The following dialogue is between John Pacheco and a gentlemen by the name of "Roger", who although not himself a Jehovah's Witness, agrees with their doctrines.  Roger's comments are in red.  John Pacheco's comments are in standard text format (black).
Letter #1
Hello Roger,
ice to meet you.  August mentioned that you would like to enter into a dialogue regarding spiritual truth.  Over the last couple of years, I have become, so to speak, a Catholic evangelist, and I have recently established an Apologetics group at my local church (Apologists of St.Francis de Sales).  The purpose of the group is to explain the Catholic faith to interested people, and to defend the Church and Her teachings against erroneous and heretical opinion.
August mentioned that you were interested in becoming (or already are) a Jehovah Witness.  I admit I know little about what the Jehovah Witnesses teach, except for beliefs such as rejection of Christ's divinity, the soul ceasing to exist at death, and forbidding blood transfusions.  (By the way, I will peruse the material that you to sent me, and return it to you when I am finished.)  Perhaps as we continue in our dialogue, we will educate ourselves on what each religion teaches.  In the end, although we may not agree, we will, at the very least, know each other's positions much better.
So let's begin with one of the most fundamental questions of religion: what is the source of divine revelation according to your religion?  Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
John Pacheco
Letter #2
Nice to meet you, at least on paper. Actually the first question is "Is your E Mail address secure?".

 

In answer to your question, the Jehovah Witnesses are perhaps the strongest believers in 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

Most of them have a number of different Bible versions (I have quite a few at home for reference purposes.) and are encouraged to do research using all Bible sources. Their principal Bible is their own translation called the New World Translation (NWT). I have already experienced criticism from a Trinitarian that the NWT has been written with a particular slant opposed to the Trinity doctrine. I did considerable research on the matter, and I concluded that the NWT agreed with the vast majority of Bible translations, and the New International Version he was using was itself open to the criticism of being slanted in favour of the Trinity doctrine. They also regard the Bible not only as the inspired word of God, but also as a complete reference book. That is, they treat the Bible as one complete reference book, and almost invariably will make reference to the Hebrew/Aramaic (Old Testament) scriptures and the Greek (NewTestament) scriptures when examining a particular point or issue. They do not make the artificial division of the Bible into Old and NewTestaments.

 

Have to go now. There is no need to return the material I gave to you through August; it was meant to assist you in your research. My wonderful "problem" is that I have an abundance of research material on practically any subject, and I find it difficult restricting myself to the 6-10 pages an interested reader would be willing to devote time to reading (my "condensed" Trinity research was almost 40 pages, which is too long).

 

- Roger.
Letter #3

 

Greetings Roger, our (Charles and I) E-mail is secure. I do not have access to E-mail that is why Charles has allowed me to use his e-mail address. Charles is also a keen co-religionist. He is a Fundamentalist Bible Christian. We should have an interesting dialogue.

 

1) In regards to your assertion that the NWT agrees with 'the vast majority of Bible translations', I have had some exposure to the NWT, and based on some of my other sources, I cannot agree with you on this point. I am reasonably familiar with Protestant translations such as the NIV, KJV, and NASB, and Catholic versions such NAB, NJB, and Douay Rheims. While there are minor differences between Protestant and Catholic Sources, I therefore can only conclude, by deduction, that the NWT is the poorer translation.

 

2) Based on your previous E-mail, it is my understanding that Witnesses take the Bible to be their sole authority for divine revelation. You have quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 as scriptural support.

 

3) In the Witnesses material, I read that you do not believe in the Trinity (or that Jesus was God). The Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons existing in One God. All equal and of the SAME SUBSTANCE as the others, but manifested differently. But let us digress a bit. If I say that a certain father has three children and only two of them are girls, then can I not say with assurance that the other is a boy? Sherlock Holmes once said, that "if you eliminate all the alternatives, the only one left, however unlikely, must be true." One cannot dismiss this type of analysis as 'man's reasoning' because if you believe the Bible is God's inspired word, then you must admit the consequences of biblical assertions. For instance, if the Bible says A=B and B=C, then A=C regardless of whether the Bible says A=C.

 

4) I would rather, however, not begin our dialogue with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. I would rather begin with the fundamental questions since we will invariably return to them. So, based on the fact that Witnesses believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, my question is: how do you KNOW that all of the books of the Bible are inspired, or that there are any that should not be included, or for that matter, which translation is acceptable (since the translation will impact any particular doctrine)? 

 

Hope to hear from you soon.

 

Regards,

 

John
Letter #4

 

Dear Charles and John:

 

Charles, welcome on board. As background, I've attended Protestant, United, Anglican and Pentecostal Churches, but never a Roman Catholic Church or Greek Orthodox Church for anything other than marriages. Who knows, maybe we can get John to see the error of his ways.

 

In the beginning…. First of all, I would have hoped that your second line in your opening introduction to me would have been the operative basis of discussion […you would like to enter into a dialogue regarding spiritual truth]. That is, I would have hoped that the objective for all of us would be to discover spiritual truth; it should not be to defend a particular ideology. Be that as it may, perhaps by trying to defend our religious beliefs one becomes exposed to a clearer understanding of the Bible, and this clearer understanding will undoubtedly benefit all of us.(Matthew 5:3)

 

Taking your (John's) point 4) of your December 30, 1997 E Mail as the starting point of this dialogue (and as further requested by you in your E Mail of December 31, 1997), may I summarize your fundamental questions as follows:

 

1.How do Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW that all of the books of the Bible are inspired? 

 

2.Are there any books that should not be included? 

 

3.Which translation is acceptable(since the translation will impact any particular doctrine)? 

 

I guess it's a good idea to start with fundamental questions, such as "Why do you believe in God?", "What is the meaning of life?", "What is the principle theme of the Bible?", and "What is God's purpose for earth?" So, on to John's first question, which is:

 

1.How do Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW that all of the books of the Bible are inspired? 

 

I could write a book on this question alone. In fact, the Jehovah's Witnesses have published at least two booklets on the subject (The Bible: God's Word or Man's?; Is the Bible really the Word of God?), and another one dealing with all the different religions of the world (Man's Search for God) which gives a summary view of the basis behind the question.

 

As to the reasons Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, they base their conviction on a number of sound reasons.

 

Firstly, the Bible has been proven to be accurate and reliable. For one thing, although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate. For example, at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah referred to it as a "circle" (Hebrew, chugh, which here carries the ideal of "sphere"). (Isaiah 40:22) (RC "globe") Furthermore, Job 26:7-written more than 3,000 years ago-states that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." How Job knew that the earth is suspended in empty space is not easily explained by those who deny that the Holy Scripture was "inspired" by God.

 

Secondly, the style of writing also strengthens our conviction that the Bible is inspired by God. Unlike myths, the events covered in the Bible are linked to specific people and dates. While some have claimed that there is no archaeological evidence of many of the teachings of the Bible, more and more the scientists are discovering that they were wrong and that indeed the archaeological evidence proved the Bible teachings. I have taped several of the recent archaeological findings which have been televised on TV over the past 2-3 years, and I am sure you have done the same. Also, the Bible writers were quite candid and honest in their reporting-even about their own serious sins.(Numbers 20:7-13; 2Samuel 12:7-14; 24:10)

 

Thirdly, the tremendous multitude of prophesies which have been fulfilled offers conclusive evidence that the Bible is inspires of God. There are over 30 prophesies alone that deal with the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ (The Jews, who are waiting for a new "messiah", will have great difficulty proving the family lineage of that said "messiah" since all their records were destroyed in 70 CE. by the Romans.) It is impossible for man to have a detailed knowledge of the future.

 

Fourthly, though the Bible was written over a period of 16 centuries, by some 40 contributors from diverse backgrounds, the finished product is harmonious from beginning the end. To understand how the Bible is harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally with someone with a working knowledge [real understanding] of the Bible. Fifthly, many attempts have been made to destroy each and every copy of the Bible, yet it has survived extremely intact. At one point in history, a certain Church (the name of which I shall not mention) decreed that only the clergy should possess a copy of the Bible. Commoners found in possession of a copy were executed, and for many years the Church refused to conduct Bible services in the language of the common people. Yet today the Bible has been translated into over 2,000 languages and can be found in every corner of the earth. Certainly divine intervention had a part in protecting the Bible from destruction.

 

Sixthly, even though portions of the Bible are over 2,000 years old, the wisdom and advise given is just as valid today as it was when it was written. The same cannot be said for so-called "self-help" books for sale on today's bookshelves.

 

Now to the second part of your first question, which is really a restatement of your second Question, which is:

 

2. Are there any books that should not be included? 

 

I personally have the following Bible translations at home:

 

Authorized King James Version-Hebrew and Greek Texts, alsoreferred to as the Authorized or King James Version-1611. Revised King James Version-Hebrew and Greek Texts New King James Version-Hebrew and Greek Texts The New American Standard Bible-Hebrew and Greek Texts New International Version-Hebrew and Greek Texts Catholic Action Edition, Confraternity Text Gen. to Ruth, "NT" Catholic Action Edition, Douay-Challoner Text Remainder of "OT" Good News Bible-Hebrew and Greek Texts The Living Bible-Greek Texts J.B. Phillips Modern English Bible-Greek Texts Revised Standard Version Bible-Greek Texts Today's English Version Bible-Greek Texts New International Version-Greek Texts The Jerusalem Bible-Greek Texts The New English Bible-Greek Texts (I also have a copy of the Catholic Catechism, and other Bible reference material)

 

In reviewing the above Bible translations, all of them except the Catholic Action Edition appear to agree on what constitutes the Hebrew Canon. I quote from the Jehovah's Witnesses literature on the word "Canon" the complete text of which is included as Annex B to this letter. I have also enclosed as part of Annex A two articles on the Apocryphal books.

 

"…The most conclusive testimony on the canonicity of the Hebrew Scriptures is the unimpeachable word of Jesus Christ and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Though they nowhere give an exact number of books, the unmistakable conclusion drawn from what they said is that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures did not contain the Apocryphal books… neither he [Jesus] nor the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted from them even though using the Septuagint; they never cited as "Scripture" or the product of holy spirit any Apocryphal writing. So, not only do the Apocryphal books lack internal evidence of divine inspiration and attestation by ancient inspired writers of Hebrew Scriptures but they also lack the stamp of approval by Jesus and his divinely accredited apostles. However, Jesus did approve the Hebrew canon, referring to the entire Hebrew Scriptures when he spoke of "all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms," the Psalms being the first and longest book in the section called the Hagiographa or Holy Writings.-Lu 24:44.

 

I am also attaching a copy of the Jehovah's Witnesses information on the Apocrypha Bible texts. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the Apocrypha texts should be included in the Hebrew Canon. I vote for "no" given the reasoning provided. It is interesting to note that the JW's also go into some detail in their "All Scripture…" book as to why each and every Bible text included in the Canon as presented in the New World Translation is worthy of inclusion in the Bible.

 

Now onto your Question 3), which is: 3.Which translation is acceptable(since the translation will impact any particular doctrine)? 

 

You are indeed correct when you state that the Bible translation used will impact on the doctrines of the Church. I have enclosed an example at Annex C for your review.

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses regard all Bible translations as having value in reviewing God's written word for accuracy. However, they also gave us some guidelines to use when determining which translation should be chosen as our main reference Bible. I am attaching two such articles as Annex D for your review.

 

Now do I get to pose a question to you or do you wish to fire another one at me? Assuming it's my turn,

 

What does the love of God mean?  What does it mean to be a Christian?  What is truth? What is the role of the Clergy in today's crisis, and should they be paid for their services?  Should the Clergy be allowed to marry? 

 

Regards,

 

Roger

 

P.S. As you will see, my big problem is trying to make my replies concise enough so people will read them. In this case I had over 300 pages to choose from, and picked only a few that I thought related directly to the questions posed.
Letter #5

 

Greetings, Roger:

 

Thank you for your E-mail. While I appreciate your efforts and research, I think we would be more well-served by keeping our responses to a maximum of a few pages. I realize that this is difficult, but it is nonetheless the only way of really being comprehensive in our approach since I could not respond to all of the material in 20+ pages. We might eventually reach that total, but let us rather try to limit our responses to the points each person raises. I would also recommend that we number our responses from now on for cross referencing purposes. I have found this to be extremely useful in this type of communication.

 

1) Before I begin my response, I would like to address a couple of observations you made. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you and Charles have much more in common than Charles and I do. Now, this is a surprise to me since the Fundamentalist and Catholic positions share much more in common, as far as the major doctrines of Christianity go, than Fundamentalists and Witnesses. Shared beliefs between Fundamentalists and Catholics which Witnesses reject include: the central defining creed of Christianity - the divinity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the existence of Hell, and many other associated beliefs. By the way, Charles and most Fundamentalists agree with me on this point. Secondly, let us dispense with the feigned ignorance regarding alleged historical facts that are understood OUT of context. I am referring, of course, to your not-so-veiled reference to that 'mysterious' church whose clergy were the only ones to possess holy writ.

 

2) The reason I asked the question: "How do you KNOW the Bible is inspired?" was simply to understand why you believe the Bible is God's word. Based on your response, you have presented essentially 6 reasons:

 

a) Accuracy and reliability; b) Style of writing and the linkage to specific people and dates; c) Prophesies; d) Harmony; e) Longevity; f) Quoted by Jesus or the Apostles;

 

Now while all of these reasons that you put forward are very good ones as supporting evidence that a particular book is INSPIRED, the question still remains: who says that the criteria you, or anyone else for that matter, use is enough to prove inspiration. My point is that although the reasons you give may be NECESSARY, how can you be sure that they are SUFFICIENT. But even the criteria that you suggest proves to more problematic than you could have really considered.

 

a)b) Accuracy/Reliability & Linkage to specific people and dates - This offers no conclusive proof that a book is necessarily inspired. Have you ever read the Book of Wisdom?  There is no way of applying the criteria of 'accuracy or reliability' to this book without being reduced to hopeless subjectivism. Moreover, the alleged Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas or the Epistle of Clement likely refer to specific people in their books, but they are not considered inspired.

 

c) Prophesies - Are you suggesting that any book that does not have a prophesy is not inspired?  If that is your criteria, then I suspect that you will quickly lose many of the Old Testament Books. Moreover, the so-called 'apocrypha' books have prophesies regarding the messiah which the first century Jews did not like. So what are we to conclude?  That some of the 'apocrypha' books are in, and some of the Old Testament books are out? 

 

d) Harmony - You claim that the Bible is very harmonious. However, this quality by itself does not prove that the Bible is inspired. In fact, how do you define 'harmony'?  I think that the book of Psalms is more harmonious in style with the book of Wisdom (a so-called 'Apocrypha' book), than it is with the book of Jonah. Harmony is such a 'soft' criteria that anyone can say Book XXX is harmonious with YYY books of the Bible and therefore should be included. Are you suggesting that one book of the Bible cannot have a different tone from another?  If that is what you are suggesting, then you will run into a number of difficulties in trying to reconcile a number of books of the Bible. Martin Luther, for instance, had a very negative view of the Epistle of St. James, where in his original Preface to James' Epistle, argued that James: "wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have in him my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him, for there are otherwise many good things in him. 'One man is no man' in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone prevail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?"

 

Even IF you still maintained that harmony was sufficient proof for canonicity, I could make a strong case for these so-called apocrypha references: - Matthew 6:14 = Sirach 28:2 - Matthew 27:41-43 = Wisdom 2:12-20 - Romans 1:19-20 = Wisdom 13-14 - Romans 1:24-25 = Wisdom 12:24-25 - Matthew 7:17-20 = Sirach 27:6 - Hebrews 11:35-39 = 2 Maccabees 7 - James 1:19 = Sirach 5:11-13 - 1 Pt 1:6 = Wisdom 3:3

 

Take for instance the Hebrews-Maccabees reference cited above. "Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection" (Hebrews 11:35). The people referred to in the first sentence are the Widow of Zarephath and the Shunammite 'received back their dead,' raised to life by Elijah and Elisha (Cf. 1 Kings 17:17-23; 2 Kings 4:17-37). But who are these "others" who were "tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection?" There's only one place we can find such a story: 2 Maccabees 7. This writing (and no other in the Old Testament period) fits the bill as it recounts the story of a mother and seven sons who undergo horrific tortures for the faith and who do so in the explicitly stated hope of the resurrection.

 

e) Longevity - Based on this criteria, the Jewish faith and even some pagan religions could claim to be the true religion. Longevity must be present, but it is certainly not a conclusive proof for a claim on spiritual truth. In fact, by that reasoning, you have just nullified the Witnesses' claim on the truth.

 

f) Quoted by Jesus or the Apostles: In your response, you mentioned that "neither Jesus nor the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted from the [so-called 'apocrypha' books]". While it is quite true that Jesus and the Apostles do quote from many Old Testament Scriptures, including Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and many others, Jesus and the Apostles also IGNORE Ecclesiastes, Esther, and the Song of Songs and others. Yet, you still consider these books to be inspired.

 

Furthermore, St. Paul frequently quotes pagans in his writings, such as the pagan poet, Menander (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:33). He quotes Aratus, a third century B.C. pagan poet, speaking of human beings as God's creation: "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). St. Paul quotes the pagan poet Epimenides (and even calls him a PROPHET!  - (Cf. Titus 1:12)), who wrote, "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Now Roger, are you prepared to say that JUST because the Apostles or Jesus quote from a source, the source is necessarily inspired?  If your answer is in the affirmative then why don't you accept the above pagans' writings.

 

3) I believe that I have satisfactorily refuted the reasons you give for believing the Bible is inspired. If you believe that my rationale or the proofs that I cite are misplaced, I would appreciate your comments. I think that we should eliminate all invalid reasons for determining canonicity before coming to some kind of consensus as to an acceptable criteria.

 

Hope to hear from you soon¼

 

John
Letter #6

 

Greetings John and Charles:

 

First of all, let me apologise for sending you 19 pages of material. However, my letter itself was only three pages; the additional appendix material was mostly for reference purposes, and you were not expected to respond to it. However, I thought the purpose of this exercise was for each side to get a better understanding of each other's position [December 31,1997 " We are looking foward to further discussions with you in learning the JW's faith."] I went through a lot of trouble selecting only the most pertinent articles required to answer your question, and I thought you would have enjoyed this "spiritual food" which I was providing to you.

 

I am a bit confused and concerned. How can one be "comprehensive in our approach" by placing artificial limits on the length of response permitted?  For instance, I would find it virtually impossible to respond to the question, "Why do you believe Christians should not celebrate Christmas?" in three pages or less. I know that a "full" but extremely concise response to this question requires as least 6-7 pages, depending upon the size of the font.

 

Also, including the actual material being referenced serves another fundamental purpose; it completely eliminates the problem of confusing my personal statements/beliefs with those of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization; even though in most cases the two will be the same, I might state something that is beyond the official doctrine of the JW's, and I certainly wouldn't want to discredit them in any way (I cannot even call myself a Jehovah's Witness or represent that I am one of them. At this point in time I can only state that I am a serious student of the Bible.).

 

1.Your observations with respect to the closeness of the Protestant/Catholic common fundamental beliefs Vs Protestant/Jehovah's Witnesses common fundamental beliefs is entirely correct. My exact words were: "Charles, welcome on board. As background, I've attended Protestant, United, Anglican and Pentecostal Churches, but never a Roman Catholic Church or Greek Orthodox Church for anything other than marriages. Who knows, maybe we can get John to see the error of his ways." Now this was a personal comment to Charles; it had nothing to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses or their fundamental beliefs. It had everything to do with the fact that I could personally identify more closely with Charles than you because neither of us practice Lent, or have a tradition of Oral Absolution, purgatory or the payment of alms to secure the early release of those in purgatory, limbo, believe in the infallibility of the head of the church [read "Archbishop of Canterbury" or "Pope"], don't prescribe to a "Saint for every purpose" philosophy, the praying to Mary the mother of Jesus, etc.

 

With respect to "fundamental beliefs", Canonical Scriptures are the only source and norm of Christian faith and practice." Lutheranism, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1965, Vol. 14, p. 447; "The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be 'puzzled out.' . . . The men who framed it designed it as a tool to be used against heretics . . . in such a way that they could finally say, 'Unless you believe this you're not a true believer.'" (The Lutheran, June 15, 1960, pages 11, 12)

 

Protestantism, unlike Catholicism, has no central agency to monitor doctrine or practice, thus allowing for a wide spectrum of religious opinion. This, in turn, gradually promoted a religious tolerance and liberal attitude that is generally not found in Catholic churches.

 

In reference to my comment "At one point in history, a certain Church (the name of which I shall not mention) decreed that only the clergy should possess a copy of the Bible.", I must admit that I was indeed thinking about the Roman Catholic Church when I made the comment. To quote, "In 1559 Pope Paul IV ruled that no Bible could be printed in the vernacular without church approval, and this the church refused to grant. In fact, in 1564 Pope Pius IV stated: 'Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, . . . more harm than good arises therefrom.' " However, the same could be said of the various Protestant churches. " Bible translator William Tyndale was strangled at the stake and his body burned in 1536, after he published his translation of the "New Testament" in English. Earlier, at the behest of Pope Martin V, religious authorities, driven by a spirit of vengeance, dug up the bones of Bible translator Wycliffe 44 years after his death so as to have the pleasure of burning them. During the Catholic Inquisition, thousands of Jews and "heretics" were stripped of their possessions, tortured, and burned at the stake-all supposedly in the name of Christ!  Spanish theologian Michael Servetus, who was persecuted by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, was burned at the stake on the orders of Protestant John Calvin. In the two world wars of this century, armies have been blessed by "Christian" clergymen, and soldiers have been urged to kill by their nationalistic chaplains.

 

2.You did indeed ask the question: " Roger, I will be pleased to start searching Holy Scripture for the truth. But before we do so, I need to know WHY you consider your translation, or my translation, for that matter, as the inspired word of God. What I mean is: How do you KNOW that the NWT or the Douay version is God's word?  If I was not a Christian or Witness, my first question to you would be: 'You say that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My question to you is: By whose authority'? 

 

John, what is your point?  I have already given you my reasons for believing that the entire Bible (the NWT canon, that is) is the inspired word of God. You have listed them as items a-f. in your item 2) January 08, 1998 fax back to me.

 

I am not a theologian, so I can't give you more than what I personally believe. If you want to chastise me, that's fine. Just don't go thinking that the Jehovah's Witnesses can't answer your question.

 

To move this discussion along [far too much time and effort is being spent on what constitutes "proof of divine inspiration"] let me point out that the Catholic Action Edition and the New World Translation contain exactly the same Bible Canon, with the exception of the Apocrypha Books. These additional writings are Tobit-or Tobias, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus- or Wisdom of Jesus-or-Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

 

The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Bible is rightly called the word of God because it's composition is inspired by the Holy Spirit (DV, no 9) and (DV, no24). As such, it is not up to me to provide you with criteria for the inclusion of these individual books in the Bible (NWT). Your Church has already accepted them as being "inspired of God". Rather, it is up to you to prove that the Apocrypha Books should be included in [my] the Bible. To this end, let me point out that the Jews were charged with the responsibility for keeping the sacred scrolls

 

*** Rbi8 Romans 3:1-2 ***3 What, then, is the superiority of the Jew, or what is the benefit of the circumcision?  2 A great deal in every way. First of all, because they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.*** Romans 3:2 (ftn) ***"Sacred pronouncements." Lit., "little words." Gr., lo'gi•a; Lat., e•lo'qui•a; J17, 18, 22(Heb.), div•reh'. *** Rbi8 Deuteronomy 4:7-8 *** 8 And what great nation is there that has righteous regulations and judicial decisions like all this law that I am putting before YOU today?  *** Rbi8 Psalm 147:19 ***19 He is telling his word to Jacob, His regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. *** Rbi8 Acts 7:37-38 *** 38 This is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Si'nai and with our forefathers, and he received living sacred pronouncements to give YOU.

 

but the Jewish canon for the Old Testament does not include any of the Apocrypha Books.

 

JEWISH CANON OF THE SCRIPTURES The Law The Prophets The Writings (Hagiographa) 1. Genesis 6. Joshua 14. Psalms 2. Exodus 7. Judges 15. Proverbs 3. Leviticus 8. 1, 2 Samuel 16. Job 4. Numbers 9. 1, 2 Kings 17. Song of Solomon 5. Deuteronomy 10. Isaiah 18. Ruth 11. Jeremiah 19. Lamentations 12. Ezekiel 20. Ecclesiastes 13. The Twelve Prophets 21. Esther (Hosea, Joel, Amos, 22. Daniel Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 23. Ezra, Nehemiah Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 24. 1, 2 Chronicles Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

 

Now it is up to you to prove that the "criteria you, or anyone else for that matter, use is enough to prove inspiration¼.how can you be sure that they are SUFFICIENT." for inclusion of the Apocrypha Books in the Bible. Why don't you ask the Vatican for their criteria? 

 

a)b) Accuracy/Reliability & Linkage to specific people and dates-¼"There is no way of applying the criteria of 'accuracy or reliability' to this book [Book of Wisdom] without being reduced to hopeless subjectivism¼Moreover, the alleged Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas or the Epistle of Clement likely refer to specific people in their books, but they are not considered inspired." Perhaps that's a good reason for leaving the books out!.. You've got to prove that they're worthy of being put in, not me-I'm quite happy with the NWT of the Bible, and King James AV, etc. as they are now comprised.

 

c) Prophesies. No, I'm not suggesting that a book has to have prophesy(ies) to be considered inspired. That is only one of a number of criteria, all of which must be taken into consideration and discernment used when determining what books are worthy of inclusion in the Bible. Besides, who am I to say which books should or should not be included in the Bible. If you want to know what the Jehovah's Witnesses think on the subject, may I suggest that you write to them directly at the address given on the back of each Awake and Watchtower magazine. They are pleased to answer questions from their readers.

 

d) Harmony - Harmony to me means that the contents of a book support the scriptures contained in books proven to be inspired, that there are no contradictions both within and between the other books in terms of facts or principles, and hopefully (but not necessarily) that expand on or enlighten the teachings contained in the other books. This is solely my opinion. Writing style has nothing to do with harmony.

 

I have examined your Apocrypha references and cannot agree with your assertion that they are worth of being included in the Hebrew canon. [see below and previous E Mail, Annex A and Annex B] e) Longevity. This refers to the length of time the Bible has been in existence, not the length of time a particular religion has been around.

 

f) Quoted by Jesus and the Apostles. Again this is only one of several criteria. Some discernment is required when determining which books should be included in the Bible. Quite frankly, the help of the Holy Spirit is also required, and perhaps some people [including the writer at his current state of spiritual growth] just don't have enough to be making such judgements.

 

3) Developing acceptable criteria for determining canonicity is your agenda, not mine. Like I said, I am quite happy with my Bible. For your information (and I know that I'm beyond your 3-page maximum), but I'm including some information on the Apocrypha Books scriptural references. I wasn't going to, but I thought you would like to see that the Catholic Action Edition translation of the quoted scriptures is very close in meaning to those contained in the New World Translation. See, it doesn't really matter which Bible you use, as long as you use enough of them to get an accurate understanding of the scripture. After all, isn't this what studying God's word is all about.

 

Now, it's my turn, why do you believe your religion is the "True Religion"?
Letter #7

 

Greetings Roger,

 

Thank for you last e-mail. 1) The reason I wanted to know why you consider your Bible inspired is simply to find out what AUTHORITY you used for detemining canonicity. You provided a number of criteria, which were, by themselves, INSUFFICIENT as I have shown you. Some of your comments, however, prove to me what is the inherent flaw in you reasoning:

 

In point 2, you say, "it is not up to me to provide you with criteria for the inclusion of these individual books in the Bible (NWT)." Later on in pt. 2, you state: "Why don't you ask the Vatican for their criteria?" In pt.2 c), you state: "Besides, who am I say which books should or should not be included in the Bible." But later you say, in pt. 2d) "I have examined your Apocrypha references and cannot agree with your assertion that they are worthy of being included in the Hebrew Canon." In pt. 2 f), you admit, "Quite frankly, the help of the Holy Spirit is also required, and perhaps some people just don't have enough to be making such judgement."

 

In these comments, Roger, you have admitted what is plainly clear. You are relying on a group of people to tell you what books are inspired and what books are not!!!  The Bible did not just fall from heaven so you are essentially acknowledging that you believe the Reformers' judgement over the Roman Catholic Church. So you will admit, therefore, that you do not regard the Bible as inspired per se, but rather you trust the 16th century Reformers, the first century Jews in Palestine, or other subsequent group to tell you that the Bible is inspired. I am not saying that this is wrong. In fact, I believe that myself i.e. trusting a particular group of men that has that authority. The question, however, CHANGES from "How do you know the Bible is inspired?" to "Which group do you believe?" THAT IS THE POINT OF MY EARLIER E-MAILS.

 

2) I will be providing you with a number of propositions to consider in the subsequent E-mails. I would like, however, your rebuttal on the above comments.

 

Please consider this first propositon: A) Protestants accept the Hebrew Canon, determined by the Council of Jamnia in 100 A.D. Protestants also accept the New Testament Canon, determined by the Roman Catholic Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 395 and 397 A.D.

 

Problem: The Catholic Councils listed, in addition to the New Testament books, the Alexandrian O.T. Canon, which included the so-called 'Apocrypha' books. How can Protestants say that the Holy Spirit was with the Jews, who rejected Christ and persecuted Christians, in the first century, and also with the Catholic Councils in the fourth century who accepted the so-called 'Apocrypha books'?  Are you prepared to accept the ridiculous (and inevitable) conclusion that the Holy Spirit was with the Catholic Councils in choosing the New Testament books only and not the Old Testament books, or for that matter, that He was with people (i.e. the Jews) who REJECTED Christ?  B) Do you believe in the infallibility of any particular group of people or in any one individual?  Do you believe that the Bible is infallible?  And if He could be with the Jews who rejected Christ at one point in time, why could He not be with the Jews today when they reject the N.T.? 

 

Hope to hear from you soon… Regards,

 

John Pacheco
Letter #8

 

When I said "I have examined your Apocrypha references and cannot agree with your assertion that they are worth of being included in the Hebrew Canon." I was stating my personal opinion that I personally don't agree that they are worthy of inclusion in the Bible. However, that is not to say that they aren't, just that i) I don't personally believe, based on my limited knowledge of the Bible, that they are worthy of inclusion in my reference Bible, and ii) go satisfy yourself that they are. Mere inclusion of similar quotations means only that they were written after the main scriptures but does not qualify them for inclusion in the Bible. Each and every Watchtower has similar quotes but are not worthy of inclusion in the Hebrew Canon.

 

I certainly would never ever believe anything the Roman Catholic Church told me! Never, ever!  Your own church is divided on what should be included in the Hebrew Canon. The Greek Orthodox canon includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, and the Ethiopian Church includes several of the Pseudipigrapha writings. Other eastern churches include 4 Maccabees. Who said I accepted the Reformers' judgement of what should be included in the Hebrew Canon. You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that.

 

You still haven't answered any of the 6 questions I posed to you. You may answer in a maximum of 3-pages each. Until I receive answers to my questions and am able to question you on your beliefs, this discussion has ended.

 

Regards,

 

Roger
Letter #9

 

Dear Roger,

 

Please don't get frustrated. I will answer all of your questions, but first I think it is paramount to settle this issue first. I think I have not made myself clear in my comments thus far so let me rephrase the question. I appreciate that you don't personally believe in the inspiration of the 'apocrypha' books, but what I need to know is WHO do you believe, and WHY do you believe THEM.

 

If you say that you are relying on your own personal opinion to determine the canon (with your own criteria), then you are effectively saying that YOU are the authority on the subject. I, on the other hand, do not regard myself as the authority on this question, but a specific group of people. So my point is simply this: We have to find out who has the authority to make a judgement on this question. Do you agree with my reasoning so far?  Are you prepared to seek out the group or person who has such authority by appealing to the Bible (as a historical record) and early church history? 

 

By the way, the Greek Orthodox Church is not in Communion with Rome so I don't see the reason why you would make such a comment. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church is certainly NOT divided on the Canon of Scripture.

 

1) I think it is unfortunate that you believe that I am avoiding your questions, and that I am dwelling on a moot point: the AUTHORITY for the inspiration of Scripture. I don't think you see yet why this is such a profoundly important point, but as I answer your questions, I think you will begin to see why.

 

2) In the hopes of continuing our discussion, let me begin to answer one of the answers you posed in Response No. 3: "Why do you believe that your religion is the 'True religion'?" In attempting to explain why I believe that the Catholic Church has the entire truth, I will be using the Protestant New American Standard Bible, the Catholic New American Bible (NAB) and Douay Rheims (DR) Version when providing scriptural passages.

 

3) Firstly, I believe that God exists. My belief in this fact is supported by a number of irrefutable arguments which establish the existence of God. I am sure that you are familiar with them, but I think it would be beneficial to quickly review them. They include the following:

 

The Ontological argument: We have an idea of an all-perfect being called 'God.' One quality of perfection, however, is existence. If such a being were only an idea, only a possibility, then indeed a greater being could be conceived, namely one that actually does exists. Therefore, because we can conceive of a perfect being, He must exist since existence is a quality of perfection. Therefore, God exists. The Cosmological argument: Every event has a cause. If there were no ultimate first cause, there would be no cause for the number of successive causes as a whole. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is God. The Contingency argument: Since the existence of contingent beings is not self-sufficient by definition, it is impossible that only contingent beings exist. Therefore, there must exist a being who is self-sufficient, who is God. The Teleological argument: The world and the universe exhibits incredible order and purpose. There has never been an instance where order has resulted from disorder. The inherent nature of order, however, necessarily admits of an 'orderer' or designer. The designer is God. The Moral argument: Humans have a sense of morality. This sense must come from a source outside of themselves, and therefore can only be explained by the existence of the source of morality: a lawgiver - God.

 

These are just some of the reasons why I believe in God. There are others, but these are the most apparent and sustainable reasons for believing in God.

 

4) The Catholic, then, having established the existence of God then looks to the Bible for the nature of God - but not as an INSPIRED document AT FIRST. Rather, the Catholic looks at the Bible as an HISTORICAL document. It is interesting to note that when Modernists question the authenticity of the events recorded in the Bible, for instance, they are essentially questioning the historicity of the Bible. Yet, using the same common and objective textual criticism applied also to other ancient works, it is possible to be certain of the accuracy of the Bible. Indeed, we have more older manuscripts of the Bible than we do from other manuscripts of secular, classical origin. These biblical manuscripts range from whole books to fragments. The manuscripts are written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. There are a number of other reasons for believing the historical accuracy of the Bible, but I think you will agree (and have admitted previously) that such reasons provide a solid foundation for believing the Bible is an historically accurate text.

 

5) At this point, if I was speaking to a Modernist, I would make the claim, historically speaking, that Jesus was either God or a mad-man, and then go on to prove my point. If I did so, then you would probably contest the divinity of Christ, and so we would be off on a tangent. In order to head-off this difficulty, therefore, I propose that we look to our common ground regarding Jesus' identity. At the very least, a Catholic will affirm what the Witness affirms about Jesus: that He was the 'Son of God', the Perfect Man. (Of course, that is not all that the Catholic asserts, but it is all that is required for my proof). Being a perfect man, therefore, Jesus could not lie. Therefore, everything that Jesus said was true, and His commandments were binding on those who believe in His doctrines.

 

Now we turn to the historically accurate document, the Bible, and look to see what Jesus, the Perfect Man, says and does in it. The passages cited here in support of Apostolic authority, the Papacy, and Succession are only a small number of the passages that could be cited in support of the Catholic position, and therefore should not in any way be considered as exhaustive.

 

7) Apostolic Authority

 

Matthew 28:18-20 - Speaking to the Apostles (Cf. Matthew 28:16), Jesus says, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." One main feature of the concept of authority is that some people have it and others do not. If that were not the case, and everyone had authority, then the logical conclusion is that NO ONE has authority. Hence, Jesus is speaking to the Apostles and giving them the authority to 'teach them'. Who are 'them' but the other disciples?  Jesus does not give any other group the authority to TEACH, independently of the Apostles. Furthermore, He promises to be with the Apostles to ensure that they do not teach error (Cf. John 14:26). In fact, the Scriptures are saturated with the proof for an hierarchical, unified, and authoritative church (Cf. Matthew 10:1-5, Luke 10:16, Mark 3:14, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:5, Acts 5:12-13, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Corinthians 12:25). The fact that Christ chose twelve Apostles is no coincidence when one considers the direct parallel to the Old Testament. The Apostles form the foundation and patriarchs of the New Israel , as the twelve sons of Jacob were the patriarchs of the Israel of the Old Law (Cf. Exodus 1:1-5). Throughout the Old Testament times, the Prophets verbal teachings were just as binding as their written letters. When Moses spoke, people listened. Note not all of Moses teachings were committed to writing, nor for that matter is the Prophet Obadiah whose entire written word comprises of just 21 verses. Yet are we to believe that is the extent and entirety of Obadiah's teachings?  Are we to believe that Obadiah's unwritten, verbal instructions are going to be any less authoritative than his written word?  Did people say: 'Just a moment Obidiah, I will only believe what you write down'?  No. This would be absurd. What this does prove, however, is that certain men were given authority to reveal and interpret God's word in written and oral form from the Old Testament times to the New Testament time through to this very age.

 

Matthew 18:15-18 - Note the power that Christ gives to His Church through the Apostles, "And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer." The Apostles have been given the power, therefore, to excommunicate heretics from the Church. The reference to 'binding and loosing' gives to the Church the power which was given to Peter in Matthew 16:19. The power and authority which Peter exercises in his own person are the power and authority given by Christ to his Apostolic community. Both passages in Matthew (Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:15-18) support the Catholic interpretation that when the bishops of the world, as successors to the Apostles are united with the Pope, the successor of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome, they cannot err in matters of faith and morals. The first explicit example of this is found in Acts 15, when the Apostles united with Peter make a formal teaching on a question (i.e. Gentile circumcision) which was BINDING on all believers.

 

1 Timothy 3:15 - What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?  - According to this passage, it is the Church.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - The oral tradition of the church is supported: "So then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." Of course, if one thinks about it, a written statement is really an oral one, only simply recorded on paper. If Christians were to heed only Sacred Scripture, then what did the early Christians do for the first century when the New Testament was being written? Did they heed only the Old Testament scriptures and not the Apostles verbal teachings?  And what were they doing for the first three centuries when there were no widely available Scriptures, much less an official canon to personally interpret?  Why is oral tradition supported by Paul, or more to the point, how is this oral tradition, let alone the Holy Scriptures, supposed to be transmitted or interpreted if not by the successors of the Apostles? 

 

How many times has a non-Catholic made the accusation against such a hierarchical arrangement?  Yet, neither Moses nor God Himself thought much of these 'lone-ranger-prototype-protestants.'

 

"Moses also said to Korah, 'Listen to me, you Levites!  Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has singled you out from the community of Israel, to have you draw near him for the service of the Lord's Dwelling and to stand before the community to minister for them?  He has allowed you and your kinsmen, the descendants of Levi, to approach him, and yet you now seek the priesthood too." (Numbers 16:8-10).NAB

 

"Then, when Korah had assembled all his band against them at the entrance of the meeting tent, the glory of the Lord appeared to the entire community, and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once. So they withdrew from the space around the Dwelling [of Korah, Dathan and Abiram]. And fire from the Lord came forth which consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense." (Numbers 16:19-21,35).NAB

 

'All this is true,' the non-Catholic would say, 'but the New Testament changes all that, and therefore there is no longer any such hierarchy with such authority'. There is no evidence in this change of divine authority in the New Testament, but this is the claim nonetheless. For the sake of argument, however, if the New Testament no longer acknowledged a hierarchy like in the Old Testament times or, for that matter, like the Catholic Church today, then why does St. Jude warn the early Christians to avoid the sin of Korah, the sin of disobeying the Church's hierarchy if that type of hierarchy was not already implicitly recognized in the authority of the Apostles and their successors? 

 

"Woe to them! They followed the way of Cain, abandoned themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perished in the rebellion of Korah" (Jude 1:11). NAB

 

8) Peter and the Papacy

 

Mark 14:37 - When Jesus returned from praying and found the three Apostles sleeping, Jesus asks Peter why he could not keep awake. The relevant fact here is that all three Apostles were sleeping, but Jesus specifically admonishes Peter only. This strongly suggests that Peter was responsible for keeping the other two Apostles awake.

 

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus tells Peter that during the height of the tribulation, he 'must strengthen your brothers'. This statement implicitly recognizes that Peter is the head of the Apostles. It is the leader of any group that strengthens the other members during the tough times. This is precisely what happened as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

John 21:15-19 - Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him to counter Peter's three-time denial during the Passion. Jesus asks Peter to watch over the flock. The allusion to Peter being appointed the shepherd of the flock is quite obvious. The shepherd, of course, is the leader. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (Cf. John 10:14-15). As Christ, the Good Shepherd, laid down His life for His sheep, so did Peter and his immediate successors die in martyrdom, literally fulfilling Christ's words. At the end of this passage, Jesus predicts Peter's martyrdom.

 

Matthew 16:17-19 - "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

There are a number of significant facts about this passage. First, realize that Jesus frequently chose a location for teaching a significant doctrine or making a serious revelation. Recall the Sermon on the Mount, Jacob's Well in Samaria, Mt. Horeb for the Transfiguration, and Jerusalem. Therefore, when Jesus spoke to Peter and called him the rock on which He would build His church, it is not surprising that He revealed this in Caesarea Philippi (Cf. Matthew 16:13). The neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi was in the midst of a massive wall of rock rising over the source of the Jordan. Here was the sacred river taking its origin through an opening in a massive wall of rock, an opening which could evoke the wide-open jaws of death. Against this backdrop, Jesus spoke these words to Peter.

 

The significance of Jesus changing Peter's name is also revealing. God only changed someone's name twice before this occasion. In Genesis 17:5, God changed Abram's name to Abraham. By changing Abram's name, there was a change in function and mission from shepherd to founder of the Jewish nation. In Hebrew, Abram means 'exalted father', and Abraham is rendered as 'chief of the multitude.' Likewise, Jacob's name was changed to Israel in Genesis 32:28 in order to change his function to be the founder of the twelve tribes of Israel. So the fact that Jesus changes Peter's name from Simon to 'Kepha' (Cf. John 1:42), and does not do so with anyone else is significant in itself since it designates a function of leadership not given to the others.

 

Jesus says: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The first question to ask is: Who is the 'you' that Jesus is talking to or about?  Christ certainly would not be talking about Himself or else He would have replaced 'you' with 'I'. He is clearly speaking to Peter and giving him authority that no other Apostle, much less disciple, has. Secondly, the language of 'binding and loosing' is well-established rabbinic terminology for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted (Cf. Genesis 49:24 [Douay Rheims]; Isaiah 22:22).

 

The significance of the 'keys' expresses the meaning of authority and power especially in Isaiah 22:15-25 (Cf. Matthew 23:13, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 20:1). The prophet draws a comparison between Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. The office is symbolized by the possession of the keys which empower its holders to 'open' and 'shut': "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open" (Isaiah 22:22). The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Cf. Mark 13:32-34). In David's kingdom, 'the House of David,' was established in the 11th century B.C. The first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah was written in the 8th century B.C. Hence, the keys had been passed down in succession for approximately three centuries. The descendants of the house of Judah include King David (Cf. Genesis 49:10, Micah 5:2), and his lineage which includes King Hezekiah (Cf. Isaiah 22) and the Messiah (Cf. Matthew 1). In Isaiah 22, Shebna acted as overseer for King Hezekiah as Joseph did for the Pharaoh over his house in Genesis 41. (Source: Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, Queenship Publishing, 1997)

 

Another revealing fact is that the Prophet records that Shebna shall be "hurled out" and 'cast into a vast country to die', and he shall be "deposed from his office" and be 'pulled down from his station' (Cf. Isaiah 22:17-19). If Eliakim was the prototype of Peter, then there should be a parallel of Shebna in the New Testament as well. In fact, there is a remarkable parallel between Shebna and the Scribes and the Pharisees, and in particular, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men."(Matthew 23:2-3,13).

 

Far from encouraging rebellion, however, Jesus commands his followers to heed the 'seat of Moses' and implicitly recognizes the authority that they have by using Old Testament rabbinic language such as the power to 'shut off.' Until the New Covenant has been established by Christ's death on the cross, therefore, the power rested with them. After the redemption, however, the High Priest's authority (Shebna) is passed on to Peter (Eliakim) who receives the power of the keys from Jesus (King Hezekiah). In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the master of the house, and has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Old Testament, God lays the keys to the House of David on the Eliakim's shoulders with authority and stewardship over that house. In the New Testament, Jesus does the same with Peter: He entrusts him with the authority to administer the House of God, the Church, until He returns. This is not to say that the keys now belong to Peter. Christ still holds the keys as a Master holds the ultimate authority over his House, but holding authority certainly does not preclude the Master from delegating it as He wishes. Hence, Peter's successors would shoulder the responsibilities and authority throughout the duration of the Church until Jesus returns just as Ahishar, the first recorded palace administrator (Cf. 1 Kings 4:6) who is given the identical title as Eliakim, had successors flowing through the history of Israel.

 

An interesting comparison can be made between Joseph, one of the Patriarchs and a son of Jacob in the Old Testament, and Peter, the Apostle in the New Testament. Each was a member of a preferred community of twelve men who were favourable to God - Joseph as a Patriarch in the Old Israel (Cf. Exodus 1:1-5) and Peter as an Apostle of the Lord. Both also had leadership positions in their communities. A striking parallel can also be drawn from Genesis 49:24 - "His bow rested upon the strong, and the bands of his arms were loosed, by the hands of the mighty one of Jacob: thence he came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel." DR When comparing this passage with Matthew 16:18-19, it cannot be denied that the passages are remarkably similar. Peter is allowed to 'loosen', being given the authority from 'the mighty one of Jacob', Jesus. Furthermore, he is the pastor of the New Israel, being given the authority to 'loose and bind', and he is the 'stone' on which Christ builds His Church. Finally, Peter's distinguished position among his brothers is most forcefully prophesized later in the same chapter of Genesis: "The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his brothers." (Genesis 49:26, Cf. Deuteronomy 33:16)

 

Jesus asks the Apostles who they think He is. When Peter affirms the divinity of Christ, Jesus calls him 'blessed' because the Eternal Father has revealed Jesus' true identity to Peter only. Moreover, Jesus then says "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it". The Catholic position understands that Jesus was referring to Peter as 'the rock' while the Protestant position holds the 'rock' to mean Jesus or perhaps the Faith itself. Through a careful analysis, however, it is clear that the 'rock' does indeed refer to Peter. First of all, it is Peter who identifies Jesus as the Messiah, and it is Jesus, as to confirm Peter's pre-eminence among his brothers, who says to Peter, "you are Peter" and then refers to the 'rock'. If Jesus was talking about Himself and not Peter, then why did he preface this conversation by identifying Peter immediately before alluding to the 'rock'; that is, what would be the significance of saying 'you are Peter'?  The passage would not make any sense.

 

Catholic opponents then appeal to the Greek to make their point. They note the Simon's name was changed to 'Petros,' which is a masculine noun while the rock is understood as 'petra,' a feminine noun. Thus the passage would read: "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church. The alleged problem, therefore, with the Catholic interpretation is that Petros is a small stone while petra is a large rock. Hence, Jesus was not referring to Peter when He said, "upon this rock [petra not Petros], I will build my church."

 

There are a number of striking difficulties with this objection. First of all, 'petros' and 'petra' are not necessarily incompatible, and if the Gospel writer wanted to make the distinction more forcefully, he could have used the more common Greek word lithos, meaning a stone of any size. Secondly, Christ did not speak Greek but Aramaic, whose word for 'rock' is 'kepha'. So when Jesus changed Peter's name in John 1:42, it was rendered 'Kepha'. Hence, there would be no confusion in understanding Jesus' teaching in Matthew 16:18: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." The problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot conjugate a linguistically feminine name 'rock', into a personal male name for rock. In Aramaic, there is no need to do this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel. (And in Aramaic, the kepha is rock not 'evna' which means 'a little stone')

 

Conjugation required Greek: "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." Spanish: "You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build my church." Italian: "You are Pietro, and upon this pietra I will build my church."

 

No conjugation required Aramaic: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." French: "You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build my church." English: "You are Rock (Peter which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church."

 

While the 'rock' is principally rendered to God (Cf. Psalm 18:2, 31, 46), it also signifies a solid foundation on which Christians can rely to secure their faith. This interpretation is supported by Isaiah 51:1-2, which refers to Abraham. The role of this foundation is further described as being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone (Cf. Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).

 

9) Succession Matthew 28:16 - Jesus is speaking to the Apostles, giving them His authority. He promises to be with them to the "end of the age". Now since Jesus wanted His apostles to "go and make disciples of all nations", and since the first apostles would not be physically present on earth forever, the next logical question is: what next?  If Jesus' words were not meant eternally and were to be understood simply in His time, then the authority of the Apostles which Christ instituted would have died with the last Apostle. This would leave the Church without leadership and in total confusion when serious doctrinal questions and problems occurred, which, inevitably, they did. The other option, the much more likely one and more consistent with God's eternal plan and Holy Scripture, is that the Apostles would choose successors, passing on to them what they learned from the Lord, and in turn giving them the authority to teach. This is, in fact, what the early church did, and has continued to do ever since Her beginning.

 

Acts 1:16-25 - When the time had come to replace Judas Iscariot, Peter asks God to fill the place of Judas Iscariot. If Christ had not intended the Apostolic Community to be maintained, then why did He choose Matthias to replace Judas?  The fact that the Apostles chose a successor indicates clearly that Christ wanted this structure to continue as it has to this day. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and man no one dwell in it.' And 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justin, and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:20-26)NAB

 

Titus 2:15 - "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Here, the Apostle is passing on the authority that he received to Titus. Notice that this authority is not passed on to everyone, but only to specific people. Acts 6:1-6 - It is through the Apostles that authority to other men is conferred through the 'laying on of hands'. (See also Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 5:22)

 

10) The Inspiration of Scripture and the True Religion

 

From a biblical perspective, it is clear and unmistakable, therefore, that Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles to teach His doctrines, promising His Holy Spirit to guide them in truth (Cf. John 14:16-17, 14:26, 16:13). It is equally clear from Scripture, history. and basic reason that these Apostles, in turn, passed on their authority and their offices to their successors, the bishops of the Church to hold fast to both the written and oral traditions which the Apostles passed on (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Taking the Bible as an historical document, and comparing it to the practices and writings of the early Church Fathers, it is unmistakable that Jesus promised these Apostles and their successors the truth. Based on these facts, I KNOW that what they teach (i.e. the Pope, Peter's successor and the Bishops, the Apostles' successors) is the truth. Now, UNLIKE non-Catholic Christians and pseudo-Christian sects, I am consistent in my belief about the AUTHORITY of these particular men because, not only do I accept their judgement about the inspiration of the books of the Bible, I accept their authority to INTERPRET the Bible as well. I do not PICK AND CHOOSE, saying 'I accept their decision on the inspiration of Scripture (as you do, at least with the New Testament), but I do not accept their right to interpret it.' Jesus said 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven' (Cf. Matthew 16:19, 18:18), not just 'the Scriptures you bind, will be bound in heaven.' This latter heretical and obtuse idea only gained popularity with Martin Luther's disastrous teaching of private interpretation of scripture or 'sola scriptura' which has led to the sad situation Christianity finds itself today with its 26,000+ denominations and its thousands of contradicting and absurd doctrines.

 

So when these successors meet in a Council, united with the rock on which Jesus built His Church, the successor of St. Peter, to define or defend an oral or written tradition or to reject error, like they did at the Council of Jerusalem (Cf. Acts 15), I believe them. And when attacks on the Church's teachings would occur throughout the centuries from heresies like Arianism in the fourth century which held that Jesus was not divine, I BELIEVE THESE SUCCESSORS. I do not believe heretics like Arius (Arianism) or Pelagius (Pelagianism) or Nestorius (Nestorianism) or Martin Luther (Protestantism) or Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or Charles Russell (Jehovahism) who neither understand the Bible, much less have the authority to interpret it. This is the reason that I asked you why you believe the Bible was inspired. I wanted you to admit your reliance on the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church because, whether you want to admit it or not, you believe in the inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures BECAUSE the Catholic Church said they were inspired back in the fourth century councils.

 

This, then, is why my religion is the True religion, and conversely, why the 'Jehovah Witness' religion is not. All other teachings from Christian denominations and sects or other religions, for that matter, are only true when they agree or approach what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to faith and morals.

 

Hope to hear from you soon.

 

Regards,

 

John
Letter #10

 

[Roger's response to my last letter was over 40 pages, and was sent to me on paper, not by electronic mail. In order to cut out repetition, I have incorporated his arguments in my next rebuttal. I have not 'cut out' or misrepresented his views in any way.]
Letter #11

 

Opening Remarks

 

1. Greetings Roger. Thank you for your research. I am really impressed at your effort in this endeavour. I would like to make a few remarks before I begin my response. Firstly, try to use the point referencing; I really do think it comes in handy. Secondly, while I would like to address all of your comments, especially those dealing with hell, the trinity, and purgatory, I will defer to a later time for such discussion until we come to some kind of resolution to this question of the 'True Religion.' I have, however, taken the liberty to provide you with some interesting facts about the Catholic Church's treatment of the Bible, which you seem to be very mistaken on (see Appendix A). As well, I have enclosed a little article written by a former JW which you may find enlightening (Appendix B), as well as proof for papal succession which you rejected (Appendix C). . . 2. In questioning papal succession, you ask "how can it be claimed that the line has continued without interruption?  It cannot. Otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Catholic Church, on Jan. 19, 1947 in its new(?) edition of Annuario Pontificio, to list six changes in the list of popes." (p.20) Could you please provide me with more details of this claim?  Who were the Popes?  . 3. You noted that we should not be twisting scriptures to serve our own purpose. I agree with your maxim however problematic that may turn out to be. I would also suggest that we refrain from using Scripture that we could both use to admonish the other (i.e. your reference to 2 Timothy 4:2-5 - p.1). . 4. You assert that neither the King James Version nor Catholic Bibles 'pass the muster'. Yet, I really don't think you've investigated the authenticity of the New World Translation (NWT) at all. In fact, the NWT is universally rejected by non-Witnesses, including SECULAR Greek and Hebrew scholars, and it is generally a shabby if not useless translation. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars believe few of the members who served on the committee were experienced translators or even knew the basic rudiments of Hebrew or Greek. The NWT is therefore likely little more than a modification of already-existing English Versions, which explains the ANONYMITY of the members of the Committee. Furthermore, since this is such an important question, I will not debate doctrine using the NWT. It is a well-known fact that Catholic doctrines can be always defended using any translation, either Protestant or Catholic. The only translation that is utterly rejected, by anyone other than Witnesses, is the NWT. You have offered to answer any questions that I have about the NWT. I have taken you up on your offer. Please find enclosed 55 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT (Appendix D). I will be very interested indeed in your responses. (Throughout your response, you have made a number of claims that Jesus was not God. You will find some significant problems with this claim addressed in the article noted above.)

 

5. Roger I know you have a great difficulty accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church. But remember the very wise advice of Sherlock Homes who once said, "Once you eliminate all the alternatives, the only one left, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

Authority

 

6. In commenting on Matthew 28:16-20, you note that JWs "do not interpret this to mean that the only persons to have authority to teach and to make disciples are the Apostles themselves. The interpretation given by you is inconsistent with the scriptures of the Bible, and the application of common sense" (p.4). Later you remark, "the eleven faithful apostles were all of them dead by the end of the first century, and so that command to¼ teach until the conclusion of the system of things could not have been meant for the apostles only but was meant for all his disciples." (p.4) You seem to suggest that you reject the authority structure BECAUSE the original apostles died. Yet, how does the fact that the original apostles died give every believer the right to formulate doctrine?  We know that Jesus spoke to the Apostles when he commanded them to teach while WE DO NOT KNOW nor do you have any proof that he did so with others. Notwithstanding this point, however, GIVE ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE DISCIPLES TEACH INDEPENDENTLY OF THE APOSTLES. On the contrary, we see the extreme wisdom of Jesus making provision for this authority to be passed down, and that is supported not only in early church history, but also in Scripture as I will later show¼again.

 

7. When the Apostles do encourage people to teach, they are to teach what the Apostles teach NOT THEIR OWN IDEAS. St. Paul wrote to Timothy: "And the things which you heard from ME in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2). Thus, 'teachers' who are not Apostles can only 'teach' others what they themselves have been taught. Thus, these disciples' whole teaching authority comes from the Apostles, and their authority depends on the Apostles' teaching. What should be discouraged, however, is teaching something contrary to what the Apostles teach. The consequences of private teaching outside of the Church which is the Body of Christ, is made abundantly clear in a number of passages (Cf. Matthew 18:16-17, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20). This is the ONLY way that any group can claim to have the truth - they teach what the Apostles taught, either written or oral (2 Thessalonians 2:15). When there is a doctrinal dispute in the Church, it is not any or every disciple which speaks, it is the APOSTLES, which signify their AUTHORITY (Cf. Acts 15).

 

8. You appeal to common sense (p.4), and to common sense we will go. If everyone had authority, as you suggest, then how do you deal with disagreement?  No one can claim to have authority so the truth cannot be known definitively. You, yourself, submit to the interpretation of a committee at the Watchtower in interpreting Scripture since you appear to agree with all that they say. (And even if you did not, you would simply be relegating authority to YOURSELF, which does not solve the problem at all) What happens when you disagree with what JWs believe?  Let us cut to the quick shall we?  NO ONE should believe that the Bible speaks by itself. The Bible does not speak by itself. It is not a person. But, there is always a person or group which have a particular interpretation of the Bible. Now understand, I do not disagree with this. In fact, I admit it. The question is, therefore, NOT on the authority of the Bible, which we both concede, but who has the right to interpret the Bible. When I made the comment "one main feature of the concept of authority is that some people have it and others do not. If¼everyone had authority, then the logical conclusion is that NO ONE has authority", (p.6) you did not reply to this comment directly. I would like your rebuttal on it. Likewise, when I said that Jesus did not give any other group the authority to teach, independently of the Apostles. Your only response was: "Wrong." (p.6) I realize that I have communicated my preference for shorter responses rather than longer ones, but this response is a little too short. Can you give me EVIDENCE that disciples have authority to teach independently of the Apostles either in Scripture or early church history?  (Hint: 'Wrong' is not sufficient.)

 

9. Picture this fascinating scenario: All "Bible Aloners" are all in a room. Now all will claim that the Bible is the SOLE authority for their positions, but they all teach different doctrines. Now, all groups will point to the others and say that the others teach false doctrines. After an hour of endless and useless haggling over the interpretation of biblical passages, one of these people will come to the inevitable and inescapable solution to this STUPID mess. One of these people will realize that the Bible alone cannot be the sole authority since no one can DEFINITIVELY say what the truth is UNLESS there is one group or one person who has the AUTHORITY to decide which interpretation is the correct one. It is not unlike a person deciding to build a house. A number of people come and offer to design the house. Only one is a qualified architect while the others do not have any such designation, and in fact, most of them are frauds. Now, the question for Christianity is: who is the qualified architect? 

 

10. You caution me that "true Christians just can't blindly accept the sayings of their Church." (p.7) There is no need to blindly believe in a Church whose teachings already have been proven, time and time again, to be the truth. And if you are suggesting that you can arrive at the complete truth without the Catholic Church, you are very much mistaken indeed because, ultimately, since you do not accept the authority of one group to teach, you essentially believe in yourself. At least if you believe in the TRUE church, you are believing a reality INDEPENDENT of your own subjectivism, and therefore avoiding the danger of discarding a less palatable but nonetheless true doctrine, with which you may not initially agree. By the way, the more I read the Bible, learn about early church history, and study the alternatives, the more and more I am in AWE of the Catholic faith.

 

11. In discussing Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives Peter the power to 'bind and loose', you claim that "His promise to Peter did not mean Peter's dictating to heaven what should or what should not be loosed but, rather, Peter's being used as heaven's instrument in the unlocking , or loosing, of certain determined things." This response is a complete butchery of the clear and historical meaning of 'binding and loosing' in rabbinic terminology. First of all, in response to your focus on the timing of when a teaching is 'bound or loosed', the timing of when Peter's words would 'bind and loose' a teaching in heaven is incidental to the question at hand. Whether heaven 'binds or looses' just before or simultaneously to when Peter teaches authoritatively is a matter of speculation, but what is not a matter of speculation, and CANNOT BE DISPUTED, is that JESUS gave Peter this power and authority, and furthermore, Jesus bound Himself and the truth to what Peter and his successors would say. Secondly, by claiming that Peter was used as merely an "instrument" in unlocking "certain determined things", you are not only ignoring what "binding and loosing'" mean in the culture which Jesus lived, but you are also restricting His delegation to YOUR "certain determined things". What are these "certain determined things", and if there are "certain determined things" then why did Jesus not state them EXPLICITLY? Despite your desperate attempts to cite irrelevant biblical references to dilute Peter's power in this regard, Jesus said, "whatever you bind", and "whatever" does not mean YOUR "certain determined things". I could cite you with a plethora of references to the correct meaning of "binding and loosing", but I will content myself with giving you with one, and a neutral one at that. (Of course, should you want more, I will be happy to provide them.)

 

12. "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (War of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and bind.'¼The various schools had the power to 'bind and loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Ta'anit 12a). This power and authority vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifna, Emor, ix; Talmud: Makkot 23b).' In this sense Jesus, when appointing his successors, he used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is, 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matthew 23:2-4)" - David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), p.56-57.

 

13. You do not address my point about the sin of Korah (Cf.Numbers 16) [(p.10]. My point in citing this reference (Cf. Jude 1:11) is that you should realize that neither St. Jude nor Moses nor God Himself are very impressed with people who seek to dilute the authority that has been given to a few. The ultimate point I am trying to make, and which has yet to be even remotely challenged, is that some people have authority and others do not. Why can't you admit this? 

 

14. You state that "while Hebrews 13:17 does require us to be obedient to those taking the lead, Christians do not have to follow any 'edicts' or 'rulings' rendered by the Church that do not conform to God's word, the Bible." (p.11). This is not only an unscriptural assertion, but it is also rather senseless. In the first part of this statement you acknowledge the requirement to be obedient, yet your obedience is essentially 'optional-obedience' because, should you not agree with a teaching, YOU declare it be 'unbiblical' and therefore EXEMPT yourself from the obedience which you claim to have. Of course, the ultimate foundation of this idea is based on the belief in YOURSELF, rather than TRUTH existing apart from yourself, which is manifested in the ONE Church Jesus established, being founded on the Apostles and their successors. That is why the church is the 'pillar and foundation of truth' (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15)NOT the Bible, because the Bible CAN BE TWISTED WHILE THE CHURCH CANNOT BE. Moreover, while you have previously rejected Apostolic authority, you still agree that we should 'be obedient to those taking the lead'. Who are these people 'taking the lead', and by whose authority to they 'take the lead'?  Of course, you must realize that we don't want people taking the lead that shouldn't take the lead, right?  So we have to be very careful who takes the lead because we can be misled by false teachers. And this leads us back to where we started - the Apostles and their duly and SPECIFICALLY appointed successors.

 

15. In commenting on Mark 14:37, you ask, "why didn't Jesus speak directly to Peter on all three occasions." (p.11) The fact that Jesus did not speak directly to Peter on all three occasions is rather irrelevant to the point at hand. Jesus chose three Apostles from among the twelve (Cf. Mark 14:33) to accompany Him deeper into the garden, and then specifically admonishes Peter which signifies his role of RESPONSIBILITY over the others. Hence, the significant question that you must address is why Jesus did not admonish all three Apostles, rather than being concerned about what Jesus did or did not say the other two times, which does not bear on the matter at all.

 

16. In commenting on Luke 22:31-32, you state, "it is the responsibility of all members, not just the leader, to strengthen the group in times of adversity. The scripture does not imply any leadership status for Peter." (p.12) Oh really?  Picture the scene. Just before these verses, Jesus is speaking to all of His Apostles then almost suddenly, He turns to Peter and says, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32) Now, two things are notable about this passage. First, it is clear that Jesus commands Peter, and only Peter, to 'strengthen' his brothers. When one person, and ONLY ONE PERSON, is given the RESPONSIBILITY for encouraging and sustaining a group of people, how does that NOT confer special leadership authority as you incredibly claim?  Secondly, notice that Jesus, speaking to Peter, says that Satan has 'demanded permission to sift you like wheat'. Notice the response that Jesus gives ('your faith may not fail'), and then compare it to what He told Peter about His Church in Matthew 16:18 - "and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." The link is unmistakable: just as the Church, built on Peter would not fail, nor would Peter's faith.

 

17. In commenting on John 21:15-22 (p.12), you have missed the point I was trying to make by dwelling on Jesus' question to Peter, 'Do you love me more than these?' The first two alternatives you propose are possible; the third is groundless. The second alternative, 'Do you love me more than these disciples love me?' is the overwhelming choice among biblical scholars. The first alternative, 'Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?', is not as grammatically 'tight' as the second alternative, nor does it take into consideration the reason why Jesus was asking the question; namely, to counter Peter's earlier three-time denial. This is really beside the point, however, since the NOTABLE issue here is that Jesus was asking this question to PETER ONLY. Moreover, my initial point in citing this text was not this question, although it has served even more to buttress my argument quite nicely, but rather to illuminate the connection between Jesus' as the Good Shepherd (Cf. John 10:14-15) and the commands He gives to Peter; namely, to 'feed and tend' His flock. There is no way of escaping the compelling and unequivocal meaning of this passage: Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and now He is giving the role of the Shepherd to Peter, who assumes the role on Christ's command.

 

18. "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, that they might receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:14) Despite the overwhelming evidence that Peter has primacy over the other Apostles, you attempt to undermine this indisputable fact by appealing to the above passage (p.14). This passage, however, does not suggest that Peter's primacy is somehow lessened. In fact, just because the board of directors decide on a merger, and then send the chairman of the board and his assistant to negotiate, does it mean that the chairman's authority comes into question, especially if he was on the board?  Of course not. Peter's name occurs no less that 195 times in the New Testament, while the rest of the Apostles together can muster only 130 times, and the second most mentioned Apostle, St. John, is mentioned only 29 times. Moreover, the Greek word 'protos' in Matthew 10:2 incontestably demonstrates Peter's primacy - it means 'primary first'. Jesus washes all of the Apostles feet, but it is only with Peter with whom He speaks. (Cf. John 13:6-9). Now, do these three small facts prove Peter's primacy?  No, not by themselves. However, when you add them to the mountain of existing evidence in the New Testament in this regard, only the most obstinate reject the PLAIN FACTS, and try to contort them to fit their own twisted interpretations.

 

19. "James, the half brother, appears to have presided in the governing body¼It was James who announced the final decision on the important issue of circumcision as involving the Gentile believers, at which meeting Peter and Paul both presented". (Cf. Acts 15) [p.14] First of all, there is no biblical evidence that James presided over the Council. Although James was the Apostle responsible for the early Church in Jerusalem, this does not suggest that he presided over the Council.. Secondly, the AUTHORATIVE decision was not given by James. It was given by Peter: "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7) Whose mouth?  PETER'S MOUTH. Paul and Barnabas simply recounted the signs and wonders God had done through them. There was no pronouncement on their part (Cf. Acts 15:12). And what about St. James comments in Acts 15:13-21?  St. James was merely echoing what St. Peter's pronouncement had already been, supporting it by referencing it to the prophesies. You do not see St. James DISAGREEING with Peter do you? 

 

20. And what about the REACTION of the multitude after Peter's speech, "and the multitude kept silent" (Acts 15:12)?  Robert A. Sungenis' Letter to Authors, Jan. 13, 1995 offers these insightful comments: "In Acts 15:12-13, Luke uses two forms of the Greek verb 'sigao' which means 'be silent.' Both are in the aorist tense and thus refer to an action in the past that was completed. The first usage in verse 12 refers to the silence caused in the assembly by the previous speaker, namely, Peter. The verse, literally translated, would read, 'And was silent all the multitude¼' This past tense usage shows that the multitude was silent when Peter was speaking and remained so when Paul and Barnabas started speaking. The second use of 'sigao' is in verse 13 is an infinite aorist. It is preceded by an accusative preposition and the infamous Greek article which would be translated as: 'after they had become silent' or more colloquially, 'after they had finished speaking,' James began speaking. The passage gives us the normal events occurring when single individuals speak in turn to an assembly. According to the aorist usage of 'sigao' in verse 12, the initial silence occurs when Peter begins speaking in verse 7. That silence continues in verse 13 as Paul and Barnabas begin to speak, and continues further when James begins to speak in verse 14. According to the meaning of the second aorist, the silence is not cause by James. He is only the recipient of the silence occurring before him at the completion of the speech by Paul and Barnabas." (By the way, Jesus did not have a brother, or sister for that matter. Try comparing Genesis 11:26-27 with Genesis 13:8 for the possible meaning of 'brother'.)

 

21. You state that there is no particular significance to the Catholic observation that God changed Peter's name (p.14). And you point to a number of references which indicate that name changes occurred (Paul - Acts 13:9, Joseph - Genesis 41:44-45; Eliakim - 2 Kings 23:34; Mattaniah - 2 Kings 24:17; Daniel et al. - Daniel 1:3-7). But once again, you missed the whole point. Roger, read what I said (GOD only changed someone's name¼) and read the references you cite to disprove my point. NONE of the references you cite show GOD (or at least for you, a perfect being) changing someone's name. My original point that when God changes someone's name (Cf. Genesis 17:5, Genesis 32:28), it signifies a CHANGE in function and NOT ONLY a change in function, but a change to a greater leadership role. This point, therefore, remains uncontested.

 

22. In fact, you say, "the scriptures make it quite clear that Jesus treated all the Apostles as being equal" (p.15). Wrong¼again, Roger. While Jesus' preference for Peter has been made abundantly clear, Jesus even had 'favourites' apart from Peter, namely, James and John (Cf. Matthew 17:1-4, Mark 5:37, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:32-33, Luke 22:8, Galatians 2:9).

 

23. You also note that "in the formation, organization, and subsequent direction of the Christian congregation, the apostles occupied a primary position (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11). Although they were joined by others of the 'older men' in such supervision, they formed a principal part of the governing body of the expanding Christian congregation, and this body was recognized by the early Christians everywhere as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth (Cf. Acts 2:42, 8:14-17; 11:22, 15:1-2, 6-31; 16:4-5). This was possible for these men only because of the fulfillment of the promises about guidance by God's holy spirit (Cf. John 15:26-27). Such help enabled them to recall Jesus' instructions and teaching , to clarify points of doctrine, and to be progressively guided 'into all truth' revealed through them at that apostolic period (Cf. John 14:26; 16:13-15; compare John 2:22; 12:16). They made appointments to position of service within the congregation and also designated areas in which certain ones would engage in missionary activity (Cf. Acts 6:2-3, Galatians 2:8-9)." (p.15-16)

 

Firstly, when I read this paragraph I could hardly believe my eyes. Roger let me congratulate you in presenting the Catholic position so convincingly and forcefully!!!  I would like, however, to make this inquiry. You stated above that the Apostles would be guided in truth 'at that apostolic period'. Why only then?  Is the Church not to continue?  Do we have not overwhelming scriptural and historical evidence that this Apostolic structure did continue?  And if their successors were to lose the help of the Holy Spirit, through WHOM would the Holy Spirit speak the truth?  And what is more puzzling is that your very convincing, and most CATHOLIC discourse above CONTRADICTS your earlier comment on Matthew 28:18-20: JWs "do not interpret this to mean that the only persons to have authority to teach¼are the Apostles themselves" (p. 4), and your later comment that "authority was not exclusively exercised by the Apostles, as shown by a number of scriptures." (p.21).

 

The scriptural references you cite do not prove your point at all. In Luke 10:17-20, Jesus does not give the seventy the authority to teach does He?  And even if He did, do the disciples' authority to teach supersede or contradict the Apostles?  I think not. Secondly Roger, to whom is Paul writing in 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2, and to whom is He giving the authority to teach?  Answer: Timothy, who was specifically appointed by Paul. The final scriptural passage you cite is quite interesting. It is rather strange that the word 'authority' in 1 Corinthians 8:9 of the NWT is rendered 'liberty' in the New American Bible (Catholic), the Douay Rheims Bible (Catholic), New American Standard Bible (Protestant), Revised Standard Bible (Protestant), King James Bible (Protestant), and it is rendered 'freedom' in the New International Version (Protestant) and in the Living Bible (Protestant). Hmmm¼still believe that the NWT is an accurate translation?  But this is rather irrelevant, in any case, because the passage in question has nothing to do with teaching authority, but merely instructing believers on how to behave around 'food offered to idols'.

 

24. In order to shift away from the solid evidence supporting Peter's primacy, you argue that Paul 'travelled more extensively' and 'contributed more profusely' (p.15). Let me get this straight. You are saying that because Paul walked a little further and tried a little harder, these factors make Paul more of a candidate for pre-eminency than Peter?  You've got to be kidding!  How do you get to become a captain of a team?  Talent?  No. Zeal?  No. Determination?  Not necessarily. Commitment?  Not necessarily. Appointment by the coach?  YES, WITHOUT QUESTION. You see Roger, the qualities that you have cited do not have anything to do with the authority given by Christ. As we are saved by His GRACE and His GRACE ALONE, we cannot merit any title or authority either. You are simply inventing ARBITRARY and IRRELEVANT criteria to dilute Jesus unmistakable revelation to Peter. Jesus Christ did not make merit a criteria for authority, but used a symbol, 'the keys', whose meaning was UNMISTAKABLE to His listeners at the time, and should you take the time to investigate it FOR YOURSELF by consulting unbiased Jewish sources, you will come to the truth as to the meaning of the keys, namely, the power associated with them. Unlike you, I do not create criteria for authority, I rely on the true meaning of the 'keys.' Tell me Roger, if your friend gave you the keys to his house, and told you that you could use the keys to 'open and shut' the door, would you conclude that you could not use the keys to do what they were made for, namely, to open and to shut? 

 

25. But enough of the secondary passages, let us get to the passage which settles the question: "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19) • A) The 'Keys': And what do you say about the significance of the keys?  You state that "the use of the word 'key' in Jesus statement to Peter indicated that Peter would have the privilege of initiating a program of instruction that would open up special opportunities with respect to the Kingdom of the heavens." (p.16) Tell me, Roger, is this what Jesus said?  Did he even so much as hint at a 'teaching program' or 'special opportunities'?  This is an absurd and groundless interpretation. Now Roger, instead of simply 'downloading' standard Witness answers from their database, try answering my question in regards to the TRUE and HISTORICAL meaning of the 'keys,' especially my reference to Isaiah 22:15-25. If you think the Catholic interpretation of the 'keys' is restricted to just Catholic scholars, think again:

 

"So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: 'Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys?  Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don't look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter's mouth where I have placed them. Peter's mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.'" And who do you suppose espoused this very CATHOLIC view?  A Pope?  A Priest?  A Catholic theologian? No - but Luther himself!!!  (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

 

26. You ask, "If Peter was given all the authority of Jesus, then Peter by himself would have personally chosen the successor for Judas Iscariot¼[but instead lots were cast]." (p. 16) Who says that Peter has to pick a successor personally, and why do you use that as a criteria for determining his primacy?  Actually, if you read the passage carefully, it is PETER who DECIDES NOT ONLY TO CHOOSE A SUCCESSOR, BUT ALSO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PERSON IS TO BE SELECTED. So far from proving your point, the passage actually reinforces the Catholic position quite nicely don't you think? 

 

B)The Rock

 

First, you assert that "Jesus did not say to Peter, 'You are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church'" (p.18) Yes, that is true Roger. My response to that is simply: so what?  You claim that Jesus was building His Church on Himself (bottom of p.18), but by the SAME RESISTLESS LOGIC, Jesus did not say 'You are Peter, and upon MYSELF I will build by church.'"

 

Second, once again you attempt to limit the generality of the meaning of words or phrases to fit your own interpretation, instead of honestly ACKNOWLEDGING the entire biblical reality. This time you attempt to limit the word 'Rock' to Christ, and while the 'rock' is principally rendered to God (Cf. Psalm 18:2, 31, 46), it also signifies a solid foundation on which Christians can rely to secure their faith. This interpretation is supported by Isaiah 51:1-2, which refers to Abraham. The role of this foundation is further described as being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone (Cf. Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).

 

Third, in order to refute that Jesus said that He would build His Church on Peter, Catholic opponents then appeal to the Greek to make their point. They note the Simon's name was changed to 'Petros,' which is a masculine noun while the rock is understood as 'petra,' a feminine noun. Thus the passage would read: "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church. The alleged problem, therefore, with the Catholic interpretation is that Petros is a small stone while petra is a large rock. Hence, Jesus was not referring to Peter when He said, "upon this rock [petra not Petros], I will build my church."

 

As previously noted, Christ did not speak Greek but Aramaic, whose word for 'rock' is 'kepha'. So when Jesus changed Peter's name in John 1:42, it was rendered 'Kepha'. Hence, there would be no confusion in understanding Jesus' teaching in Matthew 16:18: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." The problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot conjugate a linguistically feminine name 'rock', into a personal male name for rock. In Aramaic, there is no need to do this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel. (And in Aramaic, the kepha is rock not 'evna' which means 'a little stone')

 

Conjugation required Greek: "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." Spanish: "You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build my church." Italian: "You are Pietro, and upon this pietra I will build my church."

 

No conjugation required Aramaic: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." French: "You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build my church." English: "You are Rock (Peter which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church."

 

27. In response to the Catholic rebuttal, you say "in his expression 'on this rock', Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated 'this', which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra.[p.19-20]¼Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle preceeding the word ki'pha', used for both 'Peter' and 'rock'. The masculine verbal pronoun ('hu') precedes 'Peter', but 'rock' is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective ('hade')". [p. 45]

 

28. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to confuse people who do not know the rudiments of grammar. But let us get the facts out first before examining the grammar of this passage. The old Syriac translation of the New Testament renders the passage like this: "Anather-her Kipha, v'all hode Kipha¼" The Arabic translation has 'alsachra' ('rock') in both cases as well. The proper translation, therefore, is clear: "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church." Now, in your response you admit that the word 'rock' is used in both places so your Petros-Petra argument, as far as the word 'rock' is concerned, falls.

 

29. Now, your JW friends turn to a more precise grammatical argument, noting that the demonstrative adjective 'this' is feminine, while the masculine pronoun, 'you', used for Peter is masculin. BECAUSE of this feminine-masculine grammatical difference, you try to refute the Catholic understanding stating, "It was no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock." (p. 19). THIS IS FALSE.. The word 'rock' is a FEMININE NOUN in both Greek AND Aramaic, and therefore a feminine demonstrative pronoun 'this' MUST be used in the Greek as well as in the Aramaic (there is no choice in the matter). This grammatical law is called 'declination,' AND PLEASE FEEL FREE, IN FACT I ENCOURAGE YOU, TO CONFIRM THIS WITH SECULAR GRAMMATICAL SCHOLARS.

 

30. And while we're on the topic of that very special word 'this,' let us do a little mental exercise. If Jesus really wanted to distinguish between Peter, the first rock, and something else which would represent the second rock, he would have used the definite article 'the'. (But then again, the passage still makes little sense if Jesus meant anything other than Peter) Compare:

 

"You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." "You are Rock, and upon the rock I will build my church."

 

31. Before we depart from this passage, Roger, I want you to read it again. Does it make grammatical or common sense for Jesus to begin speaking about Peter, talk about something else, and then end his discourse with Peter?: "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter..," At the end, Christ said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19). I have never heard ANYONE dispute that Jesus was speaking about Peter in the first and last part of this passage as indicated above. The only contention remains in the middle part of the passage, "and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." My question to anyone who disputes that Jesus was speaking about Peter in this middle part is simply this: DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT JESUS WOULD BEGIN SPEAKING ABOUT PETER, THEN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN RETURN TO SPEAKING ABOUT PETER ALL IN A FEW LINES?  Only a hair-brained idiot would do such a thing, and Jesus was no hair-brained idiot.

 

Apostolic Succession

 

32. "The Apostles were not immortal, and neither were those people who received the Holy Spirit. One could surmise that is the reason why Jehovah proceeded to have the remaining books of the Bible written within the 100 hundred years following Jesus' death and resurrection, so that we would have a guide for our own salvation." (p.7) Again, you have IGNORED biblical revelation and common sense by failing to consider APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. While it is true that God gave us the Holy Scriptures, He also gave us Prophets, Kings, and Apostles throughout the Old and New Testaments, respectively, whose ORAL words were just as binding as their WRITTEN words. Based on BIBLICAL PRECEDENT, therefore, why do you believe that such an arrangement has changed?  And if you do believe that there is no hierarchical Church that teaches the truth, then what do you propose in its place WITHOUT allowing for the absurd subjectivism of private interpretation of scripture and its fruits, namely, the DIVISION and DISUNITY that currently exists in non-Catholic churches and sects? 

 

33. "Regarding the so-called successors of the apostles, Catholic Authorities admit little knowledge of them" (p.20) The first point I would like make is that you did not address my scriptural passage regarding this issue. Let me repeat the original question for your convenience. When the time had come to replace Judas Iscariot, Peter asks God to fill the place of Judas Iscariot. If Christ had not intended the Apostolic Community to be maintained, then why did He choose Matthias to replace Judas? The fact that the Apostles chose a successor indicates clearly that Christ wanted this structure to continue as it has to this day. "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and man no one dwell in it.' And 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justin, and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them, and the lot f

 

34. And as for their not being any evidence for apostolic succession, these selections are but a taste of the evidence¼

 

In the fourth quarter of the second century, we have the case for the apostolic succession stated forcefully and clearly by Irenaeus. A native of either Syria or Asia Minor, Irenaeus had in his youth seen Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp, he informs us, had been instructed by the apostles and had talked with many who had seen Christ. Coming to Gaul, Irenaeus in time became Bishop of Lyons. Distressed by what he regarded as the errors and corruptions of the Gospel which he knew in Gaul and by the headway which he found on a visit to Rome was being made by them, he wrote an extensive treatise Against Heresies, describing them and refuting them by setting forth what he believed to be the true faith. He insisted that the apostles had transmitted faithfully and accurately what had been taught them by Christ¼He was emphatic that the apostles had appointed the successors bishops to whom they had committed churches and in doing so had undoubtedly passed on to them what had been entrusted to the apostolic company of Christ. These bishops had been followed by others in unbroken line who were also guardians and guarantors of the apostolic teaching¼Peter and Paul, so he says, appointed Linus [second Bishop of Rome]. Linus, in turn, so Irenaeus declared, was followed by others in an unbroken line to the twelfth in the succession who was bishop when the book was being composed.

 

Writing in the first quarter of the fourth century, Eusebius, the most famous of the early historians of the Church, gave the lists of the bishops of several of the churches. . [A History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Professor at Yale University Divinity School, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Evanston, and London, 1953. Catalogue No. 270 L359c.2 - Ottawa Public Library.]

 

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (first century) - "Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is there is the Catholic Church."

 

St. Polycarp, the aged bishop of Smyrna, had for thirty years been a disciple and companion of the Apostle St. John. St. Irenaeus, who was a pupil of Polycarp, gives a graphic account of their familiar intercourse. He writes:

 

" I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent occurrence. The lessons of childhood grow with the growth of the soul, and become one with it. And so I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he made to the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate all in keeping with the Scriptures¼"

 

In the middle of the third century, St. Cyprian defended the Church against the Novatians who advocated the permanent exclusion of all former apostates from the Church. "Claiming that Pope Cornelius had betrayed his trust, Novatian had himself elected as Pope by his followers - the first Anti-Pope in history. Cyprian thereupon wrote the beautiful treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church. In it he compares the Church to the seamless robe of Christ and says: "Outside the Church there is no salvation. He cannot have God as his Father, who has not the Church as his Mother." Later in his life Cyprian was martyred. Brought before the Proconsul and asked who he was, Cyprian replied: "I am a Christian and a Bishop."

 

[Church History, Father John Laux, M.A., TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1930]

 

Tradition

 

35. Like most Protestants, JWs have a difficulty understanding the concept of Tradition in the New Testament. You appear to be no different: "Then scripture does take precedent over Church traditions!" (p.3) and "Many of the 'traditions' are completely unacceptable and contrary to scriptures." (p.7) and "Of course, if you blindly accept that the traditions of the church override Bible scripture¼" (p.8). In support of your views you cite Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7:6-13 for support [incidentally you could add Colossians 2:22, and Titus 1:14 to that list - but not for the reason you now think]. Before examining these passages for their true meaning, however, take a close look at these other passages which say completely the opposite of what Protestants think (Cf. Matthew 23:2, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). As you can clearly see, Jesus and the Apostles do not condemn ALL tradition, in fact they AFFIRM it MOST VIGOROUSLY. So if that is the case, what about the passages that you cited above?  In the two passages YOU cite (and the ones I generously added), notice that Jesus does NOT BLINDLY AND UNIVERSALLY condemn ALL tradition or even human tradition at that!!!  He condemns humans tradition WHEN AND ONLY WHEN it is reduced to "invalidating the Word of God" (Mark 7:13). Catholic Tradition, which is the Tradition of the Apostles, does not invalidate the Word of God - it illuminates it and PROTECTS IT AGAINST ERROR.

 

Impeccability

 

36. The last desperate grasp which enemies of the Catholic Church go for is the failings of individual Church leaders. There is no doubt that some Bishops and some Popes were, admittedly, not the holiest of men, but the real question is: Does that give individuals within the Church the right to USURP the authority which Christ had established in His Church?  You cite a number of passages, for instance, that Peter was rash and impetuous (Cf. Matthew 16:22-23, John 21:7-8???), and had many human failings (Cf. Acts 22:19-20, Galatians 2:11-14). Yet, if you want impeccability or perfection in a leader, then you will not find it. Jesus picked Peter not because of his human failings, but despite them, which goes to show how Divine wisdom can so transcend human faults. Let us remember that despite Peter's betrayal of Jesus, Christ still affirms his position as the shepherd of the Christian flock (John 21:15-17) after the Resurrection. Secondly, if impeccability would be a criteria for leadership then NO APOSTLE or disciple could claim the leadership role, least of all Judas, who Christ knew would betray Him.

 

37. The two most compelling arguments for the Catholic defence, however, are given by Jesus, Himself. "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?  How then does it have tares?' And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' and the slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' But he said, No; lest while you are gathering them up the tares you may root up the wheat with them. 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in them of the harvest I will say to the reapers, 'First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13:24-30). The most compelling evidence for submission, even if the leaders are hypocrites, is found in the Gospel of Matthew. Although Jesus despised the Pharisees' behaviour and called them hypocrites (Cf. Matthew 23:13), He still recognized their AUTHORITY, and commanded His disciples to observe what they command EVEN IF THEY WERE HYPOCRITES. "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them" (Matthew 23:2-3).

 

Some final remarks

 

38. "If the Pope were to personally tell me that the sun would rise next morning in the east and sink in the west, I wouldn't believe him." (p. 22). Now, what does this comment say about your disposition toward the truth?  It demonstrates that you would rather be blind to the truth and deny it outright, rather than admit what I have plainly presented, namely, the compelling evidence for the authority of Peter and the Apostles and their successors. You accused me of blindly following my Church's teaching. I do no such thing. The only way to avoid the hopeless subjectivism and schism of the Protestant tradition with its 30,000 denominations and sects, of which the JWs are only one, is to appeal to an authority outside of the obtuse logic that the Bible alone can be the sole source of authority. Over and over again, you say that I should not 'blindly' accept the doctrines of the Church. Understand Roger, I do not 'blindly' accept what the Catholic Church teaches. The reason is simply that I do not have to: the Catholic Church teaches the truth as SCRIPTURE, HISTORY, NATURAL LAW, and COMMON SENSE all clearly demonstrate, and so there is no need to 'blindly accept', rather only the BLIND do not accept when presented with the full truth. In any case, who would you have me believe instead?  Shall I place a Bible in front of me, and make huge doctrinal mistakes based on my own limited, personal opinion?  Or rather, should I believe in a cult who did not even exist before the nineteenth century?  (I guess the world was in utter darkness until God appointed the Jehovah Witness Committee to light the path, and of course, He would wait over eighteen centuries to give us the truth.)

 

39. But let us put the proverbial shoe on the other foot. Take a good look at the passages we have examined. Now compare the Witness answers and the Catholic answers. Which do you honestly believe are the more compelling?  Who is blindly accepting church doctrine now?  You, yourself, admit that the JWs "understand this to mean" (p. 4), which translates into forcing their 'understanding' on a biblical passage in order to REJECT the clear and unmistakable FLASHING NEON LIGHT which points to ROME. Why else would an organization be so CONSUMED and ABSORBED with watching the Catholic Church so closely if it ITSELF had the Truth?  After all, a contender for the Presidency does not concern himself with mere pretenders for that office. This only further serves to illuminate the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses try to attack the Catholic Church relentlessly because they wish to SUPERSEDE her seat of AUTHORITY, and establish themselves as the voice of Truth. But, nay, that will NEVER happen because Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. And what God says, God does.

 

40. So then Roger, there you have it. This is your chance to challenge your JW friends. See what they say, and be critical of their interpretation of Holy Writ. Don't blindly accept what they say or believe some of the UNREFERENCED, OUTRAGEOUS claims that are made in publications like The Watchtower, or even worse, accept most of the wild and spurious accusations made in the Appendices that you sent to me. Wake up those guys at the Watchtower!!!  But most importantly, DO SOME REAL RESEARCH AND DON'T JUST GET SPOON FED FROM PEOPLE WHO MAY KNOW SCRIPTURE AND VERSE, BUT DO NOT KNOW THE REAL AND CONTEXTUALLY TRUE MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES THEY CITE. THEY MISLEAD AND ARE THEMSELVES MISLED.

 

Hope to hear from you soon.

 

Regards,

 

John Pacheco
P.S. While I expect that you will have some comments on my rebuttals above, let us also turn our attention to questions regarding other doctrinal issues.
Letter #12

 

[Roger's response was 60 pages. His main points are reproduced below, followed by my response.]
Letter #13

 

Some Opening Remarks:

 

Roger, thank you for your paper. I think that this will be my last response to you on this subject. I believe that we have both exhausted our positions on the question of Apostolic Authority and other related issues, and I don't think any further discussion on this topic will uncover any new perspective or revelation. We've beaten this subject to death!!!  There comes a point where the evidence one side accepts is not accepted by the other, and there is really not much to do about that. So unless there is a specific comment or argument you wish to make (under a few pages), I think we should end our discourse here on this subject and turn to other topics if you are interested in doing so. I do think, however, that our discussions on other subjects would be rather problematic given our disagreement on Apostolic Authority and Succession. My response will be much shorter since I won't have the time as I am now a dad.

 

Now, for my response…

 

Matthew's name

 

In your last E-mail in regards to Matthew's alleged name change, you state that Matthew "has traditionally been identified as the author of the first Gospel." Oh really?  How do you know this?  That is, how do you know that Matthew's gospel was written by Matthew and not someone else?  Who are you trusting for your belief of this? 

 

Near the end of your e-mail you remarked: "there is sufficient certainty to state that Matthew was also called Levi. Who are you to say that most of these scholars are wrong, particularly when you didn't know the above-referenced Bible scriptures in support of this position."

 

First, these 'scholars' are giving their own opinion - it is not fact but rather an assumption as you have noted: "most scholars ASSUME that Matthew and Levi were the same person and suggest that Jesus MAY have renamed Levi…" Note the words 'assume' and 'may'. I was not trying belittle you when I said, 'Is this the best you can do?" I was asking you a question to find out what you believe is SUFFICIENT for proof.

 

Now you ask me why I don't agree with these 'scholars'. First, none of the biblical references you give show Jesus (God) changing Matthew's name. So your charge that I didn't 'know the scripture references to support your position' is irrelevant. I know them very well. I just don't think they PROVE your point at all. In the references that I have cited, however, God actually speaks!!!  Your 'assumptions' and 'maybes' are certainly nothing like what He did with Abraham (Genesis 17:5), Jacob (Cf. Genesis 32:28), or Peter (Cf. John 1:42). And even if Matthew's name was changed, what would be the SIGNIFICANCE of changing it to "Matthew". When God changes someone's name, the new name signifies a change in FUNCTION i.e. (Abraham means 'exalted father', Israel (Jacob) means 'He who strives for God', and Peter ('Petros'/'Kepha') means 'rock'. Secondly, you, yourself, have provided the second problem with your argument: "It was not uncommon among the Jews for a man to have two names…" Exactly, Roger - which may explain why Matthew had two names in the first place!!!  (Check out John 1:47 and compare it to Matthew 10:2-4. Question: Where is Nathaniel?)

 

You claim that these "scholars quote from the definitive source, the Bible. Just because you, John, are individually not convinced of the facts in this matter (in fact I doubt if you will ever be convinced of anything that contradicts anything you have already based on a personal opinion on, even if that evidence overwhelmingly proves a point contrary to your personal opinion." First, I do not dispute that these 'scholars' quote from the Bible to 'suggest' a 'possibility' that 'may' have occurred. I simply do not accept the SUFFICIENCY of the verses quoted to support the position. Where does Jesus say to Matthew: 'Levi, your name is now Matthew' or anything even close to that?  And as for your remarks above regarding facts and personal opinion, do you think that you are exempt from the very things you accuse me of? 

 

In regards to your rather harsh opinion of me in the first part of your e-mail. What can I say?  I am sorry if I have belittled you - that was not my intent - I was only trying to challenge you in taking a second look at the 'softness' of your arguments.

 

Now for my rebuttal to your last substantive e-mail

 

Peter is the Rock

 

In my opinion, you have not satisfactorily addressed any of the arguments regarding the primacy of Peter and Apostolic succession that I posed, especially points 12, 29, and 33.

 

In response to some of your arguments regarding Peter…

 

Ephesians 5:23 does say that Christ is the Head of the Church. Catholics affirms this. What is in dispute is who is given the Holy Spirit to teach His doctrines and exercise His authority: the WTS or the Successors of the Apostles. The Pope is the 'head' of the Church only in a secondary and analogical sense. He is Christ's Vicar, and in that SENSE ONLY, he is the 'head of the Church'. No Catholic believes the Pope is greater than Christ, no more than a Witness believes the Bible Watchtower Committee members are greater than Christ. Now, if you don't want to believe what I am telling you about Catholic teaching, then you can continue to delude yourself and argue against a straw man.

 

Galatians 2:11-14 - Opponents of Peter's infallibility point to this text which only shows that they do not understand the idea of papal infallibility. Peter did not teach anything as binding on the Church by his personal weakness in withdrawing from the Gentiles and favouring the circumcised Jews. The question of Gentile circumcision had already been decided at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 in favour of 'loosing' this requirement for the Gentiles. Peter taught nothing in his action, and certainly did not bind the Church to his action. A Pope can make a mistake personally even on faith and morals. He cannot err, however, when he binds the entire Church to his decision. Hence, this passage does not contradict papal infallibility at all.

 

You assert that "the Holy Scriptures neither say nor imply that the apostle ever was in that city." (p.5) Later you state, "Why should Paul find it necessary to give the Roman Christians so much counsel if Peter was there and were superior to Paul?" (p.9) Let's take your first assertion. If the Bible never implies that St. Peter was in Rome, then how do you explain St. Peter's words as recorded in first letter: "The church that is in Babylon: elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). Commentary after commentary all point to Babylon as being the code name for Rome. In the language of the time, Rome became the centre for pagan religions and hence became the new Babylon. This is sufficiently corroborated after reading Revelation 17. By the way, should you try to escape this proof, and claim that the Babylon St. Peter was writing about was the ancient Babylon, remember there was no church in the first Babylon. As for your second objection regarding St. Paul's counsel to the Roman Christians, the answer may actually be quite simple. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome between 56 and 58 A.D. St. Peter could have arrived after this date.

 

"If Jesus had wanted Peter to be the cornerstone of his church, he or Jehovah would have taken steps to ensure that the church's lineage was by blood, not by the appointment of worldly Kings, or by election by men who are not and would never be 'infallible' in their choice of successors" (p.15). Why would Jesus want to do such a ridiculous and absurd thing as 'blood lineage' when His whole ministry OPPOSED this thinking?  It appears Roger that Witnesses like to INVENT criteria in order to prove their points. This time they try to refute the insurmountable evidence that Peter was the rock. His words themselves bear testimony to His intent, and that is good enough for me: "Thou art Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18).

 

"If Peter and the other Apostles passed on their authority to teach and make disciples to other disciples…then why doesn't the Pope have their authority to cure sickness and to cast out demons?" (p.54) Your argument falls on two fronts. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the authority to cure is necessarily attached to the authority to teach. Where in Scripture is it absolutely necessary to have the same individual exercise both functions?  Secondly, by that reasoning , if you only accept the authority of those who have the grace to procure miracles, then why do you still listen to Witnesses who do not have that particular gift?  Do you say, "Sorry, you can't do miracles, so I reject your authority to teach?" As you can see, Roger, your argument falls apart very quickly.

 

"Well, he had ample opportunity to appoint Peter his successor, but he declined…if Jehovah God had wanted Jesus to appoint a successor, the Bible would have clearly identified that individual." (p.57) Jesus did do it. His name was Peter. He confirmed it many times over. You simply refuse to accept the overwhelming BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL truth of it. You have shut the Holy Spirit out, and remain in darkness.

 

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

 

On the question of Apostolic Authority and Succession, your position remains unchanged: "To reiterate, I disagree that our authority comes from the Apostles. It was a scriptural commandment or commission handed down by Jesus to all of his disciples, not just the Apostles. Our authority comes directly from Jesus Christ." (p.55) You then proceed to cite Matthew 18:1-6, 20:20-28, 24:45, Mark 9:33-37, 10:35-45, Luke 9:46-48, 22:24-30, 12:41-42, and make the GROUNDLESS and BIZARRE observation that these passages "have to do with the question of 'Apostolic Succession.'" They have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. There are, however, passages which undisputedly do relate to Apostolic Succession, and coincidentally, it is those you have conveniently left UNADDRESSED.

 

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and man no one dwell in it.' And 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justin, and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Act 1:20-26). Roger, what would be the point of appointing another Apostle to an OFFICE, if that OFFICE did not entail the rights of that office, namely, the employment of authority? 

 

"And the things which you heard from ME in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2). The Bible was never meant to be a complete source of divine revelation. It is one of TWO sources. The Bible is the WRITTEN word of God. St. Timothy is commanded to teach the ORAL TRADITION which St. Paul instructed him to pass down (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15), and which has been faithfully handed down throughout the centuries through the SUCCESSORS. "So then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You will notice that St. Paul is not saying, 'hold firm to what every 'Joe Christian' writes or says'. NO!  He says, 'hold firm to what you have heard from us.' The 'us' that the St. Paul is talking about are the APOSTLES, and it is what you have 'heard' not 'read' from 'us'. Teach and hold firm to WHAT WE HAVE TAUGHT YOU! 

 

You missed my whole thesis when you cite Hebrews 5:12, Matthew 23:33-34, Acts 8:4, and Acts 11:19-21 to prove disciples can teach. AGAIN ROGER, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING MYSELF?  I DO NOT disagree with you on this point. What I do disagree with you on is teaching something other than what the Apostles teach. The question becomes: Can you teach outside of what the Apostle's taught?  For instance, are YOU permitted to teach something CONTRARY to the teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses?  If you answer in the affirmative, then how can the truth prevail if everyone can teach their own doctrine?  On the other hand, if you answer in the negative, then you have effectively proven my point: disciples CANNOT teach something other than what their leaders teach. For Christianity, the first disciples had to submit to the Apostles just as the disciples since then had (and have to) submit to the successors to the Apostles (which you still have not even addressed). The question becomes what happens when the Apostle's teaching conflicts with some of the other disciples?  Who gets to decide what is the truth of Christianity? I asked you to show me a scriptural passage which suggests that the Apostle's sovereign authority is even remotely questioned. You have shown me NONE. On the other hand, there are many passages which do confirm beyond any doubt WHATSOEVER the sovereign authority of the Apostles:

 

At the Council of Jerusalem as noted in Acts 15, the question of Gentile circumcision is debated and decided by the Apostles ONLY. Everybody else shuts up and listens. It was not a democracy where every 'Joe Christian' got to give his opinion on the matter. 'Joe Christian' knew his place, and that place was not on the level with the Apostles.

 

"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully" (2 Corinthians 11:3). The 'we' St. Paul speaks about are the Apostles. St. Paul is clearly restricting who can say what the doctrines of Christ are - and it is certainly not every individual Christian. This does not mean that the individual Christian cannot REPEAT the Apostle's teaching, but it certainly does mean that they cannot 'preach another Jesus'. Roger, you can't go home and believe in Jesus in your own way - you must submit to the Apostle's legitimate successors (Cf. Hebrews 13:17), and not be "carried away by varied and strange teachings" (Hebrews 13:9) about who Jesus is or what He means when he speaks through Scripture!!!  How do you know that you have heard the real Jesus, because we all know that not all Christians see Jesus the same way.

 

"You should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour spoken by your apostles" (1 John 3:2). Who speaks?  - Yes, Roger, that's right - the APOSTLES. Notice also that St. John does not say 'written by your apostles', which is completely consistent with St. Paul's command to hold fast to ORAL TRADITION (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

 

"And if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile…" (Matthew 18:17). Our Lord is giving the APOSTLES the AUTHORITY to excommunicate and discipline those who refuse to listen to the church. You don't see 'Joe Christian' having or displaying this authority in the early Church, but you do see St. Paul doing so (Cf.1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20).

 

BUT EVEN YOU, ROGER, EVENTUALLY CONCEDE THE NECESSITY OF SOME PEOPLE HAVING AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVELY. EVEN YOU RECOGNIZE THE INHERENT AND INESCAPLE PROBLEM WITH NOT APPEALING TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITHIN YOUR CHURCH.

 

"So we know that church doctrine cannot be changed without reference to higher church authorities. We know that these authorities must decide on doctrine based on the teachings of the Bible. We also know that if you teach something not sanctioned by the church you yourself will be sanctioned. These are 'givens'." (p.48)

 

"We too have had false prophets, and we have been able to deal with them because we openly check every teaching of the JW organization to see if it is in agreement with scriptural teachings. What would happen if there was strong disagreement between the brethren on an issue?  The matter would probably be discussed first amongst the elders, then if necessary moved up the chain to the Governing body." (p.50)

 

"You settle disputes by references to the Scriptures. Sometimes, but not often, we need help from those in higher authority to interpret the Scriptures." (p.59)

 

"Someone has to have authority." (p.60)

 

EXACTLY, ROGER. You have finally conceded the point after all this time! Congratulations!  This is exactly what happens in the Roman Catholic Church - when there is a pressing moral or doctrinal issue, it is resolved by 'higher church authorities' who we call 'Bishops'. Like the 'controversy' over the Trinity where heretics were twisting Scripture to suit their views. SO THE QUESTION HAS NOW CHANGED. IT IS NO LONGER REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE 'GOVERNING BODY', BUT RATHER WHICH 'GOVERNING BODY' DO WE LISTEN TO? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

 

Once you admit this, however, you are on the road to Rome!  I could go through all of the problems you will encounter in trying to establish the 'governing body' of the Jehovah Witnesses as the legitimate body, but I will instead content myself with one: Where was this governing body before 1880 A.D.? 

 

Impeccability

 

On page 3, you note, "From these and many other scriptures we know that we can identify the true religion by the fact that i) they will have love among themselves, ii) they will stay away from every kind of evil, iii) they don't forsake the gathering of one another." Again, Roger what is your point?  That displaying these qualities gives you the right to say you have the 'true religion'. Are you suggesting that only Witnesses display these qualities while Catholics or Protestants or people of other religions do not?  How can this be your claim to hold the 'true religion' when it is certainly not EXCLUSIVE to Witnesses? 

 

Roger, you place a high degree of weight on linking someone's impeccability with the authority to teach. Yet, when you do place such weight on this relationship, the inevitable conclusion is that NO ONE should have authority because no one (except Jesus and His Mother) is IMPECCABLE (Cf. Romans 3:20). Since you agree that some people must have authority, then your whole argument from impeccability simply does not hold. And furthermore, you have completely missed the boat on this topic. In fact, you have missed the whole ocean. Why?  Do you not understand what Our Lord was trying to teach us when He submitted to the authority and in complete obedience to Mary and Joseph (Cf. Luke 2:51)?  Did Jesus say, 'I am perfect, therefore, I do not recognize your authority over me?' No, He did not. He obeyed His Father's will, and subjected Himself to a finite, imperfect creature - St. Joseph. You see, Roger, no where is impeccability a requirement for authority. It is no more true in the Bible than it is in everyday life.

 

Sometimes you seem to understand the concept of infallibility and sometimes you do not. On page 15, you correctly state the definition of infallibility as pertaining to the public profession on faith and morals only, yet later you say, "only the Roman Catholic Church places their faith in one man, an imperfect human being, fraught with all his Adamic sins, as being 'fallible' and therefore perfect." (p.53) Infallibility has nothing to do with the Pope being perfect. Why do you keep contradicting yourself? 

 

I have already given you a number of New Testament biblical passages which refute the idea that you have to be impeccable to have the authority to teach. Please read them again. How about one from the Old Testament?  Remember Saul and how he tried to kill David? "Then Abishai said to David, 'Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.' But David said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's anointed and be without guilt?…The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord's anointed…" (1 Samuel 26:8-11). Saul was not worthy to be King, but even David didn't touch his authority to lead because he was God's anointed.

 

By the way, Roger, what was that I read about your founder, Charles Russell, and wife abuse?  You seem to triumph in scouring the newspapers and other publications for failure of individual Romans Catholics. You then use this to prove that Catholicism cannot be the 'True Religion'. As I have already shown, this tactic simply does not hold. But, now that you have brought up the issue, let me tell you a little story. I have not known many Jehovah Witnesses personally. In fact, I did not even know that my former soccer coach and his wife were JWs until he asked for my advice about his marital problems. Turns out, his good little JW wife was cheating on him!!!  If I was a JW and this was a Catholic couple, I would no doubt want to tell my congregation that because these Catholics failed to live up to the teaching of their religion, there must be something wrong with Catholicism. But as it is, I am not so crude, and instead will simply say that these people failed to live up to the JW religion, which I know condemns this behaviour. My question to you Roger is this: why can't you be a man and afford the Catholic faith the same courtesy when individual Catholics fall? 

 

The Bad Popes

 

Pope Urban VIII - You claim that the Pope excommunicated Galileo. So what?  How does this impact the Church's doctrine on the infallibility of the Pope on FAITH AND MORALS?  The Pope, like anyone, can make a mistake in the area of science when it does not affect divine revelation.

 

On page 7, you make a rather weak attempt to disprove Papal infallibility. In fact many of the failures of these Popes have nothing to do with infallibility. Again, this only goes to show your ignorance or refusal to accept the definition as understood by the Church. For instance, the fact there is a gap of one year after Sixtus II's death (Aug. 6, 258 A.D. to July 22, 259 A.D.) proves nothing. So there was no Pope for this period of time. So what! Again, Roger, where is the error in TEACHING?  (p. 13). In your 'thumbnail sketches of some Roman Catholic Popes '(p.11-12), you are attacking these Popes' moral character. Fine. I concede that not all the Popes were the highest in moral standing. But again, where is the ERROR in ANY of their teachings?  In fact, this actually supports the Catholic position rather than it does yours. What is the likelihood that rogue Popes would NOT change doctrine or teach error if they were not protected by divine intervention?  Wouldn't it be easier, for instance, for one of the more opulent Popes of the Renaissance to teach against suffering or poverty. Did they?  No, they did no such thing. Do you think that this is a coincidence? It is NO coincidence. It is the Holy Spirit preserving the truth through SINFUL and DECADENT men of the time. GOD IS GREATER THAN MAN ROGER!  HE WON'T LET A FEW BAD POPES CONTORT THE TRUTH FOR THE REST OF US.

 

So as to not give the impression that I am ignoring your charges, I will help you out by picking two of the Popes you listed as having 'erred'. I do so because these charges do relate to the question of infallibility while the others do not. 1) Pope Liberius (358 A.D.) - You claim that he approved of Arianism. He did not. Liberius signed a very ambiguous document, which could be interpreted in either an orthodox or heretical view. Why was this not an error?  First of all, it was ambiguous. Secondly, he was FORCED into signing it by Emperor Justinian, and therefore was not a free agent at the time. Finally, he signed it only as a private theologian - not as a binding declaration to be held by held by all Christians. The requirement for an infallible teaching were simply not met. 2) Pope Honorius (625) - You claim that he adhered to Monothelitism. In fact, the Pope pronounced no decision at all on the matter. True, he did not pronounce against it because he wanted to preserve peace in the Church. This does not, however, translate into teaching error since to prove the case against infallibility, you must prove that the Pope ACTIVELY taught something - the argument from silence doesn't even bear on the claim.

 

Unfortunately, I have still to do a little more research on the 'anti-popes' which you discussed (p.7). I will get back to you on them when I get some spare time.

 

According to your observations of the Great Western Schism, "historians find it impossible to adjudicate between the claims for validity of these… elections." (p.14). The historians that you cite are no doubt educated and well-informed Witnesses, probably like those who gave you Bishop Strossmayer's speech, or told you that Jesus or the Apostle's never quoted from Oral Jewish Tradition, or better yet those 'scholars' which attest to the accuracy of the NWT!!!  For the record Roger, this is the historically accurate account:

 

Roman Line (Legitimate) Avignon Line (anti-Popes) Pisa Line (anti-Popes) Urban VI (1378-1389) Clement VII (1378-1394) Boniface IX (1389-1404) Benedict XIII (1394-1423) Innocent VII (1404-1406) Gregory XII (1404-1415) Alexander V (1409-1410) John XXIII (1410)

 

Again, this only shows once again that the Church of God survives man's division. St. Peter's successors continue untouched.

 

The Early Church

 

You claim that "neither the early Christian congregation nor the early church fathers held that Peter was the rock on which the Church was built." (p. 9). What a bunch of baloney!!!  I guess you didn't read the material I sent to you proving the exact opposite. What are you going to do with those DIRECT FIRST HAND references, Roger?  You cite a number of Church Fathers who had a different interpretation of Matthew 16:18. What you fail to note is that one of them also said: "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" (Augustine of Hippo, Sermones 131,10). Cyprian of Carthage (256) said, 'Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?' (Epistulae 59(55)

 

Interpretation of Scripture

 

The Assumption of Mary is not in direct contradiction to the inspired Scriptures. To say it is a contradiction, you must prove that SHE WAS NOT ASSUMED into heaven from SCRIPTURE. The argument from silence, which you are using, does not prove a contradiction. The Bible does give examples of others being assumed (or resurrected) both in the Old Testament (Cf. 2 Kings 2:11) and New Testament (Cf. Matthew 27:52). Your argument assumes ALL divine revelation was EXPLICITLY written in Scripture. The Church considers divine revelation to be Apostolic teaching whether ORAL or WRITTEN (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). You cite Romans 5:12 to prove your point: "…so death passed to all men, in whom all have sinned." Tell me Roger, does this include Jesus, the mentally disabled, or babies?  Are these not exceptions?  It is essentially the same argument that Fundamentalists use to support the idea that no one is good or righteous in Romans 3:10. Fundamentalists use St. Paul's Scriptural citings to put forward the following argument: Since 'no one is just' and 'not one does good' (Cf. Romans 3:11-12), and only those who observe the Law and do good are just (Cf. Romans 2:10,13), then the Law is not a possibility for justification. Therefore, only faith understood in the Protestant sense is the grounds for our justification (Cf. Romans 3:28).

 

This belief was first by espoused by Luther. "Therefore, familiarize yourself with the idea that it is one thing to do what the law enjoins and quite another to fulfill the law. All that a man does or ever can do of his own free will and strength is to perform the works required by the law. Nevertheless, all such works are vain and useless as long as we dislike the law and feel it a constraint. That is Paul's meaning in Chapter 3 when he says, 'Through the works of the law shall no man be justified before God.' (Romans 3:20) It is obvious - is it not?  - that the sophisticators wrangling in the schools are misleading when they teach us to prepare ourselves for grace by our works. How can anyone use works to prepare himself to be good when he never does a good work without a certain reluctance or unwillingness in his heart?  How is it possible for God to take pleasure in works that spring from reluctant and hostile hearts? To fulfill the law, we must meet its requirements gladly and lovingly; live virtuous and upright lives without constraint of the law, and as if neither the law nor its penalties existed. But this joy, this unconstrained love, is put into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Chapter 5. But the Holy Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul said in his opening paragraph. Similarly, faith itself comes only through the word of God, the gospel. This gospel proclaims Christ as the Son of God; that He was man; that He died and rose again for our sakes, as Paul says in Chapters 3,4 and 10. We reach the conclusion that faith alone justifies us and fulfils the law; and this because faith is the spirit gained by the merits of Christ. The spirit, in turn, gives us the happiness and freedom at which the law aims, and this shows that works really proceed from faith."

 

The words 'no' or 'none' which St. Paul uses can have two meanings in grammatical usage: a comprehensive or universal meaning. The universal usage would suggest a complete coverage of the object; whereas, a comprehensive meaning would suggest a wide range of coverage but not necessarily a complete one. For instance, one friend says to another, 'Why didn't you come to the high school dance - everyone was there!?!' Would the friend who did not attend automatically assume that 100% (except himself) of the student population attended the dance, or rather that the great majority of the student body attended the dance?  At the very least, the comprehensive approach is a possibility. This possibility turns into probability and then into certainty when one considers the compelling evidence for this approach

 

First, the comprehensive meaning of the words 'no' and 'none' in Romans 3:10-18 is drawn out implicitly when one realizes that St. Paul is placing the Jew and the Gentile under the power of sin in the preceding verse. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of 'none doing good', he does not mean that no single person can do good, but rather neither Israel nor the Gentile nations as a whole are righteous.

 

Second, the Protestant view of 'no one is just' or 'no one does good' does not apply to every individual as the passages cited above clearly show. For instance, Psalm 14:4-7 says, "Will all these evildoers never learn, they who eat up my people just as they eat bread?  They have not called upon the Lord; then they shall be in great fear, for God is with the just generation." And Psalm 5:11-13 says, "Punish them O God; let them fall by their own devices; For their many sins, cast them out because they have rebelled against you. But let all who take refuge in you be glad and exult forever. Protect them, that you may be the joy of those who love you name. For you, O lord, bless the just man; you surround him with the shield of your good will." The Psalmist is not saying that all people are evil, but rather showing the timeless battle between good and evil, between the just and the enemies of God. The overwhelming sense of the Psalms which St. Paul quotes shows the contrast between the majority in Israel who are wicked and the minority (Cf. Isaiah 10:22-23) who are just. From these passages, it is evident that the Psalmist is defining the wicked with evil deeds and the just with good ones (Cf. Psalm 37:21).

 

Third, as noted, the whole argument of the Reformers revolves around St. Paul's reference to the Psalms: no one is righteous (Cf. Romans 3:10) and none does good (Cf. Romans 3:12). This inevitably begs the question: what does being 'just' or 'righteous' mean?  To the Reformers, being 'just' or 'righteous' meant one was perfect and without sin. Thus, it would follow naturally that since no one was sinless, no one could be just. Because they incorrectly understood the phrase 'works of the Law' to apply to 'works of faith' and not 'ceremonial works', the Reformers naturally understood St. Paul's discourse in the third chapter of Romans to declare the believer 'just' by a fiduciary faith alone, apart from and not dependant on works of faith. Yet, were the Reformers' view of being 'just' or 'righteous' consistent with Scripture?  All Christians concede that everyone has sinned (except Jesus, and for Catholics - Mary as well), and therefore, according to Fundamentalism, no one is just. But if that were the case, then why does Holy Scripture speak not only of the existence of the 'just' and 'righteous' man, but also of righteousness in regards to works:

 

"But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of you Father who is in heaven, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:44-45). "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous." (Matthew 13:49) [Cf. Matthew 25:46]. "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink?" (Matthew 25:37). "But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous" (Matthew 14:13-14). "And hearing this, Jesus said to them, 'It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners'" (Mark 2:17) [Cf. Luke 5:32, Matthew 9:13]. "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). "And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man…(Luke 23:50). "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, 'Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!'" (John 1:47). "By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks." (Hebrews 11:4). "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." (Hebrews 12:22-23).

 

Holy Writ is quite clear that it is through good conduct that Yahweh is to be found (Cf. Isaiah 51:1, Zephaniah 2:3). The Prophet Malachi leaves no room for debate on this question: "So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him" (Malachi 3:18). Therefore, the Fundamentalist view of righteousness; namely, that no one is righteous, contradicts Holy Scripture since, as the above passages conclusively show, there were 'righteous men.' In addition, many of these passages characterize and define a 'righteous man,' not only by a confessional faith or even a fiduciary trust in God, but rather by his actions also. As Hebrews 12:22 cited above strongly suggests, righteous men are not perfect already, but rather are "made perfect."

 

How rightly did St. Peter prophesize about St. Paul's writings, which "the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Any fool can quote Scripture. Satan himself did it masterfully against Christ Himself. The key is to listen to those who have been empowered by the Holy Spirit to infallibly communicate God's word.

 

NO WHERE IN THE Bible DOES IT TEACH THAT THE Bible ALONE IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF DIVINE REVELATION. THIS ABSURD DOCTRINE WAS THE RALLYING CRY OF THE REFORMATION AS A THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITION. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. In addition to the references on oral tradition, there are other passages which refute 'sola scriptura': "But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly." (Hebrews 13:22). "Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink, but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full" (2 John 1:12). "I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face." (3 John 1:13)

 

The annoying thing is that you keep insisting that the Church teaches contrary to Scripture. "John, I have already quoted sufficient Scriptures to show you that the disciples do have the authority to teach other disciples. They do not have the authority to teach anything that contradicts Bible teachings. That is where we differ." (p.60). Yes that is where we differ, Roger. The Catholic Church GAVE YOU THE Bible AND HAS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. OR ARE YOU NOW GOING TO DENY HISTORICAL FACT?  You have demonstrated that you and your 'cabal' know little of the true and authentic meaning of Holy Writ, and even much less of early Church history. Try reading what the early Christians believed in and you will quickly learn that they are very Catholic in doctrine. Or, are you so arrogant as to claim that you know more than they as to what a Christian should believe? 

 

You then try to pit Tradition against Scripture, claiming there is a contradiction between the Church's teaching on the resurrection of the body and Holy Writ. You cite 1 Corinthians 15:44: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Now, you ASSUME that St. Paul is speaking about two different subjects: the natural body and the spirit. While this is certainly a possible interpretation for the verse, it is by no means the only one. St. Paul could also mean that the first body is the natural one that we die in while the second body remains a physical one but not a natural one. There is a transformation of the physical body from its natural state into a spiritual one. Why is this interpretation the correct one?  The answer is rather simple, Roger. If you understand to whom St. Paul is speaking and what their objections to this doctrine are, then you can well appreciate the long standing Christian understanding of the Resurrection of the Body. Beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:35, the Apostle is responding to the Corinthians who are questioning the manner of the resurrection and the qualities of the risen body. These question arise from their denial of the resurrection (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12) and reflect the presumption that no kind of body other than the one we now possess would be possible. St. Paul, however, refutes this thinking. This is why in 1 Corinthians 15:39, he says, "all flesh is not the same flesh." St. Paul continues by teaching, "It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body" (1 Corinthians 15:42). Do you see, Roger?  St. Paul always refers to it as a 'body', which indicates that he does not mean it to be a spirit only. The verse that you cite (v. 44) does not say, 'raised a spirit', but rather raised a 'spiritual body.' 'Spirit' is an ADJECTIVE in this verse not a NOUN. Furthermore, there are many biblical passages that support the Church's teaching on the resurrection of the body: "And the tombs were opened; and many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many" (Matthew 27:52-53). This is confirmed by St. Paul in Romans 8:11. And as for your citation of Luke 4:39: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Is it not apparent that Jesus' resurrection was in the body just like ours will be?  Honestly Roger, this passage actually FINISHES the question in the Catholic favour doesn't it? 

 

"The difference is this. The Governing body would have to render its decision based on scriptural teachings and principles, whereas the Pope is answerable only to himself (and eventually God)." (p.50) Ah yes, I forgot, Roger. The Catholic Church never consults the Bible when makings its doctrinal and moral teachings. Only the Jehovah Witnesses do that - no one else. Thanks for reminding me.

 

"We don't want anything to do with trying to come to a consensus with other churches on how the Bible should or should not be interpreted. We have our own interpretation, and it is soundly based on the Scriptures." (p.62). So what are you saying - that the Jehovah Witnesses have some kind of special power from God on interpreting the Bible correctly, unlike other churches? Gee, Roger, this idea sounds very Catholic to me. Careful, next thing you know, you will be claiming infallibility for the JW Committee!!! 

 

"Where I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church is that they place all of their authority in a fallible Pope, instead of on Jesus Christ and Jehovah God, through his word, the Bible." (p.60) Roman Catholics place all of their TRUST in the LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST who promised the APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TRUTH. WE LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKS THROUGH THEM AND THEREFORE THE AUTHORITY BELONGS TO THEM AND TO THEM ALONE. Jehovah Witnesses place their trust in a man-made religion, invented by a follower of Pelagius, whose teachings CONTRADICT THE Bible many times over. They place their authority in men who do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore do not have the truth. They delude themselves, and live a fantasy and a lie.

 

"We know that church doctrine cannot be changed without reference to higher church authorities" (p. 48). Let me get this straight. You say that the JWs regard the Bible as infallible, and you allegedly claim that you are faithful to the Bible in your teaching. Now, if the Bible is infallible and you only teach what the Bible teaches, then how can you CHANGE a doctrine (which Jehovah Witnesses have done)?  After all, the Bible is infallible so how can a doctrine in it be changed?  You will no doubt object to this, maintaining that while the Bible is infallible, humans are not. My question to you then is this: if all humans are fallible in their teaching on faith and morals, then how can you be SURE of any of your beliefs?  The inevitable answer that you must give is that you cannot be. You cannot be sure that you are right at all. And if that is the case, then what good is an infallible Bible when no one can say, definitively, what the infallible books say?  In essence therefore, the inevitable conclusion to your belief in an infallible Bible but fallible teachers is that God is pulling our leg: He has not provided the means of knowing the truth definitively since no one can say what the truth is. Is that what you believe?  That's pretty sad, not to mention anarchical and absurd. Under that scenario, God would be either be a contradiction or a sadist, neither of which is possible.

 

Heed the warning of the Prince of the Apostles: "But know first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

 

And while the Catholic Church has NEVER contradicted Herself in Her doctrines, the same cannot be said about the WTS which disqualifies it as being the 'True Religion'. Check out these doozies which the Watchtower Society once taught:

 

1.Against vaccinations?  - Golden Age, Feb 4, 1931, pg. 293 Golden Age, Jan 5, 1929, pg. 502 2.Against organ transplants?  - Watchtower, 11/15/67, pg. 702 3.That it was okay to celebrate Christmas and birthdays?  4.That Christ is the almighty of Rev 1:8?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg. 15 5.That Christ established a "Church"?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 17 6.That Christ returned invisibly in 1874?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg. 54, 60, 68 7.That the Holy Spirit has a personality?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 57 8.That the pyramid of Gizah was God's witness and was used to predict the year of Armageddon?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg. 60 9.That Armageddon would definitely occur in the spring of 1918?  - The Finished Mystery 1917, pg 62 10.That Christ was crucified?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg. 68 11.That Leviathan of the Bible refers to the steam locomotive?  - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 85 12.That Michael is the Pope of Rome and his angels are the Catholic bishops?  - TheFinished Mystery, 1917, pg 188

 

According to "current" WTS teachings, Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and in 1918 he chose the WTS as His earthly organization because they were the only organization teaching "the truth". If this was so, then Jesus would have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery published in 1917. Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which taught so many things that were not correct and are no longer taught as "the truth"? 

 

NWT

 

On page 34, you assert that the "NWT is probably the closest translation to the original scriptural writings that you are ever going to see, other than a revised NWT." Roger, how can you say that when you don't even know the quality of future translations when new archaeological findings may indicate a clearer understanding of certain biblical phrases. For instance, did you know that the Greek word 'ergonamo' is translated 'works of the law' in some Bibles while it is translated 'observance of the law' in others. New archaeological findings of a community of Essenes favour the use of the first phrase. But why should I be surprised at your response?  You will not concede that other translations might be better than the NWT, except of course for a Revised NWT where the ANONYMITY of these 'scholars' will be well guarded.

 

On page 30, in response to my observation of the Anonymity of the Committee, this is what your Committee says, "The true scholarship behind the NWT will make itself known, not by the disclosures of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation of the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men. We are not troubled, therefore, by your thrust: 'Albeit the identity of the translators is being withheld at their own request they are not likely to make much impression on either Catholic or Protestant scholars. It is no wonder that the translators wish to remain unknown.'" What a lame response!  It is rather convenient that your translators are not willing to STANDUP and BE IDENTIFIED so their scholarly credentials may be carefully examined, or rather, EXPOSED for the possible FRAUDS they may be. What other possible reason could there be?  Stand up and be counted, Roger!  Come into the LIGHT and leave these people in their darkness. People of TRUTH are not afraid to be identified.

 

Unlike the NWT, the Douay Rheims Bible, according to its preface, is "a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite. St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly; he also knew Hebrew and Aramaic nearly as well. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a much better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the second and third centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today…As Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943 encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spritu, this means the Vulgate is 'free from any error whatsoever in faith and morals.' And the Douay-Rheims Bible is a faithful word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. In their translation, the Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate exactly. Contrary to the procedure of the modern Bible translators, when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure, and 'let the chips fall as they may.' The modern Bible translators, on the other hand, will often look at an obscure passage, decide on what they think it means, then translate in words that bring out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather, it is their interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says. Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out! 

 

A Little Investigation into the NWT

 

On pages 45-46, you take me up on my claim that the NWT is rejected by anyone other than Witnesses. You cite five scholars who approve of the NWT (three of which would be very difficult to trace by any inquisitive reader). You then tell me to 'eat my words'. Well, let me tell you what I did, Roger. I was not going to accept your scholars at face value so I did a little 'surfing' and tracked down the last source that you cited, Professor Jason BeDuhn at the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Indiana (who is now at the University of Indianapolis). I began a little dialogue with him, and it is still on going. Should you want a copy of the dialogue, I will be happy to provide it to you. You can judge his answers for yourself, but note this: he agrees that there are 'inconsistencies' and 'simple mistakes'. He does not see any problem in reconciling these 'simple mistakes' with his claim of the NWT being 'the best Interlinear New Testament available' which I find UNBELIEVABLE AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE. I don't think most people would be so cavalier in dismissing these GLARING AND BLATANT errors. Of course, at this point, I would be very surprised if you admitted the truth and acknowledged the SEVERE and INEXCUSABLE 'simple mistakes' which have ENORMOUS implications on the meaning of the Gospel.

 

Financial

 

"Has the Roman Catholic Church used these vast sums of money to help any really significant number of the poor, of the dying, etc. Sure, they have their "Humanitarian Aid" missions, but these efforts probably don't even come close to the annual interest earned on the church's investments. Look at the way the Pope lives" (p.16). How can I take you seriously, Roger? Now I know that you are showing your INSINCERITY by refusing to admit what even the Church's harshest critics concede. Have you ever heard of the 'Sisters of Charity' (Mother Teresa's order) or the Society St. Vincent de Paul or the Passionist Missionaries or the Knights of Columbus or the thousands of other "Humanitarian Aid" missions that the Church supports?  Where do you think the money comes from to finance these missions?  Alleviating suffering takes lots of money because there is much suffering to alleviate. And, while we are on the topic, I have never heard or seen Witnesses doing these things. The only thing that I have ever seen a Witness doing is trying to convince other people that there religion is wrong!!! Yes, Roger, by their fruits, you will know them, and the Catholic Church's alleviation of suffering in this world throughout its history DWARFS not only the suffering that some of its sons and daughters have caused, but also embarrasses all other social or religious organizations COMBINED.

 

Remember Roger, the Vatican runs a WORLD-WIDE Church with BILLIONS of dollars in COMMITTMENTS. It uses the funds to finance its MISSIONS, HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, ETC. all around the world. Or are you so obtuse to deny this?  Do you expect such an organization to operate on a budget of a few dollars?  The fact that the Church earns millions on investments should be compared to the MILLIONS which it SPENDS in helping people around the world. In fact, if you would only take the time to examine the net earnings of the Church, you will quickly note that it spends as much as it earns. But while we are on this topic, are you prepared to say that the Jehovah Witness Committee don't have a substantial financial portfolio themselves?  Some of the pictures of the various headquarters in the book you gave me suggest quite the opposite. After all, all those collections Witnesses once took up going door-to-door have to go somewhere, don't they?  C'mon Roger, take a good look in the mirror, and don't be so petty in your argumentation!!! 

 

And what about that expensive Art, those glorious Museums, and those great libraries?  Has it ever crossed your mind that these material possessions are priceless to the Church NOT because SECULAR society puts a dollar value on them, but because they have a religious significance (Cf. Matthew 7:6)?  Do you think the Church cares that you put a dollar value on its possessions?  The Church couldn't give two figs about how much these things are worth in monetary terms because she sees them as her religious heritage that she wishes to share with all people of ALL faiths. Those libraries and museums are open to the public for PUBLIC consumption. The art owned by the Church is not valuable because an appraiser says that it is worth millions of dollars, but rather because it depicts a truth of Christianity such as the Trinity or the Judgement. Catholics believe that we HONOUR and SHOW GOD'S GLORY in our every day lives, and if that includes material productions wrought by human hands, so be it. You see, Roger, your accusation is really no better than what Judas said along time ago, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor people?" (John 11:5). And our Lord rebuked him for it because glory is given to God not only in feeding the poor which the Church does far more than any other, but also glorifying Him in art, music, literature and a multitude of other ways.

 

God's Personal Name

 

The God of Israel is called by His personal name more frequently than by all other titles combined; the name does not only identify the person, it reveals His character. This name is pronounced YAHWEH by AUTHENTIC scholars. Unfortunately, the true pronunciation was lost during a period of Jewish history when a superstitious fear suppressed its pronunciation. In its place, the Jews enunciated "ADONAI". The combination of WRITING the consonants of YAHWEH or Y-H-W-H and the vowels of ADONAI (A-O-I) produced the concoction what Witnesses ascribe to God's Name, JEHOVAH.

 

Trinity

 

The fact that the words 'Trinity', 'Purgatory', or 'Limbo' do not appear in the Bible is COMPLETELY IRRELVANT to the underlying TRUTH of the doctrine's existence. The Trinity is simply a name given to the relationship that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This particular belief has been held by ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS from the very BEGINNINGS of the Church. If you don't like the label 'Trinity', then call it something else.

 

The UN

 

"The Catholic Church has consistently backed one form of human government or another as the solution to mankind's problems. So it is not surprising that its leaders have endorsed the U.N." (p. 21) The Church has never proposed to find the solution to mankind's problems in GOVERNMENT. She has NEVER proposed such a RIDICULOUS and ABSURD proposition. The Church co-operates with various governments, including the U.N., in order to promote its mandate given to by Our Lord, Jesus Christ to alleviate suffering and to evangelize. Unlike Witnesses, we co-operate where we can with other organizations in order to achieve common goals. The fact that you even cite this Witness accusation only goes to show how ignorant you and they are in Church diplomacy. And as far as the Church 'endorsing the U.N.', what planet have you been on for the past 30 years?  The Catholic Church has been the greatest NEMESIS of the U.N. these past three decades by opposing its oppressive attack on the family, namely, its demonic push to include abortion as a human right. Not only, then, are your buddies at the 'Watchtower' sleeping, I think they've overdosed on sleeping pills!!! 

 

War

 

As far as the teaching of the Church on war, Catholics believe that a war can be fought on 'just grounds'. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." (pt. 2309)

 

For a more detailed discussion on this subject read paragraphs 2302-2317 of the Catechism.

 

You claim that Catholics who continue in their murderous activities are "Catholics in good standing," and you ask why they have not been excommunicated. (p.20). Catholics who murder are not 'in good standing'. Catholics who murder are in a state of mortal sin, and should they die in this state, it means that they will go to hell. Once again, Roger, you show your ignorance on what the Church teaches, and what is more, you do not have a proper view of the purpose of the use of Excommunication which is not to act as a policing mechanism for every sin. People who murder are well aware that the Catholic Church has always condemned this sin. They simply choose to disregard it to their own detriment. (Get a hold of a Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to know when Excommunication is used.)

 

And let us turn now to some historical facts, Roger. Below you will find an article by ex-Fundamentalist now Catholic, James Akin on the true record of the Catholic Church and Pope Piux XII. Take note of the words of Albert Einstein and the conversion of the Jewish rabbi of Rome.

 

HOW PIUS XII PROTECTED JEWISH LIVES

 

BY JAMES AKIN

 

The twentieth century has been marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims. During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.

 

Anti-Catholic author Dave Hunt writes, "The Vatican had no excuse for its Nazi partnership or for its continued commendation of Hitler on the one hand and its thunderous silence regarding the Jewish question on the other hand. . . . [The popes] continued in the alliance with Hitler until the end of the war, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Nazi government to the Vatican." [1] Jack Chick, infamous for his anti-Catholic comic books, tells us in Smokescreens, "When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi war machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side when he saw the handwriting on the wall. . . . Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremberg. His war crimes were worthy of death." [2] One is tempted simply to dismiss these accusations, so wildly out of touch with reality, as the deluded ravings of persons with no sense of historical truth. This would underestimate the power of such erroneous charges to influence people: Many take these writers at their word.

 

Stepping out of the nightmare fantasyland of Hunt and Chick and back into sunlight of the real world, we discover that, not only was Pius XII no friend of the Nazis, but that his opposition to them began years before the War, before he was elected to the papacy, when he was still Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the Vatican Secretary of State. On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazism "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult." [3] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.

 

The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German "ideals"_even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor. Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: `The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.' " [4]

 

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler's doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it `neo-Paganism.' " [5]

 

A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich's Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt: "Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press." [6] Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI's defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.

 

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor's policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope's position was clearly unshakable." [7]

 

The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews. Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction_a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth. The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: "Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word `silence' has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for `indifference,' `apathy,' `inaction,' and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism." [8]

 

Hochhuth's fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope_and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.

 

"The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to `an unknown destination.' " [9] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known. "In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein." [10]

 

While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras. The desire to keep a low profile was expressed by the people Pius XII helped. A Jewish couple from Berlin who had been held in concentration camps but escaped to Spain with the help of Pius XII, stated: "None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives, and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time, and this is still our conviction today." [11]

 

While the U.S., Great Britain, and other countries often refused to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate during the war, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. What is more, the financial aid Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars_dollars even more valuable then than they are now. In late 1943, Mussolini, who had been at odds with the papacy all through his tenure, was removed from power by the Italians, but Hitler, fearing Italy would negotiate a separate peace with the Allies, invaded, took control, and set up Mussolini again as a puppet ruler. It was in this hour, when the Jews of Rome themselves were threatened_those whom the Pope had the most direct ability to help that Pius XII really showed his mettle.

 

Joseph Lichten records that on September 27, 1943, one of the Nazi commanders demanded of the Jewish community in Rome payment of one hundred pounds of gold within thirty-six hours or three hundred Jews would be taken prisoner. When the Jewish Community Council was only able to gather only seventy pounds of gold, they turned to the Vatican. "In his memoirs, the then Chief Rabbi Zolli of Rome writes that he was sent to the Vatican, where arrangements had already been made to receive him as an `engineer' called to survey a construction problem so that the Gestapo on watch at the Vatican would not bar his entry. He was met by the Vatican treasurer and secretary of state, who told him that the Holy Father himself had given orders for the deficit to be filled with gold vessels taken from the Treasury." [12]

 

Pius XII also took a public stance concerning the Jews of Italy: "The Pope spoke out strongly in their defense with the first mass arrests of Jews in 1943, and L'Osservatore Romano carried an article protesting the internment of Jews and the confiscation of their property. The Fascist press came to call the Vatican paper `a mouthpiece of the Jews.' " [13] Prior to the Nazi invasion, the Pope had been working hard to get Jews out of Italy by emigration; he now was forced to turn his attention to finding them hiding places. "The Pope sent out the order that religious buildings were to give refuge to Jews, even at the price of great personal sacrifice on the part of their occupants; he released monasteries and convents from the cloister rule forbidding entry into these religious houses to all but a few specified outsiders, so that they could be used as hiding places. Thousands of Jews_the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000_were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope's summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions; and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy." [14]

 

Rabbi Lapide records that "in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries_Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German_mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute." [15] Notice in particular that the Pope was not merely allowing Jews to be hidden in different church buildings around Rome. He was hiding them in the Vatican itself and in his own summer home, Castel Gandolfo. His success in protecting Italian Jews against the Nazis was remarkable. Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis [16]_far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.

 

The Pope's efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world." [17]

 

Other Jewish leaders chimed in also. Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance." [18] The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism." [19]

 

After the war, Zolli became a Catholic and, to honor the Pope for what he had done for the Jews and the role he had played in Zolli's conversion, took the name "Eugenio"_the Pope's given name_as his own baptismal name. Zolli stressed that his conversion was for theological reasons, which was certainly true, but the fact that the Pope had worked so hard on behalf of the Jews no doubt played a role in inspiring him to look at the truths of Christianity. Lapide writes: "When Zolli accepted baptism in 1945 and adopted Pius's Christian name of Eugene, most Roman Jews were convinced that his conversion was an act of gratitude for wartime succor to Jewish refugees and, repeated denials not withstanding, many are still of his opinion. Thus, Rabbi Barry Dov Schwartz wrote in the summer issue, 1964, of Conservative Judaism: `Many Jews were persuaded to convert after the war, as a sign of gratitude, to that institution which had saved their lives.' " [20]

 

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII's throwing the Church's weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, "The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000." [21] This is a total larger than all other. Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

 

This fact continued to be recognized when Pius XII died in 1958. Lapide's book records the eulogies of a number of Jewish leaders concerning the Pope, and far from agreeing with Jack Chick that he deserved death because of his "war crimes," Jewish leaders praised the man highly: [22] "We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel). "With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history" (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

 

"More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror" (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli's conversion). Finally, let us conclude with a quotation from Lapide's record that was not given at the death of Pius XII, but was given after the War by the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." [23]

 

Footnotes [1] Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1994), 284. [2] Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, California: Chick Publications, 1983), 45. [3] Robert Graham, S.J., ed., Pius XII and the Holocaust (New Rochelle, New York: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1988), 106. [4] Joseph Lichten, "A Question of Moral Judgment: Pius XII and the Jews," in Graham, 107. [5] Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn, 1967), 118. [6] Ibid., 121. [7] Lichten, 107. [8] Graham, 18. [9] Ibid., 19. [10] Lichten, 30. [11] Ibid., 99. [12] Ibid., 120. [13] Ibid., 125. [14] Ibid., 126. [15] Lapide, 133. [16] Lichten, 127. [17] Graham, 62. [18] Lichten, 130. [19] American Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945, 233. [20] Lapide, 133. [21] Ibid., 215. [22] Ibid., 227-228. [23] Ibid., 251.

 

Practising Catholics

 

Your next charge involves using a philosophical fallacy called the 'Ad Populum'. You appeal to the miserable number of practising Catholics in Europe (p.22). First of all, it is quite selective of you to cite ONLY the European numbers, but quite conveniently forgetting Asia and Africa where the Church is bursting at the seams. This is, however, beside the point. The point is that the TRUTH is NOT based on popular opinion or popular practice, but rather the WORD OF GOD, which is born, spoken, and preserved in the ONE CHURCH that Jesus established. If individual Catholics in the decadent West choose to abandon their glorious faith for the trinkets that Satan offers, that would be a result of their own stupidity and blindness.

 

Bishop Strossmayer

 

The speech that you frequently cite (p.4, 6, 9) to be allegedly given by Bishop Strossmayer is a well-known FORGERY, composed by a former Augustinian priest named Jose Augustin de Escudero, and if you had taken the time to do a little INDEPENDENT investigation you would quickly have learned this for yourself. Secondly, while it is true that the Bishop did oppose the promulgation of the dogma at the time, he did so for Ecumenical reasons. There is no evidence that he opposed it for the reasons that are spuriously given in that joke of a speech. You see, Roger, he was the Bishop of Diakovar in what was formerly Yugoslavia. For years he had been working for a reunification of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. He believed that such a reunification was a serious possibility, and formal definition by the Roman Church at the time may become an obstacle to that re-unification. Your JW friends appear to blindly accept what they are spoon fed from their committee, and knowingly or not, they are willing to push lies and forgeries in order to prove their desperate claims. By the way, August tells me you believe the speech was authentic, and was not a forgery. Let's see your proof. By the way, I have copy of the speech.

 

Jewish Oral Tradition

 

And as for your assertion that:

 

"Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted oral Jewish Tradition to support their teaching…" (p. 49) "Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted oral Jewish Tradition to support their teaching…" (p. 53) "All that the Apostles taught is contained in the Bible." (p.53) "Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted oral Jewish Tradition to support their teaching…" (p. 56) "Again, I agree with you, and remind you that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from oral Jewish tradition." (p.57)

 

It would not be a gross presumption, given the number of times you make the above assertion, to understand that you are absolutely sure that oral Jewish Tradition was never cited to support Jesus' or the Apostle's teaching. It is apparent why you make this claim because if it were proven to be true, then you would be in a very precarious position indeed in regards to your rejection of oral and Apostolic tradition. So then, Roger, let's take a look at a few:

 

"The Scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe…" (Matthew 23:2) Roger, tell me where the concept of the 'chair of Moses' is found in the Old Testament? 

 

"And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth…" (2 Timothy 3:8). Where are Jannes and Jambres mentioned in the Old Testament? 

 

"But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgement, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you'" (Titus 1:9). Where is this account written in the Old Testament? 

 

(Hint: You won't be able to find them in the Old Testament. They are from Jewish Oral Tradition.)

 

Concluding Comments

 

I have really enjoyed our little dialogue on Authority. I really got a lot out of it, as I hope you have. I give PRAISE and GLORY to MY LORD AND 'JEHOVAH' Jesus Christ for being able to proclaim the TRUE GOSPEL and the TRUE JESUS WHICH WAS PROCLAIMED BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS. Christ has used me to open the TRUTH to you because He loves you and wants to help you. Don't shut His Holy Spirit out, Roger. I will pray for you…

 

Your friend in Christ,

 

John Pacheco
John Pacheco
January 28, 1998