I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!

by minimus 239 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    When I hear how terrible JWs are for their policies regarding child abusers, which I agree are wrong, I can't help but wonder how anybody could support the Church with their continuing record of subterfuge with their sicko priests!

    You see a sicko priest. And so it is. But the Church also sees a sinning soul in need of help.


  • Mary
    Regarding the "idols" idol "eidolo" in Greek, "eidos" it means the thing that we can see, or we can understand with our senses, and it has to do ONLY with the visualization of God. NEVER in the Bible refering the word idol exept the portrait God. In the Bible ONLY God cannot be portraited. That is why in the Orthodox Church you will not find an Icon fo God.

    That simply is not true. First of all, Catholics worship a triune God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There are numerous statues of Jesus in most of their churches. Since Jesus is most certainly viewed as "God" by Catholics, you are in fact, worshipping an idol whether you want to admit it or not; something that the scriptures clearly condemns: Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Your rationalization that it "has to do ONLY with the visualization of God", is meaningless. Of course it has to do with 'visualizing God'-----why do you think the nations that were around in ancient times made idols? For the very same reason. Yet the Israelites were specifically told not to do it.

    There is a difference in the words Worship-proskino in Greek. There is honorable worship, and we can honour anyone. Jesus says to worship-proskinisoun - honour the Bishop of the Church Philadelphia It is honorable worship. Don't indicate the example of Paul and Barnabas, because in Greece the crowd tried to worship them as Idolater God's- Hermes and Zeus, and that is why they refuse. So in Church we honour the Saints, and Jesus Mother, and this is not idol worship...

    Oh please ----Mary is prayed to, bowed to, the statues of her probably outnumber those of Jesus. She's viewed as "Queen of Heaven" by Catholics and is most certainly worshipped as confirmed here:

    "...May 7, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - On May 7 Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and to John-- "Woman, behold thy son!" and "Behold thy mother!" (John 19:26,27), and he claimed that in this statement "IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997)...."

    "...John Paul II underlined that "the history of Christian piety teaches that MARY IS THE PATH THAT LEADS TO CHRIST, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, ACKNOWLEDGING HER PROVIDENTIAL ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION" (Ibid.)...."

    Idolatry is defined as:

    1. Worship of idols.
    2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

    Here's a couple of prayers that Catholics have that gives a pretty clear indication of how they view Mary:

    The Church of Mary Queen of Heaven Prayer

    Oh Mary. Queen of Heaven. Mother of God. Bride of the Holy Spirit. We beseech thee. Please forgive us our sins. Please lay your motherly hands upon us and allow us to suckle at your breast that gives eternal life. Show your Son who was first. You begot a God and gave him life. Without you there is nothing. Oh Mary! Queen of all goddesses. Mother of all gods, great and small, we are your devoted worshippers. Mary we pray to you so that you may take our prayers to your son and change His heart. Amen.


    Hail Mary, distributor of all graces the Lord listens to you.
    Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed are the cakes of bread we offer you.

    Holy Mary, mother goddess, co-redeem us sinners now
    and at the hour of death. AMEN

    "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself" -Catholic National July 1895.

    "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" -Pope Leo XIII

    "The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ... Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15,published in London by J. S. Phillips.

    If this doesn't fall under the definition of "idolatry", I don't know what does.

  • NanaR


    Thanks for the links!


  • BurnTheShips
    Therefore it's only logical that any claims one makes of being the 'one true church' today, should be based on their ability to prove that they're not very different from the original Christianity. Catholicism, from what I can see, bears little resemblance to 1st century Christianity as I mentioned in my previous post.

    Actually no that is not true. They don't need to prove that they are not very different (and in reality they are not), they need to demostrate that they are the same institution that Christ founded. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have Apostolic succession. They are the Church founded by Christ and passed on by the Apostles. Even in the 1st century, there was Earth-shredding change in the understanding of the religion.

    Mary, have you ever read the Apostolic Fathers, or the Anti-Nicene Fathers?

    He wanted to see reform and changes made within the religion itself as it had become increasingly legalistic over the previous century or two and this of course is what got him into trouble.

    Jesus did not come to reform Judaism, Jesus came to save all humanity. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

    Nevertheless, he was still a Jew and he observed many of the Jewish customs such as the Sabbath (although not to the fanatical degree that the Pharisees did), all the feasts and celebrations that were part of his family's heritage and of course the Passover.

    Of course! He was a Jew!But he also said: I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

    His original disciples were all Jews and the New Testament was written exclusively by Jews.

    Absolutely untrue. The second most prolific NT writer after Paul was Luke--a Greek. Please get your facts straight.

    None of them were 'Catholics'. At the very inception, they weren't even known as 'Christians'----they were considered 'Messianic Jews'

    By your logic, Christians shouldn't even be called "Christians". In Acts 11:26 they came to be called this. The first act of apostasy?

    and they kept all the beliefs and practices they always had with the sole exception of accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

    Well then the Church went apostate from the start under the Apostles themselves!

    It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21

    There were both Jewish and Gentile Christian communities. A diversity of ethnicity, a catholicity of faith, a unity of worship.

    Like I said, there is no scripture that even hints that Jesus' followers were to start a new religion.


    When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

    but there certainly was no indication that a whole rash of new doctrines was the way to go, with the abandonment of everything that Jesus himself had practiced throughout His short life. Had Jesus' brother James remained in the forefront of the early congregations, there's little doubt that Christianity would have retained much of the Jewish traditions and practices that they were all familiar with. Instead, Paul of Tarsus (who had never even met Jesus) grabs the reigns after his conversion and starts Jesus' followers down a different path. It pissed off many of the followers to the point where they wanted to kill Paul at one point.

    Paul grabbed no "reigns" but submitted to the authority of the body of Apostles. The body of Apostles, including James, agreed with Paul as quoted above in Acts 15 and below:

    When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
    " 'After this I will return
    and rebuild David's fallen tent.
    Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
    that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
    and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
    says the Lord, who does these things'
    that have been known for ages.

    I have no personal problem with any Catholic and if someone wants to convert---go for it. My whole point was that Catholicism today bears little resemblance to what original Christianity was; by many of their doctrines and their 'traditions'

    The nucleus for all Catholic doctrine is present in Scripture.

    It matters little why they were influenced; the point is: Jesus would still have been a practising Jew were He around today. He would not be a "Christian". I've had this argument with Catholics before---some are quite insistent that Jesus was a Catholic and get quite irrate when you point out that He was not. I just don't get that.

    "Catholic" is a title-and a description. "Christian" is also. This is semantics. Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

    The point is the Church he founded exists today.


    BTW why must you bold everything?

  • Mary
    Absolutely untrue. The second most prolific NT writer after Paul was Luke--a Greek. Please get your facts straight.

    Woops! You're right---my mistake.

    BTW why must you bold everything?

    I just figure it's easier to read; been doing it for years----but I won't do it anymore if it bothers you. BTS, I don't want you to get the wrong idea: I read the bible and believe in Jesus. If you've found contentment and happiness in the Catholic Church, then that's great. Like I said in a previous post, we've all gone in many different directions and we all have to do what we think is best for us. I know there's a few others on here who have converted to Catholicism after leaving the Witnesses. While I admit I'm surprised, that's up to them and I hope they're happier than when they were Witnesses. I don't think anyone has the 'one true faith' today and I don't believe that we'll be judged on what religion we belong to. It's what's in our hearts that count and that's what matters in the long run.

  • BurnTheShips
  • justhuman


    On my remarks of Mother Mary it was for the Orthodox Church, an ex-jw that turned to Orthodox Christian, and again I will point out my tips :

    1.Regarding the "idols" idol "eidolo" in Greek, "eidos" it means the thing that we can see, or we can understand with our senses, and it has to do ONLY with the visualization of God. NEVER in the Bible refering the word idol exept the portrait God.

    2.There is a difference in the words Worship-proskino in Greek. There is honorable worship, and we can honour anyone. Jesus says to worship-proskinisoun - honour the Bishop of the Church Philadelphia It is honorable worship. Don't indicate the example of Paul and Barnabas, because in Greece the crowd tried to worship them as Idolater God's- Hermes and Zeus, and that is why they refuse. So in Church we honour the Saints, and Jesus Mother, and this is not idol worship ...

    So that makes according to your logic Apostle John an idolater because he worshiped the Angel that gave the Revelation.(he was honoring God's Angel here)

    In Joshua 5:13-15 we see that Josua WORSHIPED Jehovah's Archangel...so does this make Joshua an idolater???

    In Revelation 3:7-10 Jesus said that he will make people to bow down on their knees and worship the Episkopos of Philadelphia!!! So is Jesus promoting idol worship here???

    So we honor even the relics of the Saints because according to 1 Corinthians 3:16 they have been the Temple of God

    Try to understand the difference from Honoring and idol worship, because honoring you can find it in the Old and New Testament and there is difference between the 2

    Again I will ask those questions to the Protestands:

    1.Is the Holy Bible the only basis for the Christian faith?

    2. Were in the Bible indicates that only the Bible is our basis for our Christian Faith?

    3. Who set the Biblical Canon?

    4.What is the Protestand basis to accept the 66 books of the Bible instead of 77 that Orthodox and Catholic Church accepts?

    5. Were in the Bible is telling us the Books that we should accept as the Biblical Canon are part of the Holy Scriptures?

    6. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims to be infalible?

    7. Were in the Bible is showing us that the faith of the Church is being set according to the Bible and not the opposite?

    8. In the Early Christian Church we had the Apostoles and the Prophets and they were appointed by the Holy Spirit Elders (Episkopoi in Greek)and this succesion is being carried for over 2000 years in the Apostolic Church, starting from James the first Bishop of Jerusalim.Do JW's or any Protestand has any Apostolic Succesion?

    9. Has the Apostolic Church ever Apostasized?

    10.Why do Protestands accept a Bible that was set by the Apostolic Church with Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox) at the 3th century who defined the Biblical canon?Is it correct on their behalf to accept a Bible that came out from the "apostate" Christians?

    11. What do the writtings of the first 2 centuries of Christianity indicate to us regarding the Christian faith since we have letters from the immediate succesors of the Apostles like The letter to the Church of Magnisis from Saint Ignatios the Bishop of Antioch? It was written between 97 AD - 107AD.

    12. Would Jesus allow Satan to turn the Church that He set with His Blood an "apostate"Church, and Satan would truimph over Jesus Church for hundreds of years?

    Those are questions that need an answer....can any Protestand Domination give answers to the questions above...

    I do not condemn any one that left JW's and decided to follow Christ according to their knowledge and try following the Bible. And there is no condemnation for anyone who is trying to follow Jesus, no matter were this indivitual belongs, because at the end we are all going to be judged according to our deeds from Jesus. This is a fact that no one can deny...because Jesus knows our heart and mind and knows our intentions.

    I do not condemn even JW's because I know there are sincere people inside that cult that they are only trying to follow Jesus. Again I don't condemn anyone that became an Atheist, or even became Muslim, or Hindu. I strongly believe and this is a fact that we are all going to be judged according to our deeds

    But I will strongly argue with anyone that claims that the Early Church became apostate religion and we cannot trace the origins of the Early Church because this argument does not have a solid ground. In my Island Cyprus, there are Ecclesiastical monuments that are coming out from the Early days of Christianity. Catacombs with Holy Icons that haven't changed ever since. Saint Lazarus was the first Bishop of my hometown Kition, and the grave he was burried it is there for 2000 years. Apostle Barnabas the first Bishop of the Island we find his grave in Salamis. I have see the writtings of the Early Succesors of the Apostles in my own language in Greek, the language that the Gospel was spread through the Roman Empire, and all those writtings indicate to me that the Apostolic Succesion it is still carried on for 2000 years in hte Christian Orthodox Apostolic Church.

    The proof is there, and it is up to anyone who wishes to do REAL search regarding the History of the Early Church to see the reality. But before doing that is better to try to give answers to the questions above...

  • BurnTheShips

    Exactly! Efkaristo!

  • Amazing

    Well stated Justhuman, BurnTheShips, Carlos_Helms, and NanaR.

    Just a detail to add on to Justhuman's point ... I was greatly impressed by the Orthodox because their history reflected the same approach to Apostolic Succession as Rome's. And living closer to where early Christian history formed, it makes sense that archeology and historical writings from that part of the world would agree with what we find in Orthodoxy and Catholicism ... which are both the same faith.

    The Bible was not compiled until Pope Damasus requested St. Jerome to do so in the late 4th century, which resulted in the Latin Vulgate. Until then, Christians only had word of mouth, recited creeds resembling the Apostle's Creed, and if they were lucky, they heard a copy, or partial copy of letter read that was written by an early Christian, or one of the Church Fathers like St, Ignatius, or an Apostle. It was not until around the 8th century that the Church declared the Bible to be inspired. It was not until modern printing from the 17th century (1609 and 1611) onward that Bibles even began to become available to the average household. What non-Catholics have by way of the Bible is a gift of the Catholic-Orthodox Church ... a gift that they accept largely as is ... they are in a way all daughters of Rome.

    Jim Whitney

  • justhuman

    And here are some more usefull links regarding the Apostolic Succesion and how did the Early Church still functioned




Share this