General JWs admit their Catholic roots!

Lentil

New member
Dec 3, 2021
19
6
3
Very interesting. Thankyou.
Yet, don't all churches have Catholic roots, especially since (if I've got this right) the Roman Catholic church helped gather the Bible books together. They had the wider socio-religious approval, access & the financial means to do it.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: benadam1974

benadam1974

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2020
753
305
63
Very interesting. Thankyou.
Yet, don't all churches have Catholic roots, especially since (if I've got this right) the Roman Catholic church helped gather the Bible books together. They had the wider socio-religious approval, access & the financial means to do it.
What we today call the Catholic Church came into its own during the so-called Dark to Medieval Age in Europe. Before then you had a disparate group of Christian movements. During the time of the councils, like Nicea in 325AD., you had a large unitarian Christian population as well.
And to see how the canon process works please see:
(apologies for the bad audio at first)
 

Lentil

New member
Dec 3, 2021
19
6
3
I don't see the issue with the WT having Catholic or Roman Catholic roots. Do you mean catholic -universal, or catholic - Roman Catholic? Thankyou for the video link.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: benadam1974

benadam1974

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2020
753
305
63
I don't see the issue with the WT having Catholic or Roman Catholic roots. Do you mean catholic -universal, or catholic - Roman Catholic? Thankyou for the video link.
No, the point of the original post about the name “Jehovah” is that Catholics created the pronunciation and how it’s written. Which is something JWs have taken as divine dogma from YHVH Himself!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lentil

Lentil

New member
Dec 3, 2021
19
6
3
No, the point of the original post about the name “Jehovah” is that Catholics created the pronunciation and how it’s written. Which is something JWs have taken as divine dogma from YHVH Himself!
I see. Thankyou.
'Jehovah' was used widely & comfortably by the majority (out loud & in Bible translations) for centuries, not just much later by JWs. Although it's popularity faded with upholding the trinitiy & wrangling of correct pronunciation. (And, I wonder, because of it's being so closely associated with JWs). Jehovah? Yahweh? Yahveh?... The point is God does have an appellative name distinct from his son's. God is distinct from his son.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lori Jane

benadam1974

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2020
753
305
63
I see. Thankyou.
'Jehovah' was used widely & comfortably by the majority (out loud & in Bible translations) for centuries, not just much later by JWs. Although it's popularity faded with upholding the trinitiy & wrangling of correct pronunciation. (And, I wonder, because of it's being so closely associated with JWs). Jehovah? Yahweh? Yahveh?... The point is God does have an appellative name distinct from his son's. God is distinct from his son.
Yes that God revealed Himself as YHVH is biblical. But this is not an issue with Jesus or his Apostles, who preferred and instruct us to address God as “Father.”