Jehovah’s Witnesses

[williamjordan]

You said,

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

And,

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.

What texts do you suppose are "wrenched out of context and misrepsented, trying to give the idea of legitmacy"?

 

[awelight]

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?


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

Yes I would be called a Christian today. I would prefer to be called a "true believer" in Christ Jesus my Lord. Why? Because the term Christianity is so badly abused today by people who have no idea whom Christ really is.

What are you - a Jehovah Witness? If you are, then how does one witness for Jehovah when you don't even have the correct understanding of whom He is?

You claim that Jesus Christ is not the God-Man. Then do you believe He is a god? This is the abhorrent translation of John 1;1 by the JW's, is it not? However, to suggest such a thing is an abomination before God, as clearly stated in the Bible. Isa 44:6 Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.

Jehovah made it clear, there are no other gods alongside of Him, above Him or Below Him. (See also, verses 7 and 8)

If you still believe that Jesus Christ is not God, then explain what these verses are clearly stating:
Col 1:16-18 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: So the following is said about Jesu Christ:
1) All things were created through Him.
2) What was created was for Him.
3) He is before all things.
4) All things consist (are upheld) in Him.

This harmonizes perfectly with what John said in CH. 1 verses 1-3, does it not?

The Apostle Peter had this to say about Christ in 2nd Peter verse 1:
Συμεὼν Πέτρος, δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ· English Translation: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Likewise, Thomas declared Jesus as God, in John 20:28 - ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. English Translation: Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. or literally in the Koine Greek: "The Lord of me and The God of me." Both Lord and God have the definite article.

Seems pretty straight forward to me - should I go on?

 

[Magenta]

John 1:1 + 14a

 

[Magenta]

Seems pretty straight forward to me - should I go on?

There is a thread of proof texts here (<= link) .

 

[awelight]

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.

It is you sir, that seems to have missed my point. I don't care about you and RR's argument and wasn't weighing in on either side. I was simply pointing out, that these holidays don't add up when compared to the actual Biblical accounts.

I thought you might appreciate a little thought provoking Bible study, that could get you closer to the Truth on these matters. But that's okay, you two continue with your school yard brawl. Which in the end will be meaningless.

Also, I wouldn't make a habit of lumping all of Christianity into one or two baskets, which you did when you stated: "That the Western version of Christianity is rooted in paganism." This is presumptuous, at best and presents your argument as if you are arguing about "labels" and not the genuine article. Any belief system, worth a grain of salt, must be based on Scripture and Scripture alone. Not upon adopted creeds or church history or tradition... unless they agree with the objective Truth of God revealed in His Holy Word.

Again, pardon my intrusion into the two of yours discussion. Just thought you might be interested.

 

[awelight]

There is a thread of proof texts here (<= link) .

Thanks Magenta, but I am used to dealing with the JWs and their nonsense.
When I was a young believer, of about two years, I tied into a Jehovah Witness at my home. They really know nothing about the Biblical Truth, they only know what their publications teach. This JW was my best friends wife and after she continued to deny Jesus Christ's Eternal Sonship, I told my friend that he was welcome in my home (He was not a believer at the time) but his wife was to never cast her shadow upon my door ever again. Unless God opened her eyes of course.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society's Bible capitalize "God" in John 20:28
when that spelling contradicts their opposition to Jesus' divinity?

REPLY: It is a Watchtower Society rule of grammar that capitalization is
required when the Greek word theós is modified by the article ho.

However, I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this
particular case because skilled JW missionaries can easily dodge that bullet.
Instead, focus the attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he
not only addressed Jesus as a deity; but also addressed him as "my" deity.
In point of fact, the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures ©1969 renders Thomas' statement like this:

"The Lord of me and the God of me."

Now if Thomas was a Jew; then his association with Jehovah was governed
by the covenant that Moses' people entered into with God per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The very first of the covenant's ten
commandments forbids Jews to have more than one deity.

* By saying nothing to Thomas about addressing someone other than Jehovah
as his deity, Jesus would've been in violation right along with his apostle because
the Jews' covenant required him to protest.

● Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.

So then: if Jesus was the Lord of me and the God of me for Thomas, then
why isn't Jesus the Lord of me and the God of me for JWs?
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower
Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1961.

"Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens
and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All
[other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before
all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to
exist."

The word "other" is in brackets to alert Bible readers that it's not in the
Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to pencil it
in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation; and
thereafter, the Son created everything else.

NOTE: I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added "other"
because that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't say so
in writing. In other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an
interpretation rather than a translation.

One day, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my door consisting of
an experienced worker and a neophyte. I immediately began subjecting the
inexperienced Witness to a line of questioning that homed in on the Society's
rather dishonest habit of embellishing the Bible in order to reinforce its line
of thinking.

I had him read the ©1961 text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that
the word "other" is in brackets to alert him to the fact that "other" is not in
the Greek manuscript. The experienced worker corroborated my statement.

I then proceeded to have the inexperienced Witness read the passage sans
"other". It comes out like this:

"By means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means
of him all things were made to exist."

The young man's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to
discover that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he
was led to believe.

Had I pressed the issue; I would've pointed out that the Society is inconsistent.
They really should've penciled "other" into John 1:3 to make it read like this:

"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not
even one [other] thing came into existence."

NOTE: Later versions of the Society's New World Translation omit
brackets around the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen
from the Watchtower Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures ©1969 that "other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text.
Caveat Lector.
_

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

@RR,

There are records of plenty of churches that Believed the doctrine of the Trinity as we see in I John 5:7 among many other references OT and NT.
The Jehovah's false Witnesses happen to reject that fundamental Christian doctrine as some other false religions that reject the description of God as He gives us throughout from Genesis and ends with Revelation.

I don't believe that there's a catholic assembly called "the church ". There were plenty of churches with plenty of problems and even heresy that was addressed by the Apostles and by Christ directly. They were autonomous assemblies in various locations.

Last night I read Isaiah 40 and found another Messianic scripture about John the Baptist's ministry concerning God on earth.

Isaiah 40:3 quoted in Luke 3:4
3The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

The Holy Spirit is in verse 13
13Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

Concerning the Word of God in the same chapter...8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
A few days ago, Baptist historian and preacher, Phil Stringer, taught on the historical records concerning the strong Trinitarian Scripture that Wescott , Hort and many since have lied about, 1 John 5:7 KJB Those unsaved men rejected the doctrine of the Trinity as they did the inspiration/ preservation of Scriptures. One was into the occult and necromancy. They are the basis for commentators today.

A short comment < about the evolution of "the church."
There have always been Bible believing churches in existence, as there are today. Those are founded upon the Rock, Jesus , not the little stone.

 

[williamjordan]

It is you sir, that seems to have missed my point. I don't care about you and RR's argument and wasn't weighing in on either side. I was simply pointing out, that these holidays don't add up when compared to the actual Biblical accounts.

I thought you might appreciate a little thought provoking Bible study, that could get you closer to the Truth on these matters. But that's okay, you two continue with your school yard brawl. Which in the end will be meaningless.

Also, I wouldn't make a habit of lumping all of Christianity into one or two baskets, which you did when you stated: "That the Western version of Christianity is rooted in paganism." This is presumptuous, at best and presents your argument as if you are arguing about "labels" and not the genuine article. Any belief system, worth a grain of salt, must be based on Scripture and Scripture alone. Not upon adopted creeds or church history or tradition... unless they agree with the objective Truth of God revealed in His Holy Word.

Again, pardon my intrusion into the two of yours discussion. Just thought you might be interested.

You are mistakening the intentions of my post altogether. Why do you assume that I am defending a date of Dec. 25? This has nothing to do about the dating of the birth of Christ, but everything to do with the claim that RR made, that the birth of Christ has its roots in paganism, of which he has not demonstrated that to be the case.

The point, is: RR's thesis assumes a Dec. 25 date, something that half the Christian world does not observe.

This is not a debate over the dating of the birth of Christ, or the dating of the resurrection. Understand the difference. This is a debate of whether the birth of Christ has its roots in paganism, and you can only get there (and even then, not successfully) if you assume a Dec. 25 date.

This debate is about "source criticism."

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Matt 24:45-47 . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his
master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper
time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I
say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

The core of the Watchtower Society-- the Governing Body --sincerely
believes itself the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in that passage, i.e.
believes that God chose the leaders of the Watchtower Society as His sole
distributor of truth to mankind; thus explaining why John Que and Jane Doe
Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that they need to submit unquestioningly to
the Governing Body in order to associate with God, and for protection from
doomsday, viz: the calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.

"That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true
followers in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful
slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this
channel."
(Jul 15, 2013 Watchtower, p.20)

"We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s
approval."
(Jul 15, 2011 Watchtower, Simplified English Edition, p.24)

"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or
harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has
complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through
his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave."
(Aug 01, 2001 Watchtower, p.14)

According to the above: rank and file JWs are being taught that it's essential
to comply with the Governing Body's teachings. However; at the same time
they are warned that the Body's teachings should not be assumed either
inspired or infallible.

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in
doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watchtower
Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists
adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did
not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food."
(Feb 2017 Watchtower Study Edition, ¶12, under the heading: Who is leading God's People today?)

Just imagine the degree of confusion and insecurity that would pervade the
minds of conventional Christians had the authors of the New Testament
scriptures attached a disclaimer to their writings similar to the above.

And there's this:

"Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or
expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all. Those who
believe that God uses the Watchtower as a means of communicating to his
people, or of calling attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower."
Jan 01, 1942 Watchtower magazine, p.5

In other words: the haulers of water and the hewers of wood-- John Que and
Jane Doe rank and file JW --are not only expected to know what's in Watchtower
magazines, but they're also required to accept their contents as God's providence
in spite of the Society's caveat that their teachings are neither inspired, infallible,
nor guaranteed free of error.
_

 

[williamjordan]

IAlso, I wouldn't make a habit of lumping all of Christianity into one or two baskets, which you did when you stated: "That the Western version of Christianity is rooted in paganism." This is presumptuous, at best and presents your argument as if you are arguing about "labels" and not the genuine article. Any belief system, worth a grain of salt, must be based on Scripture and Scripture alone. Not upon adopted creeds or church history or tradition... unless they agree with the objective Truth of God revealed in His Holy Word.

I didn't, as you put it, "lump Christianity into one or two baskets." You need a lesson in reading comprehension. I said that RR needed to refine his argument if he's going to dangle Dec. 25 over the heads of Christians. Why? Because his thesis relies heavily on his very own Westernized "traditions," which half of the Christian population does not observe. The only population of Christians that do observe Dec. 25 are (by in large) in the Western hemisphere. But I never said that by refining his argument, that it would make it anymore accurate. Rather, by refining his argument this would be a far more honed statment, restricting Dec. 25 to the Western world, rather than just casting a broad blanket statement for the universal Christian church, which is what he did.

 

[williamjordan]

"That the Western version of Christianity is rooted in paganism." This is presumptuous, at best and presents your argument as if you are arguing about "labels" and not the genuine article.

I thought I was relatively clear about the intentions of this comment. Leave it to Bob over here to stand one sentence on its head, making it say exactly the opposite of what was intended.

 

[CS1]

The doctrine of the Trinity does predate Christianity, but not in the way you suppose, i.e., with origins rooted in paganism. There is no pagan equivalent to Trinitarianism. You will undoubtedly cite a number of tritheistic models and dub them for some kind of pre-Christian framework. But in reality, they do not run congruent or parallel one another.

You cannot even argue that "Christmas" (the birth of Christ) or "Easter" (the celebration of the resurrection) is rooted in paganism, because for one: You need to first establish that your prior Catholic convictions (that Jesus was born on Dec. 25) is actually the date He was born. In fact, the Eastern churches celebrate the birth of Christ on January 7th. And if you've managed to prove that Christ was indeed born on Dec. 25, then you have to prove that this was borrowed from a pre-Christian pagan cult.

There's a host of issues here: You assume your prior Roman Catholic convictions as the standard Christian belief, but wind up excluding half the Christian religion.

there is no information that is provided to say when Jesus was Born.

 

[RR]

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".

I believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but nowhere is the idea of a triune God taught, only manmade interpretations.

 

[RR]

What are you - a Jehovah Witness? If you are, then how does one witness for Jehovah when you don't even have the correct understanding of whom He is?

No, I am a "Witness for Jesus" a "Follower of Christ"

 

[Nehemiah6]

I believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but nowhere is the idea of a triune God taught, only manmade interpretations.

You well know that that is a blatantly false statement.

 

[RR]

You well know that that is a blatantly false statement.

So, you're calling me a liar?

 

[Iconoclast]

A couple times a month, JW’s come to visit the industrial estate where I work. They’re always welcoming and we always have a healthy debate, but everytime I ask the question why they don’t believe Jesus is God they stop talking and direct me to their website.
I can’t understand how someone who reads the same scriptures that we do, does not believe that Jesus is Lord? Or are they reading different scripture? As they’re trying to convert me, I offer counterpoints to make them think about what they believe. I’m not bashing JW’s. I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is. Thoughts?

They do not have the Holy Spirit, so unless they repent, They will see Jesus as Judge.
Rom.8:9

 

[williamjordan]

So, you're calling me a liar?

He's not calling you a liar, per se. You are making that deduction yourself. Since you are making that deduction, then if one can show that there are texts that teach contrary to what you have suggested is nowhere taught in Scripture, then by your own standard of deduction: Then I suppose you are a liar.

It really depends on what label you are comfortable wearing when you are proven wrong.

Personally, I was thinking something a little less harsh. Perhaps, "unaware" may be appropriate here. All this bantering back and forth and really not a whole lot of discussing the texts which you describe as, "wrenched out of context and misrepresented, trying to give the idea of legitmacy." That's where I want to go.