Talked to JW's today

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the Jesus Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in is Michael the Archangel. Michael the Archangel is not the Biblical Jesus.
What proves they CANNOT be the same person? Catholics believe Jesus is the Father God in a different mode and yet that’s unbelievable.

Answer me, What proves Michael the Archangel CANNOT be the same person as Jesus?
 
Even by your words “one of the few alternatives” depraves the Holiness of the name.
Does the fact that Yeshua and Ieousus doesn’t directly translate to Jesus make it unholy?
And yet, that is not questioned, is it?
🤨😏
 
Last edited:
@ZeugenJehovas

Just as an aside, what is the JW response to the question:

Why would Moses use Gods name, i forget how many times between Genesis and Ex 3:13, and then in Ex 3:13 ask God his name?

Peace!!!
 
Why would Moses use Gods name, i forget how many times between Genesis and Ex 3:13, and then in Ex 3:13 ask God his name?
It was to know the person represented by the name, facts that would convince God’s people that He really would deliver them. The Israelites had been slaves for some time. They would likely wonder whether the God of their forefathers could deliver them. Some Israelites had even taken up the worship of Egyptian gods.
 
40.png
adf417:
Even by your words “one of the few alternatives” depraves the Holiness of the name.
Does the fact that Yeshua and Ieousus doesn’t directly translate to Jesus make it unholy?
And yet, that is not questioned, is it?
🤨😏
I dont have a problem saying “Jesus may not actually be the name of the Son of God”. Are you at the point yet to admit Jehovah may not be the name of God?

Peace!!!
 
It was to know the person represented by the name,
Exactly! This is exactly what I and @BenYosef have been trying to say. It has nothing to do with the name as it would be written as Moses already knew it.

Peace!!!
 
I dont have a problem saying “Jesus may not actually be the name of the Son of God”. Are you at the point yet to admit Jehovah may not be the name of God?
To english speakers, Jehovah is the name of God Almighty.
To spanish speakers, it’s ‘Jehová’.
To Italians it’s Geova…

Yes, Jehovah is the name of God Almighty.
 
Last edited:
40.png
adf417:
I dont have a problem saying “Jesus may not actually be the name of the Son of God”. Are you at the point yet to admit Jehovah may not be the name of God?
To english speakers, Jehovah is the name of God Almighty.
To spanish speakers, it’s ‘Jehová’.
To Italians it’s Geova…

Yes, Jehovah is the name of God Almighty.
No its really the name of God using vowels from two great words as your documents say, meaning you dont know the real Holy name.

Peace!!!
 
No its really the name of God using vowels from two great words as your documents say, meaning you dont know the real Holy name.
So, using God’s name without the available vowels is definitely God’s name?
The Greek Ia ou e are the best available then.
Sounds like Ya ouw eh, but spelled Iaoue. Is Iaoue God’s true name? Or is it יְהֹוָה‬?

Clearly you are not considering the language pronunciations of the name to be acceptable.
Keeping the pronunciation strictly original would not favor the spread of God’s name in their corresponding languages.
 
Last edited:
Jehovah is the most popularly known rendition of the name of God of the Hebrews scriptures in English. As long as God does not correct our incorrect pronunciation/spelling we will continue to declare Glory to the God to whom the origin (יְהֹוָה‬) of the name Jehovah belongs to. As Yahweh is equally not confirmed to be the right spelling nor pronunciation, both variations proceed uniquely from יְהֹוָה‬ undoubtedly.
 
Last edited:
As to why we Jews don’t pronounce the name, that’s simple. In Jewish culture the more holy something is, the least it is used.
While I may not have been aware of the other facts, I did know this, & it is for this reason that I intentionally don’t try to pronounce the Name (HaShem).

I had answered my door once to some Jehovah’s Witnesses long ago - one of whom was very rude & condescending as we were discussing the Name in the Bible. Her view was that replacing the Name w/ Lord was in response to “superstition” about the Name, & when I addressed the holiness issue, she balked at it! She was so rude that I eventually slammed the door in her face… Ok…not one of my better moments…but she was very rude… 😡
 
she was very rude… 😡
¯_(ツ)_/¯
It wasn’t me;
I would evaluate your frustration as being rude too IF it were me, I don’t know of course, and yet being condescending in her case is her personal shame; we are counselled to evade heated debates when at homes. We are not all the same, yet I cannot judge her as condemned since God forgives all errors (no matter who) which are accompanied by the desire to change to a better person in all aspects, including that of learning to speak tactfully.

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary says a Superstition is “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”.
She had proof (did she personally?) to evidence contrary to the belief that it is unacceptable to pronounce God’s name even if it were possible.
Also, defines as “a belief … resulting from ignorance”. It suits fine when applying to ignorance of Scriptural knowledge which is the evidence referred to.
 
Last edited:
I’m not blaming you, ZeugenJehovahs. I have relatives who’re JWs, & none of them have been like that woman that day.
 
I don’t know. I had one of them tell me that something was mis-translated from the Greek and I pointed out that there are and have always been Greek-speaking Christians who did not have to have the Bible translated and who have always known exactly what the Greek said, so it is pretty hard to believe that somebody who had been studying Greek for a few years suddenly “discovered” a true meaning that the Greek Orthodox have been missing after all these years of reading Holy Scriptures written in their mother tongue.

That seemed to make her stop and think that this was a good point.
 
Clearly, you don’t believe in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Angels are created by God. They cannot and do not become God. Lucifer, the most beautiful of God’s Angels, tried to gain God’s glory for himself. Ask yourself how that worked out.

Also, I suggest you read Hebrews 1:5-8 which gives a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels.
 
40.png
adf417:
No its really the name of God using vowels from two great words as your documents say, meaning you dont know the real Holy name.
So, using God’s name without the available vowels is definitely God’s name?
No I never said that.
The Greek Ia ou e are the best available then.
Sounds like Ya ouw eh, but spelled Iaoue. Is Iaoue God’s true name? Or is it יְהֹוָה‬?
You are being childish with this kind of logic ZeugenJehovas. You are not taking into consideration the simple fact that there endless options of the usage of these vowels.
Clearly you are not considering the language pronunciations of the name to be acceptable.
Keeping the pronunciation strictly original would not favor the spread of God’s name in their corresponding languages.
Not as THE HOLY NAME no but as a pseudo-name, sure.
Peace!!!
 
Jehovah is the most popularly known rendition of the name of God of the Hebrews scriptures in English. As long as God does not correct our incorrect pronunciation/spelling we will continue to declare Glory to the God to whom the origin (יְהֹוָה‬) of the name Jehovah belongs to. As Yahweh is equally not confirmed to be the right spelling nor pronunciation, both variations proceed uniquely from יְהֹוָה‬ undoubtedly.
Corretion: Jehovah is the most popularly known made-up rendition of the name of God of the Hebrews scriptures in English. It is very possible this made up rendition may in fact NOT be His real name. I know you realize this ZeugenJehovas and it is very misleading not to admit it.

Peace!!!
 
I just wanted to welcome you to our Catholic Answers forum hope that you stay. There are quite a few JW on my dad’s side, my Grandma was, sadly she passed away a while back. One of my Uncles two of my aunts and one of my cousins and his family. They weren’t raised JW, they came into in adult hood, my aunts, one uncle and grandma. They attended a Wesleyan Methodist church as children. My mom’s side is mostly Catholic. My dad became Catholic when he married my mom.

Now the majority of JW I know are good peeps and i love my family. However in my belief the JW have some major flaws in their/your theology/understanding of scripture. I still love you guys and gals and hope that by visiting this forum you will learn something about the Catholic Christian faith, the truths and not what most non catholic Christian think we believe. I also pray that you will come home to the Catholic faith, the same faith of the first Christians. If you don’t then at least you will have more of an understanding and respect for the original Christian faith and regardless I still love and respect you ZeugenJehovas.
 
The Jews since Christ’s times were not true to the Holy writings.
Judaism is not based on “the Holy writings” as you put it. Judaism existed before there was a collection of Scriptures. The first canon of Scriptures was devised not by Jews but by Christians.

In fact, the first man to do so was Marcion of Sinope (85-160 C.E.), a bishop, who was on the verge of heresy, attempting to merge Christian thought with the Gnosticism that was infiltrating the Church at the time. Gnostics believed that salvation was possible only through divine wisdom that came from a select enlightened few, but Marcion also believed that it could be dispersed through holy writings. So he devised a “rule” (in Greek “kanon”) of select books from which to gain true “knowledge” (gnosis). Marcion rejected all Jewish teachings, including the Torah, the teachings of the Prophets, and accepted only selected written works of the Apostle Paul and Marcion’s own edited version of the Gospel of Luke. This was the first “canon” of Scripture that was used to base religious teaching from in the history of Judeo-Christianity. Marcion soon found himself excommunicated by the Church for this.

But he did raise a question in both the Church and Judaism. Was there a codifiable list of texts that could be approved as sacred texts, viewed specifically as the Word of God above all others? Outside of the Ten Commandments, there had never been a “rule” or canonization of texts in Judaism or Christianity. The Church was the first to begin work on this question.

A “fluid canon” of the texts of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings of Judaism had existed since 200 B.C.E., but the religion of Judaism is far older than its writings. It is not based on these writings. In fact, the writings themselves are based on the religion, and the Jewish canon was not officially set until the time of the Masoretic Text’s completion, between the 7th and 10th century C.E.

As for the Christian canon, the Church had mostly come to an agreement by the late 4th or early 5th century, by which time most in the East and Western communities had finally agreed on accepting Revelation into the canon, one of the most debated of the books. Again, like Judaism, the Christian community–the Church–came first, not the Book or New Testament. The religion is not based on the writings. The writings are based on the religion,
Christ Jesus denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees publicly for their deviation from the commandments of יְהֹוָה‬ , as the Mishnah which stores recorded tradition to overstep the Law.
The Mishnah was not composed until after Jesus died. And thus some of the practices that are being argued about between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospel accounts are anachronisms as a result. You are obviously unaware of that.
 
For instance: Would Jesus have met any rabbinical Pharisees for debates in Galilee? Historically speaking there were practically none in the area if at all during Jesus’ day. Would any of them have been watching a field on Shabbat to catch him and his disciples walking though it and charge them with threshing without breaking it themselves? Jews don’t go out into fields at all, even to stand, on the Sabbath since ancient times. Didn’t the law of threshing come to apply to plucking grain some time after the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt (which was some time after the Second Temple fell)? Yes, a long time after. Then how did that get into the story of it being a rule in Jesus’ life time? And what about the blind man who Jesus healed who got expelled from the synagogue for claiming Jesus the Messiah? No one could get expelled from the synagogue for claiming anyone was the Messiah until after the first century diaspora from Jerusalem by the Romans. In fact, history is quite clear that the first century Christian community in Jerusalem did quite well, having 15 Jewish bishops of the House of David until the Bar Kokhba revolt. They regularly attended Temple as well. (Compare Acts 21.20-26.) These were dramatized narratives of the authors who placed current 2nd century debates between diaspora Jews and Christians in the mouth of Jesus into Gospels accounts to make them practical for their day and time. They are not historical accounts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top