a theologian or is this none of my business?
Peace
Jeanne
Quoting of the entire paragraph is, as I will admit, oftentimes, but not always, necessary to acquire the fullness of what has been stated. As I’ve stated before, regardless of what some may claim as to the accuracy of what is being quoted, there will always be those who, regardless of whom is doing the quoting or in what is being cited, will still reject the veracity of any of such claims,…Christ Jesus is, Himself, a testimony to such a truth.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
P.S. - As for the question of whether I am an elder, I am not. Wtih respect to whether I am a theologian, as Merriam-Webster explains: A “theologian” is one who is “a specialist in theology”; and “theology” especially addresses one who is engaged in “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world.” Therefore, from that perspective, I would hope that all Christians could/should think of themselves as “theologians.”
J
JohnOneOne
Guest
Dear ann94063 (and others),There’s a great book by Jason Evert titled Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses, which I am reading right now.
The following link should help in locating a copy:
Open Library
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
J
JeanneH
Guest
.
Hi Alan
Hi Alan
“We do not object to changing our opinions, on any subject, or discarding former
applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the
change,- in fact, it is as important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere
traditions, as to learn truth.”
It is my understanding that the JW’s consider themselves God’s true prophet on earth. If that is true then why would Witness’ find the need to discard former prophecy? Coming from God it can only BE true and free from error.’. All the OT prophets always spoke the truth and their prophecy came to pass. Or am I missing the entire point here.
Peace
Jeanne
.
B
billg3436
Guest
Hi Alan,Dear Bill G,
‘Apples and Oranges.’ Although you may see a corelation betwee the two, I do not.
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
“Apples and Oranges”? How so? Please elaborate.
Bill G
A
avflf
Guest
I must admit, this is a very interesting thread and I must commend JohnOneOne on his concise and measured approach to some rather abrasive outbursts. He seems to be a sincere believer of the JW approach to the understanding of the Scriptures and a gentleman with a very good knowledge of the subjects being discussed. Good show Jn.1:1No, I’m not a JW.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.