You look out your window and see two strangers walking down your driveway...the doorbell rings...you open the door...one of the strangers smiles and asks you if you know "God's name?" Most of us have experienced this...and if we haven't we should count ourselves among the lucky. The Jehovah's Witnesses are notorious for their door-to-door evangelization. They are quick to tell you how they have come to reveal to you "God's real name" and to "show you the truth"...the only problem is do they really know the truth....
In order to write this article I had to create a new category which I have labeled "Cults and Sects" due to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses don't actually acknowledge Jesus Christ as God, nor the Holy Spirit for that matter. Sad but true, this is one of the most rapid growing movements in this country....another ramification of "personal interpretation of Scripture," a direct result of Protestantism. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, started as a Presbyterian, then joined a Congregational church, and finally, influenced by the Adventists, founded his "own" church...except he wouldn't refer to it as such.
The main reason for this post is to provide all of you with valuable resources in combating this "delusional" sect. They hold to such things as: the belief that Jesus isn't God, the belief that hell doesn't exist, the belief in the annihiliation of "unsaved" people, the belief that Jesus and St. Michael the Archangel are one-in-the-same, the belief in the "mortality" of the soul, and the ongoing alteration of the actual year in which Jesus will return (they initially predicted that year to be 1914, but afterwards altered that year to 1918, and then 1925. There are many other oddities about this sect. Below I have provided links to outstanding articles that I recommend printing out and using when that all too familiar knock at the door comes again. Make sure to lead the discusion with Jehovah Witnesses, I have found that the best approach is to put them on their heels quickly. They use a misinterpreted bible, the New World Translation, and have little knowledge of Church history. We have a theological obligation to help them realize the fundamental errors of their religion.
The links are as follows:
The History of the Jehovah's Witnesses
The God of the Jehovah's Witnesses
Strategies of the Jehovah's Witnesses
The Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses
Stumpers For Jehovah's Witnesses
More Stumpers For Jehovah's Witnesses
The Stumpers are excellent tools for both Protestants and Catholics when dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to our doors. I highly recommend taking the time to read through these articles. We must keep ourselves informed, especially about those that hold to such erroneous teachings as those of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
In Christ,
Joe
Gee, how did you know that one of my teenagers just asked yesterday if Jehovah's Witnesses were Christians? I had no clue and hadn't started looking for info yet. Thanks for the scoop!
Thanks for the stumpers link.
Now I have something to say to these guys when they show up at my door right after I get out of the shower.
One time I was dripping wet, obviously in a hurry, and still I had a hard time getting them to stop invading my personal space.
Joe,
I agree with this post. However, I find it interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses warn their congregation to not just read Scripture alone, but to read Scripture in conjunction with their particular writings and teachings as well. That if they read the Bible alone they will fall into "darkness". How is this teaching any different than the Catholic teaching? To me I think that only difference here is that the Catholic teachings and writings are a bit older.
I believe that whenever you add to the Scriptures you get the results of erroneous teachings such as this.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas...you never cease to amaze me...
1) Charles Taze Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses NOT Jesus Christ (He had already founded the Catholic Church), historically we know this to be true.
2) Catholics aren't told if we only read the Bible we will fall into darkness, we just aren't "willfully ignorant" enough to think that ALL we need is the Bible. This is especially true in light of the fact that we only have the Bible, as we know it today, because of that divine authority given to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ Himself. It really isn't that hard of a concept.
3) The teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses directly contradict Sacred Scripture whereas the teachings of the Catholic Church are in perfect harmony with Sacred Scripture (unlike those churches that teach Sola Scriptura).
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
It was just an interesting observation.
I understand where you are coming from, even if I do disagree. I hope you understand where I am coming from. This is nothing we haven't argued about before, and I don't think I will take the bait again.
I was struck by the power of Scripture though in the JW's statement. Just reading the Scripture will cause someone to turn back to the true faith . . . (Of course you would disagree that it is the true faith.)
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
Just reading scripture CAN cause someone to turn back to the true faith, but it's not necessarily the case.
Thomas,
I agree with fidens. As St. Jerome once wrote, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
You still underestimate the value Catholics place on Sacred Scripture...I don't know of any church that puts a greater emphasis on Sacred Scripture in its life and in its liturgy. We practically read the entire Bible in a 3 year time period at Mass. I doubt any Protestant church can make that claim.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Historically the Catholic Church has not placed a great emphasis on the private reading of Scripture. Only recently has it begun to do so, and I would bet that that is only true in predominately Protestant countries, and as a result of Protestant influence. So Jerome may have said it, but that doesn't mean its been a historical practice of the Catholic Church.
Reading and understanding are two vastly different things. I doubt there is a Catholic Church out there that delves into the depths of Scripture during their liturgy as well as the church that I attend. We might not cover a lot of ground quickly, but the ground we cover is covered extremely throughly. We understand it and we attempt to live it on a daily basis. The transforming power of Scripture is truly amazing.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
Actually you're taking a very odd position. Let's remember: Jesus never even mentioned that a book should be written - the Catholic Church decided this later and compiled the writings of its members. Then they made it available to the laity going so far as to have public Bibles available at every Catholic Church (remember, until the invention of the printing press, books were extremely expensive). For you to suggest that historically the Church hasn't placed emphasis on the reading of Scripture betrays your ignorance of history. But be careful! Remember, a little knowledge of history and one ceases to be protestant!
In addition, it's impossible for you to delve more deeply than Catholics into Scripture. I'm sorry, but it's true. Remember, we've been studying Scripture for 2,000 years - I would imagine your church has being doing so for about 20? 30 maybe? In addition, we have the Oral Word as well as the Written Word, which explains much that is often misunderstood by protestant groups. For example, the book of Revelation is based upon the format of Catholic mass - if you miss this it just ends up being a book about "end times," rather than a book full of spiritual advice for today as well.
Try reading some of the great Catholic writers - I think you'll be stunned at the depth to which they can delve.
God bless,
Jay
Jay
This goes back to our discussion on Scripture.
"Again, Jay, did Christ say He would send His Spirit to guide them(the apostles)? Yes He did.
Again, do you believe that the Apostles who wrote...were they led by God's Spirit to do so?
And if you answer yes to this question...did that same Spirit of God, that was leading the Apostles to write what we NOW accept as Scripture...only mean the OT when Paul wrote to not go beyond what is written?"
All I want to know is if you believe that Paul was led by the Spirit of God to write what he wrote.
God Bless
Actually, SandT, I believe the Spirit is leading the Catholic Church! Was St. Paul lead to write? Yes, but I believe you are going beyond what is written by suggesting that St. Paul intended the New Testament to be included.
Also, this would contradict Jesus' point that there is much for us to learn, but the Holy Spirit would lead us to it over time - are you suggesting that at the time of the Apostles the Holy Spirit had lead us into the fulness of Truth? If so, we should go back to what they believe then, correct?
Be careful, I can back up exactly what they believed then (such as contraception is sin) and you don't necessarily believe it today.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
You stated, “Actually you're taking a very odd position. Let's remember: Jesus never even mentioned that a book should be written - the Catholic Church decided this later and compiled the writings of its members.”
You should really be more careful what you write. The Catholic Church decided that a book should be written? Where is your evidence of this? I thought the Bible was made up of individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit who decided to write. I didn’t know that they were told to do so by the Pope and the Magisterium. To say that it was written by Catholic Church members is a fallacious misconception that you repeated put forward. It was written by the apostles and their close associates. I guess if you repeat it enough you really do begin to believe it.
You said, “Then they made it available to the laity going so far as to have public Bibles available at every Catholic Church (remember, until the invention of the printing press, books were extremely expensive).”
And the Catholic Church was/is extremely wealthy. Maybe instead of creating these palaces to their own arrogance called cathedrals, and were about the true business of the church everyone would have had a Bible. They made it "available" only in name,as they controlled every aspect of its dissemination. They told the laity that they strongly discouraged the possession and the reading of the Scripture. A “tradition” that was passed down until very recently, and only changed it because of the pressure put on them by Protestants.
You stated, “For you to suggest that historically the Church hasn't placed emphasis on the reading of Scripture betrays your ignorance of history.”
Please reread what I wrote. I said private reading. Although, there is a difference in the public reading of the Scripture during a mass where it is not explained, and the in depth study of Scripture that occurs in many Protestant churches.
You stated, “But be careful! Remember, a little knowledge of history and one ceases to be protestant!”
Another favorite mantra. Remember a little actual study of Scriptures and one ceases to be Catholic! Be very careful you may fall into darkness! ;)
You stated, “In addition, it's impossible for you to delve more deeply than Catholics into Scripture. I'm sorry, but it's true. Remember, we've been studying Scripture for 2,000 years - I would imagine your church has being doing so for about 20? 30 maybe?”
Ah! The always intelligent argument of “My church is older than your church argument”. I am not ashamed to admit that the church I go to was founded 20 years ago. But its another misconception that we have only been studying Scripture for that period of time, because we can and do tap into all that has been written before. However we have an advantage in that we can read all points of view on a piece of Scripture whereas you can only interpret Scripture by what is dictated to you by the Church. I can read Luther and Augustine, Protestant theology, as well as Catholic theology and make an intelligent decision. You on the other hand must accept the Catholic interpretation regardless of how ridiculous it is. Now who has a more in depth study?
You said, “In addition, we have the Oral Word as well as the Written Word, which explains much that is often misunderstood by protestant groups. For example, the book of Revelation is based upon the format of Catholic mass - if you miss this it just ends up being a book about "end times," rather than a book full of spiritual advice for today as well.”
Unfortunately your “oral word” is highly unreliable. You have absolutely no concrete proof that it is what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
You said, “Try reading some of the great Catholic writers - I think you'll be stunned at the depth to which they can delve.”
I have and I agree. Try reading some Protestant writers. You be stunned at the depth of their writings.
You stated, “Are you suggesting that at the time of the Apostles the Holy Spirit had lead us into the fulness of Truth? If so, we should go back to what they believe then, correct?”
I don’t know about Sand T, but that is exactly what I am suggesting.
You stated, “Be careful, I can back up exactly what they believed then (such as contraception is sin) and you don't necessarily believe it today.”
I’ll call your bluff. Prove it.
In Christ,
Thomas
Jay,
Correct me if I am wrong. But are you saying that Paul was led by God's Spirit to write?
If this is so, are you also saying that this same Spirit of God, was only referring to the Old Testament and not including what Paul was writing at the time? Which by the way is what you and I both agree to be God inspired Scripture.
If this is what you believe, then did Paul write God inspired Scripture?
If you say yes, then how can you say that including what Paul wrote, is going beyond Scripture.
The only way you can justify such a statement is to have the following rational; that God did inspire Paul to write what he wrote. Even though the Spirit of God was at hand, working through Paul...this Spirit of God only meant the Old Testament.
Jay, if you accept Paul's writing to be inspired by God himself, then doesn't that include ALL of Paul's writings in the statement that ALL SCRIPTURE is GOD BREATHED! If this is so, how can you exclude Paul's writings from the statement that we are not to go beyond what is written?
God Bless
Thomas,
Did you know that even in the realm of Protestantism, down through the past 5 centuries, reading the Bible "personally" wasn't a possibility due to the blantantly obvious fact that most Protestants were illiterate? You've just been brainwashed into believing that all "Bible Christians" have been "personally" reading the Bible all these years.... Which historically and intellectually is really sad.
Second, as far as your comment about the "wealthy" Catholic Church, they did busy themselves with the well-being of the common man by establishing schools and universities (the first known formal university was founded by the Catholic Church) in order to teach the average man to read, write, etc. The Catholic Church also established the first hospitals...if that isn't caring for the poor and needy I'm not sure what is.
As far as your "ignorant" comment about palaces built to their own arrogance called cathedrals...obviously you have never been to one. There are few experiences more moving than walking through the doors of St. Peter's Basilica. Second, most of these were built through the donations of laymen who contributed the money for that specific purpose. The Catholic Church's efforts in the realm of caring for the poor and needy, in the realm of education, and in the realm of monetary contributions throughout the history of Christendom are unmatched. Again, a little study of history and one ceases to be Protestant. And by the way...you got your comment mixed up...it goes...a little actual study of Scripture and one ceases to be Protestant. Be careful...you may one day see the Light ;-)
You really need to get over that whole "dictating" thing... Again, as I have told you over and over...the Church doesn't dictate to us, we are free, rational beings who believe so as to understand. History does account for something...you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't. It should really trouble you to look back over history and realize that the Catholic Church has been around since Christ commissioned it. You will not find believers in the first five centuries worshipping as Protestants do...No they were going to Mass....they were receiving the Eucharist. We know St. Paul believed as did all the other Apostles, as has the Church down through the ages. If they were so much alike to modern day Protestants why weren't they assembling the Bible then....why did it take 300+ years for that to occur? I'm calling your bluff...prove me wrong.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"No they were going to Mass....they were receiving the Eucharist. We know St. Paul believed as did all the other Apostles, as has the Church down through the ages."
And Paul and the other Apostles never prayed to saints or discussed Marian doctrine or Papal infallibility. So please stop saying that the church in the Bible is the RCC when clearly the staples of Roman Catholicism are doctrines such as Mary and prayers to saints are no where to be found in Scripture. Try as you might, you won't find these doctrines in the Bible.
Some simple questions, do you believe that God operated through Paul to write what Paul wrote? And do you believe that what Paul wrote is God inspired Scripture?
If you answer yes to these 2 questions, do you believe that God did not include what Paul wrote into the statement that ALL SCRIPTURE is GOD BREATHED?
God Bless
Joe,
You Stated, “Did you know that even in the realm of Protestantism, down through the past 5 centuries, reading the Bible "personally" wasn't a possibility due to the blantantly obvious fact that most Protestants were illiterate? You've just been brainwashed into believing that all "Bible Christians" have been "personally" reading the Bible all these years.... Which historically and intellectually is really sad.”
Ah. If you can’t win the argument then go on the offensive. I’m not attempting to prove that Protestants have been personally reading the Bible from the beginning of the Reformation, nor do I believe that they have, nor have I ever stated that they have. I do know that the Protestant churches have never prevented nor discouraged its congregations from the personal reading of the Scriptures. The problem I have is that the Catholic Church, the supposed one true church has systematically denied its members personal access to writings that itself declares Divine Revelation. Why stop God from speaking directly to His people? What exactly did the Church fear? Maybe it is because the Church would have lost control. Maybe it feared the truth? I don’t know the motivating factors, but I do know that it happened. So there is the One True Church preventing God from dealing directly with His people, and allowing His Word to work in their lives. It makes you wonder.
You stated, “Second, as far as your comment about the "wealthy" Catholic Church, they did busy themselves with the well-being of the common man by establishing schools and universities (the first known formal university was founded by the Catholic Church) in order to teach the average man to read, write, etc. The Catholic Church also established the first hospitals...if that isn't caring for the poor and needy I'm not sure what is.”
Once again I have never stated that the Catholic Church didn’t care for the poor. I do state that they have made terrible disciples of Christ out of their people. Of course that just comes from having the wrong focus. Jesus’ final commandment for the church and its central focus was to go and make disciples, not to disseminate the Eucharist. Somewhere along the path the Catholic Church lost this focus.
You stated, “As far as your "ignorant" comment about palaces built to their own arrogance called cathedrals...obviously you have never been to one. There are few experiences more moving than walking through the doors of St. Peter's Basilica.”
I believe that I would be moved if I ever visited. I also think that I would be sickened at the grand waste of it all.
You stated, “Second, most of these were built through the donations of laymen who contributed the money for that specific purpose.”
Donated or coerced we may never actually know.
You stated, “The Catholic Church's efforts in the realm of caring for the poor and needy, in the realm of education, and in the realm of monetary contributions throughout the history of Christendom are unmatched.”
Remember, “Too much that is given much is required.” I don’t think that the Catholic Church has used its vast resources properly.
You stated, “Again, a little study of history and one ceases to be Protestant. And by the way...you got your comment mixed up...it goes...a little actual study of Scripture and one ceases to be Protestant. Be careful...you may one day see the Light ;-)”
I think I got it right.
You stated, “You really need to get over that whole "dictating" thing... Again, as I have told you over and over...the Church doesn't dictate to us, we are free, rational beings who believe so as to understand.”
Your belief that the church is infallible (which is itself a teaching of the Catholic Church) dictates that you must believe that every teaching and doctrine is by necessity true regardless of how ridiculous. You cannot view anything outside of this without being contradictory.
You stated, “History does account for something...you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't. It should really trouble you to look back over history and realize that the Catholic Church has been around since Christ commissioned it.”
The church has been around since Christ commissioned it. The thing called the Catholic Church evolved from the church much later.
You stated, “You will not find believers in the first five centuries worshipping as Protestants do...No they were going to Mass....they were receiving the Eucharist.”
What is important to me is how Christ and the Apostles worshipped, not how men worshiped thereafter.
You stated, “We know St. Paul believed as did all the other Apostles, as has the Church down through the ages.”
You don’t know this. Once again you have no proof that Christ and the Apostles believed as the Catholic Church presently believes. When all is said and done, all you have is faith that it is true.
You stated, “If they were so much alike to modern day Protestants why weren't they assembling the Bible then....why did it take 300+ years for that to occur? I'm calling your bluff...prove me wrong.”
Are you saying that the writings that make up the Bible were not read in the church during the first three hundred years? Are you saying that most of these writings weren’t thought of as the very words of God by this early church? If not then I believe that you are the one who needs a history lesson. If so then what is the big deal about their assembly into one book? I will repeat this: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN”T MAKE THE SCRIPTURES GOD BREATHED, THEY MERELY WERE THE FIRST TO COLLECTIVELY AND OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE THEM AS SUCH. That is it.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
I just noticed this comment, so I wanted to address some of the issues you bring up. I'll ignore the ad homenium and outright false claims you make and stick to the points.
1) God speaks to people through His Church - as the Bible says, "now through the Church the wisdom of God is made known." The Church choose to also collect writings and declare them infallible. Jesus never instructed His apostles to do this. If the Church did want to get rid of Scripture or alter it to fit invented beliefs, it could have. Remember that the only reason you have a Bible today is because the Catholic Church continued preserving Scripture through the dark ages - if they were as insidious as you claim, they could have changed the text any way they wanted. Consider that.
2) You state that the Church made "terrible" disciples of it's people. Really, Thomas? Do you want to say that Mother Theresa of Calcutta was a "terrible" disciple? How about Padre Pio, Pope John Paul II, or Thomas More? I could go on, but to suggest that the Church has "terrible" disciples shows abject ignorance on your part. Yes, there are hypocrites in my Church - do you have any in yours? I challenge you to come up with a list of non-Catholic Christians that have done so much for Christ as the four I just listed (remember, I could list thousands upon thousands).
3) By the way, yes Christ said to go and make disciples of all men (the Catholic Church is the largest Christian church in the world, by far), but He also said, "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." No, are you suggesting that a disciple of Christ can "have no life" in them? This is another ignorant statement - discipleship proceeds from the Eucharist (which is Christ). This proves the Bible's point not to throw your pearls before swine - you treat the Eucharist as if it were not the pearl of great value that we are to sell everything in order to obtain. In other words, you miss the point of Christ.
4) For the record, in terms of tithe we all agree that a tithe is 10% of our income (at least, I hope you agree). The Catholic church tells its members to only donate 5% to the Church and give the other 5% to a charity. That's not just one Sunday, that's every Sunday. Have you ever heard a protestant pastor suggest this? No, in fact protestant pastors usually suggest you give even more to their church (i.e. to them) and let God handle your finances after that. Faith? Or Greed? Don't accuse the Catholic Church of something just because your pastors would be guilty if they had the power.
5) The Catholic Church has doctrines, which either believe or you don't. We have freely chosen to believe these doctrines because they are Truth and they come from the pillar and foundation of Truth. Period. Not sure where the confusion is - in fact, you believe some of the doctrines based solely on Tradition (i.e. the Trinity).
6) The men who worshipped at the same time as the apostles were taught to worship by the apostles, would you agree? Please let me know when you think the Catholic Church "evolved" - I can show you writings from the early Church Fathers (pre-100 A.D.) that are very Catholic. In fact, you need to work on an argument that explains how the church was corrupted before the book of Revelation was written in order to support your theory. Good luck.
7) Some individual parishes had some parts of the Bible before the compilation. Many parishes also had other books that are not considered Scripture today. And many saw some books that are considered Scripture as infallible. You seem to suggest that they simply collected the books that each parish had and formed a Bible, but rather they actually chose the books that were infallible. And you trust their decision, but you apparently think Martin Luther was also infallible, since you accept his decision to remove those books that didn't work with his new religion (based on sola scriptura, sola fides, etc.). Now that's faith, unfortunately it's not well-placed.
In the end, Thomas, we will know a thing by its fruits. The fruit of protestanism is division. The fruit of Catholicism is holy men and women like Mother Theresa and the good they do across all the world.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
1) Let me ask you a question. If the Catholic Church collected these writings and declared them infallible and to be part of Scripture, and they were not Scripture before that declaration, then was Peter wrong in claiming that Paul’s writings were Scripture? He stated this 350 years before the “official” declaration. So did the Church declare that Scripture was such and make it so, or did they merely recognize what was already the case? Was Peter right or wrong? As to your thought that we must rely on the Catholic Church through the dark age for our Scripture, that is clearly not the case. We have manuscripts that date well before the dark ages. By the way I never stated that the Church was insidious. I did state that the Church systematically denied the people the Word of God up until the 1960’s. I assume that that is the “outright false claims” that you referred to. Unfortunately they are true and you have not addressed the issue. I assume that you have not done so because there really is no good defense.
2) Why is it that my church is half made up of “Recovering Catholics” as they call themselves? I think it is due to the fact that the gospel is not preached or not preached so that the common man understands it. This is what I mean by making disciples of its people. Most Catholics I know, know very little if anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course if one goes through seminary becomes a priest or joins a monastery there may be a great deal of knowledge and insight as to doctrine. Name me four others outside the actual organization of the Catholic Church. There may be discipleship but not at the base level. I don’t want to get into this argument, it is patently ridiculous, but here are a few from the Protestant side off the top of my head, Billy Graham, Dwight Moody, C. S. Lewis, and Jonathan Edwards, that I think match or exceed your four.
3) The whole point of Christ is not eating His flesh, and this not the goal and reason for the church. It is to proclaim the gospel (ie that Christ has come and died for our sins that we might be saved) and to make disciples.
4) I don’t know what kind of church you grew up in or what kind of protestant churches you have attended. (This is a side issue and one I really don’t want to get side track on, but there is and should be no set figure for tithing. For one person it may be only 5% for another it may be 25%. Remember the widow gave 100%.) You have set up a protestant straw man here. Maybe you have been watching too many televangelist and assumed that this represents the typical protestant church. My church does not dwell on tithing at all, unless it happens to be a subject in the Scripture that the Pastor is preaching from that morning. They pass the offering plate and take the collection. They let God convict each person how much they should give. In fact I have been there a few times where they actually forgotten to pass the plate. ;) It’s just not a strong focus. I believe that because of the trust in God of our Pastor and Elders on this issue that our church has been abundantly blessed financially. We attempt to keep the focus on Christ, not how much money is coming in. By the way it doesn’t help your argument here to say, “Yea well your church would be greedy too if they could.” It is wrong if either side does it.
5) When you say “solely” on Tradition. I would have to disagree. There is plenty of evidence of the Trinity in Scripture. And I have never stated that Protestants don’t rely on tradition, however it is always secondary to the authority of the Bible.
6) The term evolved implies that there was no set time where the church became the Church. I would guess that is was somewhere between 100 AD and 500 AD. I never said that everything about the Catholic Church was corrupted. I can also show you writings from the early Church Fathers that are very anti-Catholic. Please show me the historical evidence for the belief in the Assumption of Mary for example.
7) You seem to think that these writings were not circulated among the various churches. That is not my understanding. I trust in the revelation that is found in the Word of God. I do not “only” trust the early church fathers’ decision on Scripture, but the mountain of other evidence that backs up their decision. By the way Luther didn’t remove the Apocrypha from the Canon. They were never there in the first place, at least not until after Trent.
You stated, “In the end, Thomas, we will know a thing by its fruits. The fruit of protestanism is division. The fruit of Catholicism is holy men and women like Mother Theresa and the good they do across all the world.”
That’s being a bit over simplistic, don’t you think?
In Christ,
Thomas
All of you are ridiculous, and the truth is, religion is just people guessing about what's going to happen to them after they die becuase they are afraid, and it is very ignorant to put another person's religion down because there is no possible way anyone can have any idea about what exists and what doesnt.Let them believe in what they want and you believe in whatever comforts you best.
Jesus founded the Catholic Church? Then it shouldn't contradict the Bible. Yet the Bible warns against those who prohibit marriage (celibacy) and those who promte abstaining from food (lent)-1 Timothy 4:1-3.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the Romam Empire in the 4th Century, namely Emperor Constantine. Jesus did not get involved in politics (John 6:16;Matthew 4:8-10), did not use self-exhaulting titles (Matthew 23:5-12), or clothing to differentiate a clergy class (Matthew 23:5). He spoke the language that was common and everyone understood, not some dead language like Latin that only the clergy can understand (John 7:15;Acts 4:13). And instead of accumulating wealth, he gave to the poor (John 13:29).
If you look up the Scriptures above you'll see that Jesus DID NOT found the Catholic church. As for the Popes being successors of Peter, Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), unlike the Popes today and Jesus was the Rock or founder of the Christian Religion, not Peter (Romans 9:33;1 Corinthians 3:11;1 Corinthians 10:4;Ephesians 2:20;1 Peter 2:8)
Interesting, isn't it?
Jeff,
The Catholic Church doesn't contradict the Bible. We've written on all of these topics, so I hope you take some time to look around.
However, I did want to address your most egregious error - "The origin of the Catholic Church is the Roman Empire in the 4th Century, namely Emperor Constantine." Please read some history, Jeff, this is a comical error when we have so much available to us. Go back and read the writings of the early Christians (called the "Early Church Fathers") - protestant publishers have printings of them as well. To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church came from Constantine betrays ignorance of these writings in a big way.
All of your quotations are also comical, since I could quote Scripture that completely contradicts your understanding of those passages. For example, if I point out that Paul writes that it is "better" that priests not be married, would that make Scripture in error or your interpretation of Scripture in error? I could also quote numerous verses that tell us to fast!
I'll pray that you take the time to do some research on this topic.
God bless,
Jay
Paul did say it was better to be single, but he adds in 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 "Now I say to the unmarried persons and the widows, it is well for them that they remain even as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed [with passion]."
And 1 Corinthians 9:5 says "We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ce´phas, do we not?"
I have read the book From Christ to Constantine and Imperial Rome and they do point to Constantine and 2nd century Rome.
I do not think the Apostolic Fathers were catholic, it is said they were contemporaries of the apostles, before the catholic church came to be. They did not teach the trinity, which catholics do. You can read this in: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, and Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly.
As to my post being comical, I'm glad I made you laugh.
Jeff,
I would like to reply to both of your comments.
First to suggest that the celibate life and fasting are "unbiblical" is simply untrue. Is not Christ our model? Was not Christ a celibate and preached celibacy (Mt 19:10-12)? Did not Christ tell us that those that followed Him would fast (Mark 2:20)? To pull out a couple verses and insist that St. Paul was saying we can't attach celibacy to a specific sacrament, namely Holy Orders, nor are we to abstain from food for any given amount of time is at best amateur, at worst deceptive.
Second, to claim that the Church of the 1st and 2nd century wasn't "Catholic" based on the book that you read, leads me to recommend that you find another book :-) The word "Catholic" was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110 A.D. (please note). I think it would be good to look at the context in which this word was used so as to understand how the early Church understood the word "Catholic":
Sounds like the Catholic Church that I know. Does the Jehovah Witness cult even have bishops?
In Christ,
Joe
According to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon :Episkopos or bishop refers to overseers or elders of a Christian church, so Jehovah's Witnesses do have bishops. According to Mark 2:18-20 Jesus's disciples didn;t always fast (Luke 5:33-35 also)The Bible leaves fasting up to one's conscience (Romans 14:5,6). Citing from textbooks and other sources is fine, but The Word of God shuold be our main source for teaching.
Jesus was not Catholic, that name doesn't appear in the Bible. Calling JW's a cult shows you are getting upset, so this will be my last post. Because "a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil,instructing with mildness" (2 Timothy 2:24,25)
Jeff,
By using the word "cult" I am simply referring to the truth of the matter. A cult is a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious. To attempt to say that JW religion wasn't a "radiclal" breaking away from what had been considered, up until that point and still today, "orthodox" Christianty would be false. So please receive this clarification, and know that I meant no offense. I was simply "correcting opponents with gentleness" (2 Tim 2:25).
Also to clarify the distinction between bishop and elder in terms of JWs I would like to point out one key fact. A bishop is a successor of the Apostles and should have a lineage back to them, this is something that cannot be claimed by any single member of the JWs since the religion itself wasn't founded until around 1871 A.D. by Charles Taze Russell who, at the time, did not claim to be a "bishop".
In terms of fasting, I have to disagree with you once again. We find fasts being ordered throughout the Old Testament (2 Chronicles 20:3; Esther 4:16-17, 9:31; Jeremiah 36:6-9; Joel 1:14). In the New Testament we do not find Jesus condemning this practice rather He affirms it and explains its value (Mark 9:29; Luke 2:27). Jesus even speaks in a rather matter-of-fact manner about fasting when after explaining how we are to pray and forgive one another He says:
So it wasn't a matter of "if you fast" but rather "when you fast." Jesus clearly expects His followers to fast. Now that we have at least resolved your two false claims in terms of celibacy and fasting let us move on to the heart of the matter.
If you are using the New World Bible Translation please justify the use of the word "a" in John 1:1. The use of the word "a" reveals a radical change in doctrine from what Christianty has held to down through the ages, for, as the Greek reads:
So the Greek clearly states that "the Word" is God, whereas the NWT makes "the Word" simply "a" god. This is a key and pivotal point that must be accounted for, since in truth the JWs entire belief system is based on this erroneous translation.
On a side note, I am sure that if the historical documents that exist from the Early Church supported JWs they would gladly reference them.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe (and Jeff),
I suppose the justification of the NWT's rendering Jn 1:1 with the phrase "a god" may be the following: Generally, a noun without a preceding article can be translated "a..." or "the...". Also, generally, when translating, one ought to avoid rendering "the" unless the article is there. Nevertheless, and generally again, context trumps the second of the two general rules above.
The NWT takes the first instance of "God" which has the article as "the word was with God ("kai ho logos en pros ton theon" in Greek) - and without translating the article("ton") - as do most good translations. However, since the second mention of theos in Jn 1:1 is w/o the article ("kai theos en ho logos," "and the word was God), I can only suppose that the NWT committee has decided that THAT "God" must be only "a god" since it doesn't have the article. Of course, this is tenuous translating at best, inconsistent with literary context as well as known rules of translation, and so renders a rather "tortured" translation.
But it is interesting, isn't it??
Blessings!
Jack,
I think that the JW have a set theology and translate the Bible to fit that theology. Nothing more nothing less.
In Christ,
Thomas
The context does lays the groundwork for accurate understanding.
The King James Version says, "The Word was with God." Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the•os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the•os']"). This first the•os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").
On the other hand, there is no article before the second the•os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the•os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the•os'] cannot be regarded as definite."
So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"
Some claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the•os'), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the•os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."
But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 1:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.
Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.
Does saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ´elo•him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the•os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"
Mike,
Thanks for the detailed response. You have more patience and time than I.
Pax!
Mike,
Another brief response to your very long response. Advice: Shorter responses “read” better. I can hardly find the time to wrestle with your whole, long response. Nevertheless, I did – and you belabor a point that is ultimately not decisive as far as the syntax of the language goes.
But first, to address a distraction in your post: Fr. Joseph Fitzmeyer is no longer serving on the editorial board of the JBL. Gail O’Day of Candler Theo. Seminary is presently the General Editor (she is as well, an expert on the Fourth Gospel!!). But since I know Fr. Fitzmeyer has been a member of SBL for some time, I’ve no doubt that he, at some time or another, served as General Editor of the JBL. However, in your references to the JBL, are you referring to Philip Harner’s article “Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns : Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (JBL 92/1, 1973)???
Anyhow, the gist of your post seems to want to argue that Jesus is not equal to God according to John 1:1 – and particularly the phrase “kai theos en ho logos.” From a syntactical perspective, within the phrase "kai theos en ho logos" ("...and the word 'was' God"), a distinction is likely being maintained between the subject with the article (ho logos) and the complement without the article (theos). But this is not always/necessarily the case throughout the grammar, but it is (at least) likely the case. Stacking the evidence as you do in your long post – i.e. without giving a nod to the ongoing (and interesting) “discussion” about how exactly to theologically translate “kai theos en ho logos” into English, does little to convince…at least, to convince those who are reasonably well read on the topic. But it is good rhetoric!
The point is, stacking the deck as you do cannot in any way iron out the translational problems involved when moving from a very flexible language (koine Grk) to a relatively limited one (English). Even Harner’s article is ironic (and quite dated!!) as he presents all of the possible other ways by which John might have constructed the phrase in question, AS IF our issues were John’s, and our questions were John’s. They were, and are definitely not!
Nevertheless, one need not rely on a single verse to assert the plain sense of the Fourth Gospel when it comes to Jesus’ identity vis-à-vis God. At least, what can be claimed from the syntactical relations going on in Jn 1:1, is that the Divinity of "the Word" - Jesus! - and the Holy Trinity are being proleptically echoed, as it is clear that the divine Word, Jesus, existed from the very beginning (En arche en ho logos), and is "with/turned toward God" (kai ho logos en pros ton theon). This text oozes with the stuff of the Trinity - the raw material, and as John of Damascus would gather when theologizing about the perichoresis five centuries later.
In addition, given the character and nuance of the “I am” sayings in the FG (6:35, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1), AND the “great ‘I Am’” sayings (8:24, 28, 58(!); 13:9; cf. Exod. 3:14), it stands to reason that the author of this Gospel likely recognized Jesus not only as DIVINE but also as God, God’s self! This is not to claim that he was thinking in the same substantial categories as the Church Fathers, or even those of the great councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon – but the raw material is clearly there!
Finally, to my mind, the definitive nod goes to the teaching authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church which clearly teaches the divinity of Jesus and the substantial equality of Jesus and the Father. Jesus is with God…toward God…IS God (Jn 8:58-59; cf. CCC 241, 454, 590, 2812).
I know! I should take my own advice about long posts.
Peace!
Here are some thoughts, it has to do with basic grammar.
There are no indefinite articles in greek, like "a", rather most nouns are formed with an definite article that reflects its gender, like in English "the". Though the "the" that is used tells you what gender the noun is, and whether it is singular or plural, and what role it plays in the sentence. So if a noun is the subject of the sentence, then the preceeding idefinite article needs to reflect that.
This all of course raises some interesting issues about John 1: 1. It reads "in the beginning was the word (o logos, pronounced "ho logos") , and the word (o logos) was with the God (ton Theos), and God (theos) was the word (o logos). " In this last phrase, we have a predicate nominative, that is a Subject and a verb in the same case (nominative) and a equative verb, "to be" en which comes out "is". Just as in English, predicate nominatives are in the nominative case, the same as the subjects. Yet in Greek, to differentiate the subject from the senterce from the predicate nominative, the article is assigned to the subject, in this sentence "Word". So why was the predicate nominative moved in front of the verb "Is"? William Mounce explains why this was done in His book "Basics of Biblical Greek" p. 28-9
"Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind ; 1 why was Theos thrown forward? and 2 why does it lack an article? In brief its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality "What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definitive article keeps us from identifying the person of the word (Jesus Christ) with the person of God (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegant terse theological statments one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism, the word order is against Arianism." To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
kai o logos en ho theos - and the Word was the God (Sabellianism)
kai o logos en theos - and the word was a God (Arianism)
kai theos en ho logos - and the word was God (Orthodoxy)
Jesus Christ is God and has the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All of this is concisely affirmed in kai theos en o logos."
Dave
Great response Dave. But isn't Luther's comment "the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order against Arianism" plainly anachronistic?
Certainly, the Fourth Evangelist's wording is beautifully compact, and theologically loaded. But the suggestion that Jn 1:1 was penned with Sabellianism & Arianism in mind is pushing the limits of historical distance. The FG was composed sometime between 90-120 AD, not in the 3rd Century.
Though my history may be a bit fuzzy, I don't think it is in this case.
In Christ!
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together."
Could God Be Tempted?
AT MATTHEW 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being "tempted by the Devil." Satan was trying to cause Jesus to be disloyal to God.
But what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No, but angels and humans could rebel against God and did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human.
On the other hand, it is unimaginable that God could sin and be disloyal to himself. "Perfect is his activity . . . A God of faithfulness, . . . righteous and upright is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4) So if Jesus had been God, he could not have been tempted.—James 1:13.
Not being God, Jesus could have been disloyal. But he remained faithful, saying: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"—Matthew 4:10.
John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I am."
Mark 10:18: " Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."
John 20:17: "‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God"
John 10:36: "I am God’s Son"
Matthew 12:32: " Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come."
John 5:19: "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing."
John 5:30: "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative."
John 5:36: "the Father dispatched me"
Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered."
1 Corinthians 15:28: "But 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."
Mark 13:32: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father"
Like 22:42: "let, not my will, but yours take place.” "
Matthew 20:23: "sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Acts 2:32: "This Jesus God resurrected"
Anachronism and the bible. Interesting point. Problem is God exists outside of time and therefore, while adressing the needs of the moment, God also is smart enought (imagine that) to include guidelines and helpers for all time. Also, John was penned in what we would today call a pluralistic culture. In fact the pluralism back then puts ours to shame. The issue of one God or many Gods or how those Gods relate was a very prominant issue. Heck, it dates back into Pre-Socratic times. Ancient Mythogomies were obsessed with which God begat who and which one swallowed which etc. The issue of the one and the many was also on everyone's mind. Many of the newly converted in John's time were emersed in Greek culture and thought. He had to be very sustinct and clear. He also was presupposing a certain view, expressed and taught in the Church already.
So if we reflect upon both the fact that God wrote it as a principle author and that the cultural milieu of the 4th Gospel's time was highly charged, then Luther's quote begins to take on some significance. Its subtle, but might not have been for the early Christians.
Dave,
There is simply no problem regarding God existing out of time – addressing the needs of every moment, “smart enough” etc. etc. But the author of the FG did exist within time, and so had no idea that Sabellius and Arius much later would each articulate their kind of “Christian faith” that would eventually be declared heresy by the emerging Orthodoxy. John, though penning (or borrowing??) a carefully constructed (Jn 1:1-18 forms a chiasm) prologue that reflects his Hellenistic socio-religious context, did not do so anticipating later 4th Century heresy.
Further, your suggestion that John “was presupposing a certain view, expressed and already taught in the Church already” is correct only in a very limited sense – correct in terms of the provision of raw material that would eventually become orthodoxy. In fact, your comment too is anachronistic (like Luther’s) as it presumes an orthodoxy that didn’t exist yet (in the late 1st-early 2nd centuries), and especially from John’s perspective. In fact, John – and the community to which he wrote – likely believed that all other “Christians” had it wrong including Paul, if John was familiar with Paul’s letters, as well as the authors/communities behind the Synoptics. While John did not call such believers “dogs” as Paul called other believers who disagreed with him earlier in the 1st Century, John and his community likely considered everyone outside of the “community of the beloved disciple” (Jew, “Christian”, pagan, or even Rastafarian ;-) to be “outsiders”!!
There is simply no need to force a false unanimity on the earliest believers in Jesus Messiah, as if such unanimity somehow, magically ensures the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, early or late – the Magisterium does not need this. The Church, that safeguards the deposit of faith - the live word of the living God as it comes to us via Scripture and Tradition – EMERGED through some centuries of growing pain. Even the NT witnesses to this (Paul’s “dogs” Phil 3:2; Paul and Peter Gal 2:11ff.; Greek believers vs. Hebrew believers Acts 6:1…). No pain – no gain. The great councils began to solidify the contours of orthodoxy in the 3rd & 4th Centuries.
Ah, but this is a tangent from our discourse with Mike!
Blessings Dave!
Talk about rhetoric!
Colossians 2:8 "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."
Tell me what the Bible says. Address the Catholic Enyclopedia's admission that the trinity is not tauaght in the Bible.
Adress the issues, don't ignore them because you can't answer them.
What about John 1:2 The Word was with God. How could someone be with another and be that other person at the same time?
What about verse 18? No man has seen God
Thousands of people saw Jesus. And what about the Scriptures I quoted?
What about Jesus's baptism at Matthew 3:16,17? Jesus was being baptized, the holy spirit descended as a dove and the Father spoke from heaven.
This does not say that the three are one.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?
Let's stick to Scripture not tradition.
"YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:6-9)
And finally... no blessings for me?
Apologies Mike…Blessing to you too.
In all honesty, I am not trying to avoid responding to your posts, and the issues you raise. But the issues that you raise are YOUR ISSUES, and not mine.
I will offer comments here-and-there though. But you should understand, I do not consider myself a Catholic “apologist.” I’m a Catholic yes, but not an apologist. Joe and Jay are much more equipped to address you directly.
A few comments: I am not a biblical literalist. Yet you ask me to tell you “what the Bible says” when I know that the Bible is intended to be a mediated/interpreted Word of God. You can list a series of texts that indicate the differences between Jesus and the Father, but every Catholic that I know will agree that these texts are there, and imply difference between Father and Son. But we understand this to be proleptic of the Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not “admit” that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible. No admission is necessary for what is clearly known! Since Catholics hold to the divine revelation as comprised of Scripture and Tradition, we can look to the teachings of the Church – Church Fathers & Councils, etc. – to mediate certain aspects of the sacred scriptures; and we believe this is by God’s design, and clearly taught IN the sacred scriptures themselves (Joe and Jay can help clarify this precisely).
Mike, you cite Matthew 15:6 (actually, a strange rearrangement of Mt 15:6-9) to diminish the Catholic Church’s teaching office: “And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. 7 YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Mt 15:6-9; NWT).
You need to understand Mike, that in the narrative world of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is addressing a particular group within Judaism – i.e. some Pharisees. So we have Jesus – a faithful, practitioner of Judaism – addressing other faithful practitioners of Judaism. The thing is though, they each “do” their faith in different ways & means – hence the tension between them. When Jesus speaks about the “traditions” of the Pharisees, he is speaking about certain traditions practiced by a certain group within Judaism, during the first century. Jesus IS NOT talking about “traditions” in general, and certainly not about the “tradition” implied by Sacred Scripture and Tradition which together comprise the deposit of faith.
Unfortunately, I think that both sides of this “conversation” will not likely come to any point where genuine discourse is possible since you Mike, demand the Bible only as the field of discussion, while we (or at least “I”) see a more expansive field than you – Scripture and Tradition.
Blessings Mike.
I had sought the assistance of our "brethren" at Catholics United For The Faith on this matter, especially in terms of the understanding of John 1:1. Here is their response:
In Christ,
Joe
There isn't a religion out there that is completely "true." A person can search their entire life looking for truth, but in the end, what does it matter? People just need/want answers, a hope for something after death, reasons why things happen the way they do. Religions are made of a single truth, and then they build a wall around it and don't let the congregation wander outside of those walls. Religion is such closed-minded thing. Why target one group of people, when every single religion is just as corrupted by man?
Wow, Amanda, I've heard that somewhere else before. Oh yeah, Pontius Pilate said that!
Not all religions are corrupted, Amanda, one in particular was given to us by God and He guaranteed it would not be corrupted. People search for Truth because God designed us to do so. And he gave us a way to fulfill that need for truth.
I hope you keep searching.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Are you referring to the Catholic church that wouldn't be corrupted?
Why so? What happened to indulgences. Those were pretty bad and show corruption. You had to pay your way out am I right? Yes, I'm right. That can't be God's church you are referring to. After all, God's church isn't corrupted.
Please let me know directly if you have any real questions on ANY of the Jehovah's Witness' beliefs and I will personally explain why they are bible based.
Me,
Did you read any of the "real" objections and challenges to the JWs listed above?
Why don't you respond to those first, then we'll direct any other questions your way.
In Christ,
Joe