Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
I need opinions
When I asked my Father of Confession certain activities to do during the summer, one of them was to provide an essay stating the many heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses and to show how we can respond to them. I have finished it, and I need opinions before I show it to him. It is quiete long, a little over four pages, so I ask of your patience and help.
As a general overview, Jehovah’s Witnesses were established by Charles Taze Russell. As a teenager, he left the Presbyterian Church (branch of the Protestant “Church“) of his parents and moved on to the Congregationalists. He soon however moved on once again to the Seventh-Day Adventists as he come upon a Bible Study through them. They soon fell into disagreement and he left them and went on a search to find the “true” interpretation of the Bible. Little did he know how wrong he was and how far away from the truth he had strayed.
In 1879 Russell started writing the Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence periodical. Then he started and lead the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. He later began his writing on his seven volume interpretation of the Scriptures. However, Russell’s personal life started to deteriorate. He lost a lawsuit he against a Baptist pastor, and was later successfully divorced by his wife due to improper conduct with other women. Russell died 1916, yet his heresies continued in the minds of his victims.
He was succeeded by Joseph Rutherford, a lawyer and judge. In 1931 the name of Russell’s followers changed from the “Russellites” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The name Jehovah is the name of God in the Old Testament, meaning “I AM“. When Nathan Knorr became president of the Society, he produced a new and heterodox version of the Holy Scriptures called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. A commonly known fault in this version is in John 1: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god,” I ask one question alone, how can you come along, after 1900 YEARS and claim that the Scriptures the saintly Fathers provided are incorrect? Especially the verse above, it contradicts everything else in all four Gospels, as I will explain below. Are we trying to imply that the Bible is a story the four Evangelists made up, and that is why they contradict each other? Far from it, rather they all correspond to each other. Yet the change made in John 1:1, this opposes what the rest of the Gospel says, that Christ was not a God, meaning a creation, but rather one of the persons of the Trinity, the ONLY God.
Witnesses know God as God the Father alone. They recognize Jesus Christ as God’s first creation with the Archangel Michael, a heresy that serves as two in one. Jesus Christ cannot be created, as the correct version of the Gospel according to St. John which Christians have perceived for centuries states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is clearly the Word of God, being born of him before all ages. Many times Christ says in the Scriptures, that Him and the Father are one. As Jesus Christ prayed on Gethsemane, he said, “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are,”; John 17:11. Also, when the Apostle Philip asked Jesus Christ to show them (the apostles), the Father, Christ responded by saying, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?”; John 14:9-10. Also in Luke 5:21, the Pharisees questioned the authority of Christ to forgive sins, saying, “ The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” There is no doubt that Christ forgave the sins of many on earth, which proves that he is one of the three persons of the Trinity. Also, John 5:18 says, “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.,“ The part “making himself equal with God” means one of two things, that either Christ truly was God, or that there is more than one God. Surely Christianity is monotheistic, believing in one God alone. And so this verse must mean that Christ is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. As the Holy Scriptures clearly prove, the Father and the Son are one. And to prove that Christ is not a creation, I provide the following: John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,”
Witnesses teach that Christ was burned on a stake, as they despise the cross, being a symbol of paganism. This clearly shows their ignorance, as despite the fact that the Jews crucified Jesus, they were under Roman (and in turn pagan) rule. Pontius Pilate, the governor who ordered the crucifixion was pagan. Aside from all this Matthew 27:32 clearly states,” As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene named Simon, and forced him to carry the cross,” There was only one cross, and this was it. John 20:25 says, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were ,and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” How can there be nail marks in the hands if he was burned on a stake? If Christ really was burned on a stake, then there were no nails, nor anything else lifting the Lamb of God. If there was nothing lifting him, then he wasn’t crucified to begin with!
Another heresy claims that at Christ’s resurrection, he transformed into gases and was recreated into a spirit. This couldn’t be any more wrong, as the Saint and Apostle Thomas felt the holes left by the nails and the side of Christ. He also ate with the disciples several times, ex.: John 21:11-14 and Luke 24:41-42. Spirits do not eat nor drink, nor can anybody touch them.
And here is a heresy that has been fought against since the early times: “Mary was not perpetually a virgin, but rather bore more children after Jesus.” This defies everything the Apostles have taught us through tradition. From the beginning of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which received its doctrine from St. Mark the Apostle himself, we have learned from eyewitnesses that Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ was the only child to St. Mary. Let us also look at it from the logical point of view. On the cross, Our God Jesus Christ said to St. John the Theologian and Beloved to take St. Mary as his mother, John. 19:26-27. If St. Mary already had other children, why would Jesus Christ need to comfort her by giving her the disciple he loved as her son? There would be no need, for children that she held in her womb would be there.
Witnesses hold the Bible to be the only source of truth, a belief they hold with Protestants. But what they fail to see is that Christ visited his disciples and apostles continuously for forty days after his resurrection, Acts 1:3 proves this. During this period of time, Christ taught them everything they needed to know about building the Church of God. If all that he said and did was to be written down, all the books of the world wouldn’t be enough to behold them, as said in John 21:25.
Witnesses hold another heresy yet, that the Holy Spirit is not in fact one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, but is actually a power of God. What they fail to see is that when Jesus Christ sent his disciples into the world to preach he said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”; Matthew 28:19. If the three were not equal and were not one God, then why would they baptize in their names? It would only make sense that people are baptized in the name of God, and Christ sent them to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”. Also, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, it repeatedly says that the apostles “were filled with the Holy Spirit”. When Ananias and Sapphira desired to lie to the Apostles and seek glory, St. Peter said to him, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land…. You have not lied to men but to God.”; Acts 5:3-4. First St. Peter says that he lied to the Holy Spirit, and then he says you have not lied to men but to God”. This clearly proves that the Holy Spirit is indeed one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity.
There are no sacraments within their belief. They believe that all people are ministers, and so there are no sacraments. If there is a no such thing as priests and clergymen, then what is St. Paul talking about when he says in1 Corinthians 4:1 , “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,” Are they all servants and stewards? Clearly not. And since there are stewards, there are mysteries; the sacraments. And these sacraments must exist, as I will explain below.
If there are no sacraments and no ministers, then why then did James the Apostle say, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the presbyters of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” - James 5:14-15. If we are all ministers, then who will the sick person call? And who will anoint him with the oil? This is the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, and it is from one of the twelve disciples of Christ himself, who, according to Acts 1:3, received this from the Lord. Now, lets use logic, does oil forgive sins? Can anyone other than God forgive sins? Surely not, rather Christ has given his apostles the authority to forgive sins through him, as stated in John 20:22 -23, “And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,“ However, can anyone at all forgive what he does not know? It is common sense. This is why the sacrament of confession exists, and why the priest has the authority, through God alone to forgive sins.
There is no doubt that to have forgiveness of sins and to be saved, you must be baptized. If there is no need for baptism then why does Jesus Christ tell his disciples to: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 If there is no need for baptism, why then did the eleven disciples baptize three thousand people on the day of Pentecost? When the disciples started speaking in tongues, many of the people called them drunk. For that reason St. Peter gave a sermon, and the three thousand believed. They asked what they shall do to receive salvation, and St. Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit,” Acts 2:38. Therefore, after repentance, baptism must take place for remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Another sacrament necessary for receiving Holy Spirit is the Holy Oil, or as most Copts know it, the Holy Myron. St. John says in his first Catholicon, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth,” 1 John 2:20. And again he says, in the same chapter, in verse twenty-seven, “ As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” Therefore this anointing is not just oil, but that with receiving it, one receives the Holy Spirit, as said in my first quote. It is with this anointing that we receive the Holy One, the Spirit which teaches all things and divides the word of truth with a two-edged sword. It is only after receiving this anointing that we receive the Holy Spirit, as clearly said in 1 John 2.
If there are no sacraments, then why did Christ take bread on the day of Covenant Thursday and say, “ This is my Body given for you, do this in remembrance of me, “ and again, “ This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, which is poured out for you,” Luke 22:19-20. In these two verses, Christ clearly shows us three things, that this bread is his true Body, and that the wine in the cup is truly His Blood. The third thing that is showed is that we should do this continually in remembrance of him. Again, St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” Therefore there is a sacrament of eating the Lord’s Holy Body and drinking His Holy Blood, the sacrament of communion. What proves to me and everyone else that this is a sacrament from Christ, like all the others, is that St. Paul says, “What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you,” He has received this sacrament from Christ himself, and has passed it on to us. Christ himself talks about being the bread of Life in John 6: 48-51, “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” Who now can argue that His Body is not given for us? Yet there is more proof. The importance of communion is expressed in later verses, John 6:53-56, “Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him,” As clearly observed, the Holy Body and Blood of Christ are necessary for life and abiding eternally with the compassionate God and King.
As you can clearly see, the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses has too many heresies that anybody who reads the Holy Bible with concentration can clearly see and observe. To convince these people, we must give them from what they hold to be the only source of truth, the Holy Bible. Every single heterodox belief can be opposed and objected using the Holy Scriptures. We cannot twist Bible verses into what we want them to mean, but rather what they bluntly say and cry out for us to understand. May God give us the wisdom to accept his hold word with understanding and open mind, that we may comprehend the true truth.
As a general overview, Jehovah’s Witnesses were established by Charles Taze Russell. As a teenager, he left the Presbyterian Church (branch of the Protestant “Church“) of his parents and moved on to the Congregationalists. He soon however moved on once again to the Seventh-Day Adventists as he come upon a Bible Study through them. They soon fell into disagreement and he left them and went on a search to find the “true” interpretation of the Bible. Little did he know how wrong he was and how far away from the truth he had strayed.
In 1879 Russell started writing the Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence periodical. Then he started and lead the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. He later began his writing on his seven volume interpretation of the Scriptures. However, Russell’s personal life started to deteriorate. He lost a lawsuit he against a Baptist pastor, and was later successfully divorced by his wife due to improper conduct with other women. Russell died 1916, yet his heresies continued in the minds of his victims.
He was succeeded by Joseph Rutherford, a lawyer and judge. In 1931 the name of Russell’s followers changed from the “Russellites” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The name Jehovah is the name of God in the Old Testament, meaning “I AM“. When Nathan Knorr became president of the Society, he produced a new and heterodox version of the Holy Scriptures called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. A commonly known fault in this version is in John 1: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god,” I ask one question alone, how can you come along, after 1900 YEARS and claim that the Scriptures the saintly Fathers provided are incorrect? Especially the verse above, it contradicts everything else in all four Gospels, as I will explain below. Are we trying to imply that the Bible is a story the four Evangelists made up, and that is why they contradict each other? Far from it, rather they all correspond to each other. Yet the change made in John 1:1, this opposes what the rest of the Gospel says, that Christ was not a God, meaning a creation, but rather one of the persons of the Trinity, the ONLY God.
Witnesses know God as God the Father alone. They recognize Jesus Christ as God’s first creation with the Archangel Michael, a heresy that serves as two in one. Jesus Christ cannot be created, as the correct version of the Gospel according to St. John which Christians have perceived for centuries states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is clearly the Word of God, being born of him before all ages. Many times Christ says in the Scriptures, that Him and the Father are one. As Jesus Christ prayed on Gethsemane, he said, “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are,”; John 17:11. Also, when the Apostle Philip asked Jesus Christ to show them (the apostles), the Father, Christ responded by saying, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?”; John 14:9-10. Also in Luke 5:21, the Pharisees questioned the authority of Christ to forgive sins, saying, “ The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” There is no doubt that Christ forgave the sins of many on earth, which proves that he is one of the three persons of the Trinity. Also, John 5:18 says, “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.,“ The part “making himself equal with God” means one of two things, that either Christ truly was God, or that there is more than one God. Surely Christianity is monotheistic, believing in one God alone. And so this verse must mean that Christ is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. As the Holy Scriptures clearly prove, the Father and the Son are one. And to prove that Christ is not a creation, I provide the following: John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,”
Witnesses teach that Christ was burned on a stake, as they despise the cross, being a symbol of paganism. This clearly shows their ignorance, as despite the fact that the Jews crucified Jesus, they were under Roman (and in turn pagan) rule. Pontius Pilate, the governor who ordered the crucifixion was pagan. Aside from all this Matthew 27:32 clearly states,” As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene named Simon, and forced him to carry the cross,” There was only one cross, and this was it. John 20:25 says, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were ,and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” How can there be nail marks in the hands if he was burned on a stake? If Christ really was burned on a stake, then there were no nails, nor anything else lifting the Lamb of God. If there was nothing lifting him, then he wasn’t crucified to begin with!
Another heresy claims that at Christ’s resurrection, he transformed into gases and was recreated into a spirit. This couldn’t be any more wrong, as the Saint and Apostle Thomas felt the holes left by the nails and the side of Christ. He also ate with the disciples several times, ex.: John 21:11-14 and Luke 24:41-42. Spirits do not eat nor drink, nor can anybody touch them.
And here is a heresy that has been fought against since the early times: “Mary was not perpetually a virgin, but rather bore more children after Jesus.” This defies everything the Apostles have taught us through tradition. From the beginning of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which received its doctrine from St. Mark the Apostle himself, we have learned from eyewitnesses that Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ was the only child to St. Mary. Let us also look at it from the logical point of view. On the cross, Our God Jesus Christ said to St. John the Theologian and Beloved to take St. Mary as his mother, John. 19:26-27. If St. Mary already had other children, why would Jesus Christ need to comfort her by giving her the disciple he loved as her son? There would be no need, for children that she held in her womb would be there.
Witnesses hold the Bible to be the only source of truth, a belief they hold with Protestants. But what they fail to see is that Christ visited his disciples and apostles continuously for forty days after his resurrection, Acts 1:3 proves this. During this period of time, Christ taught them everything they needed to know about building the Church of God. If all that he said and did was to be written down, all the books of the world wouldn’t be enough to behold them, as said in John 21:25.
Witnesses hold another heresy yet, that the Holy Spirit is not in fact one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, but is actually a power of God. What they fail to see is that when Jesus Christ sent his disciples into the world to preach he said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”; Matthew 28:19. If the three were not equal and were not one God, then why would they baptize in their names? It would only make sense that people are baptized in the name of God, and Christ sent them to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”. Also, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, it repeatedly says that the apostles “were filled with the Holy Spirit”. When Ananias and Sapphira desired to lie to the Apostles and seek glory, St. Peter said to him, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land…. You have not lied to men but to God.”; Acts 5:3-4. First St. Peter says that he lied to the Holy Spirit, and then he says you have not lied to men but to God”. This clearly proves that the Holy Spirit is indeed one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity.
There are no sacraments within their belief. They believe that all people are ministers, and so there are no sacraments. If there is a no such thing as priests and clergymen, then what is St. Paul talking about when he says in1 Corinthians 4:1 , “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,” Are they all servants and stewards? Clearly not. And since there are stewards, there are mysteries; the sacraments. And these sacraments must exist, as I will explain below.
If there are no sacraments and no ministers, then why then did James the Apostle say, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the presbyters of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” - James 5:14-15. If we are all ministers, then who will the sick person call? And who will anoint him with the oil? This is the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, and it is from one of the twelve disciples of Christ himself, who, according to Acts 1:3, received this from the Lord. Now, lets use logic, does oil forgive sins? Can anyone other than God forgive sins? Surely not, rather Christ has given his apostles the authority to forgive sins through him, as stated in John 20:22 -23, “And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,“ However, can anyone at all forgive what he does not know? It is common sense. This is why the sacrament of confession exists, and why the priest has the authority, through God alone to forgive sins.
There is no doubt that to have forgiveness of sins and to be saved, you must be baptized. If there is no need for baptism then why does Jesus Christ tell his disciples to: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 If there is no need for baptism, why then did the eleven disciples baptize three thousand people on the day of Pentecost? When the disciples started speaking in tongues, many of the people called them drunk. For that reason St. Peter gave a sermon, and the three thousand believed. They asked what they shall do to receive salvation, and St. Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit,” Acts 2:38. Therefore, after repentance, baptism must take place for remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Another sacrament necessary for receiving Holy Spirit is the Holy Oil, or as most Copts know it, the Holy Myron. St. John says in his first Catholicon, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth,” 1 John 2:20. And again he says, in the same chapter, in verse twenty-seven, “ As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” Therefore this anointing is not just oil, but that with receiving it, one receives the Holy Spirit, as said in my first quote. It is with this anointing that we receive the Holy One, the Spirit which teaches all things and divides the word of truth with a two-edged sword. It is only after receiving this anointing that we receive the Holy Spirit, as clearly said in 1 John 2.
If there are no sacraments, then why did Christ take bread on the day of Covenant Thursday and say, “ This is my Body given for you, do this in remembrance of me, “ and again, “ This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, which is poured out for you,” Luke 22:19-20. In these two verses, Christ clearly shows us three things, that this bread is his true Body, and that the wine in the cup is truly His Blood. The third thing that is showed is that we should do this continually in remembrance of him. Again, St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” Therefore there is a sacrament of eating the Lord’s Holy Body and drinking His Holy Blood, the sacrament of communion. What proves to me and everyone else that this is a sacrament from Christ, like all the others, is that St. Paul says, “What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you,” He has received this sacrament from Christ himself, and has passed it on to us. Christ himself talks about being the bread of Life in John 6: 48-51, “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” Who now can argue that His Body is not given for us? Yet there is more proof. The importance of communion is expressed in later verses, John 6:53-56, “Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him,” As clearly observed, the Holy Body and Blood of Christ are necessary for life and abiding eternally with the compassionate God and King.
As you can clearly see, the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses has too many heresies that anybody who reads the Holy Bible with concentration can clearly see and observe. To convince these people, we must give them from what they hold to be the only source of truth, the Holy Bible. Every single heterodox belief can be opposed and objected using the Holy Scriptures. We cannot twist Bible verses into what we want them to mean, but rather what they bluntly say and cry out for us to understand. May God give us the wisdom to accept his hold word with understanding and open mind, that we may comprehend the true truth.
Comments
When I asked my Father of Confession certain activities to do during the summer, one of them was to provide an essay stating the many heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses and to show how we can respond to them. I have finished it, and I need opinions before I show it to him. It is quiete long, a little over four pages, so I ask of your patience and help.
Hi,
I read your essay, and thought it was very good. I would just like to make a few points. The name Jehovah is not, in fact, the Name of God in the Old Testament, it’s a mistaken rendering of it. Hebrew has no vowels, only consonants. In the Hebrew text of the Bible, the Name of God is given as Yod, He, Wav, He – or YHWH. How this is pronounced depends on vowel marks that you place around the letters. Since the Name of God was so sacred, the Jews refrained from saying it out loud, instead saying Lord (Adonai). This tradition was carried on when the OT was translated into Greek (the LXX), where the Name is rendered Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God): English Bibles do this as well, writing LORD or GOD in capitals.
In order to remind people to read the Name as Adonai, they inserted the vowels from Adonai – A, O, A – into the Name, making it Yahowa (the Hebrew letter ‘vav’ is pronounced ‘w’ if a dot is place in the middle, so Yahova is also acceptable). However, most scholars are in agreement that the Name is probably pronounced Yahweh, or something similar.
So insisting on the use of ‘Jehovah’ as the correct Name of God is another error this Arian group promotes. You could also note how the NWT translation inserts this word a number of times in the NT, even though the original Greek of the NT contains no such word. While this is certainly an incorrect translation, you cannot say that they’ve used a different Bible. The Greek in this verse says “En archi in o Logos, ke o Logos in pros ton Theon, ke Theos in o Logos." You will notice that where it says “and the Logos was with God,” the Evangelist says “ton Theon”, but where it says “and the Logos was God,” he does not include the article “ton.”
The translators argue that the lack of the article “ton” when speaking of the Son means that it is using the word in a different sense, and therefore “was a god” or “was divine” is a more accurate translation.
So its not that they are claiming “that the Scriptures the saintly Fathers provided are incorrect”, but rather that theirs is a more accurate translation thereof. However, although they can justify their objection to the normal translation linguistically, they cannot do so doctrinally, as you pointed out, since their translation implies that Christ is a second god alongside God when Christ clearly said “ The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. ” St. Paul said of Christ: “For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the divinity bodily. ” How can the fullness of the divinity (i.e. God) dwell in something that is not God? In the book Apocalypse of John we are told that John bowed down to an angel, who said to him, “See that thou not do so. For I am thy fellow slave and of thy brethren the prophets and of those keeping the words of this book. To God make obeisance ” (Apoc. 22:9).
If angels are our fellow slaves, and we are forbidden from worshipping them, surely we cannot say that the “fullness of the divinity” dwells bodily in the Angel Michael, can we?
And how is it, if Christ is but an angel, that the Apostle Thomas called Him, “My Lord and my God ”(John 20:28)? Surely, if Christ was only an angel, he would have said to St. Thomas what the angel said to St. John above? Yet He does not correct him, but says “Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed. ” (v. 29). I’m afraid this is not correct. JWs do not believe Christ was burned at a stake, they believe He was nailed to a stake – i.e. He was crucified, but on a single piece of timber, not two. There is plenty of historical evidence that suggests that the Romans used the traditional two-bar cross. Moreover, early Christian writing and art all suggest that this was the form of cross used by the soldiers in Christ’s case.
With regards to Scripture, however, its not really possible to tell either way. Moreover, let us not forget that the Bible does not come with an index. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible. So how can the JWs know which books are inspired and which aren’t, without appealing to extra-Biblical traditions? Answer: they can’t. There are those who claim that this is a purely symbolic reference to His crucifixion. However, we are told that “Not a bone of Him shall be broken” (John 19:36). So if it was merely a symbolic remembrance of the crucifixion, why are we told that Christ “took the bread and gave thanks, and broke it ”?
With the part where Christ is burned on a stake... I can't believe I said that... I remember reading that in fact it was a one bar cross - thank you for bringing my attention to that...
Ok I have some editing to do...
Wow.... thank you so much... I never realized I could add so much...
There's a lot more :-)
I think life after death is another important area where we differ significantly from this cult. The JWs teach that after death, the soul is unconcious and will be so until the second coming. They also teach that there is no hell, but that the unrighteous will simply cease to exist.
With respect to the first point, I would look to Luke 16:22-23:
"And it fell due for the beggar to die and for him to be carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham; and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in Hades, being in torments, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom."
This story clearly shows that the souls of the departed are concious even after death.
In the Holy Gospel according to Matthew 18:8, Christ says: "And if thy hand or thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut them off, and cast them from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life lame or maimed, than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the fire, the everlasting one."
Why does Christ speak of the fire being "everlasting" if the souls of the wicked simply cease to exist?
Just another thing I wanted to add.
However, although they can justify their translation linguistically, they cannot do so doctrinally
I'm not sure how much Greek you know, but as a student of Koine Greek I beg to differ with regards to the idea that the JW translation is justified linguistically. The absence of the article does not alone justify deeming the term theos an indefinite noun. In consideration of the fact that the terms theos and logos are in the nominative case, as well as the fact the term en exists in between them, the honest grammarian is lead to conclude that the term theos is in fact a predicate noun in the nominative case. Translating the last part of the last clause of John 1:1 as "a god" is thus linguistically senseless.
Furthermore, JW's fail to realise that had St. John qualified the term theos with the definite article, the Trinitarian conception of God would have been destroyed. In other words, the fact JW's point to the absence of the definite article as a proof against the Trinity, results from a failure to understand the Trinity and hence the negative implications that the presence of a definite article would have to the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. More importantly however, the fact that the absence of the definite article is necessary to interpreting St. John in sync with Orthodox Trinitarianism, means that JW's are forced to admit that St. John could not have portrayed the Orthodox conception of God any more accurately or soundly than in the manner stipulated in John 1:1.
Orthodox 11, thank you for the extra piece of information... I really can't see how someone can read the Bible and yet interpret it in such a wrong way... Any thing else??
Whilst that is true, that is not what i'm saying. I am not really discussing translation, but rather the doctrinal implications of the original Greek. What I am saying is that the way John 1:1 was written in the Greek, is the only grammatically possible way to imply an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Had St. John introduced a definite article to qualify the term theos as the JW's argue he should've done had he the intention of teaching the Trinity, then John 1:1 would be teaching something more akin to modalism/sabellianism than Orthodox Trinitarianism.
It will be difficult for you to make much sense of what I am saying unless you are familiar with New Testament Greek. As far as your paper is concerned I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Suffice to say, as Orthodox11 pointed out, the issue with JW's concerning John 1:1 concerns the translation and interpretation of this verse, and not the actual Greek construction of it as it has come down to us in various extant manuscripts, so I would certainly correct that aspect of your paper.
Fibo
When you finish editing your text, consider this: any good essay should also contain its good reference list.
Suggestions:
http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/Pope Shenouda/The Divinity of Christ.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/H.G. Bishoy/Seventh Day Adventists.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/H.G. Bishoy/Responding to the Seventh Day Adventists.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/H.G. Bishoy/Response to the Seventh Day Adventists.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Books/English Books/Fr. Tadros Malaty/THE DOGMAS.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Articles/English Articles/HOLY ANOINTING.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Articles/English Articles/5 Functions of the Holy Spirit.pdf
http://www.copticnet.com/Articles/English Articles/The Eucharist.pdf
Heresies Concerning the Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture1.pdf
Biblical Defense of our Faith:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture3.pdf
I'm not sure how much Greek you know, but as a student of Koine Greek I beg to differ with regards to the idea that the JW translation is justified linguistically. The absence of the article does not alone justify deeming the term theos an indefinite noun. In consideration of the fact that the terms theos and logos are in the nominative case, as well as the fact the term en exists in between them, the honest grammarian is lead to conclude that the term theos is in fact a predicate noun in the nominative case. Translating the last part of the last clause of John 1:1 as "a god" is thus linguistically senseless.
I apologise for my careless wording. What I meant to convey was that their objection to the normal translation of the passage can be justified linguistically, not that the NWT's "a god" is linguistically justifiable. Yes, I believe Origen commented quite extensively on this issue, showing that the lack of the article shows that the Logos is God, but not God the Father.
As a general overview, Jehovah’s Witnesses were established by Charles Taze Russell. As a teenager, he left the Presbyterian Church (branch of the Protestant “Church“) of his parents and moved on to the Congregationalists. He soon however moved on once again to the Seventh-Day Adventists as he come upon a Bible Study through them. They soon fell into disagreement and he left them and went on a search to find the “true” interpretation of the Bible. Little did he know how wrong he was and how far away from the truth he had strayed.
In 1879 Russell started writing the Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence periodical. Then he started and lead the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. He later began his writing on his seven volume interpretation of the Scriptures. However, Russell’s personal life started to deteriorate. He lost a lawsuit he against a Baptist pastor, and was later successfully divorced by his wife due to improper conduct with other women. Russell died 1916, yet his heresies continued in the minds of his victims.
He was succeeded by Joseph Rutherford, a lawyer and judge. In 1931 the name of Russell’s followers changed from the “Russellites” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The origin of this name is somewhat odd. In the Old Testament, the Jews knew God as YHWH. However, since his name was so sacred, they refrained from using it and instead used a substitute, Adonai. To remind the people to read the word as Adonai, they inserted the vowels A, O, A into the Name, making it Yahowa (the Hebrew letter “vav” can also be pronounced w if a dot is put into the middle, and so the name might have also been pronounced Yahova). Now since the name “Jehovah” was in fact supposed to be pronounced “Adonai”, and at the same time it is not the name of God, I fail to see the valid use of this name and any meaning to it.
When Nathan Knorr became president of the Society, he produced a new and heterodox version of the Holy Scriptures called the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. A commonly known fault in this version is in John 1: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god,” Lets look at this verse in Greek, “ En archi in o Logos, ke o Logos in pros ton Theon, ke Theos in o Logos,” If you look in the part “and the word was with God” that the article “ton” is there (defining God as the only God), yet in the following part it is not. Translators of this verse try to prove their belief by saying that the absence of this article means that it was referring to the Son in a different sense, meaning “a god”. However, lets look it logically. When St. John said the Word was with God, he meant God the Father, and therefore using the article “ton” was acceptable. Had St. John inserted the article “ton” when saying the word was God, he would be implying that the Word is the God the Father, a statement that has no meaning whatsoever.
Witnesses know God as God the Father alone. They recognize Jesus Christ as God’s first creation with the Archangel Michael, a heresy that serves as two in one. Jesus Christ cannot be created, as the correct version of the Gospel according to St. John which Christians have perceived for centuries states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is clearly the Word of God, being born of him before all ages. Many times Christ says in the Scriptures, that Him and the Father are one. As Jesus Christ prayed on Gethsemane, he said, “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are,”; John 17:11. Also, when the Apostle Philip asked Jesus Christ to show them (the apostles), the Father, Christ responded by saying, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?”; John 14:9-10. Also in Luke 5:21, the Pharisees questioned the authority of Christ to forgive sins, saying, “ The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” There is no doubt that Christ forgave the sins of many on earth, which proves that he is one of the three persons of the Trinity. Also, John 5:18 says, “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.,“ The part “making himself equal with God” means one of two things, that either Christ truly was God, or that there is more than one God. Surely Christianity is monotheistic, believing in one God alone. And so this verse must mean that Christ is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. St. Paul said about Christ, “And in Him dwells all the fullness of the divinity body,” How can something that is not God become divine, for God alone is divine. If Christ is a mere creation the Archangel, then why did the soldiers and officials bow down to him when he said the words, “I AM,” in Gethsemane? (John 18:6”) Because divine breath had said a divine name, and so they could not behold his glory. And if he was an creation, such as an angel, then he would have rebuked them as the angel said to St. John (Rev. 22:9), “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” And if angels are servants like us, than how can we begin to say that they are divine? St. Thomas also called Jesus Christ “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28}. Had Christ been a creation, he would have rebuked him like the angel did to St. John. To furthermore prove that Christ is not a creation, I provide the following: John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,” The Scriptures clearly prove that the Father and the Son are one, as you can see.
Witnesses teach that Christ was crucified on one bar, as they despise the cross, being a symbol of paganism. This clearly shows their ignorance, as despite the fact that the Jews crucified Jesus, they were under Roman (and in turn pagan) rule. Pontius Pilate, the governor who ordered the crucifixion was pagan. There is plenty of historical Roman evidence to prove Christ was crucified on a cross made of two pieces of wood.
Another heresy claims that at Christ’s resurrection, he transformed into gases and was recreated into a spirit. This couldn’t be any more wrong, as the Saint and Apostle Thomas felt the holes left by the nails and the side of Christ. He also ate with the disciples several times, ex.: John 21:11-14 and Luke 24:41-42. Spirits do not eat nor drink, nor can anybody touch them.
And here is a heresy that has been fought against since the early times: “Mary was not perpetually a virgin, but rather bore more children after Jesus.” This defies everything the Apostles have taught us through tradition. From the beginning of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which received its doctrine from St. Mark the Apostle himself, we have learned from eyewitnesses that Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ was the only child to St. Mary. Let us also look at it from the logical point of view. On the cross, Our God Jesus Christ said to St. John the Theologian and Beloved to take St. Mary as his mother, John. 19:26-27. If St. Mary already had other children, why would Jesus Christ need to comfort her by giving her the disciple he loved as her son? There would be no need, for children that she held in her womb would be there.
Witnesses hold the Bible to be the only source of truth, a belief they hold with Protestants. But what they fail to see is that Christ visited his disciples and apostles continuously for forty days after his resurrection, Acts 1:3 proves this. During this period of time, Christ taught them everything they needed to know about building the Church of God. If all that he said and did was to be written down, all the books of the world wouldn’t be enough to behold them, as said in John 21:25. Another point that can be raised, how can you determine which books of the Bible are inspired and which books aren’t? Since the Bible doesn’t come with an index, you are forced to use an outside source. Tradition must take a role within the Church of God, not everything can be Scripture.
Witnesses hold another heresy yet, that the Holy Spirit is not in fact one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, but is actually a power of God. What they fail to see is that when Jesus Christ sent his disciples into the world to preach he said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”; Matthew 28:19. If the three were not equal and were not one God, then why would they baptize in their names? It would only make sense that people are baptized in the name of God, and Christ sent them to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”. Also, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, it repeatedly says that the apostles “were filled with the Holy Spirit”. When Ananias and Sapphira desired to lie to the Apostles and seek glory, St. Peter said to him, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land…. You have not lied to men but to God.”; Acts 5:3-4. First St. Peter says that he lied to the Holy Spirit, and then he says you have not lied to men but to God”. This clearly proves that the Holy Spirit is indeed one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity.
There are no sacraments within their belief. They believe that all people are ministers, and so there are no sacraments. If there is a no such thing as priests and clergymen, then what is St. Paul talking about when he says in1 Corinthians 4:1 , “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,” Are they all servants and stewards? Clearly not. And since there are stewards, there are mysteries; the sacraments. And these sacraments must exist, as I will explain below.
If there are no sacraments and no ministers, then why then did James the Apostle say, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the presbyters of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” - James 5:14-15. If we are all ministers, then who will the sick person call? And who will anoint him with the oil? This is the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, and it is from one of the twelve disciples of Christ himself, who, according to Acts 1:3, received this from the Lord. Now, lets use logic, does oil forgive sins? Can anyone other than God forgive sins? Surely not, rather Christ has given his apostles the authority to forgive sins through him, as stated in John 20:22 -23, “And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven,“ However, can anyone at all forgive what he does not know? It is common sense. This is why the sacrament of confession exists, and why the priest has the authority, through God alone to forgive sins.
There is no doubt that to have forgiveness of sins and to be saved, you must be baptized. If there is no need for baptism then why does Jesus Christ tell his disciples to: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 If there is no need for baptism, why then did the eleven disciples baptize three thousand people on the day of Pentecost? When the disciples started speaking in tongues, many of the people called them drunk. For that reason St. Peter gave a sermon, and the three thousand believed. They asked what they shall do to receive salvation, and St. Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit,” Acts 2:38. Therefore, after repentance, baptism must take place for remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Another sacrament necessary for receiving Holy Spirit is the Holy Oil, or as most Copts know it, the Holy Myron. St. John says in his first Catholicon, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth,” 1 John 2:20. And again he says, in the same chapter, in verse twenty-seven, “ As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” Therefore this anointing is not just oil, but that with receiving it, one receives the Holy Spirit, as said in my first quote. It is with this anointing that we receive the Holy One, the Spirit which teaches all things and divides the word of truth with a two-edged sword. It is only after receiving this anointing that we receive the Holy Spirit, as clearly said in 1 John 2.
If there are no sacraments, then why did Christ take bread on the day of Covenant Thursday and say, “ This is my Body given for you, do this in remembrance of me, “and again, “ This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, which is poured out for you,” Luke 22:19-20. In these two verses, Christ clearly shows us three things, that this bread is his true Body, and that the wine in the cup is truly His Blood. The third thing that is showed is that we should do this continually in remembrance of him. For those that say this is a symbolic reference to the crucifixion, we say this. Christ took the bread (which is his body) and broke it. Yet it was said that “Not a bone of him shall be broken,” (Jn. 19:36). If this was a symbol to the crucifixion alone, then how did Christ break the bread? Also, St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” Therefore there is a sacrament of eating the Lord’s Holy Body and drinking His Holy Blood, the sacrament of communion. What proves to me and everyone else that this is a sacrament from Christ, like all the others, is that St. Paul says, “What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you,” He has received this sacrament from Christ himself, and has passed it on to us. Christ himself talks about being the bread of Life in John 6: 48-51, “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” Who now can argue that His Body is not given for us? Yet there is more proof. The importance of communion is expressed in later verses, John 6:53-56, “Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him,” As clearly observed, the Holy Body and Blood of Christ are necessary for life and abiding eternally with the compassionate God and King.
Witnesses also teach that after death souls go into a period of unconsciousness until the next coming of Christ and that there is no hell, that the ungodly souls cease to exist. However, I ask you to go into Luke 16:22-23, “And it fell due for the beggar to die and for him to be carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham; and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in Hades, being in torments, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom.” As you can see, the souls of both the beggar and the rich man lived on, and neither became unconscious. Rather the beggar was lifted from the life of poverty into glory, the rich man into Hades, being in torments. The whole point of this parable was to show the crowd that after death there is existence, and what happens to the righteous and the wicked.
And if there is no hell, then what did Christ mean when he said, “And if thy hand or thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut them off, and cast them from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life lame or maimed, than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the fire, the everlasting one,” (Mat. 18:8). Christ also says, “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the ages. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, “ (Mat. 13:40-42) What is the fiery furnace that wicked souls will be thrown into at the end of ages? Nothing other than hell.
As you can clearly see, the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses has too many heresies that anybody who reads the Holy Bible with concentration can clearly see and observe. To convince these people, we must give them from what they hold to be the only source of truth, the Holy Bible. Every single heterodox belief can be opposed and objected using the Holy Scriptures. We cannot twist Bible verses into what we want them to mean, but rather what they bluntly say and cry out for us to understand. May God give us the wisdom to accept his hold word with understanding and open mind, that we may comprehend the true truth.
Orthodox 11 and Iqbal, please forgive me if I have taken your ideas and assumed them as mine, but I really didn't know what to do. They were very important things I couldn't hold myself back from... I would add a bibliography, but I don't know if that would do any help...
Lets look at this verse in Greek, “ En archi in o Logos, ke o Logos in pros ton Theon, ke Theos in o Logos,”
The above is just how it's pronounced, here is the verse in the actual Greek (make sure the font is set to Symbol):
En arch hn o LogoV, kai o LogoV hn proV ton Qeon, kai QeoV hn o LogoV.
Unfortunately, this font doesn't let you include the dashes above the letters, but atleast it lets you write the letters.
The normal English translation does not make apparent the lack of the article "ton" where it says "kai Theos in o Logos." Of course, this is due to the limitations of the English language itself, and the normal translation is the only one that is theologically acceptable, but one can still criticise it on the basis that it does not take the missing article into account.
That's all I meant by it.
http://www.catholicxjw.com/
--Ann