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. Pacheco's comments are in blue.
Letter #1
Hello Roger,
Nice 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
(read Matthew 16:18-19)
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
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
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 apo