How does one argue the Trinity with Jehovah’s Witnesses?

[dronald]

Hey DelsonJacobs, I’m still curious what your take is on why JW’s visiting me are always in their 40’s-50’s? I don’t know if it’s been a coincidence but I’ve never seen a parent with his teenager, or even a 25 year old.

Do you know the reason or is it just a coincidence for me?

 

[ajcstr]

Hey DelsonJacobs, I’m still curious what your take is on why JW’s visiting me are always in their 40’s-50’s? I don’t know if it’s been a coincidence but I’ve never seen a parent with his teenager, or even a 25 year old.

Do you know the reason or is it just a coincidence for me?

The woman that visited me on Saturday had her teenage daughter with her but now that you mention it it was the first time I was not visited by 2 adults. The parent however did all the talking.

If I were to guess, the teenage/young adults babysit the children of others while they are out?

 

[dronald]

The woman that visited me on Saturday had her teenage daughter with her but now that you mention it it was the first time I was not visited by 2 adults. The parent however did all the talking.

If I were to guess, the teenage/young adults babysit the children of others while they are out?

That actually makes sense. I find Mormons are always nice dudes in their 20’s who strike me as down to Earth. Just curious if there is a reason for such a difference between missionaries, if there is one at all.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Kirk (pointing to Mudd) “Everything he says is a lie !”

Mudd - “I’m Lying”

Android - “If he says he is lying and he always lies, then he is telling the truth, but he cannot tell the truth because everything he says is a lie, illogical, illogical…”

Ah, if it were only that easy

It’s about inducing what most refer to as a state of “cognitive dissonance.” It’s NOT about providing clever refutes.

Sociologists and scientists have learned that we have an instinct that appears to keep us from doubting ourselves and dismissing our convictions. It’s an important instinct because it helps us to learn basic truths that can save us from infancy onward. We don’t have to learn that fire is hot again and again and again, especially if we burn ourselves attempting to touch it. This is the instinct I am talking about here.

Like other instincts it is important for survival. But the problem is that, like other instincts, if allowed to run amuck it can overtake us and can even take our lives in the end.

Most of us are not even aware that it is an instinct. We go through life trusting our own logic, believing in ourselves and what we have learned. Difficulties arise when we don’t teach ourselves that we can be mistaken and even fool ourselves into believing what we want to be true.

I am sure some of you right now are quite skeptical about what I am saying. Some of you are ready to even debate me on the subject. And do you know why? Because you have that instinct that we all have. If it’s new or especially something that goes against what you accept or believe, you will be skeptical, argumentative, and even be prone to deny it before you accept that you, yes you, are prone to being wrong due to an instinctive impulse you never knew you had!

There is even a new facet of psychology being developed to help people learn how to control this impulse. It is being called “wrongology.”

When it comes to dealing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have to induce a response called “cognitive dissonance.” It’s actually a state of mental stress brought on by being confronted with two conflicting “realities.” It may be what we believe to be true is suddenly confronted with new data that shows what is REALLY true—and the cognitive dissonance occurs because both “realities” conflict.

Cognitive dissonance requires action. Many can go into denial at this point. But many also choose what some call the “Harry Potter” solution. In all the Harry Potter novels and movies, the protagonist Harry always ends up shocked to learn that what he believed to be true was never true in the first place. Instead of going into denial or remaining in a state of shock, what makes Harry a hero is how quickly he is able to respond to his new “reality.”

That, of course, is fiction. Most of us go through a lot of stress, anger, demonizing, and even denial before we come out the other side and admit that our previous “reality” was in fact falsehood. But sometimes it does happen as quickly as it does for Harry Potter.

So what I am trying to explain is that none of the arguments about doctrine will work until you prove to the Witness that they are holding onto a false “reality.” And you do this by pulling the rug out from under them, so to speak, not arguing or discussing the subjects they are ready with.

It’s about inducing cognitive dissonance so that they will be forced to respond.

They have to face the “Star Wars” truth. They are Luke Skywalker and you are Darth Vader. You have to “cut off their hand”(so to speak) with your lightsaber to get their attention, and ONLY THEN can you tell them the truth: You are their father.

They will scream and cry and holler in denial: “No, that’s no true! That’ impossible!” But without a means to fight back and left only with the cold truth they will finally be in a position to accept that they actually are the offspring of the Dark Lord of the Sith.

You have to take away their lightsaber.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Hey DelsonJacobs, I’m still curious what your take is on why JW’s visiting me are always in their 40’s-50’s? I don’t know if it’s been a coincidence but I’ve never seen a parent with his teenager, or even a 25 year old.

Do you know the reason or is it just a coincidence for me?

Actually it is because the number of young people directly engaged in their preaching work is relatively low–especially in comparison with Latter Day Saints.

LDS males have to take on a mission in order to be married in the Temple. Only Temple weddings will last forever and are recognized as being fully in compliance with the Heavenly Father’s plan for their lives, as Mormons understand it.

So LDS missionaries are usually younger-aged men (though today that is being changed with an introduction of more females and older-aged members). It is part of the process of growing up for many of them.

A lot of JW children, on the other hand, aren’t always on board with their parents. Very young children get dragged out and usually end up hating it and having bad memories of the experience as they age. Many leave home as soon as they can too, so they never get involved in the preaching work. And there is no reason to actually preach if you are not an official member of the JWs (you don’t have to do it to necessarily get an approved marriage in the eyes of the Watchtower religion, for instance). So you don’t find as many young males engaged in the ministry as you see among the LDS.

And, despite the differences of religious beliefs, the JWs are not even in the same class as the LDS. Mormons are more respectful, much easier to speak with, better speakers, and won’t necessarily consider you a lost cause just because you don’t become a Mormon. They are there to help you too, if they can, and they make great neighbors who take part in their community.

The Witnesses believe preaching to you is showing enough love. They will avoid most contact with you. And if you don’t join them, well, you know…

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

It’s about inducing what most refer to as a state of “cognitive dissonance.” It’s NOT about providing clever refutes.

Sociologists and scientists have learned that we have an instinct that appears to keep us from doubting ourselves and dismissing our convictions. It’s an important instinct because it helps us to learn basic truths that can save us from infancy onward. We don’t have to learn that fire is hot again and again and again, especially if we burn ourselves attempting to touch it. This is the instinct I am talking about here.

Like other instincts it is important for survival. But the problem is that, like other instincts, if allowed to run amuck it can overtake us and can even take our lives in the end.

Most of us are not even aware that it is an instinct. We go through life trusting our own logic, believing in ourselves and what we have learned. Difficulties arise when we don’t teach ourselves that we can be mistaken and even fool ourselves into believing what we want to be true.

I am sure some of you right now are quite skeptical about what I am saying. Some of you are ready to even debate me on the subject. And do you know why? Because you have that instinct that we all have. If it’s new or especially something that goes against what you accept or believe, you will be skeptical, argumentative, and even be prone to deny it before you accept that you, yes you, are prone to being wrong due to an instinctive impulse you never knew you had!

There is even a new facet of psychology being developed to help people learn how to control this impulse. It is being called “wrongology.”

When it comes to dealing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have to induce a response called “cognitive dissonance.” It’s actually a state of mental stress brought on by being confronted with two conflicting “realities.” It may be what we believe to be true is suddenly confronted with new data that shows what is REALLY true—and the cognitive dissonance occurs because both “realities” conflict.

Cognitive dissonance requires action. Many can go into denial at this point. But many also choose what some call the “Harry Potter” solution. In all the Harry Potter novels and movies, the protagonist Harry always ends up shocked to learn that what he believed to be true was never true in the first place. Instead of going into denial or remaining in a state of shock, what makes Harry a hero is how quickly he is able to respond to his new “reality.”

That, of course, is fiction. Most of us go through a lot of stress, anger, demonizing, and even denial before we come out the other side and admit that our previous “reality” was in fact falsehood. But sometimes it does happen as quickly as it does for Harry Potter.

So what I am trying to explain is that none of the arguments about doctrine will work until you prove to the Witness that they are holding onto a false “reality.” And you do this by pulling the rug out from under them, so to speak, not arguing or discussing the subjects they are ready with.

It’s about inducing cognitive dissonance so that they will be forced to respond.

They have to face the “Star Wars” truth. They are Luke Skywalker and you are Darth Vader. You have to “cut off their hand”(so to speak) with your lightsaber to get their attention, and ONLY THEN can you tell them the truth: You are their father.

They will scream and cry and holler in denial: “No, that’s no true! That’ impossible!” But without a means to fight back and left only with the cold truth they will finally be in a position to accept that they actually are the offspring of the Dark Lord of the Sith.

You have to take away their lightsaber.

 

[PJM]

=DelsonJacobs;11927946]As a former Jehovah’s Witness (now Catholic) I get asked this most often.

The answer: One doesn’t.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are prepared to come at the Trinity from every angle, and when they do they try to get everything they have been trained about it out, unfortunately sometimes all at once! I used to be a Jehovah’s Witness, so I know. I used to do this. It is what we were trained to do! Now as a Roman Catholic, I am sharing what I know.

While many here have great arguments to use in defending the Catholic faith, they won’t work against a people who train every day on how not listen to you, who go to weekly training courses and memorize ways to catch you up in your speech, and practice new approaches monthly to use when they encounter you. They are prepared to more than you realize.

So what’s a Catholic to do? Simple. Respond by doing something they are NOT prepared for. What is that? Employing logistical apologetics.

Apostle Paul’s Logistical Apologetic Approach

Logistical apologetics is based on the approach employed by St. Paul when he gave his speech before King Agrippa as recorded in Acts 26. By the end of his speech, Paul had the Agrippa declaring: “You will soon persuade me to play the Christian!”—Acts 26:28.

In this speech St. Paul does not attempt to prove the existence of God or of Jesus or of any of the tenets of Christianity. What he does, however, is appeal to Agrippa’s knowledge of things and logic to show that he, Paul, is not a madman but a very sane man who has very logical reasons for being a Christian.

Paul tells his story of how he got to where he was, a man in chains now making a defense before King Agrippa. He effective puts his audience in his own shoes, demonstrating so effectively that logic gave him no choice but to become a Christian that his audience said among themselves: “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment.” (Acts 26:24-31) While they didn’t exactly leave Paul as new converts to Christianity or believing in his message, they did walk away believing in Paul.

And that’s what we need to do when we talk with the Jehovah’s Witnesses about things. At the end of the day they probably won’t be leaving their Kingdom Hall and signing up for RCIA, but they should be able to see that our actions in choosing to be Catholic show a logic that can’t be argued against.

Approach No. 1: Demonstrate a Lack of Logic in What Gets Raised Against You

Before you start off on your apologetic discourse in imitation of the apostle Paul, you will probably have to earn any listening ear from the Witnesses. This will happen if you show them you are a logical person in regards to our chosen subject here, the Most Holy Trinity.

Doing this will require that you disarm their objections to the Trinity. And you will do this NOT by raising other arguments to counter theirs, but showing they don’t have an argument to begin with.

I will demonstrate this with two of the most common objections I personally get in the following post.

WOW, that’s a TUFFIE!

While they use the same terms we do; they give them their own VERY unGodly definitions.

But show them
Mt. 3: 13-17 where God the Son, The HS and the father are ALL present at the same time [The baptism of Christ] and be ready to expalin why cHRIST "had to be???n-ot] Baptized
:
And Mt. 28: 18-20 where Christ Orders the Apostles to Baptize in the Names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Don’t argue; just PRAY MUCH for them

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[dronald]

Actually it is because the number of young people directly engaged in their preaching work is relatively low–especially in comparison with Latter Day Saints.

LDS males have to take on a mission in order to be married in the Temple. Only Temple weddings will last forever and are recognized as being fully in compliance with the Heavenly Father’s plan for their lives, as Mormons understand it.

So LDS missionaries are usually younger-aged men (though today that is being changed with an introduction of more females and older-aged members). It is part of the process of growing up for many of them.

A lot of JW children, on the other hand, aren’t always on board with their parents. Very young children get dragged out and usually end up hating it and having bad memories of the experience as they age. Many leave home as soon as they can too, so they never get involved in the preaching work. And there is no reason to actually preach if you are not an official member of the JWs (you don’t have to do it to necessarily get an approved marriage in the eyes of the Watchtower religion, for instance). So you don’t find as many young males engaged in the ministry as you see among the LDS.

And, despite the differences of religious beliefs, the JWs are not even in the same class as the LDS. Mormons are more respectful, much easier to speak with, better speakers, and won’t necessarily consider you a lost cause just because you don’t become a Mormon. They are there to help you too, if they can, and they make great neighbors who take part in their community.

The Witnesses believe preaching to you is showing enough love. They will avoid most contact with you. And if you don’t join them, well, you know…

Thanks!

I agree that Mormons in my experience are friendly and usually down to Earth.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

My Cognitive Dissonance Moment and the Eureka Effect
(and How This Brought Down the Trinity for Me)

Because it may be easy to come to the conclusion that I am trying to offer just another set of clever arguments to refute what the Witnesses say about the Trinity, let me explain what happened to me. By this it should be clear I am not talking about any particular set of arguments, Scripture texts, or the like.

Three Gods: The Straw Man Fallacy

What most Trinitarians don’t realize is that Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the Trinity because they have a totally incorrect understanding of it.

And basically that’s all there is.

It’s not really because there are no Scriptures that support or explicitly teach the Trinity. In reality there are.

The problem is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are convinced that they understand what we believe in. And they have been shown and demonstrated how this concept cannot be applied to the God of the Bible. What they have been shown and what they believe is actually CORRECT…but for the sole reason that they aren’t actually arguing against the Trinity in the first place.

What the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in is that since the Father is God, and the Son if God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then there must be three gods. They believe that each of these Gods are incapable of allowing another to take the lead because they make up a set of three co-equal gods. And because they believe God has a literal spiritual body that resides in a literal place called “Heaven,” they believe that the Trinity suggests these three gods would bump into one another in impossible scenarios in our temporal realm.

Of course this ISN’T what the Trinity is all about.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three separate gods; they are three separate Persons of which God consists of. Though each Person is co-equal with the others, they can and do allow one of the others to take the lead in certain circumstances, as they cooperate with one another.

And Trinitarians generally don’t believe God lives in the temporal plane. We believe God transcends space and time. He doesn’t have a body, physical or spiritual, and as such cannot be confined to any particular space. So when the three Persons interact, they are not causing unrealistic scenarios, such as at the baptism of Christ (which Jehovah’s Witnesses laugh about because it would mean that God as the Spirit comes down from heaven to sit on God’s head, Jesus, while throwing his voice like a ventriloquist to make it sound like he is talking from heaven).

Of course, it is funny if you think about it in JW terms. But that baptism set-up isn’t the Trinity.

Theirs is an invention. A mistaken concept. So when they argue against the Trinity, they are actually arguing against an empty concept. They aren’t arguing against what you and I believe. They set up a false belief, a “straw man” if you will. And it looks impressive when they knock him over with their set of proof texts and arguments–but it was only a straw man to begin with. Anyone can knock over a man made up of straw because he isn’t real.

My Helen Keller “WAH-WAH” Moment

I love the play The Miracle Worker, you know the one I’m speaking of. It’s about Helen Keller learning through her teacher that it is possible to communicate via sign language? In the last moments of the show Helen Keller has a eureka moment. I call it the WAH-WAH moment, myself.

The way it plays out on stage is this: Anne Sullivan, her teacher, is spelling “water” into Helen’s hand while working a pump to fill a pitcher Helen was holding with the other. Suddenly Helen had a “eureka” moment and realizes that the finger spellings of “w-a-t-e-r” being made by Anne into her hand mean the fluid coming out of the pump.

On stage you can’t really show an inner eureka moment. You have to do something else. So they had Helen say “wah-wah,” because Helen could actually say a few words she had learned in infancy before going blind and deaf. We as a hearing audience make the connection that she is remembering that things have names, and that now the name is the spelling Anne is making into her hand.

Helen drops the pitcher, says WAH-WAH again, and then spells “water” back to her teacher. “She knows!” Anne declares.

Well, I can’t really explain my eureka moment except to say “wah-wah” too. I never believed in the Trinity until someone stopped me in the middle of my JW rant and showed me I was wrong. They had me repeat their words: “Three persons in one God, not three gods in one godhead.” (“Three gods in one godhead” is how the JWs explain it.)

“Three persons in one God, not three gods in one godhead.” I literally said it again and again. It was like Anne Sullivan spelling “water” into Helen’s hand until it suddenly dawned on me that I was arguing against “three gods in one godhead” while all the rest of you believed in something I had not ever really heard of: “Three persons in one God.”

“WAH-WAH!”

And that was it. My arguments were futile to begin with because they weren’t against the Trinity.

And if they weren’t against the Trinity, then my doctrines didn’t prove the Trinity wrong.

And if my doctrines didn’t disprove the Trinity, then I had been wrong all the time.

So you see, it wasn’t a set of arguments about Scripture that changed things. It was pulling the rug out from under me that did it. I was shown I wasn’t standing on anything solid. I had no ground to stand on.

That’s what you have to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Easier said than done? Not exactly.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

It’s about inducing what most refer to as a state of “cognitive dissonance.” It’s NOT about providing clever refutes.

Sociologists and scientists have learned that we have an instinct that appears to keep us from doubting ourselves and dismissing our convictions. It’s an important instinct because it helps us to learn basic truths that can save us from infancy onward. We don’t have to learn that fire is hot again and again and again, especially if we burn ourselves attempting to touch it. This is the instinct I am talking about here.

Like other instincts it is important for survival. But the problem is that, like other instincts, if allowed to run amuck it can overtake us and can even take our lives in the end.

Most of us are not even aware that it is an instinct. We go through life trusting our own logic, believing in ourselves and what we have learned. Difficulties arise when we don’t teach ourselves that we can be mistaken and even fool ourselves into believing what we want to be true.

I am sure some of you right now are quite skeptical about what I am saying. Some of you are ready to even debate me on the subject. And do you know why? Because you have that instinct that we all have. If it’s new or especially something that goes against what you accept or believe, you will be skeptical, argumentative, and even be prone to deny it before you accept that you, yes you, are prone to being wrong due to an instinctive impulse you never knew you had!

There is even a new facet of psychology being developed to help people learn how to control this impulse. It is being called “wrongology.”

When it comes to dealing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have to induce a response called “cognitive dissonance.” It’s actually a state of mental stress brought on by being confronted with two conflicting “realities.” It may be what we believe to be true is suddenly confronted with new data that shows what is REALLY true—and the cognitive dissonance occurs because both “realities” conflict.

Cognitive dissonance requires action. Many can go into denial at this point. But many also choose what some call the “Harry Potter” solution. In all the Harry Potter novels and movies, the protagonist Harry always ends up shocked to learn that what he believed to be true was never true in the first place. Instead of going into denial or remaining in a state of shock, what makes Harry a hero is how quickly he is able to respond to his new “reality.”

That, of course, is fiction. Most of us go through a lot of stress, anger, demonizing, and even denial before we come out the other side and admit that our previous “reality” was in fact falsehood. But sometimes it does happen as quickly as it does for Harry Potter.

So what I am trying to explain is that none of the arguments about doctrine will work until you prove to the Witness that they are holding onto a false “reality.” And you do this by pulling the rug out from under them, so to speak, not arguing or discussing the subjects they are ready with.

It’s about inducing cognitive dissonance so that they will be forced to respond.

They have to face the “Star Wars” truth. They are Luke Skywalker and you are Darth Vader. You have to “cut off their hand”(so to speak) with your lightsaber to get their attention, and ONLY THEN can you tell them the truth: You are their father.

They will scream and cry and holler in denial: “No, that’s no true! That’ impossible!” But without a means to fight back and left only with the cold truth they will finally be in a position to accept that they actually are the offspring of the Dark Lord of the Sith.

You have to take away their lightsaber.

Yep Sales 101:
For example a brochure on life insurance may open with “All good husbands and fathers would want to make sure their loved ones are provided for if the unthinkable happened”.
This creates the dissonance because we all believe that we are good husbands and fathers right? The brochure or sales person then resolves this dissonance for you with their particular product.
In reality there are many ways that we can make sure our loved ones are taken care of their product is just one of them and probably not the best one.
Watch tower literature is full of this sort of sales technique and as Delson points out they train their field agents in this technique with night after night of roll playing sessions.
It is almost pointless debating the Watch Tower traveling salesman at the door because they are also reinforced with the fact that their self worth, self esteem and love is conditional upon their performance within the organisation. The householder at the door is practically a Zero to them, a nothing and their value is solely determined by their response to the JW message.
The Watch Tower started out as a mercantile enterprise by a very successful business man and it still exists today because it uses these tried and true sales techniques to close the sale on the unsuspecting.

 

[adf417]

Delson you should write a book and I want the 1st 10 copies. Good stuff brother!

 

[Porknpie]

Delson,

Thank you for the advise. I would add … and this worked well for me over the Summer when I was visited two times:

Me: We agree together that the bible is the Word of God but HOW do you know that the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God? And, how do you know that the bible contains all the God’s books and that some books are not missing?

JW: (from both visits) well all the books in the bible “Harmonize”,

Me: how does the Book of Revelation harmonize the Book of Hebews, let alone Leviticus?

JW: mumbling…(no good answers at this point)

Me: (As they were trying to digest the previous question I take the conversation from here) the bible does not have a listing saying what books should be in the bible and that you give implicit approval to an authority outside of the bible to have determined which books should be in the bible. Do you know what authority you give approval to? To have determined what books are the Word Of God?

JW: no (or the early Christians)

Me: the authority that you give approval to is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church first determined what was scripture at the Council of Rome, at the Synod of Hippo and then the Synod of Carthage.

JW: the Catholic Church didn’t come up with the bible

Me: Yes, it most certainly did, research the history of the bible to see for yourself

Me: (not allowing them to respond at this point) And the problem here is that you believe that the Catholic Church was infallible on determining what was scripture, but you believe it to be in error on faith and morals. That’s a real problem, because the book that you hold in your hands is a Catholic book, written by for and about the Catholic Church, for both instruction and to have a universal set of readings to be used at Mass. As you do not trust that same Catholic Church on faith and morals, neither can you trust that the Catholic Church got it right in determining what books should be in the bible!

JW: I’ll have to look into this (the second party walked out quickly in a bit of anger saying that no way did the Catholic Church determine what was in the bible).

Me: well thank you for stopping by but I would encourage you to read up on history of how the bible came into being, read about the Council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage!

Anyway, my hope is that I planted a seed and that the Holy Spirit takes it from there. My limited experience with the two visitations above is that asking them about the bible throws them off track and presents questions, very good questions, that they are not prepared to answer for. Hopefully, they’ll research the answers and the seed will begin to grow.

PnP

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Delson,

Thank you for the advise. I would add … and this worked well for me over the Summer when I was visited two times:

Me: We agree together that the bible is the Word of God but HOW do you know that the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God? And, how do you know that the bible contains all the God’s books and that some books are not missing?

JW: (from both visits) well all the books in the bible “Harmonize”,

Me: how does the Book of Revelation harmonize the Book of Hebews, let alone Leviticus?

JW: mumbling…(no good answers at this point)

Me: (As they were trying to digest the previous question I take the conversation from here) the bible does not have a listing saying what books should be in the bible and that you give implicit approval to an authority outside of the bible to have determined which books should be in the bible. Do you know what authority you give approval to? To have determined what books are the Word Of God?

JW: no (or the early Christians)

Me: the authority that you give approval to is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church first determined what was scripture at the Council of Rome, at the Synod of Hippo and then the Synod of Carthage.

JW: the Catholic Church didn’t come up with the bible

Me: Yes, it most certainly did, research the history of the bible to see for yourself

Me: (not allowing them to respond at this point) And the problem here is that you believe that the Catholic Church was infallible on determining what was scripture, but you believe it to be in error on faith and morals. That’s a real problem, because the book that you hold in your hands is a Catholic book, written by for and about the Catholic Church, for both instruction and to have a universal set of readings to be used at Mass. As you do not trust that same Catholic Church on faith and morals, neither can you trust that the Catholic Church got it right in determining what books should be in the bible!

JW: I’ll have to look into this (the second party walked out quickly in a bit of anger saying that no way did the Catholic Church determine what was in the bible).

Me: well thank you for stopping by but I would encourage you to read up on history of how the bible came into being, read about the Council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage!

Anyway, my hope is that I planted a seed and that the Holy Spirit takes it from there. My limited experience with the two visitations above is that asking them about the bible throws them off track and presents questions, very good questions, that they are not prepared to answer for. Hopefully, they’ll research the answers and the seed will begin to grow.

PnP

And this is exactly what I am talking about! Good show!

You did the following:

1. 
   *]Took control of the conversation away from the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
   
   *]Introduced a concept that confronted them with two conflicting realities inducing cognitive dissonance.
   
   *]Followed up with an apologetic defense without expecting to “win” a debate.
   
   That is perfect. Remember, we are not out to WIN arguments but DEFEND the faith. We plant seeds, but God makes them grow.–1 Corinthians 3:6.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

My long-winded pontification session ends here now that we have established the point.

So from this point on I will demonstrate how to use this information in a practical way. I will offer a list of “cognitive dissonance” inducing subjects (things Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t aware of or prepared to discuss).

I will keep it as brief and concise as possible and cover any new subjects anyone would like (such as ones raised earlier like Jesus not being an angel and the insertion of “other” in Colossians in the NWT). There ARE ways of discussion subjects like this using this particular approach, so we are just talking about adding a new way to present information you probably already know and have at the ready to defend the faith. So this should go quickly from here.

Again feel free to ask me to cover something else, but I will mostly cover:

Christological Language: “Son of,” “begotten,” “I AM.”

The Biblical Concept of “One:” Marriage of two persons making “one flesh” as an illustration of “one God” made up of Three Persons.

Sharing Divine Life: How it is impossible for anyone less than God to die for our sins.

Christological Language II: How misinterpreting “Son” is the same thing as denying the Father and the Son.–See 1 John 2:23.

While it can be very effective to use the NRSV (and even the NABRE) with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, since many Catholics rely on the RSV-CE I will use that translation unless noted otherwise (and because they grant permission for its use). Since the 2nd edition by Ignatius Press is my personal Bible, I will use it in quotations where necessary.

And finally, yes, adf417 (and others who have asked), I am writing a book–a series of books that will go into this information further. I am a professional writer and author (under a different name) who has worked in the field of media and film production for some years. My experiences here have convinced me of the need to do more in this area.

The books already being prepared are two catechism-like books: one to aid Catholics who have asked to have something to aid them with Catholic family and friends who are studying with Jehovah’s Witness and thinking about leaving the Church. The other will be an intense cover of the Trinity.

Because of their catechism-like features they will require ecclesiastical oversight, assistance, and approval, so it may be a year before I have something to share (which is actually quick compared to the past–ah, technology!)…but I want to do what I can. And we can work far more quickly now with preparing books like these than in the past. But more on that as I have more to share. (And I don’t want to take away from CAF’s fine work or compete with it. Please consider supporting CAF in practical and prayerful ways!)

 

[ajcstr]

Delson,

Thank you for the advise. I would add … and this worked well for me over the Summer when I was visited two times:

Me: We agree together that the bible is the Word of God but HOW do you know that the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God? And, how do you know that the bible contains all the God’s books and that some books are not missing?

JW: (from both visits) well all the books in the bible “Harmonize”,

Me: how does the Book of Revelation harmonize the Book of Hebews, let alone Leviticus?

JW: mumbling…(no good answers at this point)

Me: (As they were trying to digest the previous question I take the conversation from here) the bible does not have a listing saying what books should be in the bible and that you give implicit approval to an authority outside of the bible to have determined which books should be in the bible. Do you know what authority you give approval to? To have determined what books are the Word Of God?

JW: no (or the early Christians)

Me: the authority that you give approval to is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church first determined what was scripture at the Council of Rome, at the Synod of Hippo and then the Synod of Carthage.

JW: the Catholic Church didn’t come up with the bible

Me: Yes, it most certainly did, research the history of the bible to see for yourself

Me: (not allowing them to respond at this point) And the problem here is that you believe that the Catholic Church was infallible on determining what was scripture, but you believe it to be in error on faith and morals. That’s a real problem, because the book that you hold in your hands is a Catholic book, written by for and about the Catholic Church, for both instruction and to have a universal set of readings to be used at Mass. As you do not trust that same Catholic Church on faith and morals, neither can you trust that the Catholic Church got it right in determining what books should be in the bible!

JW: I’ll have to look into this (the second party walked out quickly in a bit of anger saying that no way did the Catholic Church determine what was in the bible).

Me: well thank you for stopping by but I would encourage you to read up on history of how the bible came into being, read about the Council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage!

Anyway, my hope is that I planted a seed and that the Holy Spirit takes it from there. My limited experience with the two visitations above is that asking them about the bible throws them off track and presents questions, very good questions, that they are not prepared to answer for. Hopefully, they’ll research the answers and the seed will begin to grow.

PnP

I like the way Michael Barber starts off “Oh, you have a Bible, you must be Catholic…” then goes into the same stuff you mention. Another point that may have been mentioned in this thread was that the doctrine of the Trinity was set before the canon was.

 

[ajcstr]

And, despite the differences of religious beliefs, the JWs are not even in the same class as the LDS. Mormons are more respectful, much easier to speak with, better speakers, and won’t necessarily consider you a lost cause just because you don’t become a Mormon. They are there to help you too, if they can, and they make great neighbors who take part in their community.

I have not had a lot of exposure to Morman’s (which may change once their new Temple in Philadelphia 2 blocks from where I work is completed) but I picture them as more mainstream and not as “cultish”. The JW’s seem more cut off from society by design.

 

[Porknpie]

I like the way Michael Barber starts off “Oh, you have a Bible, you must be Catholic…” then goes into the same stuff you mention. Another point that may have been mentioned in this thread was that the doctrine of the Trinity was set before the canon was.

For sure but the JW reject the Trinity.

They also reject infant baptism … and they don’t get that from scripture either. That’s a foolish man-made thought that they have followed. Foolish, because it’s not the faith handed down from Christ to the apostles and to their descendants.

Origen is clear on the apostolic faith of infant baptism.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

Michael Barber…read his book on revelation. Wonderful. I wish just 10% I could retain 10% of it. It’s definitely one to reread…and reread.

PnP

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Now before I go on I want to reiterate one thing–and then I’m finished with nailing this over and over again. It’s not that nobody’s listening, but that it’s important that we remember this:
Please keep in mind that the following is not presented as a means to counter argue when in debate with a Jehovah’s Witness. What I am presenting here is the beginning of an apology to prove that our logic for embracing the Trinity doctrine is sound. It is meant to be offered to a listening audience, not one that is looking to argue each point you raise—one that has agreed to let you prove your logic. It may not convince them to adopt your belief in the Trinity, but they may just agree that your logic is solid.

Got it? Good. Now pretend that YOU are a JW not believing in the Trinity. Okay? If you need to, get dressed for the part with a little satchel (they call it a “book bag,” some even hating the word “satchel”)…So get your satchel and your best tie and at least pretend to listen…

"Son of"–What It Means

Trinitarians actually believe and see in the Bible an explicit reference to the Holy Trinity when they read of Jesus. One of the reasons why they do is because of the terms used for Christ. Now before we explain how this connects to the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are going to focus on one spoke at a time on an imaginary “wheel” of connecting points.

When we read “Son of God” in reference to Jesus, we see that expression alone proving that Jesus is God. Why, you might ask? Because in the Hebrew culture the term “son of” is not limited to the English definition of this term. In the Hebrew world and language the term not only had the meaning of “male offspring,” it also meant “one and the same.”

"Sons of" the Prophets

“And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said…” Thus begins the section in 1 Kings known as “A Prophet Condemns Ahab” in the RSV-CE 2nd edition. Here someone identified as being "of the sons of the prophets” condemns King Ahab’s release of Ben-Hadad. (1 Kings 20:35-42 ) Is this man an “offspring” of two prophets? Or is he a man who belongs to the group or class of people known in Israel as “a prophet”?

He’s a prophet. There was actually a guild of prophets, made up of men (but once in a while it would include a woman, such as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna.) Prophets didn’t normally limit themselves to marriage with another prophet. So a “son of the prophets” wasn’t an offspring of any prophet. They were just someone who belonged to the class of people known as prophets.

It appears that the guild of prophets included what may have been assistants and disciples of the prophets who may or may not have had the actual gift of prophecy but would speak, nonetheless, in place of their master prophets when they weren’t available. Such an agent was also referred to as a “son of the prophets.”–Compare 2 Kings 2:3-15, 4:1-7, 38-44; 6:1-7; 9:1-3.

Amos was not a part of this guild, and, declared so using the expression: “I am no prophet, nor one of the sons of the prophets.”–Amos 7:14, footnote reading in RSV-CE, 2nd edition.

Other "Sons"

There are other uses of the term “son of” that means to be “one and the same” and designates the person(s) as a personification of that thing, such as:

“Sons of light.” (Luke 16:8; John 12:36) “Sons of light and sons of day.” (1 Thessalonians 5:5) “Sons of thunder.” (Mark 3:17) “Son of destruction.” (John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.) You may have to read the footnotes to see these actual expressions in some translations of the Bible.

In none of these cases is the use of “son of” equal to “male offspring.” In almost all these cases the “son” comes from things that cannot reproduce and have children.

But this is just the beginning. Such a use was not limited to the Hebrews. It was also used by kings and queens of other lands. And it came to a head in the first century, frightening a Roman official when he heard it in reference to a Jew one Passover day in the first century.

What these other uses were and how this sealed the deal for the Christians in the first century on the identity of Jesus is next.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

“Son of God”

Whether it was just a political ploy or the honest conviction of these world leaders, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, and the emperors of Rome all had something in common. They each made claim to being incarnations of divinities, and did so using a figure of speech: “son (or daughter) of.”

Whether it was Cleopatra claiming to be the incarnation of the goddess Isis or a Roman emperor making claim to their place in the imperial cult, whether it was a god or the concept of being divine, they would use a phraseology that made the expression “son of” to mean “one and the same” or “incarnation of” whichever concept of divinity they made claim to.

When Cleopatra would call herself the “daughter of Isis,” she did not mean she was an offspring of Isis but the incarnation of the Egyptian goddess herself. Even the 2nd century king of the Kushan Empire used the title “son of god” to make a similar claim that the others were: Being a son or daughter of a god meant they were the incarnation (or at least some form of physical manifestation or mouthpiece) of that god. They were the physical representation of some divine, heavenly being expressed in corporeal manner on their kingdom’s throne.

The Jews did something similar too. They spoke of the kings in David’s line as being “begotten” by God. The Hebrew Scriptures have God calling these kings “son.” God was even said to “beget” a king upon his anointing or appointment, even though the king had already been alive for many years prior to this “begetting.” While the Jews did not believe the Davidic ruler was the incarnation of God, they did believe he was a physical representation of the heavenly rule of God. Kings in the David dynasty were constantly called “son of God,” but the term “son” never meant a direct physical descent from God.—Compare Psalm 2:6-11 with 2 Samuel 7:14 (and context).

Pontius Pilate and the Centurions Meet a “Son” of God

It was this concept of being an incarnation of a divine being that caused Pontius Pilate to react with some alarm upon hearing that Jesus Christ had made claim to being the Son of God. While before this he thought little of Christ’s claim to being the voice of truth, but after hearing that Jesus could be “son of God,” he pulled him aside and asked Jesus where he was really from. When Jesus remained quiet instead of replying, Pilate grew all the more concerned and kept looking for ways to release Jesus. (John 19:5-11) Eventually he was so moved by this claim that Pilate had to go on record as being “innocent” of the carrying out of any death sentence on Jesus. Why? Pilate didn’t want to take any chances just in case he was in fact dealing with the incarnation of the divine Yahweh.–Matthew 27:24.

The centurions working under him certainly did. Seeing the various events that manifested themselves at Christ’s death they were noted as not only declaring him “innocent” (because the events occurring were attributed to Heaven), they also called him “Son of God.” They obviously knew what Pilate knew and heard what others were saying of Jesus. So when apparently miraculous events occurred at his death, being Romans they became fearful that they had actually killed an incarnation of the Jewish God, Yahweh.—Matthew 27:54; Luke 23:47; Mark 15:39.

John’s Conclusion and Our First Spoke

While there were other uses of the term “son of God” which did in fact mean “offspring of God,” such as in reference angels and human beings as “children (or sons) of God,” in the ancient world it was markedly different when a king was called by this term.

This is the point that the Gospel of John makes when it has Thomas refer to Jesus as “My Lord and my God!” Thomas comes to believe that Jesus is truly his “Lord,” meaning the promised Messianic King who is to rule over him. He also refers to this “Lord” as “God” himself.—John 20:28.

Then John writes that these two terms, one of kingship and one of divinity mean the following:

These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.—John 20:31

The exclamation “my Lord” is here interpreted by John as “Christ,” and Thomas’ exclamation “my God” is here presented as “Son of God.”

Since “son of” often means “one and the same” with or a physical representation of, or even an incarnation of (especially in the reference to a king calling themselves “son of” a divine being), Trinitarians, on the basis of this logic, see an explicit reference to Jesus being one and the same with God each time they read the words “Son of God” in reference to Christ.

While you, the Jehovah’s Witness, may believe that “son of” has to always mean “offspring of” and that the ancient use of this type of terminology has no connection with Scripture whatsoever, we who believe in the Trinity see things differently. We take into consideration the various meanings of the words as they were used in the past. To us it is important that we read and interpret Scripture with an eye to understanding things the way the ancient audience and writers did.

While this makes our first spoke on our wheel of logic (yes, there’s more…this was just spoke one), we will return to the use of “son of” and even “begotten” later.

But for now, even if you, a Jehovah’s Witnesses, may not agree with our conclusion, you should at least be able to see how we arrive at our understanding. It isn’t illogical as there is a strong basis for it.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Would a counter like “Why does it have to be in the Bible ?” get anywhere as a bridge to Tradition? I mean obviously they say that the Bible is their only authority but I have a JW that said she is coming back next week and i am supposed to show her in the Bible where Jesus claims to be God. I have the standard scriptures ready but if I get in trouble, I am going to ask where Jesus SAYS he is Michael.

This is a great way to get her to think: “Why does it have to be in the Bible?”

But it will turn you to the direction of Tradition and the Bible as a standard for all that must be included in “true religion.” Unless you want to be talking about that as a “bridge to Tradition,” as you mentioned, this would be throwing a **RED HERRING **into the mix.

“Red Herrings” can be effective sometimes, but when they get used on me I find them to be annoying techniques. They toss an entirely new subject into the ring in order to distract from the original one. The last time we had a JW debating with us on a thread he was using this technique to avoid answering questions we were raising. This is what the Witnesses tend to use the “red herring” for, a means of misdirecting a discussing into an area they can or wish to talk about instead of the subject matter at hand. If any one you were involved in that thread, you know how annoying that was. So if you don’t want to come off the same way, avoid the RED HERRING.

Also avoid using counter arguments with Scriptures. They have prepared chains of Scriptures prepared just for that occasion. Unless you have time for that kind of sermon, don’t do that. And don’t ask them to prove this or that. They LOVE that and go around hoping someone will ask them to prove their doctrines (I know I couldn’t wait for someone to do that to me because, if anything, it would mean I could count more “hours spent in the preaching work” in my report at the end of the month).

Instead concentrate on sharing Catholicism with her. Show her how reasonable it is or at least that your reasons for being Catholic are logical. This will force her to attempt to argue against your logic for being Catholic, not your doctrines, which is something they aren’t prepared for. Review Paul’s apology in Acts chapter 26. Like him don’t try to prove that your faith is true; instead prove that your choice for having your faith is logical.

I will highlight the arguments about Jesus being St. Michael the Archangel next, as it has to do with the subject at hand. It’s a little bit ahead of when I was going to share it, but I’ve had a lot of requests for that subject in particular–and I can actually fit it in right now after having laid this previous foundation.