Sola Scriptura is True

  • Thread starter Thread starter DD2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why old Watchtower Material? Well for one thing so I could compair what Current Watchtower doctrines and practices are and how Doctrines have changed. Secondly to read the entire articles in context. …about the Catholic Church, and quotes of Catholic authors I’ve found to be just as misleading and untrue as the falsehoods that many an Anti-Catholic who posts here copies from the “Usual Suspects” of Anti-Catholic writers. So it works both way. In order to be fair, I read both sides, and do some fact checking.
Brooklyn Bibleworks?

Please provide me with one article where the WTBS quoted Catholic authors you found to be “just as misleading” …I will look into it to see if an apology was given.

DON’T FORGET we also wrote a book “Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?” (Which hundreds of churches have copied since 1985) and quoted many evolutionists to prove OUR point on Creation. They actually ‘canceled’ each other out
with their own 'theories in a way.
 
Filioque; said:
“All Army teaching guides are given by inspiration of the experts, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in the life of a soldier: That the soldier may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all a soldier needs to do.”
Would you take it to mean that the soldier, then, no longer needs a Drill Sergeant for training him, weaponry, ammunition, armor, communications equipment, etc.?

END QUOTE

No…but, I would use it " for correction" to see if I had the correct “weaponry, ammunition, armor, communications equipment” and not something that might be correct because the Drill Sargent told me it was.
 
Dj Dave, Why did the witchtown read the KJB for years and then change to wirrting their own bible. Why because you need to change John 1:1
 
you are mistaken, 1 Cor 10:12

if Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, why is it that we look in vain in the Holy Bible for such expressions most current among her, such as trinity, purgatory, mass, immortal soul, lent, novenas, indulgences, penances, holy water, veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.?

also,

If Christ Jesus and his apostles did indeed establish the Roman Catholic Church, then why is it that we look in vain, from Matthew through the Apocalypse or Revelation, for any mention whatsoever of the Holy Father, or a pope, a college of cardinals, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, monsignors, right reverends, priests, abbots, monks and nuns?

Recall a truth that Jesus Christ expressed: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” .—Matthew 7:13,14.

also consider:

Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (Notice in the context [vss. 13,*20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone “cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1*Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “*Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”*Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)?

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus ... In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’..*. But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington,*D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?
Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’” (If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)

Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

You are correct on some of this dj dave. Yes Jesus is the head of the CC. The CC goes by the teachings of the Apostles. Jesus promised the apostles he would give them the words to teach. Would that or would that not be enough scripture for having authorty to teach.

Jesus said in Matt. Don’t worry how you are to speak I will speak FOR YOU. Now Saul was persecuting the CC. We know this because he was persecuting the Church Peter was a head of. Now Peter was the first Pope of the RCC. We can show proof after him as Popes to follow. So thats pretty concrete the CC was indeed the first church started by the Apostles. Now Jesus said I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS. (Good enough)?
 
Dl Dave , From the KJB please give us your interpretation of JOHN 1;1
 
Do this for me DJ dave. Think about this for me all weekend, Thats all I ask.

Okay Catholics feel that you must understand the OT to understand the NT. Now in the OT God told Jobs friends to have Job to pray for them because Job was righteous.

Now in the NT Jesus PRAYEd for Peter. Now We know from Job God answers the prayers from the Righteous and we both I PRAY agree that Jesus was righteous and without sins.

Now Jesus prayed FOR PETER. He said Peter feed my sheep. 3 times. Now that has 2 meanings to it. First we all know Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times. That was Jesus way of saying peter I forgive you 3 times. Then he said in our language you are still the leader Peter.

Now we know Peter was head of the Church in Rome, and was buried there. Now how could the Church fail? Jesus prayed for Peter and gave him power from the HS. That same Power Peter has passed on to THIS DAY. Now who has taken that power away. Not Jesus he promised it would never fail. Now we as Catholics take the scripture before I gave you and this and put it together, you cannot possibly miss what that scripture says.
 
you are mistaken, 1 Cor 10:12

if Christ established the Roman Catholic Church, why is it that we look in vain in the Holy Bible for such expressions most current among her, such as trinity, purgatory, mass, immortal soul, lent, novenas, indulgences, penances, holy water, veneration of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.?

also,

If Christ Jesus and his apostles did indeed establish the Roman Catholic Church, then why is it that we look in vain, from Matthew through the Apocalypse or Revelation, for any mention whatsoever of the Holy Father, or a pope, a college of cardinals, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, monsignors, right reverends, priests, abbots, monks and nuns?

Recall a truth that Jesus Christ expressed: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” .—Matthew 7:13,14.

also consider:

Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (Notice in the context [vss. 13,*20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone “cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1*Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “*Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”*Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)?

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus ... In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’..*. But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington,*D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?
Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’” (If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)

Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

Also we don’t look in vain. How can you tell me that I look in vain. I see how sacred scripture and Oral scripture tie into eachother perfectly. DJ just because you cannot see it, or understand it, does not mean I can’t. I do, I see it. I understand it, On my own Power, Heck No. I have none. I do what the bible tells me and I go to the church. I know the CHurch is the living Christ and has the power of the HS to teach me.
 
Brooklyn Bibleworks?

Please provide me with one article where the WTBS quoted Catholic authors you found to be “just as misleading” …I will look into it to see if an apology was given.

DON’T FORGET we also wrote a book “Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?” (Which hundreds of churches have copied since 1985) and quoted many evolutionists to prove OUR point on Creation. They actually ‘canceled’ each other out
with their own 'theories in a way.
It may take some time, as I mentioned earlier, I have it all boxed up. Next time I go to my Storage facility, I’ll look for the box in order to qupte correctly. I would ask my neighbor who was forbidden from interacting with me by her Overseer, but then again she can’t give me any more Watchtower and Awake. As a goat, she was disfellowshiped and shunned after she was given a proper baptism in the Catholic Church, and left the JWs.

I was happy to see that the Brooklyn building is being put to good use, as it is being converted into Condos after the Watchtower Society sold it off. I guess after selling off Beth Sarim in the old neighborhood I lived in as a kid in San Diego, it had to be expected.
What did happen to Beth Shan though? Was it sold off too? Well I do have a couple of Watchtower book that are not in boxes (The two editions of “LET GOD BE TRUE” with the doctrinal changes, and “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”. I guess if the word of prophesy given through Rutheford in “Millions” could be true, and the 40.1 Million people still living who were born when he published it in 1925 are still here. I say it could be true, if we ignore the prophetic words of the book, and only base our faith in the title of the book. Beth Shan and Beth Sarim should not have been sold off if we ignore the prophecy and just go by the title. If it was another in a string of false prophetic predictions, claimed to be of God by Watchtower, well then I wonder where the prophecies are really coming from. But that leaves us with the question of why Rutheford had it revealed “Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection.” kind of hard to spin that one from “God’s Organization” I can see how you can be duped into the 1914 predictions being a return to the file room of heaven, where Jesus is looking over the records, rather than coming again as described in the Bible, even as silly as the spin is. But, “confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham…”

For those here who have not heard of the Millions book, here is a link to a scanned copy. jehovah.net.au/books/1920_Millions_Now_Living_Will_Never_Die-Small.pdf
(If the administration removes the link, PM me and I’ll send it to anyone interested)
 
Brooklyn Bibleworks?

Please provide me with one article where the WTBS quoted Catholic authors you found to be “just as misleading” …I will look into it to see if an apology was given.

DON’T FORGET we also wrote a book “Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?” (Which hundreds of churches have copied since 1985) and quoted many evolutionists to prove OUR point on Creation. They actually ‘canceled’ each other out
with their own 'theories in a way.
JL: blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515092312AAHX4ZJ

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-jw-deceptions-top-ten-list-start.htm

theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/letter_mantey.htm

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/1nwt.html

docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=31
 
Also we don’t look in vain. How can you tell me that I look in vain. I see how sacred scripture and Oral scripture tie into eachother perfectly. DJ just because you cannot see it, or understand it, does not mean I can’t. I do, I see it. I understand it, On my own Power, Heck No. I have none. I do what the bible tells me and I go to the church. I know the CHurch is the living Christ and has the power of the HS to teach me.
rinnie, You must remember that Dj Dave belong to a cult and does not believe any christians,all christians are against them and gov. they have a flase bible that was printed just for them because of John1;1 did not meet the false interpretation they have. So he will not believe any thing you or any christins have to say. PEACE
 
Personally, I’m waiting to be told where in DD’s Bible it tells me how often to brush and floss my teeth.😃

OK…But then its not every good work. It’s only some good works. Whoa, Trigger!! Stop the presses!! We have yet another new translation:
“equipped for every good work that glorifies God strictly according to the Personal Opinion of, and the Standards Developed & Maintained By DD2007. The rest of those good works don’t count because DD2007 says they don’t count”.
As far as I can :hmmm:recall, that’s not in my Bible…Guess I need to go out into the garden and wander around until DD’s beloved ESV:ouch: falls on my:hypno: head.:whistle::whistle:
Zooey don’t you just love translations…We can be confused forever, because we believe in these sheep who don’t know who 's leading who… the Lord said the Blind lead the Blind, and they both fall in the ditch.
 
blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm

This is what some scholars, starting with Dr. Mantey quoted in the Kingdom Interlinear, say about mistranslations in the NWT and Jn1. You will probably not read it as you are not allowed by the WT, for fear you will learn the truth.
Now, I have aquestion for you.

How do you view John 14:28?
JL: A father is always greater than a son, in a relational hierarchy even if a son is President of the USA and his father a janitor the father is still greater as the son comes from the father. Also the Father is greater than Christ only in Christ’s humanity. Christ is equal to the Father in his divinity
 
This site may be of help. I agree with most if not all…

web.archive.org/web/20031204212525/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

Now, I have aquestion for you.

How do you view John 14:28?
DJ Dave, Dave does this mean any thing to you:

Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954:
Frederick William Franz, Examined:

Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes…
Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the case, is it not, that in 1950 there was prepared and issued what is called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. I think that it was your duty, was it not, before the issue of that New World Translation by your Society to check that translation for accuracy?
A. That is true.
Q. In light of your studies and in light of your knowledge?
A. That is true.
Q. And did you do so?
A. I did so…
Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures?
A. Yes…
Q. In so far as translation of the Bible itself is undertaken, are you responsible for that?
A. I have been authorised to examine a translation and determine its accuracy and recommend its acceptance in the form in which it is submitted.
Q. Are the translators members of the Editorial Committee?
A. That is a question which I, as a member of the Board of Directors, am not authorised to disclose…
Q. When did you go to the University?..
Q. Did you graduate?
A. No, I did not…
Q. Had you done any Hebrew in the course of your University work?
A. No, I had not, but in the course of my editorial work, my special research work for the president of the Society, I found it was very necessary to have knowledge of Hebrew, and so I undertook a personal study of that.

ADJOURNED
WWW 4 jehovah,org
 
jlhargus said:
I thought I was going out if my mind, but I realized that Mr. Smith was only joking."

Now, if I had quoted George as saying “He said he was going out of his mind!”–that would be taking out of context.

Consider
the following quotes are taken from our :“Creation Book” to explain a point about how much fossil evidence is now available to study…
The quotes are take from Evolutionists…

12 Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”1

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”? …(You will have to read the book.)

Anyway, the point is that as far as I could see–the quotes were real. Just because they have their own view of the WTBTS doesn’t change the fact that they did say it.

HERE IS JUST ONE QUOTE ONE SITE STATES…

"trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. … three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology. In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."
NOW WHAT IF THE JW’S PREFACED THAT QUOTE WITH "while the following quote was made by persons that believed the substance of the Christian Trinity is Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."THEN still went on to say "trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. … three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology WOULD that change the intended purpose of the quote? NO!

Okay, the part that is underlined is the part that the WTBTS left out? Because it was not *part of the discussion *at hand. Notice the whole quote from the ‘Trinity Brochure’

"Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”


In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (**Now suppose he inserted here "Of course I am a firm believer in the Trinity–then went on to say **)... was changed, by the Church of Rome, … Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” --THE FACT REMAINS HARGUS, HE SAID WHAT WAS QUOTED

The Watchtower merely quotes from sources to confirm the subject being discussed. Go back to my post–notice the difference in the illustration. I’m sorry if this reply does not meet with your approval. I will not discuss this further. We could go on and on and on.
Soon Jehovah "(1 Corinthians 4:5) …will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God. I’ll bet you 1$ we win…;)…Wait we don’t gamble either (Isa 65:11)😛

BY the way "The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."…is a very WEAK reason to support the Trinity

I’m sorry these Scholars took the view they did …perhaps Luke 10:21; 1 Cor 1:19 and 1Cor 2:6 comes into play. Some just are not going to see. They’re are many scholars that would disagree completely with these like I said we could go on and on and on.
web.archive.org/web/20031207094230/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/index.htm
 
blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm

This is what some scholars, starting with Dr. Mantey quoted in the Kingdom Interlinear, say about mistranslations in the NWT and Jn1. You will probably not read it as you are not allowed by the WT, for fear you will learn the truth.

JL: A father is always greater than a son, in a relational hierarchy even if a son is President of the USA and his father a janitor the father is still greater as the son comes from the father. Also the Father is greater than Christ only in Christ’s humanity. Christ is equal to the Father in his divinity
Let me see if i understand you, after he left earth he became all mighty God again? All knowing, and equal in Eternity, Power and Wisdom?
 
Also, this was on one of your links above…answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515092312AAHX4ZJ

I have studied the publications over many years, and i have checked many, many quotations and found them all to be precisely accurate. In fact I have scores of books in my own personal library that have been quoted by JW’s.

I have also researched quotations that opposers to JW’s have objected to. These opposers of JW’s are out to deceive.

The publications of JW’s often quote grammarians when discussing issues of biblical translation. Opposers may sometimes object that the publication ‘failed to state’ that the grammarians personal beliefs are different to JW’s. (sometimes they even object that it was not stated the the author’s personal belief was similar to JW’s). But what does a persons personal belief have to do with technical issues of grammar?

The fact is that quotes are carefully presented in harmony with the authors intent. I believe that on a rare occasion an author, seeing that JW’s used their arguments to support JW doctrine, then back tracked and claimed they did not mean what they had quite clearly stated previously.

An above answer gives examples of claimed misquotes with pdf documents to illustrate, at first they may apear to be misquotes but they are not.

For example a quotation of the Catholic Encyclopedia is presented as a misrepresentation, an editor has underlined portions to try to make this evident. The quoted words themselves though are accurate! The editor also underlines two statements by JW’s about what the Catholic Enyclopedia admits (they are not actually quotes), those statements seem contradicted by the page of the enyclopedia shown (the one the short direct quotation was taken from). However a few pages earlier the encyclopedia makes this statement which certainly justifies the comments made in the JW book.

“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.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Then there is an objection to the quote of Bishop Westcott from his commentary on the gospel of John. For many years following the publication of Colwells rule in 1933, Trinitarian scholars argued on the basis of it the the the theos of John 1:1c must be definite there by making an identification, today it is more common for Trinitarian scholars to understand it as qualitative. JW’s understand it as indefinite and effectively qualitative. Westcott was quoted by JW’s because he expresses the qualitative view. Yes, he is a Trinitarian, and maybe he would not choose to translate as does the NWT does, but JW’s did not claim he wasn’t a Trinitarian or that he would translate as does the NWT, just that he agrees on a point of grammar. Daniel B. Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics also quotes this same phrase of Westcott in his discussion of John 1:1 and the question of whether the theos of the third copulative clause is definite or indefinite. Actually whether it is indefinite or definite, both ways Trinitarian scholars are left with serious problems so that they look for a third option. Still it is not a misquote!!!

Next, the answer says:
The WBTS claims 16th Century writer Justus Lipsius supports their notion that Jesus was crucified on a “torture stake”:

This is not true, no such claim is made!!!
This old book is simply used for it’s illustration of crux simplex. The book also contains other pictures two of which are included in the essay “Impaled on a Stake”- a Result of Sectarian Bias? in the book Your Word is Truth.

Stephen D, has been far to hasty to be swayed by Suzannes post. It is sad when people are easily swayed by only half the evidence and unfounded claims and do not do their own careful research.
 
jlhargus said:
I thought I was going out if my mind, but I realized that Mr. Smith was only joking."
Now, if I had quoted George as saying “He said he was going out of his mind!”–that would be taking out of context.

Consider
the following quotes are taken from our :“Creation Book” to explain a point about how much fossil evidence is now available to study…
The quotes are take from Evolutionists…

12 Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”1

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”? …(You will have to read the book.)

Anyway, the point is that as far as I could see–the quotes were real. Just because they have their own view of the WTBTS doesn’t change the fact that they did say it.

HERE IS JUST ONE QUOTE ONE SITE STATES…

"trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. … three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology. In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."
NOW WHAT IF THE JW’S PREFACED THAT QUOTE WITH "while the following quote was made by persons that believed the substance of the Christian Trinity is Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."THEN still went on to say "trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. … three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology WOULD that change the intended purpose of the quote? NO!

Okay, the part that is underlined is the part that the WTBTS left out? Because it was not *part of the discussion *at hand. Notice the whole quote from the ‘Trinity Brochure’

"Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”


In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (**Now suppose he inserted here "Of course I am a firm believer in the Trinity–then went on to say **)... was changed, by the Church of Rome, … Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” --THE FACT REMAINS HARGUS, HE SAID WHAT WAS QUOTED

The Watchtower merely quotes from sources to confirm the subject being discussed. Go back to my post–notice the difference in the illustration. I’m sorry if this reply does not meet with your approval. I will not discuss this further. We could go on and on and on.
Soon Jehovah "(1 Corinthians 4:5) …will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God. I’ll bet you 1$ we win…;)…Wait we don’t gamble either (Isa 65:11)😛

BY the way "The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."…is a very WEAK reason to support the Trinity

I’m sorry these Scholars took the view they did …perhaps Luke 10:21; 1 Cor 1:19 and 1Cor 2:6 comes into play. Some just are not going to see. They’re are many scholars that would disagree completely with these like I said we could go on and on and on.
web.archive.org/web/20031207094230/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/index.htm

DlDave I hate to be the one to tell you but your bible is the most corrupted bible in the world,You did not have any scholars working on your bible its like reading a Jack Chick book.Sorry it has No creditable
 
Dj Dave, Why did the witchtown read the KJB for years and then change to wirrting their own bible. Why because you need to change John 1:1
Actually, we would just support our understanding with John 1:18; and (Exodus 33:20) And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”
(John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.

(1 John 4:12) At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.

(John 10:34-37) 34Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? 37..*.

(1 Corinthians 15:20-28) ...However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. 21For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28But when all things will have been subjected to him, **then the Son **himself will **also subject himself **to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

as well as the total separation mentioned at 1 Tim 5:21 and the complete non mention of holy spirit “I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to keep these things without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning.”----(Which reminds me of another thought notice how 'holy spirit is sandwiched in at 2 Cor 6:6…h-m-m-m)

and many more.

Can you point to one scripture that states God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are all co equal in Power, Eternity and Wisdom? That they are all the same God 3 in 1?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top