Jehovah’s Witnesses

[Webers.Home]

.
It's somewhat futile to clobber the Watchtower Society's missionaries in a
debate because even when they're bested scripture for scripture, they won't
give up on the Governing Body. The average JW's unflinching premise is that
the their top-rung leaders are right even when they appear to be totally
wrong. They are thoroughly convinced that their theologians are the voice of
God, while our voices are regarded as no more valid than that of a squeaky
little gerbil.

NOTE: On June 28, 2024, The US Supreme Court overturned a long held
opinion so-called the Chevron Deference Doctrine, which was basically an
argument from authority, i.e. a logical fallacy which supposes that
someone's position, or their credential, makes their views more important
and/or more likely to be correct than the views of lesser folks.

In a nutshell; just because someone is high up on the "expert" totem pole
does not make them eo ipso right.
_

 

[true_believer]

There are JWs everywhere. Having the knowledge to debate them effectively is also a way to lead them away from this cult.....

 

[NightTwister]

There are JWs everywhere. Having the knowledge to debate them effectively is also a way to lead them away from this cult.....

Carm has some good resources for that:
https://carm.org/world-religions/jehovahs-witnesses/

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Unless conventional Christians have undergone specialized training, it's not a
good idea to engage in debate with the Watchtower Society's missionaries as
I can just about guarantee that their experienced workers are better at
debating us than we are them. Should it be decided to go head to head with
Jehovah's Witnesses, here's some useful tips.

01) It's best to use their Bibles. So round up a copy of the Watchtower
Society's New World Translation of the Bible their Kingdom Interlinear
Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Sometimes these are available in thrift
stores like Good Will and Salvation Army. Both are available online from
amazon dot com.

For some useful insights into a variety of Watchtower Society teachings, the
little brown book titled "Reasoning From The Scriptures" is a must-have. It's
available online too. Be sure to get the Watchtower Society's version instead
of another book by the same name published by a different agency.

02) Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost their primary
interest is in making you a life-long slave to the Watchtower Society. You
can be courteous and you can be civil, but it's highly recommended that you
not let them into your life.

03) Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of both your thinking and the
meeting.

04) Don't let them get too far into their spiel, but at the first opportunity
begin introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation.

05) Do not quarrel. (cf. 2Tim 2:24-26)

06) Avoid trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas, Christmas trees,
the design and construction of the structure upon which Christ was crucified,
saluting the flag, service in the military, etc. etc. There are much bigger fish
to fry than those.

07) Make them listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have to
repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking. If
they start digging through their bags, shuffling papers, tinkering with their
tablets, or looking up a reference; call them on it because there is no use in
speaking to them when their minds are elsewhere engaged.

08) Do not permit them to interrupt you and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but
firmly, insist that they hold their peace until you've said your piece.

09) Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic.

10) Do not react and/or respond to ad hominems, which can be defined as
logical fallacies in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character,
motive, qualifications and/or other attribute of the person making the
argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking
the substance of the argument itself.

11) These people undergo hour upon hour of training to refute conventional
Christianity, so it's very important to show them the Bible not only in ways
they've already seen, but also in ways they've never imagined.

12) Take advantage of the internet, especially YouTube's collection of
lectures and discussions relative to Watchtower Society beliefs and practices.
_

 

[Magenta]

Carm has some good resources for that:
https://carm.org/world-religions/jehovahs-witnesses/

Are there no more public boards on CARM? I can't find them...

 

[RR]

Okay... That's way to many times, in your posts, referring to our Lord Jesus Christ as "a man", as if that was all He was. Jesus The Christ, was not only the perfect man but more importantly He was the Godman. The eternal son of God. Second Person of the Godhead. Creator and sustainer of all things. The Holy Logos. The high Priest. Lord of lords and King of kings.

Sorry, but I don't believe that is what the Scripture teach. There is NOTHING in scriptures that speak of Jesus being a God-man. The scriptures clearly teach that ...

“there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” - 1 Tim. 2:5-6​

A mediator is one who endeavors to reconcile two opposing parties. Could Christ be God and still mediate between God and men? Ransom here means a “corresponding price.” How could a God-man be the exact equivalent of the perfect man Adam?

And by the way - Jesus Christ did not create "Christianity". Those that were on the outside of the faith, these gave believers this label, not Christ. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

So what do you call yourself? Do you attend a CHRISTIAN Church? Does it teach CHRISTIANITY?

 

[RR]

If this is the position you're going to hold, then that really does beg the question. Remember your original proposition: That the Trinity has pagan origins.

Does the Trinity have pagan origins or does it not? Arguing for a "gradual" development does nothing to help your case. Where is the pagan origins if it is a later "gradual" development?

The Trinity doctrine is not unique to, nor original with, Christianity. It has deep Pagan roots, dating back to at least two centuries BC, and has been prominent in many Eastern religions ever since.

Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity. This occurred before there was a final split between the two over authority. Even those who voted the idea into Roman Catholic dogma declared it was a mystery that had to be accepted by faith. The theologians that wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way. They also admit that it was a product of tradition that evolved over four centuries. The RCC gives equal credence to tradition and scripture. In this case tradition is almost the whole criteria for this dogma, aside from a few scriptures that are wrenched out of context and misinterpreted, trying to give the idea legitimacy.

The evolution of this doctrine within Christianity began with The Apostle’s Creed, progressed to the Nicene Creed, and finally culminated in the Athanasian Creed.

Keep in mind that the roots of Christianity were originally from Judaism, which was, and still is, a monotheistic religion. There is no belief in a polytheistic God in the Old Testament. On the contrary, OT scriptures declare the singleness of God. (Isa. 43:10; 45:18)

The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day. Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention.

What connection does the birth of Christ have to pre-Christian pagan origins, if not for the date? Remember: You are the one that originally proposed the idea that Christian doctrine (i.e., Trinity) and holidays (Christmas) have their roots in pagan origins.

The exact date of Jesus’ birth is not mentioned in the Bible, and December 25 is not universally accepted as the actual date of His birth. The choice of December 25 as the date to celebrate Christmas was made by the early Christian church, possibly to coincide with existing pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice, the birth of the sun.
The celebration of Easter has a rich history that intertwines both Christian and pagan traditions.

As to Easter? Some elements of Easter, (e.g. Easter bunny and Easter eggs) have origins in pre-Christian, pagan traditions. These symbols are often associated with fertility and rebirth, which were celebrated during the spring equinox. The name “Easter” itself is derived from Eostre (or Ostara), a Germanic goddess of spring and fertility.

It's known that the Church in order to gain converts among the pagans, compromised. "Yes, you can still worship the sun-god on December 25, but his name is Jesus."

 

[williamjordan]

Who says I can't argue the issue?[/quote}

You did. You are demonstrating for the audie

If you do not mind me interjecting into the conversation, I would like to point out a couple of things about the holidays.

First - Christmas does have it's early beginnings in the Roman festival of the Sun. This was observed on December 25th. as a celebration of the renewing of the Sun, as it came out of the winter season. Today it is known as The Winter Solstice, which will take place on December 22nd, I believe.
- Christmas was also incorporated into the early Catholic church, as the celebration of Christ Mass.
- Additionally, the Bible states, that at Jesus' birth, the shepherds were tending their flocks in the field at night. (Luke 2:8) This is not done in Israel during the winter months. The sheep would have been in the sheep pens at this time.

Second - Good Friday and Easter, are all wrong.
- During Passover - Friday would have to be the wrong day for Christ to have been crucified. First, because Christ Himself said He would be in the grave three full days. He gave Jonah as an example. Good Friday evening to Sunday morning is only 36 hours, not 72 hours. This is made even worse, by a fact that many overlook. The Jews measure a day from 6:00PM to 6:00pm the next day. Why? Because the Lord said the day started with the evening. (Gen. 1:5) Therefore, Jesus Christ would have rose just after 6:00PM Saturday. The Jewish beginning of Sunday. So understanding this, Our Good Friday would have Jesus in the Ground for just a little over 24 hours.
- There are other reasons why Good Friday does not work for the Crucifixion date and they have to do with the nature of the Passover "High days" and the regular Sabbath on Saturday. It makes for a great study - if you are interested.

Third - The Lord Himself, did not ask believers to remember or celebrate a date for His birth or His Crucifixion. He did however, command us to remember Him and instituted the Lord's Super until He comes, for this purpose.

Between you and RR, you both have failed to see the issue. The point is, Christianity doesn't hold to "one set tradition" regarding the birth of Christ, or the resurrection. Therefore, to argue that Christianity is rooted in paganism is anything but the point. The real argument should be: That the Western version of Christianity is rooted in paganism. Even though, that is also questionable. You can't argue that this broad category known as "Christianity" borrows from paganism, when half the Christian religion doesn't even celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25. Duh.

 

[williamjordan]

The Trinity doctrine is not unique to, nor original with, Christianity. It has deep Pagan roots, dating back to at least two centuries BC, and has been prominent in many Eastern religions ever since.

Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity. This occurred before there was a final split between the two over authority. Even those who voted the idea into Roman Catholic dogma declared it was a mystery that had to be accepted by faith. The theologians that wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way. They also admit that it was a product of tradition that evolved over four centuries. The RCC gives equal credence to tradition and scripture. In this case tradition is almost the whole criteria for this dogma, aside from a few scriptures that are wrenched out of context and misinterpreted, trying to give the idea legitimacy.

The evolution of this doctrine within Christianity began with The Apostle’s Creed, progressed to the Nicene Creed, and finally culminated in the Athanasian Creed.

Keep in mind that the roots of Christianity were originally from Judaism, which was, and still is, a monotheistic religion. There is no belief in a polytheistic God in the Old Testament. On the contrary, OT scriptures declare the singleness of God. (Isa. 43:10; 45:18)

The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day. Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention.


The exact date of Jesus’ birth is not mentioned in the Bible, and December 25 is not universally accepted as the actual date of His birth. The choice of December 25 as the date to celebrate Christmas was made by the early Christian church, possibly to coincide with existing pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice, the birth of the sun.
The celebration of Easter has a rich history that intertwines both Christian and pagan traditions.


As to Easter? Some elements of Easter, (e.g. Easter bunny and Easter eggs) have origins in pre-Christian, pagan traditions. These symbols are often associated with fertility and rebirth, which were celebrated during the spring equinox. The name “Easter” itself is derived from Eostre (or Ostara), a Germanic goddess of spring and fertility.

It's known that the Church in order to gain converts among the pagans, compromised. "Yes, you can still worship the sun-god on December 25, but his name is Jesus."

This response is loaded with inaccuracies. But one thing at a time. Point me to a proto-Trinitarian model with origins in paganism. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. And tritheism is not Trinitarianism. It is your job (since you made the assertion) to prove that Trinitarianism has its roots in paganism.

So far you haven't done a very good job.

 

[williamjordan]

The exact date of Jesus’ birth is not mentioned in the Bible, and December 25 is not universally accepted as the actual date of His birth. The choice of December 25 as the date to celebrate Christmas was made by the early Christian church, possibly to coincide with existing pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice, the birth of the sun.
The celebration of Easter has a rich history that intertwines both Christian and pagan traditions.

As to Easter? Some elements of Easter, (e.g. Easter bunny and Easter eggs) have origins in pre-Christian, pagan traditions. These symbols are often associated with fertility and rebirth, which were celebrated during the spring equinox. The name “Easter” itself is derived from Eostre (or Ostara), a Germanic goddess of spring and fertility.

It's known that the Church in order to gain converts among the pagans, compromised. "Yes, you can still worship the sun-god on December 25, but his name is Jesus."

Of course, the problem here is that you are being anachronistic by imposing your own set of "Christmas traditions" (which are rooted in Western civilization) back onto the universal Christian church. There are Christians that celebrate the birth of Christ in January: The Eastern church.

News flash: "Christianity" is much larger than just your small Western world.

How do you suppose that the birth of Christ has it's origins in paganism, when your thesis presupposes a Dec. 25th date? The practices of Christmas in 2024 are not the same practices of Christmas in the early centuries of church history.

 

[RR]

You can't argue that this broad category known as "Christianity" borrows from paganism, when half the Christian religion doesn't even celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25. Duh.

It doesn't matter .... when it come to the date of birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, the scriptures are silent. Thus ANY date used to observed it is wrong.

 

[williamjordan]

It doesn't matter .... when it come to the date of birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, the scriptures are silent. Thus ANY date used to observed it is wrong.

Wait a minute. I thought you said "Christianity" has its origins in paganism? How does the birth of Christ, as it is recorded in the NT, have its roots in paganism?

All you are doing are imposing your traditions back onto this umbrella term, "Christianity." Christianity is not what has its origins in paganism. It is your Western traditions that do. That is, unless you think Paul and Peter were hiding easter eggs. You are imposing your paganised traditions back overtop "Christianity" and acting like Christianity has its origins in paganism, when it is the reverse.

 

[williamjordan]

It doesn't matter .... when it come to the date of birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, the scriptures are silent. Thus ANY date used to observed it is wrong.

If the NT is silent on a matter, then what gives you the idea that it has its origins in paganism?

 

[Webers.Home]

.
A mediator is defined as one who interposes between two parties at variance
to reconcile them, viz: an intercessor.

Here's a question that someone wrote in to the questions from readers
section of the April 01, 1976 issue of Watchtower magazine, asking:

"Is Jesus the mediator only for anointed Christians? (a.k.a. the 144,000)"

The answer given in the magazine is YES.

The magazine's answer is corroborated on page 1130 of the Society's
publication titled "Aid To Bible Understanding" where it says that the
144,000 are the only ones who have the mediator; a.k.a. Jesus Christ.
(1John 2:1)

Intercession for non anointed Witnesses is accomplished on the coattails of
the 144,000; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party mediator for the
rank and file via their affiliation with the Watchtower Society.

It's sort of like buying insurance from Allstate. The company doesn't sell
direct; its business is conducted through brokers. In essence, that's what
the Society presumes itself, i.e. Jesus Christ's mediation brokerage.

So then; when a JW either defects or is disfellowshipped, their pipeline to
the mediator is broken, and they right quick lose all contact with God; thus
leaving them with no way to reconcile with God, and placing themselves in
grave danger of the calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.

Bottom line: According to the Jehovah's Witnesses; it is impossible for the
world's 2.52 Billion conventional Christians to be on peaceful terms with God
apart from affiliation with the Watchtower Society-- in effect: if you are not one
of them, you are not one of Christ's.
_

 

[RR]

If the NT is silent on a matter, then what gives you the idea that it has its origins in paganism?

If the NT is silent on the matter, what right does any church have to say, this is the date and we're to observe it as such?

 

[RR]

Wait a minute. I thought you said "Christianity" has its origins in paganism? How does the birth of Christ, as it is recorded in the NT, have its roots in paganism?

All you are doing are imposing your traditions back onto this umbrella term, "Christianity." Christianity is not what has its origins in paganism. It is your Western traditions that do. That is, unless you think Paul and Peter were hiding easter eggs. You are imposing your paganised traditions back overtop "Christianity" and acting like Christianity has its origins in paganism, when it is the reverse.

No, I said the Trinity and certain observances had its roots in paganism. The Church simply adopted certain pagan customs and beliefs.

 

[williamjordan]

If the NT is silent on the matter, what right does any church have to say, this is the date and we're to observe it as such?

What church emphasizes (in a strict, dogmatic sense) that Dec. 25 is the date you are to observe? You're letting your Westernized traditions speak. I am still looking forward to the evidence to your claim: That the birth of Christ has its origins in paganism, and a good explanation for widely attested traditions.

 

[williamjordan]

No, I said the Trinity and certain observances had its roots in paganism. The Church simply adopted certain pagan customs and beliefs.

Exactly. Yet, you have failed to show any parallelisms to earlier pagan beliefs. On what basis can you say that, "the Trinity and certain observances had its root in paganism" when you have yet to cite the source for their origins?

If Trinitarianism went through an evolution, which of its "evolving formulations" is to be believed to have been rooted in paganism?

 

[Nehemiah6]

No, I said the Trinity and certain observances had its roots in paganism.

Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God? Since the Holy Trinity is revealed in the Bible, it does not matter what pagans believed or did not believe. But if you reject the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the doctrine of Christ, then the Bible says that you are an "antichrist".

 

[williamjordan]

The Trinity doctrine is not unique to, nor original with, Christianity. It has deep Pagan roots, dating back to at least two centuries BC, and has been prominent in many Eastern religions ever since.

Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity. This occurred before there was a final split between the two over authority. Even those who voted the idea into Roman Catholic dogma declared it was a mystery that had to be accepted by faith. The theologians that wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way. They also admit that it was a product of tradition that evolved over four centuries. The RCC gives equal credence to tradition and scripture. In this case tradition is almost the whole criteria for this dogma, aside from a few scriptures that are wrenched out of context and misinterpreted, trying to give the idea legitimacy.

The evolution of this doctrine within Christianity began with The Apostle’s Creed, progressed to the Nicene Creed, and finally culminated in the Athanasian Creed.

Keep in mind that the roots of Christianity were originally from Judaism, which was, and still is, a monotheistic religion. There is no belief in a polytheistic God in the Old Testament. On the contrary, OT scriptures declare the singleness of God. (Isa. 43:10; 45:18)

The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day. Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention.

History was not your strong point. The debates that ensued during the 3rd and 4th centuries were not debates over the Trinity, per se. Rather, these “fierce” debates surrounded the relationship of the Son to the Father. It was purely Christological (not Pneumatological). During the 2nd and 3rd centuries Sabellianism (a form of Modalism) had plagued the church. Sabellianism is the belief that the Son of God is God the Father incarnate. By the time the 4th c. comes around, later bishops were hesitant to adopt terminology/vocabulary when describing the Son's relationship to the Father, because such choice language sounded too Modalistic, being language that had been adopted by earlier Sabellian bishops. The bishops of the 4th c. were stuck in a hard place. They were trying to avoid from sounding too Modalistic, while at the same time, trying to avoid sounding like an Arian. Hence, this has caused some to be labeled as “Semi-Arian.”

It is very difficult to pin a particular “belief” onto Semi-Arianism. The “Semi-Arian” category is not so “one sided” as often portrayed, but rather “muddled” in a vast “pool” of thoughts and ideas.

The essence of “Semi-Arianism” is not so much caught up on the idea of whether or not Jesus is “equal” to God in nature, but were (by far) more worried about adopting language that had been in circulation in prior years that their Sabellian counterparts were latching onto.

A lot of the “Semi-Arians” were a bit hesitant to adopt such Trinitarian language, because (as explained above) in the years just prior, Modalists had used that language. They were coming off the heels of one “whimsicle idea” (“Modalism”), onto the heels of another (“Arianism”). They didn’t want to affirm the previous (“Modalism”), but also didn’t want to affirm the recent (“Arianism”). They were caught in the “middle” of the two.

Several candidates could be classified as “Semi-Arian,” though they had more “Trinitarian” leanings. Others, though classified as “Semi-Arian” may have had more “Arian” leanings, though still not quite ready to adopt “Arianism.”