Reasons why the Jehovah’s Witness religion is false (Despite my love for them as human beings)

[Marymog]

If Jesus was going to be “with” his disciples “to the end of the age”.....how is it that “the church” became corrupt in the first place? Would Jesus be a party to that?

If Jesus was going to be with his disciples to the end of the age, why did He wait until 1,800 years after His death and reveal to Russel and his minions the truth of Scripture. That make zero sense. Jesus would not be party to any of that.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Hey Jude.

@Aunty Jane lost me when she suggested the Apostolic Fathers were apostate saying we can't trust their writings/commentaries concerning Scripture. But the men of the JW we can trust.

It is impossible to have a serious conversation with someone like that......Good luck.

Mary

Posting long lists of issues is an act of desperation, so I take one at a time. The Apostolic Fathers were God's instruments in giving us the Bible, but apostates at the same time? Thank God for the ignore button. The time has come.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

There are about 5,100 Catholic bishops in the world. Jesus picked twelve disciples, yet one of them betrayed Him. That’s an 8% ratio of “bad apostles / bishops.” Another denied Him three times, but he repented, so (to be gracious) we won’t count that.

Using the same ratio, there would be 408 bishops out there right now willing to betray or forsake Jesus Christ. If even Jesus got one bad apple (His own choice!), can we expect to do any better? But that still leaves (theoretically) 4692 good bishops . . .

Anti-Catholics want to always concentrate on looking at our bad guys (bad popes, liberal dissidents, nominal and ignorant and lax Catholics, big sinners and hypocrites). That’s fine, as long as they also excoriate our Lord Jesus for His miserable 8% ratio of lousy, renegade apostles.

The record is far worse for the seven churches of Revelation. Only one was more or less completely praised by Jesus. That’s a 14% ratio of good churches to bad (86% bad or corrupt or woefully deficient in some way). But their status as legitimate churches (and Christians) is never denied. And this is the vaunted, praised, idealized early Church (in the first century!) where supposedly everything was so perfect before those wicked Catholics got a hold of things.

Moreover, St. Paul wrote epistles to seven churches in the New Testament: most — if not all — of which he was instrumental in initiating. He excoriated two of ’em for rank sins and immorality (Galatians and Corinthians): while never denying their status as Christians. So that’s a 29% ratio of “bad” churches to fairly good ones.

Why would we expect to do much better than Jesus (8% bad ratio) and Paul (29% bad ratio) or seven regional churches in the first century (86% bad or seriously corrupt enough to be rebuked by Jesus Himself)? We don’t blame Jesus and Paul for these renegade individuals and local churches, so why is the Catholic Church as a whole blamed for every bad Catholic apple someone can point out, and then dismissed on this stupid, irrelevant, irrational basis: as if the mere existence of serious sin and hypocrisy among a minority (usually a pretty tiny minority) disproves an entire institution?

The New Testament teaches us that we should always expect sin and sinners in our ranks. This is obviously true, as none of us seemed to have attained perfection and a sin-free existence, and given original sin, concupiscence, lust, pride, sloth, greed, self-centeredness, etc.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Bishops are instructed, by Vatican directive, to report all allegations of abuse to the police.
JW's sweep it under the rug.

Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

5 members of Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations charged with child sexual abuse in Pennsylvania​

Inside the brutal world of the Jehovah’s Witnesses​

Four Jehovah’s Witnesses charged with sexual abuse of 19 children across Pennsylvania​

Jehovah's Witnesses sued over 'historical sex abuse'​

A former Jehovah's Witness is using stolen documents to expose allegations that the religion has kept hidden for decades.

Jehovah's Witness church covered up child sex abuse, survivors say
Would Jesus be a party to that?

​

 

[BreadOfLife]

Since NO writings of the apostolic fathers appear in Scripture, I will have to say that because the apostasy was already ”at work” when the apostles were still alive, (2 Thess 2:1-12) and they were thereby acting as a “restraint”, if the writings of those men do not corroborate the teachings of Christ, then I have to say that apostate thinking had already infiltrated by the time of the apostle John’s death. So I trust what my brothers have taught because they follow Christ’s teachings rather than be led astray by those who failed to do so after the end of the first century......when Paul says that the teachings of apostates had already “spread like gangrene”, what is that illustrating but the speed at which apostasy spread among those who accepted their words over the words of the Christ?

The Early Church Fathers were faithful servants of Christ who passed on the Christian faith over the centuries despite being persecuted and butchered for their efforts.

When I read ignorant posts about about how they were just a bunch “apostate” rubes - it makes me think about how much MORE apostate and perverted the later inventors of quasi-Christian sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses were that came centuries later.

When your belief system is invented by FALSE PROPHET (Charles Taze Russell) – you’ve got real problems . . .

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Jude Thaddeus …I don’t think any member of the Catholic Church who stays with such a wicked and incorrigible church, in full knowledge of what they were hiding, not for years, but for centuries, has the gall to accuse anyone else to justify themselves. That is an act of desperation.

I have given you our position, but I have yet to hear anything but excuses from you.
The Boy Scouts had a bigger problem with child sexual abuse than we ever had….yet do we see them under the same scrutiny that the world at large seems to want to pin on us? No organization that provides access to children can keep these predators out because they groom both children and parents to trust them.
Christians are naturally trusting of their own brethren…..and because this is a crime that usually has no witnesses, in times past it was easy to hide, and difficult to prosecute. Now we have a judicial system that puts the rights of the child ahead of the rights of the abuser and their lawyers, whose only aim is to win the case, by any means.
It is the Scriptures themselves that either accuse us….or excuse us….do they excuse the Catholic church?
Has the church ever stuck to Scripture to formulate their doctrines?

Now getting back to the list of Catholic doctrines that you were asked to support scripturally….
I will wait for your evidence…..but how long? Nothing your church practices or believes, originates in Scripture…..not a single thing. So perhaps I will be waiting a very long time…..?
Over to you….unless you want to hide behind the ignore button…?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Hey Jude.

@Aunty Jane lost me when she suggested the Apostolic Fathers were apostate saying we can't trust their writings/commentaries concerning Scripture. But the men of the JW we can trust.

It is impossible to have a serious conversation with someone like that......Good luck.

OK…..let’s see if you can answer the following questions from scripture MM….?

Find me a single mention of liturgy, a pope, adoration of Mary, an immaculate conception, the use of images in worship, an earthly priesthood, saints dictated by church criteria, distinctive garments denoting an office of service, repetitive prayers, absolution by a priest, holy water, the use of incense, monasticism, vows of silence, and heaven or a hell of eternal damnation, as opposite destinations for all souls....please, I invite you to give it your best shot. But please just Scripture.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Early Church Fathers were faithful servants of Christ who passed on the Christian faith over the centuries despite being persecuted and butchered for their efforts.

What is the background to these ones who became known as the early church fathers…?

A little research reveals a lot….

In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war.

You act as if it was all smooth sailing in the church from the second century onward……but it was exactly the opposite.
Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and it continued as apostasy grew. The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to establish themselves.….so from the start, there were numerous varieties of “Christianity” which had little in common.
During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms, became influential. To satisfy educated pagans, who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture.

Origen’s treatise “On First Principles” was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely, according to their own errant thinking.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Constantine, a pagan emperor masquerading as a Christian convert. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians,(most of them writing in Greek) worked out in a long and bitter debate, what was to be the distinguishing and foundational doctrine that all of Christendom accepts, both Catholic and Protestant.

Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine.

The question we have to ask is…did those early church fathers adhere closely to the Bible in their writings?

It was actually Greek culture and philosophy that provided the infrastructure of early “Christian” thought. Almost all the prominent church fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the “Christian” truths….but were they merely given a Greek twist?

Against this historical backdrop, what are we to ascertain about the writings of the “early church fathers”?

Even this one unique feature of the Catholic church, that of calling the pope and their priests “Father” is contrary to Jesus’ words….he himself ruled out the use of the religious title “Father” when he said: “Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matt 23:9 NCB)
The use of the term “Father” to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural.

But the list of these unscriptural doctrines is long…..perhaps you would like to address the questions posed to your fellow Catholics, repeated in post #507 above?

When I read ignorant posts about about how they were just a bunch “apostate” rubes - it makes me think about how much MORE apostate and perverted the later inventors of quasi-Christian sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses were that came centuries later.

Well you can ignore history but there are many historians who do not paint the same picture that your church does….
Someone is not telling the truth…..I wonder who?

When your belief system is invented by FALSE PROPHET (Charles Taze Russell) – you’ve got real problems . . .

Neither Russell nor his companions ever claimed to be prophets…..they were just men of God who wanted to do what Jesus did when he tried to find those “lost sheep” who were not blinded by their religious leaders. The truth would “set them free”, ridding them of the shackles placed on all who engage in mindless performance of rituals, rather than studying God’s word for themselves. Being spoon fed lies goes so far back….
The truth is very inconvenient when it completely contradicts everything you have been taught to believe…..so we understand your reticence.…and even your anger and sarcasm.

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing“ are not a recent problem…..they were already there when the last of the apostles were writing their contributions to scripture, kept at bay until its completion. The wolves took over once the restraint of the apostles’ presence was gone…these wolves are your teachers…..which is proven by the fact that you cannot back up a single Catholic doctrine with Scripture.

 

[RLT63]

OK…..let’s see if you can answer the following questions from scripture MM….?

Find me a single mention of liturgy, a pope, adoration of Mary, an immaculate conception, the use of images in worship, an earthly priesthood, saints dictated by church criteria, distinctive garments denoting an office of service, repetitive prayers, absolution by a priest, holy water, the use of incense, monasticism, vows of silence, and heaven or a hell of eternal damnation, as opposite destinations for all souls....please, I invite you to give it your best shot. But please just Scripture.

I try not to do this with JW. There are some websites started by former JWs that I posted at one time that you had no answers for except to say they were hate sites.
I quit doing that because I have known JWs personally and I wouldn’t do that to them because I know they have been taught what they believe since they were children and it’s all they know.
But you have no problem attacking someone’s religion. You’re doing the same thing they’re doing to you. This thread was an attack so I know you’re defending yourself but you use the same tactics they use against you. It’s your insistence that yours is the one true religion that is hard to take.
I don’t agree with Catholics on a lot of things either but I don’t think it’s helpful to attack their religion either. I have done it in the past but realized the same thing, this is what they have been taught,they believe it as strongly as you believe what you do.
Attacking each other is not going to change anyone’s mind

 

[Aunty Jane]

I try not to do this with JW. There are some websites started by former JWs that I posted at one time that you had no answers for except to say they were hate sites.
I quit doing that because I have known JWs personally and I wouldn’t do that to them because I know they have been taught what they believe since they were children and it’s all they know.
But you have no problem attacking someone’s religion. You’re doing the same thing they’re doing to you. This thread was an attack so I know you’re defending yourself but you use the same tactics they use against you. It’s your insistence that yours is the one true religion that is hard to take.
I don’t agree with Catholics on a lot of things either but I don’t think it’s helpful to attack their religion either. I have done it in the past but realized the same thing, this is what they have been taught,they believe it as strongly as you believe what you do.
Attacking each other is not going to change anyone’s mind

I hear what you are saying, but at the same time it is good to air differences in a civil fashion if possible. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Jesus did not hold back from exposing the Pharisees, sometime using very strong condemnation. (Matt 23)

I have studied with a lot of Catholic people in my ministry and they all said the same thing….they were never encouraged to read the Bible…only to attend mass and go through the motions of church rituals, believing that they will be saved if they baptized their infants and attended Mass and confession.…and parroted off a set number of “hail Mary’s” “and Our Father’s”. Many did not even know the difference between a Bible and a catechism.

Upon learning what the Bible teaches, they were appalled at the lack of Bible education they received which was only snippets of Scripture heard, but never explained. Needless to say, they never wanted to go back.
Once they studied the Bible for themselves, they became hungry for the truth, seeing Christianity as something completely different to what they had been taught from infancy.

And the fact is, that a large proportion of our brotherhood is made up of those who have abandoned Christendom like myself, not being raised with JW teachings at all, but finding them clearly stated in the Scriptures.

Unless people hear both sides of the story, how will they ever make their own choices?
I do not attack the people but I will expose what they believe as false as they can with us…..we are to defend our faith and if we cannot, that speaks volumes to those who are searching.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Well, who counts as "apostolic fathers" and what counts as "Scripture" here? One can easily define both so as to make your statement true. Or false.

Who then is the arbiter? These “apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith…rather an apostasy was foretold by Jesus and his apostles….so if we look at the Bible as it relates to history, it becomes clear that the foretold apostasy was “already at work” towards the end of the first century, held back until the last contribution to Christian scripture was written by John. Once the apostles were no longer there to act as a restraint, the “weeds” of Jesus ‘ parable did what weeds do best…..they thrive in infertile soil and proliferate.

An interesting read is the kind of “weeds” that Jesus referred to. It is believed to be bearded darnel, a common weed in the Middle East often called “wheat’s evil twin”.

In its early growth it is indistinguishable from wheat, so only after the initial growth period, is the difference discernible. But by then, the root systems are so intertwined that, to pull out the weeds would result in pulling out the wheat as well. Both were allowed to grow until the harvest time, when the weeds were disposed of and what was left of the crop was harvested.
Bearded darnel was often used to destroy a neighbors crop if there was a dispute between them. The enemy would oversow his neighbors field with this weed, out of spite. So here we have the very thing that Jesus foretold right in plain sight, when we look at “Christian ”history. We can see who the weeds were.

It was Daniel who prophesied that only at “the time of the end” would a full understanding of his words be understood. Do you believe that we are living in “the time of the end?

 

[RedFan]

These “apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith…rather an apostasy was foretold by Jesus and his apostles….so if we look at the Bibleas it relates to history, it becomes clear that the foretold apostasy was “already at work” towards the end of the first century, held back until the last contribution to Christian scripture was written by John. Once the apostles were no longer there to act as a restraint, the “weeds” of Jesus ‘ parable did what weeds do best…..they thrive in infertile soil and proliferate.

Let me see if I am following your argument:

1) These "apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith;
2) A foretold apostacy was at work at the same time that these "apostolic fathers" were active;
Therefore,
3) These "apostolic fathers" MUST BE THE APOSTACY.

Do I have your argument right?

 

[RLT63]

I hear what you are saying, but at the same time it is good to air differences in a civil fashion if possible. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Jesus did not hold back from exposing the Pharisees, sometime using very strong condemnation. (Matt 23)

I have studied with a lot of Catholic people in my ministry and they all said the same thing….they were never encouraged to read the Bible…only to attend mass and go through the motions of church rituals, believing that they will be saved if they baptized their infants and attended Mass and confession.…and parroted off a set number of “hail Mary’s” “and Our Father’s”. Many did not even know the difference between a Bible and a catechism.

Upon learning what the Bible teaches, they were appalled at the lack of Bible education they received which was only snippets of Scripture heard, but never explained. Needless to say, they never wanted to go back.
Once they studied the Bible for themselves, they became hungry for the truth, seeing Christianity as something completely different to what they had been taught from infancy.

And the fact is, that a large proportion of our brotherhood is made up of those who have abandoned Christendom like myself, not being raised with JW teachings at all, but finding them clearly stated in the Scriptures.

Unless people hear both sides of the story, how will they ever make their own choices?
I do not attack the people but I will expose what they believe as false as they can with us…..we are to defend our faith and if we cannot, that speaks volumes to those who are searching.

You made inroads like that. I dated a Catholic girl and went to Church with her and there was a JW girl I could visit and go to her house and I could go to the Kingdom Hall with her but I couldn’t date her.
Nothing prepared me for when I when I went to the Kingdom Hall with her around Easter.. I know y’all don’t call it Easter but it was around that time. (I don’t mean to disparage your beliefs but explain why they don’t work for me)
At some point they brought out bread and wine and began to pass it around. She learned over and said “Don’t eat it.” It was passed around and nobody partook.
This seemed sacreligous to me.
Then a couple of elders were called up and they partook.
I didn’t like the idea that only some could take communion and the explanation was even more bizarre.
No amount of exegesis can make me believe that 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes, virgins, are actually 144,000 elite JWs.
I’m not arguing with you, if you believe that and it works for you that’s fine. I don’t believe that.
I could have became a JW, dated and married that girl, her father had a construction company I could have worked at and probably took over one day, there was only one problem, I didn’t believe what she did.
But attacking JW over their beliefs and posting negative things about their religion is not going to convince any JW to convert and being hateful is not very Christian.
There are things that I hope you are right about. I hope people are annihilated and don’t suffer ECT. It makes no sense to me why someone who lives 80 years would be punished for eternity.
I don’t believe a lot of the things Catholics believe and I have read a lot of material about the Churches history, some of its true, some of it’s propaganda but I am not going to accomplish anything by attacking their beliefs. I don’t believe in transubstantiation and I don’t like all the statues but I’m not going to win anyone over or show that I’m a good Christian by attacking them.
I understand you have to be grounded in your beliefs but I have came to see that just because I was taught something and I have studied material that backed it up doesn’t necessarily make it right.
Pre.millennium, dispensations, things I was taught are just one interpretation. There are things I could be wrong about.
I’m not going to change anyone’s mind by ridiculing what they believe or attacking them

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Let me see if I am following your argument:

1) These "apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith;
2) A foretold apostacy was at work at the same time that these "apostolic fathers" were active;
Therefore,
3) These "apostolic fathers" MUST BE THE APOSTACY.

Do I have your argument right?

1) Monkeys have legs.
2) I have legs.
3) Therefore I am a monkey.

I think you understand the argument.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

According to Biblegateway, apostacy is ə pŏs’ tə sĭ (מְשׁוּבָה, H5412, apostasy; παραπίπτω, G4178, to fall away). The abandonment of one’s religion.
This simplistic definition is, roughly, in agreement with every major encyclopedia on the plant, Christian or secular. It's like saying, "I am leaving this house I am not in". It's a logical conundrum, not apostacy.

In the NT apostasy occurs when men turn aside from following Jesus (John 6:66 f.) and deny Him after having previously confessed Him as Lord. It manifests itself in falling away from faith under persecution (Matt 24:9-13), denying the deity of Jesus (1 John 2:22), or living a life of open sin that denies the faith (2 Pet 2:20).

Well, that won't work if all translations are corrupted. The NWT is strangely absent from BibleGateway's exhaustive list of translations. What does the NWT say?

From the WTS: Overview of 2 Timothy​

• PEOPLE “IN THE LAST DAYS”; APOSTATES ALREADY PRESENT (3:1-13)
  • People will love themselves, money, and pleasures instead of God (3:1-5)
  • The folly of apostates will be plain to all (3:6-9)
  • Paul’s example of endurance (3:10-12)
  • Wicked men “will advance from bad to worse” (3:13)

For starters, so far so good. (3:1-13) makes no mention of the Apostolic Fathers, or, it must be demonstrated that the Apostolic Fathers meet the description of the worst of amoral low-lifes, who seduced weak women. They weren't Christians in the first place. The only historical evidence available is what they wrote; such evidence would be acceptable in a court of law, if the AF were to be charged with apostacy today. No such evidence exists.

The Watchtower Society lists 1,132 definitions/examples/attributes of apostacy or apostates. This one is where the trouble starts:
The Watchtower (1983)
Why So Many Religions All Claiming to Be Christian?

apostate Christianity. Among these were Alexandria and Carthage, in North Africa, and Byzantium (later to become Constantinople), at the frontier between Asia and Europe. In the West, a rich and powerful church developed in Rome, the capital of the Empire.​

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY™​

It must be demonstrated, that the North African councils that defined the canon of the NT used by everyone today, including the NWT, were apostate councils. This is illogical and self defeating.
OR
the canon of the NT was the result of agreement by a plurality of elders, apart from the historic Church. There is no historical evidence, secular or Christian, to support this theory.

A rich and powerful church developed in Rome... What "power and wealth" and how was it used? This is where historical fabrications sneak in. It makes no distinction between Christian Rome and pagan Rome. Dave Hunt commits the same error. Pagan Rome ultimately embraced the Christian faith. It took 4+ centuries that could never be accomplished by human power. Wealth was used to feed the hungry, not for lavish lifestyles.

You may have heard it said, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” It’s often said to point out that persecution, rather than diminishing the church, often has the opposite effect. It’s counter-intuitive. Where do we get this saying from?

The original source is the early church father Tertullian (~155-~240 AD). He was an African church father based out of Carthage. He lived in the days of the Roman Empire and so was familiar with persecution and martyrdom. Tertullian’s most important writing is entitled The Apology, a work in which he provided a defense of the Christian faith to the provincial governors of the Roman Empire. Towards the end of the document, Tertullian makes the memorable statement: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed” (Apol. 50.13, original Latin: “Plures efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum.”).

There is some variation in how these words are translated in various English editions. Many translators have felt compelled to add some words to explain what the seed is going to produce: faith, a greater harvest, the church, or a new life. However, the context is clear enough. Tertullian believed that God uses martyrdom and persecution in some mysterious way to cause the Christian faith to grow in strength and numbers.
No emperor ever killed an apostate, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Another problem for the WTS, and fundamentalists, is they can't name any martyr from the 2nd, 3rd or 4rth century, yet they talk about "the blood of the martyrs" in Revelation.

The WTS indirectly asserts Tertullian, from Carthage, was an apostate. Nothing in his writings, available on line for everyone to see, even hints at such lunacy.

3:1-5 suggests idolatry, IMO. It must be demonstrated that the Apostolic Fathers meet the description here, by examining what they wrote, and more importantly, the consensus and unanimous agreement that went on for centuries, even after the canon of the NT was ratified. Since they were all allegedly apostates, the only way around this problem is to change the meaning of "Apostolic Fathers".

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Apostolic Fathers
Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.

The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church “after the Apostolic manner.”

The WTS can't even admit Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian. No, he must have been an apostate and a martyr at the same time.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Let me see if I am following your argument:

1) These "apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith;
2) A foretold apostacy was at work at the same time that these "apostolic fathers" were active;
Therefore,
3) These "apostolic fathers" MUST BE THE APOSTACY.

Do I have your argument right?

Since the Catholic church claimed to be the true Christian Faith and all opposers were viewed as heretics please tell me who else could have started down the road to apostasy that was prophesied by Jesus and the apostles and led to the abandonment of the teachings of Christ? The Roman church was basically the only “Christianity” that spread it’s doctrines all over the world....mainly through conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.

The power it gained, thoroughly corrupted it....to the point that monarchs would not make a move without the church’s sanction. Jesus never gave power for Christians to exercise over one another....those who took the lead needed to be spiritually qualified, but in positions of service, not power.

 

[RedFan]

Since the Catholic church claimed to be the true Christian Faith and all opposers were viewed as heretics please tell me who else could have started down the road to apostasy that was prophesied by Jesus and the apostles and led to the abandonment of the teachings of Christ? The Roman church was basically the only “Christianity” that spread it’s doctrines all over the world....mainly through conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.

The power it gained, thoroughly corrupted it....to the point that monarchs would not make a move without the church’s sanction. Jesus never gave power for Christians to exercise over one another....those who took the lead needed to be spiritually qualified, but in positions of service, not power.

Don't change the subject. We are discussing your syllogism, not the Catholic church. Do you or do you not argue that the first and second century "apostolic fathers" who were instructed by the original apostles themselves, and those who they in turn instructed, formed the apostasy predicted by Christ? (You want names? I'll give you names. Barnabas. Papias. Polycarp. Clement of Rome. Ignatius. Irenaeus. Hermas.) And are you or are you not basing that conclusion on the contemporaneity of their tenure and the onset of what you say is the apostasy predicted by Christ?

My own historical investigation reveals that in the second, third and fourth centuries the early church fathers beat down the heresies of their time -- which were true apostasies -- not created them. There, now I've given you something to attack. But first, would you please answer my question?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Don't change the subject. We are discussing your syllogism, not the Catholic church. Do you or do you not argue that the first and second century "apostolic fathers" who were instructed by the original apostles themselves, and those who they in turn instructed, formed the apostasy predicted by Christ? (You want names? I'll give you names. Barnabas. Papias. Polycarp. Clement of Rome. Ignatius. Irenaeus. Hermas.) And are you or are you not basing that conclusion on the contemporaneity of their tenure and the onset of what you say is the apostasy predicted by Christ?

My own historical investigation reveals that in the second, third and fourth centuries the early church fathers beat down the heresies of their time -- which were true apostasies -- not created them. There, now I've given you something to attack. But first, would you please answer my question?

The answer you can expect is a distortion of the question.
Remain Loyal to Jehovah

apostates. Also, some religious leaders spread false information about us to cause unsuspecting ones to leave the truth. It is dangerous for us to argue with any opposers, to read their books or blogs, to go to their websites, or to watch their videos. Regarding those who try to discourage others from loyally serving Jehovah, Jesus said: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:14.​

​

This amounts to mind control, followed by a threat with a verse where Jesus excoriates stubborn Pharisees, not religious leaders 2000 years into the future.. It lines up with the BITE model.

Assessing the Jehovah’s Witnesses Using the BITE Model

About The Author​

Steven Hassan​

Steven Hassan, PhD, MA, MEd, LMHC, NCC has helped thousands of individuals and families recover from undue influence (mind control). With over 45 years of experience, he is sought after as one of the foremost authorities on undue influence and controlling groups and individuals. Steve understands the subject from a unique perspective as both a former cult member and as a clinical professional.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Don't change the subject.

How was I changing the subject, when the Catholic Church is founded on twisting the teachings of the “church fathers” rather than on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ? The further away we got from the teachings of Christ’s apostles, the worse it became.

We are discussing your syllogism, not the Catholic church.

Are you pulling a lawyer tactic on me?…..as the two are inextricably linked, I will bring in the evidence as I understand it….Your Honor.

Do you or do you not argue that the first and second century "apostolic fathers" who were instructed by the original apostles themselves, and those who they in turn instructed, formed the apostasy predicted by Christ?

I am saying that the foundation of Christendom was laid by those who were taught by the early church fathers. On investigation, it seems that Greek philosophical influence was more at work in formulating “Christian“ doctrine than the Bible.

The current philosophical conceptions of the day influenced the interpretation of Scripture. . . . The church can be accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories suited to their era.….the first Christian “theologians” if you will.
Those early “theologians” then set about adapting primitive Bible-based Christianity to the current philosophical ideas of the day.

(You want names? I'll give you names. Barnabas. Papias. Polycarp. Clement of Rome. Ignatius. Irenaeus. Hermas.) And are you or are you not basing that conclusion on the contemporaneity of their tenure and the onset of what you say is the apostasy predicted by Christ?

I feel like this is a cross examination…..I am stating what I already said in post #508
We are not to base our beliefs on anything other than God’s word…..it is why it has been so carefully preserved for thousands of years……humans did not accomplish this….even though some want to take credit for that.

My own historical investigation reveals that in the second, third and fourth centuries the early church fathers beat down the heresies of their time -- which were true apostasies -- not created them. There, now I've given you something to attack. But first, would you please answer my question?

Who were the accusers though? If the heresies were already planted and accepted as truth because “the church“ leaders said so…..don’t we see the same scenario that occurred in Jesus’ day? Those who were the “learned ones” in Judaism were the accepted authority on all things related to God and his worship, and yet what did Jesus say to them? Citing one of their twisted traditions he said….

”….To uphold your tradition you have made God’s word null and void. You hypocrites! How rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (NCB)
Is not Christendom itself filled with man made religious traditions, slavishly followed? None of them are biblically based.

To the teachers of God’s Law. . . .Jesus said….
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the entrance to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor do you allow others to enter”. . . . .“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You journey over sea and land to make a single convert, and then you make that convert twice as worthy of Gehenna as you are”. . . . . “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and then swallow a camel!“
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of decay. In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.“
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to Gehenna?”

“Behold, your house has been abandoned and left desolate. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you murder the Prophets and stone the messengers sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not allow it! I tell you, you will not see me again until you say: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (From Matt ch 23 NCB)

For the last 2000 years, the Jews have denied Jesus as the Christ….as vehemently today as they did back then, such is their indoctrination. Christendom is a mirror image of first century Judaism.….left without God’s guiding spirit or support for centuries, allowing the rot to fester….to produce a pathetic imitation of what Christ started. This is what Jesus and his apostles foretold. These are the important details of why we see the situation we do in the world of today‘s disunited church systems…..hopelessly lost in a mire of conflicting beliefs and practices……a world away from what the apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:10, should identify true Christianity.

Pedantic concentration on semantics is a waste of time. It’s the big picture that needs to emerge because we are all a part of it. Step back and expand your vision…..this is not our courtroom.