Scripture verses JWs have problems with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reply,

Hello,

My brother was a Catholic for over 20 years and is now a JW. I asked him why? When he was a teenager, he studied Hebrew, Greek (classical and koine), ancient history and Greek philosophy and metaphysics. He did 3 years intensive reseach and came to the conclusion, ever before he ever met with JW’s, that many of the teachings, customs, celebrations and dogmas of the RCC and Protestant churches were based, not on scripture, but on extra-biblical matters!

He has had discussions with rabbis, priests, vicars etc and none of them seem to be able to touch him, as he, at will can quote the apologists, church fathers (I wish I had his memory) scripture and historical sources at will and has seemed to produce empirical indisputable evidence that what he says on certain subjects is true; for example, he says that the Triune godhead “substance sharing” (to quote him) is based on the metaphysics of a Greek philosopher called Parmenides, on whom, Plato based his metaphysical and philosophical ideas on and later on the Neo-Platonic philosophers Plotinus, Porphyry… gave the Catholic church a polished version of and that the whole church is 99% Greek in thought and only 1% Christian in thought and no vicar or priest seems to be able to hold their own against him, he seems to be like a surgeon’s scalpel. I told him about some of the way some on here answer the average JW, who in the main, are not apologists and when I told him about some of the Catholic replies to JW’s, he just laughed and laughed and said “it figures”!

Does anyone have any suggestions, as to how I can answer him, any questions, that I can put to him? Please drop me an e-mail, as I am out most of the time and can access my emails from an internet cafe!

Many thanks!
lol, Parmenides was a Monist. The nonsense your brother is spouting comes from here, ccg.org/english/s/p017.html .

plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

Concerning god, he wrote,
Fragment 1, line 3: The manuscripts here are all corrupt (i.e., they must be the results of miscopying since they present a series of letters that do not form a sequence of correctly-spelled words). The most common way to make sense of them gives the sequence of words I have translated above. Recently N.-L. Cordero has argued that the letters could yield a different sequence of words, so that this line would read something like (my translation): Of a goddess, who bears there, in relation to everything, the man of understanding. See N.-L. Cordero, By Being, It Is (Parmenides Publishing, 2005) and Les Deux chemins de Parménide, 2d ed. (Vrin/Ousia, 1997).
Fragment 13, line 1: It is not clear just who is supposed to have devised Erōs (god of love and desire). Quite possibly the unnamed female divinity of Fragment 12 is meant; that seems to have been the impression of some ancient commentators. We do not know whether this divinity is the same as any of the other female divinities in Parmenides’ fragments.

Fragment 13
1 First of all the gods she devised Erōs (Love).
“Cornford’s Fragment”: This fragment was identified by F.M. Cornford and is widely but not universally accepted as genuinely a fragment of Parmenides’ poem. It presents a number of difficulties. We do not know where in the poem the fragment originated if it is genuine: Is it part of the goddess’s account of roads of inquiry? Is it part of her account of the opinions of mortals? Is it something else? Further, it is not clear whether this fragment represents a full sentence or only part of one. Another problem is the wording. The first word may be either hoion, ‘such,’ or oion, ‘alone.’
classweb.gmu.edu/rcherubi/ancient/poem4.htm

google.com/#hl=en&cp=16&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=Parmenides’+Poem&qe=UGFybWVuaWRlcycgUG9lbQ&qesig=VDGUFqnZlblNa9tytiBhwQ&pkc=AFgZ2tlPuaU4ehs43mgpQfQ1UbN-AhUCLSLrzJw8q1EXjFyD1TPli_2p4w5Kxfyl0OLIxQGHHTJRD6VlTilLEYMJVisAG7zt8g&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Parmenides’+Poem&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1350c3a2e903cb66&biw=1024&bih=524

lets see “goddess”, “gods”, and Monist … there is no relation to Trinity
Philosophical monism Monism in philosophy can be defined according to three kinds:
Idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism which holds that only mind is real.
Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy.
Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical.
Certain other positions are hard to pigeonhole into the above categories, see links below. Moreover, these positions do not provide a definition of what does it mean to be “real”.
Ancient Western philosophersThe following pre-Socratic philosophers described reality as being monistic:
Parmenides: Being. Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided. We say there are things that exist and things that don’t exist; Parmenides wrote that there nothing doesn’t exist, only existence does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism#Philosophical_monism

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman,

irr.org/trinity-outline.html
spiritwatch.org/bowtrinout.htm
 
Interesting thread. As a non-practicing, baptized Catholic…I tend to believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses, at least the ones I know, are more knowledgeable about the Bible than any Catholic I’ve ever met.

No, they know what sciptures to cite to supposedly tear down what they believe to be false doctrines. JW’s knowing scripture very well has been blown out of proportion many people. Yes, many rank and file JW’s know their NWT “version” better than alot of Catholics know the bible, but let me put it this way. One their best writers, Marley Cole, who I knew for 30 years, wouldn’t come close to Scott Hahn in a biblical debate. The JW theology is a mile wide and an inch deep.

What do they do in the Kingdom Hall? They READ from the Bible. Not a pre-planned booklet as the Catholic church does. It’s a meeting where everyone who raises their hand gets an opportunity to read, discuss and speak about what they’ve read, rather than listen to a priest recite the same thing over and over. There are no rituals, no idol worship, no money collection. There are collection boxes if one feels like donating. But a collection basket is NEVER passed around.

**A lot of bunk in this paragraph. Everything is preplanned at a JW meeting! They used WT publications as their study guides, ask precanned questions straight out of it, and give answers straight out of it. And I’ve never heard a priest give the same homily/sermon twice. Going to a JW meeting is their own version of a ritual, so this is a red herring argument. Catholics don’t worship idols, so this observation false. JW’s do have collection boxes in the back called contribution boxes. You’re not obligated to to put anything in the collection basket if you don’t want to. **

There are no crucifixes, or any cross for that matter. As it was explained to me, to display a cross with the body of Christ hanging from it is the same as if your loved one died in a car accident and you took to wearing a little battered car around your neck with your loved one’s dead body in it. Why would anybody do that?

Another silly argument. BTW, many Kingdon Halls have scripture verses quoted in prominent places somewhere within the building. Does that mean they are worshipping the bible?

There is no sit, stand, kneel. There are songbooks, Bibles of many different translations…NIV, King James, etc., and a very well organized library of literature for the purpose of answering questions, researching, and educating oneself on Bible truths.

**Sadly, this is true. There is no physicality in the JW services. They are not very reverent. Yet scripture describes instances of where individuals used their whole bodies in demonstrating worship. This seems to have been lost on JW’s. There are other versions of scripture in their back room libraries, but I have never seen versions that contain the deuterocanonical books. I wonder why?:rolleyes: **

It isn’t a cult. There are no “mysteries.” When a Jehovah’s Witness comes knocking at your door, they do it out of love for Jehovah God (yup, that’s his name…it’s in the Bible). It’s done out of love, not guilt.

**I think you’ll find that there are examples of ones that have converted who did not realize the disfellowshipping arrangement, for instance. Or the history of their own false prohecies. As for “Jehovah”, which versions? I know there are some, but many do not, and I don’t think the Jews render God’s name that way in their scriptures. **

You might be amazed to know that awhile back I asked a question somewhere on this site and I was responded to, privately, by someone who was too ashamed to admit for everyone to see…that I was right. Mary is not the “mother of God.” The member stated that an open response may offend some members.

PR has already knocked it out of the park on this one. Nothing to add.
 
My experience has been that they persist all the more when I tell them I’m Catholic.
 
My JW visitor freind sorta chose the topic first by saying if you were on a desert island and had no one to talk to, you could not find the Divinity of Jesus in the bible.
John Ch. 1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Clearly here “the word” refers to Jesus. Jesus was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. Through him all things were made. How does this not reveal the divinity of Christ? I showed this to my Muslim friend who didn’t think the gospels really said anything about Christ’s divinity, and this verse alone convinced him.

Another couple of gems:

John 10:25-39
“Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than alld; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

The following passage can be clearly understood (as it was by the teachers of the law) to be a claim to divinity, and it is easy to see it by reading Exodus when God appeared to Moses and identified himself as I AM.

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

I know what you’re thinking but this is NOT a weak scriptural defense. The jews picked up stones to kill Jesus. They would not do this if he were not claiming to be “I AM” (YHWH). What he said was considered blasphemy.

You simply cannot read the gospel of John and not believe in the divinity of Christ. If you can, then you are not intellectually honest.
 
Anyone here have any discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses? How did it go?

I’m looking for some “stumpers for JWs”–and I have indeed read the Catholic Answers tracts on this–but am looking for* more *from all of my friends here on the forum.

I have had 2 very nice JW ladies come to my door–finally! I’ve been wanting to chat with JWs for a LONG time. I pass their local Kingdom Hall every day and think, “What are they doing in there?? Why can’t anyone come and chat with me because I have so much to ask them!”

And in all my years, I’ve never had a chance to speak to a JW. Funny thing is, DH always seems to be the one to answer the door when they come knocking and will later tell me, quite satisfied, “Some JWs came to the door today but I got rid of them for you!” Whhhaaaat??

One would think, after knowing that I LOVE to be on the CAFs and LOVE to discuss my faith, that it would be obvious that I would LOVE to chat with them…

But it’s true that I never specifically said to DH: please don’t send the JWs away for I would enjoy talking with them.

Now he knows. 🙂 And he did have them come back; hence my lovely conversation of late with 2 JWs.

But I digress…

So does anyone have any success stories? Bible verses you used that they cannot respond to?

I am well aware that nothing I say will convince them that their religion is false, but I did see the wavering eyes in the “newer” JW lady who came to my door when I pointed out a few questions, in response to the lead JW’s comments.

Thanks!
From what little I know of JW, it would see that virtually the entire Gospel according to St. John would be somewhat of a stumbling block for them. I don’t know how badly they’ve mangled the translation in the NWT, because I don’t have a copy. I should probably get one since there are many JW’s where I live, and I’ll sooner or later be able to witness to some. I’d love to go through the entire gospel of St. John, verse by verse with ANY heretical entity who still values holy writ. Just each of us reading it together. I know there are tons of other bible passages, (and others will give them here, I’m sure), but the whole gospel of St. John is a declaration in the strongest and most straightforward measure of the unquestionable divinity of Jesus and His being the second person of the Holy trinity, which it is my understanding JW’s deny. So both are displayed quite openly in this Gospel. Pepper in a few other encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees from the synoptics, a few parables, and top off with the letters of St. Paul, and you get a pretty clear picture of the mainstream Catholic and protestant view of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I would imagine they downplay the NT as much as possible, and particularly the writing of John. Not sure where all the translation difficulties lie with the NWT. I’ve just started study up on that and still need one of the bibles to really see the subtle twists that the WT Society made to Holy scripture. I don’t suppose they accept Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) as the source languages do they? Otherwise it seems you could just pick apart the the NWT for them with the real Greek and Hebrew words, and that would be too easy, I suppose. Nothing is easy. And nobody wants to think they’ve been hoodwinked. It’s just human nature. So when I learn enough about it, and I’m confronted with the situations, I pray that I may be charitable but firm in purpose, and the the Holy Spirit will put the proper words into my mouth. After all, it is the Holy Spirit who does the work in conversions. We Christians can only evangelize and sow seeds. God waters them, grows them, and then harvests on the last day.

Blessings,

Steven
 
I learned about the deity of Christ and the Trinity from reading scripture alone without anyone teaching these doctrines to me.
Ah, the irony of what I’m going to propose, as I am a believer and you identify yourself as a doubter: but I doubt that you “learned about the deity of Christ and the Trinity from reading scripture alone”.

What you are proclaiming is that you never heard of Jesus as a divine being until a bible fell into your lap?

Really?
*
*
 
Ah, the irony of what I’m going to propose, as I am a believer and you identify yourself as a doubter: but I doubt that you “learned about the deity of Christ and the Trinity from reading scripture alone”.

What you are proclaiming is that you never heard of Jesus as a divine being until a bible fell into your lap?

Really?
*
*
Certainly, most people know about the claim of Christianity to the divinity of Christ before reading the Bible, but I have to agree with him, and disagree with other posters in this forum, that scripture alone is not sufficient to determine the divinity of Christ. It is certainly easy to give a purely scriptural defense of the divinity of Christ. An intellectually honest person cannot read the gospel of John and still think that the Bible doesn’t claim Christ as divine. It blatantly says so in the first chapter for goodness sakes! And this is coming from a rabidly anti-sola-scriptura Catholic convert.
 
Why did they ask you to stop coming? I’m extremely curious!
I would point out to those sitting beside me that they are being taught WacthTower magazine which is not mentioned in the Bible; Bible tells something else.

I would not join in their formal prayers and songs and would keep sitting on my seat instead of joining them.
 
Certainly, most people know about the claim of Christianity to the divinity of Christ before reading the Bible, but I have to agree with him, and disagree with other posters in this forum, that scripture alone is not sufficient to determine the divinity of Christ. It is certainly easy to give a purely scriptural defense of the divinity of Christ. An intellectually honest person cannot read the gospel of John and still think that the Bible doesn’t claim Christ as divine. It blatantly says so in the first chapter for goodness sakes! And this is coming from a rabidly anti-sola-scriptura Catholic convert.
Oh, please do not misunderstand me: I am not saying that the Bible doesn’t claim Christ is divine!

I am simply arguing that it is a false criterion to say that one must use the Bible only to defend Christ’s divinity.

And that Big Dummy did not come to this understanding of Christ’s divinity from Scripture alone–unless he grew up on a deserted island and a Bible simply fell into his lap without anyone telling him this was a part of Christian revelation.

Anyone who reads the Bible and discerns Christ’s divinity does it from Scripture and Tradition.
 
Oh, please do not misunderstand me: I am not saying that the Bible doesn’t claim Christ is divine!

I am simply arguing that it is a false criterion to say that one must use the Bible only to defend Christ’s divinity.

And that Big Dummy did not come to this understanding of Christ’s divinity from Scripture alone–unless he grew up on a deserted island and a Bible simply fell into his lap without anyone telling him this was a part of Christian revelation.

Anyone who reads the Bible and discerns Christ’s divinity does it from Scripture and Tradition.
Lol, if I didn’t already know that there was someone with the screenname “Big Dummy” I would think you were being uncharitable. 😛

But I would have to affirm that it would be certainly possible to discern Christ’s divinity on a desert island with just the Bible, just from reading John chapter 1; after reading that you should have a good idea. And in the rest of John, if you have already read the rest of the Bible then it should not be difficult to figure this out on your own. The Trinity is a whole other story. That’s why some really strict Bible-only denominations reject the Trinity as a Catholic addition.
 
For T More:
Here, and especially in the ‘JW cousin’ thread [now locked], you several times quote scripture partly, to mislead the unwary.
Misusing scripture that way is typical of JW “refuters” … and apostates.
About T More: … Religion Ex JW …
2 John 4:9-11; 2 Pe 2:22
 
For T More:
Here, and especially in the ‘JW cousin’ thread [now locked], you several times quote scripture partly, to mislead the unwary.
Misusing scripture that way is typical of JW “refuters” … and apostates.
2 John 4:9-11; 2 Pe 2:22
Apostates? You must referring to that cult called JW’s? JW’s are KINGS of misusing scripture and history to support their cultish lies. By the way,how many false prophecies from the JW Society? :rotfl:
 
Catholics respond with a hearty AMEN! to the above question regarding Mt 6:9-10. Heaven comes to earth at each and every Mass.
If you mean, ‘because of transubstantiation’, that’s not an answer. Jesus said “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Outside any RC church, mass being celebrated or not, crime, war, sickness, despair go on. Do you see any worldwide, permanent change to that on earth?
 
For T More:
Here, and especially in the ‘JW cousin’ thread [now locked], you several times quote scripture partly, to mislead the unwary.
Misusing scripture that way is typical of JW “refuters” … and apostates.
2 John 4:9-11; 2 Pe 2:22
Did you know, noprem, that since you quoted only verses 9-11 of 2 John 4 that you “quote Scripture partly” also?

And in 2 Peter 2 you only quote 1 verse. This is quite the quoting Scripture partly, no?
 
If you mean, ‘because of transubstantiation’, that’s not an answer. Jesus said “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Outside any RC church, mass being celebrated or not, crime, war, sickness, despair go on. Do you see any worldwide, permanent change to that on earth?
And I most certainly do not see the JW’s making the world better with their false heretical teachings and lies.
 
For T More:
Here, and especially in the ‘JW cousin’ thread [now locked], you several times quote scripture partly, to mislead the unwary.
Misusing scripture that way is typical of JW “refuters” … and apostates.
2 John 4:9-11; 2 Pe 2:22
Well, it would be a neat trick for me to quote 2 John 4, since there is no such chapter in that book, but I’ll just chock that up to an honest mistake on your part. As far misquoting, I can understand how you would think that since your bible differs so much from the others.

An apostate?? If the Church was around for 1900 years before the JW’s, who left who?

You didn’t tackle a single thing I stated. I don’t blame you. I used scripture and your religion’s own publications. That may be where you got confused, as those two things often contradict one another.

I am an ex-JW (never hid that), and I’m ecstatic about entering the Church next year. And if I can help my former brothers and sisters see the error of their teachings, God’s will be done.
 
Well, it would be a neat trick for me to quote 2 John 4, since there is no such chapter in that book, but I’ll just chock that up to an honest mistake on your part. As far misquoting, I can understand how you would think that since your bible differs so much from the others.

An apostate?? If the Church was around for 1900 years before the JW’s, who left who?

You didn’t tackle a single thing I stated. I don’t blame you. I used scripture and your religion’s own publications. That may be where you got confused, as those two things often contradict one another.

I am an ex-JW (never hid that), and I’m ecstatic about entering the Church next year. And if I can help my former brothers and sisters see the error of their teachings, God’s will be done.
T More,

I find JW’s as the most difficult folks to discuss scripture and history. They are so misguided it is unbelievable. They stuff they believe and teach is so off base from orthodox Christianity it is not even funny,but sad.
 
Did you know, noprem, that since you quoted only verses 9-11 of 2 John 4 that you “quote Scripture partly” also?
Outside any RC church, mass being celebrated or not, crime, war, sickness, despair go on. Do you see any worldwide, permanent change to that on earth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top