Evangelizing Jehovah's Witnesses

[StrawberryJam]

Didn’t mean to offend you. Its ok with me if we don’t agree.

Yes, I would say that burning on a stake would probably qualify. Maybe I should give the JW’s a second look. Whaddya think?

I think you ignore basic means available to you to determine what is and what is not real in your natural world, but choose for some reason to ignore that.

 

[Regardless]

… But I don’t hear any of them saying that they were shunned by the Catholic community…

We don’t shun former members as such.
If a baptized Jehovah’s Witness stops coming to the meetings or going out in our Bible teaching work we don’t shun them at all. In fact, we reach out to them all the more, since stopping spiritual activities is often a sign of discouragement or some problem or misunderstanding.
At John 13:35 Jesus said love would identify his true followers. We would hardly be showing love if we were shunning ones who were struggling with their faith.

However, if a baptized witness, (who has therefore dedicated his life to Jehovah and promised to live by Bible standards) starts practicing serious sin - then that is another matter. Jesus gave instruction on this in Matthew 18:15-17. Repeated attempts should be made to correct this one. But, if eventually they refuse to repent of their wrong course and won’t even listen to the congregation authority, they would be treated as “a man of the nations”. Paul went as far as to say: “quit mixing in company… not even eating with such a one.” (1 Cor. 5:11.)

We call that “disfellowshipped.”

They can still come to the meetings, and can be welcomed back to the congregation if they wish - but they are not counted as Jehovah’s witnesses unless they change their ways.
This protects the congregation, - shows the seriousness of the sin to the offender, - and protects Jehovah’s name from disrespect.

The alternative would be condoning their sin.

Here is a more official explanation of this if you are interested: watchtower.org/e/19880415/article_01.htm

 

[AveChriste11]

By church, I gather you mean the Catholic Church. I can’t say that you‘re wrong. I wouldn’t be much disturbed if you were right. That said, would you tell me how your church differs with what I said? For instance, can you tell me which particular things I said vs which particular understandings of the church?

I think St. Thomas may have simply run into the wrong people.

I guess I’ll be guilty of being too simple again, but I just see him as God. My life is getting shorter by the day. I don’t have time to form an intellectual grasp of Jesus or anything else that is well beyond my intellectual comprehension. He is not knowable on that level. He is not, however, beyond the comprehension of the heart. He can be known fully there.

I don’t recall that I said that Jesus later became Christ. The Christ Consciousness has always been and always will be.

Heresy and blasphemy walk hand in hand. Churches have used these terms liberally over time. There is a long history of this. We should take care to remember that Jesus had these same terms flung at him by the church of the time. If Jesus were to take on simple human form again today the churches wouldn’t do this to Him again. This is because I am relatively certain that He wouldn’t be able to get an appointment with any of them. They’d probably miss Him again. Gos has a way of happening while you’re busy looking for something else.

Are you sure that’ what you wanted to say?

Your friend
Sufjon

Sufjon,

When I say the Church and it differs from what you said, I mean that the Church has never taught that Christ is a state of consciousness. The Church has only taught that Christ is fully God, and fully man, a Person and not a state of awareness.

I agree with you though God is ultimately unknowable to our intellects, that’s why if you study the decisions made at the early ecumenical councils you will notice something in common. They are all declarations based on what God is not, what the Holy Trinity is not, they are not trying to understand God as He is… for we can never ultimately know his essence. It’s much like drawing a line in the sand, and saying “This is as far as we can go.”

I know you didn’t say that Jesus later became Christ, but I have heard this idea spoken of among some New Age circles who are keen to interpret Christianity in a non-Christian Eastern light. One example would be Yogananda and his disciples from the West…

I believe that the Church today has only used the term ‘heresy’ quite conservatively in contrast, because she carries the oral tradition of the Apostles. But yes I still hold that the ecumenical councils are infallible, that the Pope carries the authority of St. Peter, and can also freely add to the other patriarchs in alignment with the councils. This is how we know truth, and can distinguish it from error.

Such knowledge is not gnosis, nor epistemological certainty. It is hope, working through Faith as we learn to live in Charity during our journey on Earth.

I know these posts are way off topic, so may the Moderators forgive us!

 

[StrawberryJam]

We don’t shun former members as such.
If a baptized Jehovah’s Witness stops coming to the meetings or going out in our Bible teaching work we don’t shun them at all. In fact, we reach out to them all the more, since stopping spiritual activities is often a sign of discouragement or some problem or misunderstanding.
At John 13:35 Jesus said love would identify his true followers. We would hardly be showing love if we were shunning ones who were struggling with their faith.

However, if a baptized witness, (who has therefore dedicated his life to Jehovah and promised to live by Bible standards) starts practicing serious sin - then that is another matter. Jesus gave instruction on this in Matthew 18:15-17. Repeated attempts should be made to correct this one. But, if eventually they refuse to repent of their wrong course and won’t even listen to the congregation authority, they would be treated as “a man of the nations”. Paul went as far as to say: “quit mixing in company… not even eating with such a one.” (1 Cor. 5:11.)

We call that “disfellowshipped.”

They can still come to the meetings, and can be welcomed back to the congregation if they wish - but they are not counted as Jehovah’s witnesses unless they change their ways.
This protects the congregation, - shows the seriousness of the sin to the offender, - and protects Jehovah’s name from disrespect.

The alternative would be condoning their sin.

Here is a more official explanation of this if you are interested: watchtower.org/e/19880415/article_01.htm

Being disfellowshipped can last as long as the elder or elders decide amoung themselves, for a period of time they themselves decide? Correct, or not correct?

 

[SteveVH]

I think you ignore basic means available to you to determine what is and what is not real in your natural world, but choose for some reason to ignore that.

And just what am I ignoring and how are you qualified to judge me in any way whatsoever? From a few posts on one thread?

Are you saying that I ignore the abhorrent acts committed by some Catholics throughout its history. I won’t. There have been many terrible acts, committed by individuals within the Church, just as there are among agnostics. Many of these are exaggerated, and overstated, but there is absolutely no doubt that atrocities have taken place and each one of them is in violation of the laws and teachings of the Church.

If you will remember, however, we are speaking of the practice of shunning and whether or not it is practiced in the Catholic Church as you claim. I have said no. You have used former Catholic posters as an example and I have asked you for the evidence. You have not been able to give me any. So you reach into your arsenal and pull out the middle ages and then accuse me of having my eyes closed.

Just wanted to recap and get back on topic.

 

[Regardless]

Being disfellowshipped can last as long as the elder or elders decide amoung themselves, for a period of time they themselves decide? Correct, or not correct?

Pretty much.
There would be a committee of elders who would decide if disfellowshipping was necessary. It would never be the whim of a single elder.

But otherwise that sounds correct.
The elders would weigh up the matter scripturally and prayerfully before someone would be re-instated as one of Jehovah’s witnesses.
I have known ones who have immediately abandoned their wrong conduct and were welcomed back within a few months, - and others who have been disfellowshipped for years and have never tried to come back to the congregation.

 

[StrawberryJam]

And just what am I ignoring and how are you qualified to judge me in any way whatsoever? From a few posts on one thread?

Are you saying that I ignore the abhorrent acts committed by some Catholics throughout its history. I won’t. There have been many terrible acts, committed by individuals within the Church, just as there are among agnostics. Many of these are exaggerated, and overstated, but there is absolutely no doubt that atrocities have taken place and each one of them is in violation of the laws and teachings of the Church.

If you will remember, however, we are speaking of the practice of shunning and whether or not it is practiced in the Catholic Church as you claim. I have said no. You have used former Catholic posters as an example and I have asked you for the evidence. You have not been able to give me any. So you reach into your arsenal and pull out the middle ages and then accuse me of having my eyes closed.

Just wanted to recap and get back on topic.

Don’t call it shunning if it bothers you so much. Call it self-excommunication.
Really, do I have to post links to active threads to show the types of shunning going on, or will you admit it?

 

[meltzerboy]

Since I’m always interested in finding out about other religious beliefs, I once invited a Jehovah’s Witness into my home. He was very polite, appeared knowledgeable in his own world-view and explained his understanding of the Bible to me. I told him I am Jewish, not Christian, and that in my faith J-ah is regarded as G-d so we had something in common. Since in Judaism, we are forbidden to proselytize, I didn’t try to convert him to my faith and that was not my purpose anyway. What I wanted to find out was his religion’s position regarding the divinity of Christ: is Christ considered the Messiah, the son of G-d, did He die for our sins, and so on. Also, I was interested in his attitudes toward the Jewish faith. Of course, I realized that his views did not necessarily reflect those of all J-ah’s Witnesses, just as one person from any religion may differ on minor or major points in their religion from others of the same faith. Regardless, our conversation lasted some two hours and I learned quite a bit about the religion without converting, however.

 

[Santi2]

There are a number of things that I admire about the Witnesses who come to my door, although I deplore the system that has distorted their understanding of Scripture and faith.
I admire their knowledge of the Bible even as I acknowledge that their version contains distortion (I think I deplore the Message and most other modern English versions almost as much).
I am debating with myself about how much to attempt to evangelize them–I have made some moderate effort to explain the Trinity and to refute their teachings on the soul, hell, and participation in government.
Please comment on your experience, techniques, suggestions, or other advice.

The JW’s who knock on our door are lovely people. I tell them that I am a practising Catholic and, to save their breath to cool their porridge, we can discuss about the secular challenges against faith communities over here and always invite them to help us with our pro-life campaign. I tell them that I am quite happy to accept JW written materials they hand out when they come visiting provided that they also accept mine.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon,

When I say the Church and it differs from what you said, I mean that the Church has never taught that Christ is a state of consciousness. The Church has only taught that Christ is fully God, and fully man, a Person and not a state of awareness.

I agree with you though God is ultimately unknowable to our intellects, that’s why if you study the decisions made at the early ecumenical councils you will notice something in common. They are all declarations based on what God is not, what the Holy Trinity is not, they are not trying to understand God as He is… for we can never ultimately know his essence. It’s much like drawing a line in the sand, and saying “This is as far as we can go.”

I know you didn’t say that Jesus later became Christ, but I have heard this idea spoken of among some New Age circles who are keen to interpret Christianity in a non-Christian Eastern light. One example would be Yogananda and his disciples from the West…

I believe that the Church today has only used the term ‘heresy’ quite conservatively in contrast, because she carries the oral tradition of the Apostles. But yes I still hold that the ecumenical councils are infallible, that the Pope carries the authority of St. Peter, and can also freely add to the other patriarchs in alignment with the councils. This is how we know truth, and can distinguish it from error.

Such knowledge is not gnosis, nor epistemological certainty. It is hope, working through Faith as we learn to live in Charity during our journey on Earth.

I know these posts are way off topic, so may the Moderators forgive us!

Hi AveChriste11: Thank you for your patience and your reply. Just for clarification I too believe He was fully God and fully man. I had never heard the idea that He became the Christ at some later point, so I have never given it any thought and wouldn’t be able add anything to a discussion on it. I do think He had a universal and all pervading consciousness, but my sense was that He always had it. Anyway, thank you again for your time and the thought you put into your replies.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by** Regardless**
However, if a baptized witness, (who has therefore dedicated his life to Jehovah and promised to live by Bible standards) starts practicing serious sin - then that is another matter

There’s the rub. Just WHO determines “serious sin”?
I knew a guy who refused to stop using the words “crucified” and “bulletin board” and so was hauled up in front of the “elders” for “correction”.

originally posted by Regardless
They can still come to the meetings, and can be welcomed back to the congregation if they wish

Really? When I attended the kingdom hall, a disfellowshipped person was definitely not “welcomed back to the congregation” by anyone. He/she was regulated to the very back of the hall, and was last in and first out so that the congregation would not be contaminated by his/her presense. The person was forbidden from speaking to anyone and no one better be observed as speaking to him/her or, bang!; right up to the “elders” you go!
It was, without a doubt, the most controlling and unloving bunch I ever knew. The worst was how they announce to the entire congragation if a person has been “disciplined” or “disfellowshipped” - making humiliation the highmark of “love” for that poor person.
You would think that it would be understood by one of these persons as a relief to hear the actual truth of God but not so. Especially if their entire family is involved. If they are disfellowshipped, their family is prohibited from any contact with them which is a nightmare for any sane person to endure.

 

[SteveVH]

Don’t call it shunning if it bothers you so much. Call it self-excommunication.
Really, do I have to post links to active threads to show the types of shunning going on, or will you admit it?

Thank you for clarifying your position. Now, maybe we can get somewhere.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there are many former Catholics out there who feel disenfranchised (“shunned”) for one reason or another. Maybe it was a divorce and the Church has not allowed an annulment. Maybe it was an abortion, which would result in self-excommunication. Maybe it is a gay person who does not understand why the Church will not recognize the love between to persons of the same sex and bless some sort of union.

Of course, I understand that there are many who fall into the categories I’ve listed above and more. I am extremely familiar with the struggles of these individuals as each of those I’ve listed are currently taking place within my own extended family, so I don’t have to look far.

Without addressing them one, by one, I will just say this. The Church should not and cannot water down the truth it has been charged with guarding. It cannot because it cannot change the teachings of Christ himself regarding these matters. The taking of an innocent life through abortion, for instance, is intrinsically evil and the very act itself automatically places one outside the family of God. However, one is never prevented from repenting of this sin and being brought back in. The Church provides counseling and offers forgiveness through Christ for any offense, and stands ready to welcome them back home.

We all are sinners, but some sins are so abhorrent that they actually kill us spiritually. When we commit these offenses we have cut ourselves off from God’s life, and therefore his Church. Those are the choices we make, not the Church. Even in the case of excommunication, the Church is there to welcome all of us prodigal sons and daughters back into the arms of God. Those that refuse this invitation and instead hold fast to their position do so through their own choice.

In my own situation, I have a niece who is gay. Neither our family nor our Church has “shunned” her, though she, through her own actions, is prevented from receiving the sacraments. I gently remind her of why she was created as a woman and I do it with authentic love. She knows very well that there is nothing she could do that would stop me from loving her. In fact, she is surrounded by love even though she knows we do not accept her lifesytle. This is quite different than the Mormon idea of not allowing its members to even associate with one who has been disfellowshipped.

I hope this brings us closer to an understanding.

God bless.

 

[johnpauls]

Assuming that all paths lead to God, which is a very dangerous assumption.

Assuming that your path is the only path is also very dangerous if you are wrong.

 

[SteveVH]

Assuming that your path is the only path is also very dangerous if you are wrong.

If all paths lead to God then there was no reason for Christ to come to earth, suffer and die for us. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that there is any religious institution out there that does not have some truth within it. If it didn’t, no one would be attracted to it in the first place. I also believe that God draws all people unto Himself. But truth is not relative, it is absolute.

As Paul said, if Christ was not resurrected, then we are to be pitied among all men. So I agree with you, but I’ll take my chances by remaining in the Church founded by Christ himself.

 

[Resident75]

Unfortunately and with all respect, Jehovah’s Witnesses are “trained” to speak, not to listen. They do not accept Trinity and Jesus divinity.

The only thing that worked for me (at a certain point) is to ask them who translated their version of the Bible. Then, compare their version and other versions with the original greek text.

Example:

Matthew 16, v18.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Greek = Πέτρος: Petros = Petra (πέτρᾳ): Stone/Rock = Peter
Aramaic: Kefás = Stone/Rock = Petros/Petra = Peter

Catholic:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Watchtower:
Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Ha´des will not overpower it.

ARGUMENT = Where your translators got the word “(rock) mass” from?. The ORIGINAL text says does not have that expression?. Besides the next versicle reaffirms that Jesus is spoken to Peter in front of all his apostles.

Good luck with that!

 

[johnpauls]

I hear from Catholics all the time that they feel their church was the church started by Jesus. To some degree, all churchs need to say that, or do say this very thing - yet Catholics believe they have historical backing.

History seems to very much support the idea that the Catholic church is the same church today as the one based in Rome in early times. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that the Church in Rome was;

a. the most early “seat” of the church’s authority. The book of Acts places the first meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem. Other books state Peter was in Babylon preaching to the Jews there - and yes I know that Catholic tradition says that was really in Rome.

b. the Church in Rome was not established as any Christian “center” until the later part of the second century. There is over a hundred years of lacking “proof” that the church held their power structure in Rome. If anything, there are many references in early church writings that suggest Jerusalem was still the “seat” of authority.

We know early on East broke with West (Clement vs Polycarp) - and then on and on into sub-fragments. It can be said that the most powerful church came from Rome, but it was not the first, nor was it the ONLY church of the time. To say “Jesus started the Church of Rome” is very much disputed.

 

[vsedriver]

I hear from Catholics all the time that they feel their church was the church started by Jesus. To some degree, all churchs need to say that, or do say this very thing - yet Catholics believe they have historical backing.

History seems to very much support the idea that the Catholic church is the same church today as the one based in Rome in early times. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that the Church in Rome was;

a. the most early “seat” of the church’s authority. The book of Acts places the first meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem. Other books state Peter was in Babylon preaching to the Jews there - and yes I know that Catholic tradition says that was really in Rome.

Here is where you are mistaken. It is not the fact that we believe Rome was the seat of the early Church’s authority but the fact that it is Peter who was 1st among the apostles. Wherever Peter is, there is the authority of the Church. Peter ended life as the Bishop of Rome and therefore passed the keys of authority to his successor, who continues to be the Bishop of Rome.

 

[SteveVH]

I hear from Catholics all the time that they feel their church was the church started by Jesus. To some degree, all churchs need to say that, or do say this very thing - yet Catholics believe they have historical backing.

History seems to very much support the idea that the Catholic church is the same church today as the one based in Rome in early times. However, it is far from a foregone conclusion that the Church in Rome was;

a. the most early “seat” of the church’s authority. The book of Acts places the first meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem. Other books state Peter was in Babylon preaching to the Jews there - and yes I know that Catholic tradition says that was really in Rome.

b. the Church in Rome was not established as any Christian “center” until the later part of the second century. There is over a hundred years of lacking “proof” that the church held their power structure in Rome. If anything, there are many references in early church writings that suggest Jerusalem was still the “seat” of authority.

We know early on East broke with West (Clement vs Polycarp) - and then on and on into sub-fragments. It can be said that the most powerful church came from Rome, but it was not the first, nor was it the ONLY church of the time. To say “Jesus started the Church of Rome” is very much disputed.

St. Irenaeus (Around 180 AD) was a contemporary of Polycarp, who in turn was a student of St. John the Evangelist. This is what he had to say:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

There is no such thing as the “Church of Rome”. There is the Catholic Church which was founded in Jerusalem by Jesus Christ. Peter, by virtue of the unique authority given to him by Christ, was the human head of the Church. When he became the Bishop of Rome, the Church recognized that office, “Bishop of Rome” as having authority over the entire Church. No one in the Jerusalem Church argued that Jerusalem should be the center of the Church.

East did not break with West until 1053 AD. So I wouldn’t call that “early on”. Even then, we shared the same doctrines and beliefs. I have no idea what you are referencing as far as a break in the Church caused by some dispute between Clement and Polycarp. Please enlighten me. In any event, the Church certainly did not split “on and on into sub-fragments”. After the schism of the Eastern Church, it was another 500 years until the Reformation. Even then, the Catholic Church remained intact and it was the Protestant churches that fragmented into the mess we have today.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

There are many great resources that you can find regarding this topic. I have been talking with JW’s for years. I always use their own New World Translation when conversing about Scripture since we can show them our view from their book. They are brain washed and they follow directives that they are taught almost verbatim. They also are taught that this world is run by satan and anything taught to them that contradicts the teachings of the Watchtower is satanic. They will throw away any and all literature that we give them and even if they seem to hear what you are saying they almost always rewind to square one when you meet them again.

With this group we can only pray and leave the work to the Holy Spirit. Never quit talking with them since we are the Holy Spirit’s mouthpiece but do not expect great or immediate results. It can be quite frustrating at times and you had better brush up on Scripture as they are fundamentalists to the tenth degree.

They are good people looking through distorted glasses. Their fervency should be mirrored and admired. Pray for them. Their faith is nothing more than modern day Arianism and the Church eradicated that for centuries until it popped back up with Charles Taze Russell… teachccd

They like to associate themselves with the Arians as their forebears which were persecuted by the Catholic Church etc.

IF they say they are the descendants of the Arians, then, if we would like, we can put the question to them - why don’t they worship Christ as all three Arian sects did? (Also, which of the three Arian sects’ teachings do they subscribe to?)

It is interesting that there are saints in the Catholic and Orthodox calendars who were Arians and also Arian liturgical traditions.

When do the JW’s liturgize? In short, that is another horse that won’t ride.

But one must be compassionate and welcoming - assuming one is well-armed and nurtured in scripture and history etc.

I knew a Catholic couple, both Catholic school teachers, who invted JW’s into their home. Today, the woman is an ardent JW - makes one think how that could happen, doesn’t it?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I can’t say for those who converted to the JW faith, but I can speak of some cradle JW’s. I find them to be a very intellectually based people, it’s almost surprising that they have not committed a form of idolatry with their excessive reliance on reason. Cradle JW’s will never understand certain mysteries of the Faith which were revealed to us at the Council of Nicea, and which we repeat every Sunday both Catholic and Orthodox. I feel that with most of them all you can do is pray, and to let God’s Light shine through you. That is the only true witness, words are meaningless when it comes to individuals who will debate you over a single sentence and a refusal to let go of their various misconceptions.

A very good point that is also an excellent insight into the rationale of their perspective.

They reject the Trinity etc. primarily because human intellectual capacity cannot fathom such. Their organization has roots in the morally confused 19th century which wanted to adapt religion to the limitations of the human mind. This is also why they change scripture to fit more “earthy” rational explanations. Belief in one God is something that can be arrived at through one’s mind for the most part. Belief in the Holy Trinity and Christ’s Divinity come from Revelation. We accept God’s Revelation first and then we can ponder it.

Faith is a product of Divine Grace, not intellectual capacity. They also reject the idea that God is beyond all since that too offends human rationality and human pride.

Alex