I don't get how JW's believe Charles Taze Russell had any legitimate authority for his teachings.

[TobyLue]

BibleSteve—I only alluded to something but did not actually use any derogatory statements about you and your organization. Wait…. GOD’S ORGANIZATION.
**(WT 6/15/1938….**The organization is God’s and not man’s. It is the Lord’s Representative on earth, and he uses it for his purposes.)

I have not gone to any anti-JW sites and actually didn’t even use any Catholic resource for those quotes I posted. In order to note what the JW’s have quoted how else can I do it? I’m not going to use my own words. I’m using the exact words from JW publications. You are the one making accusations that I used anti-JW sites. I didn’t even use the internet. I have a book that has many JW prophesies or statements or whatever you want to call them, but you still have not answered why the JW organization keeps changing when something they predicted was God words and they never came to pass. You quote JW statements from 1883 to show that the JW’s are not prophets. I’m quoting statements from 1959 and 1972 that plainly state that the JW’s** are** prophets. So I **politely **ask which is correct?

I had some JW’s come to my door once and when I questioned them about these they said that the leaders that made those statements back then were not correct and false prophets. So I asked them then how do they know that the current leaders are true prophets and correct in what they publish and they turned around and walked away.

It seems that the best you can do is to turn around and claim I’m attacking the JW’s. All I’m asking is clarification. Read again the WT claims of 1/15/59 and 4/1/72. They contradict what you posted from 1883.

WT 1/15/59 it states “Who will be Jehovah’s prophet? Who will be the modern Jeremiahs? The plain facts show God has been pleased to use Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
The WT on 10-1-1964 states “God has on earth today a prophet like organization and then again on 4/1/72 it says ““This ‘prophet’ was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses.”

Here is a statement that back you up in 1974 “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not infallible or inspired prophets”. However, this next one contradicts again what you posted. In 1986 “God has on earth a people, all of who are prophets, or witnesses for God…Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

That does not appear to be a truthful statement, does it?

Well you tell us Steve, are the statements made by the WT in 1959,1972, 1974 and 1986 truthful or not?

You claim that the JW’s have NEVER made any prophecies. What do you call the WT statements or whatever you want to call them ,1/15/1894
“The date of the close of **that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as of October, 1914.” **
And then in 1901 “The trouble in October 1914 is clearly marked in Scriptures: the severe trouble to start no later than 1910, with severe spasms between now and then.”

These sure sound like prophecies to me.

What about these:
WT 10/15/1917
“There will be no slip-up…Abraham should enter upon the actual possession of his promised inheritance in the year 1925.
They back it up on 7/15/1922 with
“This chronology is not of man but of God…of divine origin…Absolutely and unqualifiedly correct.”

They are more forceful on 9/1/1922 with :
“1914 ended the Gentile Times…The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures.…By then the great crises will be reached and probably passed.”
And reinforce it on 4/1/1923 with “**1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures…**The Christian has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had (so far as the Scriptures reveal) upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.”

And even more on 7/15/1924 “The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914.”

These sure sound like prophecies don’t they?

You’re claiming I’m dumping anti-JW posts and attacking the JW organization, but all I’m dumping are JW quotes from their own publications.

 

[swariffin]

No, to the contrary, after reading the Bible for myself many times and studying the views of the Catholics, Protestants, and another dozen religions I could make an informed decision which group was closest to Bible truth.

Frankly, Jehovah’s Witnesses rarely talk or think about Russell. That’s mainly the focus of conversation of JW-critics looking for something to complain about.

Dear Steve,

After seeing closely about Mother Theresa, I know what Catholicism is all about. Any body from a JW community you can recommend to me? You admit that the JW does not even talk about Russell oftenly.

 

[swariffin]

So you claim:

“Peter and the eleven laid hands on and made successors. When Peter was crucified, the Apostolic authority was handed on. The Pope is Peter’s successor and has his authority.”

but can provide no specific independant evidence other than what Catholic Church leaders have told you? By telling you this is the case, they are elevated into a high and important position.

What specific independant evidence can I review that indicates Jesus wanted to have a series of Popes?

The proof is there from the writing of the early church fathers. You can find the same listing in the the encyclopedia (the Americana or Britannica). Please understand that the encyclopedia is citing the historical proof from us, not the other way around. Those editor and writer of the encyclopedia definitely are not groundless anyway.

 

[MH84]

You admit that the JW does not even talk about Russell oftenly.

That’s interesting isnt it. Because its suspicious that the founding member of the JW’s is not often talked about by his own members or is no longer followed.

I also want to know if the JW’s are the actual authentic sect that started from Russell. Because apparently they broke up into various groups after he died. What happened to the other groups?

 

[swariffin]

I’ve always been confused about the claim the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

For example, by the time Malachi penned his prophecy God’s Word, the Bible, had grown to at 39 books. These 39 books constituted the Scriptures that Jesus and his disciples used and which they encouraged others to study.

As far as I understand, the Catholic Church didn’t write any of these, right?

But, how about the other books?

With the writing of the accounts of Jesus’ life by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John and the Acts of the apostles and Revelation, God’s Word grew to 66 books.

As these were written down and circulated among the early Christians they became recognized as part of the Bible. (2*Pet. 3:15, 16) The last of these writings, John’s three letters and his Gospel, were completed about A.D. 98.

Shortly thereafter began the compiling of these writings, and there is evidence to indicate that as early as A.D. 170 the canon or catalogue of the Bible we have today was recognized. Both Origen and Eusebius list these same books, and of ten early catalogues extant six likewise give the same list as is recognized today, three others omitting Revelation and one omitting both Hebrews and Revelation.

In view of this, which show that the canon of the Bible was settled among the Christians in the second and early third centuries after Christ, can the Catholic Church claim to have made the Bible, simply because some 150 to 200 years later her Council of Carthage announced what writings she considered canonical?

So you can see, I’m confused about your claim that The Catholic Church wrote the book. How exact did she “write the book”?

Dear Steve,

By saying this, you are showing us that you don’t know the history of the bible. Why don’t you find out a little bit about the history of the bible. Don’t have to be from a Catholic Church only, learn from the historians too. Anyway, don’t just listen to the watchtower society only either. Learn from many, use your common logic, then you can answer your own posting. Remember, relying from one single source is not objective.

 

[swariffin]

I am very familiar with the NWT as well as many other translations. What specific reason do you have for thinkng the NWT is a “derivation” of the Lutheran Bible?

What language the NWT is written? Is that the same language that Paul wrote his letter? Paul as well as other NT books writers including the gospels were writing in Greek. Does the NWT written in Greek? If NWT is not Greek, who made the translation for you? You should have first check the translator’s qualification right? Otherwise, it is the same as you are reading my translation of Quran into English, just based on an unknown dictionary as I don’t read Arabic at all.

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Steve,

Can you find the name Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or the incoming President of the US elected in 2009 in the constitution of the US? The bible was written while Peter was still alive. No way you can find the successor of Peter named in the bible, and it is not logical to ask.

I think the whole concept that Peter had an elevated role is a misunderstanding on your part and I see no reference to any concept of papal succession. This is all stuff the Catholic Church decided for themselves.

 

[BibleSteve]

These sure sound like prophecies to me.

A person reads the Bible, claims no inspiration, emphatically states over and over again to not consider what they teach to be anything other than their interpretation and you still want to argue their making “inspired prophecies”.

Post #47 makes it very clear Russell and JW’s never claim divine revelation, any inspiration, any “inspired prophecy” just interpretation…

Post #51 shows your Pope considers Catholic’s to be “prophets” involved in a “prophetic work” of evangelization. If you don’t understand the basic concept that these terms can be used to described simple evangelism (instead of “inspired prophecy”), go argue with your Pope. He get’s it… maybe he’ll explain to you better than I can.

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Steve,

After seeing closely about Mother Theresa, I know what Catholicism is all about. Any body from a JW community you can recommend to me? You admit that the JW does not even talk about Russell oftenly.

Dear swariffin,

Please tell me your not just trying to setup a contest of who’s better… Mother Theresa or some faithful Jehovah’s Witness…

Mother Theresa was a fine woman who did many commendable things while focussed on helping the poor.

Jehovah’s Witnesses main focus is to imitate Jesus’ evangelization example and his command to teach others about the Bible while keeping integrity to Jesus even in the face of lethal threat from opposers.

If this isn’t some contest and your sincerely interested in learning more about the life story of a JW in the evangelization service of others, I would recommend the following video. It’s heart wrenching. This was filmed at the US Holocaust Museum, honoring one of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

tinyurl.com/3x69mj

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Steve,

By saying this, you are showing us that you don’t know the history of the bible. Why don’t you find out a little bit about the history of the bible. Don’t have to be from a Catholic Church only, learn from the historians too. Anyway, don’t just listen to the watchtower society only either. Learn from many, use your common logic, then you can answer your own posting. Remember, relying from one single source is not objective.

The point is the Catholic Church did not write the Bible. A previous poster made that claim and I simple showing it wasn’t true.

 

[swariffin]

Dear swariffin,

Please tell me your not just trying to setup a contest of who’s better… Mother Theresa or some faithful Jehovah’s Witness…

Mother Theresa was a fine woman who did many commendable things while focussed on helping the poor.

Jehovah’s Witnesses main focus is to imitate Jesus’ evangelization example and his command to teach others about the Bible while keeping integrity to Jesus even in the face of lethal threat from opposers.

If this isn’t some contest and your sincerely interested in learning more about the life story of a JW in the evangelization service of others, I would recommend the following video. It’s heart wrenching. This was filmed at the US Holocaust Museum, honoring one of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

tinyurl.com/3x69mj

Off course, Steve, A good person is the result of a good teaching. If there is a good things done by a JW, I would be happy to learn. Some Mormon mentioned about a good Mormon doctors serving the needy, that is a good example to learn. No need to compare that doctor to Mother Theresa. You cannot serve God while ignoring fellow human.

By the way, the brutal murder of the JW by others is indeed heart wrenching. Can you name a JW survivor who forgives the torturer? I will be interesting and happy to learn from him/her.

 

[BibleSteve]

Can you name a JW survivor who forgives the torturer? I will be interesting and happy to learn from him/her.

Watch the video

 

[swariffin]

The point is the Catholic Church did not write the Bible. A previous poster made that claim and I simple showing it wasn’t true.

Then you are not in line with the historians. Those historians are not necessarily Catholics. The Catholics church will never make such a magnificent claim survive for 2 millenia but can be easily disproved by a single JW. What the JW from Russell until now has disproved, is to a number of cradle catholics or other non catholics christians who knows nothing about Christianity. At least from year 1890’s (the day Russell established the JW) until now, the RCC still survive. What you presented to us, Steve, is just your denial not your disproof. You don’t even know the history of your NWT bible, i.e. who translate it from the Greek, how come you claim that you know the whole bible?

BTW, I was a JW before in Indonesia. The teaching was so strict that it was forbidden to vote in our presidential election. Now, the teaching has changed, and one of my friend (a JW) did vote in the presidential election. He reasoned that the interpretation of the scripture has changed. Who knows that later on the JW agreed that Jesus was crucified on the cross not just a pole. The JW are so good doing research on the ancient civilization of the Persian and Midian to be correlated with the book of Daniel (I read the book). How come you are not good of learning the history that the Roman executed the prisoners by means of crucifixtion as the historians say so? How come you are not good learning the history of the bible which come much later and much closer to our current time?

 

[swariffin]

Watch the video

I am downloading it. Sorry, the infrastructure of the internet network I have is limited. The 3G is still expensive, and I am using the old system. I did watch her for several minutes. I think it will be inspiring (May God bless her). There were 3 Catholic bishops, 1823 priests and many other Catholics died in the Holocaust too, together with the fellow Jewish.

 

[BibleSteve]

Then you are not in line with the historians. Those historians are not necessarily Catholics.

You think the Catholic Church wrote the Bible?

 

[po18guy]

I think the whole concept that Peter had an elevated role is a misunderstanding on your part and I see no reference to any concept of papal succession. This is all stuff the Catholic Church decided for themselves.

Matthew 16 and Acts. You don;t see it? Wow! Virtually every Christian sect admits it, even if only grudgingly. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The closest is John at 29 times. The twelve are referred to as “Peter and the others” or “Peter and his companions” Why? Peter was the only one in scripture other than Christ who: walked on water (Matthew 14:28-31); healed a paralytic (Acts 3:3-7); raised the dead (Acts 9:39-41). He was given the keys to heaven by Christ (Matthew 16:19). Why? That’s certainly an elevated role. If not for that elevated role, and that of his successors, you would have no bible, NWT or not.

Without an elevated leader to maintain unity, Christianity would have fragmented and fallen apart centuries ago - the canon of scripture evaporating along with it. But, in God’s infinite wisdom, he appointed an authoritative leader to hold the church together. Peter was renamed by Christ, just as Abram was renamed to Abraham, Sarai was renamed Sarah, and Isaac was renamed Israel. God changes names when He has an important role for that person. Peter’s name went from Simon (reed), to Cephas (rock). Big difference for a big role. I am absolutely astounded that you don’t see this. It’s been there and been practiced for nearly 2,000 years. The more you delve into early church history, the more it will occur to you.

Of course, it is possible that the particular set of beliefs you have been raised with are intentionally steered away from these facts. To justify separation from the Catholic Church, this type of “scripture steering” has been observed since Luther. With my eternity at stake, I would begin to question that.

Peace, my brother.

 

[po18guy]

Post #51 shows your Pope considers Catholic’s to be “prophets” involved in a “prophetic work” of evangelization. If you don’t understand the basic concept that these terms can be used to described simple evangelism (instead of “inspired prophecy”), go argue with your Pope. He get’s it… maybe he’ll explain to you better than I can.

Steve, you have been taught a very restricted view of scripture history. I applaud your courage in coming here. That is definitely not encouraged for any average JW.

Next: Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Every baptized and confirmed Catholic has some degree of this gift. And, it is not mainly about telling the future. As with the LDS, you are laboring under the burden of identical terms with different meanings. Research the original meanings and church teachings of such terms, not the very recent (in Christianity) definitions that you are so knowledgeable in. The NWT is basically a Lutheran bible. Where did Luther get the bible? Even he admitted that he owed a debt to the Catholic Church for scripture.

And, regarding “accusations” that the Catholic Church “wrote” the bible: Rather, it compiled, tested and canonized it, beginning at the end of the Apostolic age and continuing until the canon was finalized. It then preserved it. That is exactly why you have any sort of bible. The only alternative is to assert that it somehow came from the JW organization.

 

[po18guy]

The point is the Catholic Church did not write the Bible. A previous poster made that claim and I simple showing it wasn’t true.

Steve, I clarified it for you. However, every writer in the NT was a member of the embryonic “catholic” church, which went from small ‘c’ to big ‘C’ as the term was applied to what was rapidly becoming the universal church.

Peace.

 

[TobyLue]

Post #47 makes it very clear Russell and JW’s never claim divine revelation, any inspiration, any “inspired prophecy” just interpretation…

Biblesteve— Post #61 show that the JW make it very clear they are God Prophets on earth and also that post shows the prophecies they have made… They say they are only repeating “God’s words, not theirs”. You fail to understand the word “Prophecy”. po18guy explained one of the definitions and another is to predict something. That’s my beef with the JW organization claiming they are prophets (again read post #61 which has statements that contradict your post #47)and making prediction about the “end”.
There are many other JW doctrines that have been changed back and forth but I will not mention those now.
But you still have not answer the question. Why do they keep changing? And stop referring to your post #47 and answer post #61 which the JW organization claims THEY ARE PROPHETS.

 

[sklemetti]

Why are people still arguing this lame question?

Why does Russell need any authority for his teachings besides the Bible?

Why are you asking this when you know that his legitimate authority was the Bible?

Why are you asking about Russell who died in 1916?

Why do you not find information about Jehovah’s Witnesses from the Witnesses themselves?

Such as go to www.jwproclaimers.org to get real information about Jehovah’s Witnesses.