Talked to JW's today

[ZeugenJehovas]

You might consider looking at the Early Church Fathers then who were definitely Catholic.

Ignatius, “The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, […] even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He [the Son], ‘the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.’”(Ibid., page 53)
“ There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. […] Jesus Christ was subject to the Father." (The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 4, by Robert M. Grant, 1966, page 63)
Now there are 15 letters attributed to Ignatius, but according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson not us, states “It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age . . . and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries.”

“Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius […] , we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. […] Although the shorter form […] had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity.”(The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, pages 46-7; Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock and James Strong, reprinted by Baker Book House Co., 1981, Volume IV, pages 490-3; The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, pages 644-7)

So, if we accept the shorter version of his writings as genuine, it does eliminate some phrases (in the longer version) that show Christ as subordinate to God, but what is left in the shorter version still does not show a Trinity. And regardless of which of his writings are genuine, they show at best that Ignatius believed in a duality of God and his Son. This was certainly not a duality of equals, for the Son is always presented as lesser than God and subordinate to him. Thus, regardless of how one views the Ignatian writings, a Trinity doctrine is not to be found in them.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

You might consider looking at the Early Church Fathers then who were definitely Catholic.

Polycarp of Smyrna, in the writings of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, there was no indication of a trinity, "May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, … build you up in faith and truth.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 35)
“Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour.” (Ibid., page 33) There continues to be a distinction between the Almighty God from the Savior Jesus.
Hermas, in the writings of the Shepard or Pastor he wrote, “Nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. . . . God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II, pages 27, 35)

Hermas says that when God (not just the Father) wishes the spirit to speak, it speaks, showing God’s superiority to the spirit. Hermas then says God gave the vineyard to his Son, showing God’s superiority to the Son.
“The Son of God is older than all his creation.” (The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb’s Classical Library) with an English Translation by Kirsopp Lake, 1976, page 249)
This elaboration on Christ’s role speaks in accordance with the Bible which says that “by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) So, we learn Son is not from the eternal past, but was created.

Fragments of the writings of Papias also say nothing about a Trinity doctrine.

why would Jesus build his congregation upon a man who did not die for all mankind?

I could ask you the same […]
Side note: It seems you think the rock He mentioned was a literal rock. Is that what you meant or am I misreading you?

The rock Christ spoke of was referring to a foundation, the cornerstone is the foundation, the setting stone which is the first stone set in the construction. It is symbolic, referring to Christ as Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 1 Corinthians 3:11 proves no one else could be.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

this can and is said by all. What makes yours superior and how do you know

Well, we have proof. All the decades of continuous Biblical study by those near the past Presidents of WBTS and now the Governing Body were certainly worthwhile. Just test us. The arduous study of Master Texts have us convinced together with simple logic of what bible verses say.
Our secret is to never have a preconceived idea in mind. That was the attitude the Bible Students (IBSA) has had, and is kept at the core of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we never read more into a verse than there already is. I could give you plenty of examples reading more into a verse than what it really says, that really would be the perfect example of showing the presence of a preconceived idea.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

You’ll need to experience with koine greek to address that. Their translation reads “and the Word was a god.”

Sahidic Coptic (Translated by 3rd century from Greek) translation of John 1:1 rendered literally into English, would read: “And the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”
“The” is seen as the definitive article while “a” was the indefinite article for the second mentions “god” of the verse.
That is why it is properly translated “a god”.
Were not the only ones, so certainly you shouldn’t fingerpoint us as the only ones unless you’re just picking on us.
Some Bible examples that also translated it that way are:

• 1808 “The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text,” London.
• 1829 “and the Logos was a god” The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists, by John S. Thompson, Baltimore.
• 1864 "The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
• 1935 "The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
• 1975 Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

this can and is said by all. What makes yours superior and how do you know

Well, we have proof. All the decades of continuous Biblical study by those near the past Presidents of WBTS and now the Governing Body were certainly worthwhile. Just test us. The arduous study of Master Texts have us convinced together with simple logic of what bible verses say.
Our secret is to never have a preconceived idea in mind. That was the attitude the Bible Students (IBSA) has had, and is kept at the core of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we never read more into a verse than there already is. I could give you plenty of examples reading more into a verse than what it really says, that really would be the perfect example of showing the presence of a preconceived idea.

Well THEY do too…
Lutherans
Presbyterians
Mormons
Oh and the non JW IBSA :man_shrugging:t3:

It seems like your “proof” is in your interpretation of scripture, which everyone under the sun has.

ZeugenJehovas, given the fact that the Watchtower organization has a plethora of information and names of all the “apostates” from the begining of christianity, i dont think it is an outrageous request of me to ask you to provide us with a list of true JWs that run all the way back to the Apostles.

You know the person/people who taught you how to read the bible correctly. That person knows who taught them and that person knows who taught them and so on. Why is it when i as a JW to provide this list they can only name people back to Russell (or Henry Grew- “Faith in Action” part1) but not much further back but yet have a complete library of the “apostates” all the way back? Why chronicle apostates but not true believers?

Peace!!!

 

[Wesrock]

Koine Greek only has a definite article. It has no indefinite article. Sometimes it’s appropriate to insert an indefinite article, other times no.

There’s a few things to recognize about “kai theos en o logos” (and god was the word). Both are in the nominative case, but one is the subject and one is the predicate nominative. In English it is usually established by word order. Not so in Greek. Greek allows for a very flexible word order, and word order is used to stress certain concepts. The subject in this case is identified by the definite article “o”, so “o logos,” or “the word,” is the subject. That makes theos the predicate nominative.

So why is theos placed first in the sentence? It’s a matter of stress and emphasis. It is common in koine when emphasis is being placed on the concept.

kai o logos en o theos would suggest Sabellianism, absolute identity between the persons of the Word and the Father.

kai o logos en theos would, admittedly, suggest Arianism, that the Word was a god and not God, as it takes stress off of theos by placing it at the end of the sentence.

With kai theos en o logos, the lack of a definite article before theos prevents us from identifying the person of the Word with the Person of the Father, but the word order informs us of the orthodox position where we don’t insert an indefinite article before the word God. And this is consistent with the rest of John. “And the Word was God.”

 

[mVitus]

It was not by voluntary decision that the Bible leaked out from the Catholic (Vatican) grasp into the common languages,

A few things.

1. When the Vulgate came around, Latin was the vernacular language.
   2, Prior to 1517, you had some Old E,flush partial translations around. Old English Bible translations - Wikipedia (So there were vernacular translations starting to circulate in England prior to Wycliffe’s Bible.)
2. The Duoay Rheims’ NT was published in 1582. Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia The OT followed in 1609 and 1610.

As for your Church Father quotes, they are out of context. I will be sourcing quotes from here: What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity | Catholic Answers

You pulled up St. Ignatius as an example that Early Christians didn’t believe in the Trinity. That was false. You may find reading the others in the article quite interesting.

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” ( Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

Koine Greek only has a definite article. It has no indefinite article. Sometimes it’s appropriate to insert an indefinite article, other times no.

Well I spoke of Sahidic Coptic. It allowed for better understanding of the Greek.

to stress certain concepts.

If it were so the verse would be in accordance to John 1:18 “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.”
Even if it were allowed to be “the god” in 1:1, then 1:18 explains John’s position of understanding about how Jesus was a god. That would be is using the context, therefore it still does not make Jesus the God Almighty. Being too technical without (context) logic will certainly mislead many.

Returning to the apparently ignored subject of the Sahidic Coptic which also apparently is undebatable since you never addressed that, it is very clear that they translated it from Greek into Coptic with the corresponding articles before “god”. Just as by checking multiple Bible cross references to get the BEST understanding on a certain topic, the same way with finding multiple ancient Master Texts for us to adjust to.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

Well THEY do too…

If such were true we would all be together in every belief, but we’re not.

which everyone under the sun has.

Of course its available, there is nothing special on obtaining an interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20 “For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation.”
The Bible is its own dictionary, encyclopedia but we must cross reference it to understand all of its teachings. Certainly not all religions have done so.

It comes down to this:

• Either pastors/priests read more into a verse than there is (Preconceived ideas)

or

• Pastors/priests focus only on one Testament, the Old more than the New. Such as the 10 commandments, or the law of the tithe as still valid.
  Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John”, and Ephesians 2:15 “By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” both deny current validity of it being the law to follow, we no longer must obey the precise decrees of Mosaic law. There is to be no tithing, Matthew 10:8 “YOU received free, give free”. In spite of the evidence, they won’t stop stressing people to tithe. There is no excuse to say it’s for the Pastor to live, because it is written:
  (1 Thessalonians 2:9) Surely you remember, brothers, our labor and toil. We were working night and day, so that we would not put an expensive burden o any one of you.
  (2 Thessalonians 3:8) nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you.
  (2 Thessalonians 3:10) In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”
  In reality for such ignorance people tithe for the pastors without questioning, because those Churches ignore the Biblical teachings.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Well THEY do too…

If such were true we would all be together in every belief, but we’re not.

Exactly! - hence the reason for my line of questioning.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

adf417:

which everyone under the sun has.

Of course its available, there is nothing special on obtaining an interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20 “For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation.”
The Bible is its own dictionary, encyclopedia but we must cross reference it to understand all of its teachings. Certainly not all religions have done so.

It comes down to this:

• Either pastors/priests read more into a verse than there is (Preconceived ideas)

or

• Pastors/priests focus only on one Testament, the Old more than the New. Such as the 10 commandments, or the law of the tithe as still valid.
  Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John”, and Ephesians 2:15 “By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” both deny current validity of it being the law to follow, we no longer must obey the precise decrees of Mosaic law. There is to be no tithing, Matthew 10:8 “YOU received free, give free”. In spite of the evidence, they won’t stop stressing people to tithe. There is no excuse to say it’s for the Pastor to live, because it is written:
  (1 Thessalonians 2:9) Surely you remember, brothers, our labor and toil. We were working night and day, so that we would not put an expensive burden o any one of you.
  (2 Thessalonians 3:8) nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you.
  (2 Thessalonians 3:10) In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”
  In reality for such ignorance people tithe for the pastors without questioning, because those Churches ignore the Biblical teachings.

When you change the above “pastors/priests” to elders/governing body it works also so as i said your “proof” is no better than Mormons and Methodists.

Peace!!!

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” ( Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

I’m sorry to be able to reply, but, really, this, if taking into account the Bible’s teachings, I understand quite well what he is referring to. Hebrews 1:3 “He [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” He was visualizing God in the being of Jesus Christ because of how well Jesus taught about God in the Bible that he could see the reflection of God in him as having the same thought as God. This is more of his personal opinion expressed, when I get into his shoes. It is as Thomas said “My Lord and my God!”. Thomas accepted Jesus as the representative of Almighty God. So, Ignatius felt the freedom to express himself in the same manner.

And according to:

“ For our God, Jesus Christ , was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit [*]” (ibid., 18:2).

There seems to still be a distinction between their god Jesus and the plan of God.
This quote however evidences that they were slipping away from the biblical standpoint when tested upon 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus”, there shouldn’t be a more evident expression of using Jesus and God interchangeably as the Bible verse proves including 1 Corinthians 8:6 “there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”
Therefore, by evidence made available, Ignatius was showing indication of slipping away from Biblical teachings, evidencing the presence of apostasy after Apostol John’s death, even though of course there were already sects like the one of Nicolaus (Revelation).
*Matthew 1:20 “For what has been conceived in her is by holy spirit”.
Yet, I see no proof of the trinity belief.

 

[adf417]

And dont think i didnt notice you did not answer my question concerning the chronicling of apostates without showing a full line of true believers all the way back to Christ. I haven’t met a JW that will tackel this issue. If you think about it it is quite disturbing that the organization has so much info on apostates but nothing on true believers before Russell.

Peace!!!

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

When you change the above “pastors/priests” to elders/governing body it works also

No, it really doesn’t work out.

• We do not read more into a verse than there really is. You suggest that we do, but we don’t.
• We do not focus only on one Testament, rather well, we use all of it and connect both sides.
• We do not practice tithing.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

Thanks for reminding me. I just got busy on the other replies.

Could you find the apostates list (& source)? I don’t think there is such a thing. I have never heard or read about it, that is why I need evidence.

 

[mVitus]

We do not read more into a verse than there really is. You suggest that we do, but we don’t.

That’s exactly what any Protestant denomination could say as a defence against JW.

As for Christ’s divinity, I can’t believe I forgot about this until now. Throughout the Gospels Jesus has multiple times where He says “I am…” And this is one of the main reasons the Pharisees detested Him. Remember that Yahweh/Jehovah means “I am.” For Jesus to say “I am” was to claim that He was God.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

When you change the above “pastors/priests” to elders/governing body it works also

No, it really doesn’t work out.

• We do not read more into a verse than there really is. You suggest that we do, but we don’t.
• We do not focus only on one Testament, rather well, we use all of it and connect both sides.
• We do not practice tithing.

We dont either…so my point still remains, you are not “prooving” anything. Anybody can say and mean what you have said so far.

Peace

 

[adf417]

Im sorry if I implies there was a list, that’s not what I meant. but if you search the following names on jw.org you will see that the Watchtower has chronicled more about “apostates” and NOTHING about true believers before Russell. Very disturbing!

Pope Urban VIII
Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E.
Pope Sixtus IV
Pope Alexander VI
Pope Gregory VII
Council of Nicaea, in 325 C.E.

Peace!!!

 

[MountCarmel]

(name removed by moderator) - I think my regular prayer life, including prayers for discernment, sees me protected from Satan’s wiles. He does still have an occasional try, but the right prayers seem to have him backing off - he is no match for Jesus, Our Blessed Lady, or St Michael.

 

[ZeugenJehovas]

As for Christ’s divinity, I can’t believe I forgot about this until now. Throughout the Gospels Jesus has multiple times where He says “I am…” And this is one of the main reasons the Pharisees detested Him. Remember that Yahweh/Jehovah means “I am.” For Jesus to say “I am” was to claim that He was God.

Your claim is invalid. Here is one example.
"The Jews answered him (Jesus): “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Sure, it’s great to know Jesus admits only to be God’s Son. I am certain about it. Jesus Christ did not indirectly signal that he was God. It seems more evident that You are reading more into the verses than what there really is.