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

[po18guy]

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.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good”. We have tested the WBTS theology alongside all other teachings which profess to come from God, and have found it wanting. JW teaching is found nowhere in human history, not even by Christ, until the advent of the JW organization.

Russell seems almost forgotten now, almost disregarded by many JWs. Why? It appears to the questioning mind that JW teaching has, indeed, changed over just the few decades it has existed. Why?

Don’t you ever wonder about the organization?

 

[sklemetti]

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?

You are incorrect. It is not strict. And it is not forbidden to vote in a presidential election. You just do not understand that to be a Christian we are a member of Christ’s government so that to vote for a human as president will disavow one from Christ.

Why do you say “your presidential election”? As if you have one.
The reason that we don’t vote in political affairs is that they divide people and we do not wish to get divided. Your participation in Indonesia politics would divide you from the Witnesses in the other countries. How can you say you were a JW if you did not appreciate and understand that?

As to the cross. No one knows the shape because it was not defined in the Bible.

 

[sklemetti]

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good”. We have tested the WBTS theology alongside all other teachings which profess to come from God, and have found it wanting. JW teaching is found nowhere in human history, not even by Christ, until the advent of the JW organization.

Russell seems almost forgotten now, almost disregarded by many JWs. Why? It appears to the questioning mind that JW teaching has, indeed, changed over just the few decades it has existed. Why?

Don’t you ever wonder about the organization?

Who said to test the teaching of the WTBTS?
Not me.

Test the teachings of Jehovah’s Witneses.

And if you found it wanting, what alternative is there?
Catholicism? that is definitely wanting as they do not believe in preaching and teaching the kingdom.

JW teachings change because we grow and learn as one should.

No, I don’t wonder about the organization as I said I learn every day by listening.

 

[po18guy]

You are incorrect. It is not strict. And it is not forbidden to vote in a presidential election. You just do not understand that to be a Christian we are a member of Christ’s government so that to vote for a human as president will disavow one from Christ.

You need to be very careful. If you have not been to Indonesia, you’d better close your mouth and listen. Or, go there. Swariffin is a truthful person. To imply otherwise is insulting and reduces what credibility you had.

No one here is calling you a liar. We disagree very strongly with your beliefs. Let’s keep it simple. Thank you.

 

[BibleSteve]

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.

Toby,

I’m not going to spend any more time arguing about your “beef”.

Your own Pope uses the word “prophet” and “prophecy” as a synonym of simple evangelism (see post #51)… what a person does reads the Bible and goes out explaining what he was learned to others.

Post #47 emphatically shows that we have only made the claim we are giving our interpretation and explanation about the prophecies in the Bible.

Just as scientists change their opinion about what the information they are studying means, so Jehovah’s Witnesses update their understanding of what various prophecies mean.

That’s it. It’s very simple.

It’s amazing have such a “beef” over this and don’t have any complaint with your Pope using “prophet” and “prophecy” in the same way?

The Apostle Paul preached the end was soon and 2,000 years it’s hasn’t happened. Are you “beefed” at him and want to call him a “false prophet”? (1 Cor 7:29)

You are “beefed” at Jehovah’s Witnesses because our explanation of what various prophecies in the Bible mean have changed, but are you at all “beefed” at the things going on in your own Church over the last 1,000 years?

I’m done with your question. You’ve presented your “beef”, I don’t share your “beef”.

 

[po18guy]

Who said to test the teaching of the WTBTS?
Not me.

Test the teachings of Jehovah’s Witneses.

And if you found it wanting, what alternative is there?
Catholicism? that is definitely wanting as they do not believe in preaching and teaching the kingdom.

JW teachings change because we grow and learn as one should.

No, I don’t wonder about the organization as I said I learn every day by listening.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[sklemetti]

You need to be very careful. If you have not been to Indonesia, you’d better close your mouth and listen. Or, go there. Swariffin is a truthful person. To imply otherwise is insulting and reduces what credibility you had.

No one here is calling you a liar. We disagree very strongly with your beliefs. Let’s keep it simple. Thank you.

What difference does that make?

Jehovah’s Witnesses as true Christians do not hold to political nations created by man. Since we are a worldwide brotherhood, that means that ones in Indonesia do not adhere to the nation there and ones in the USA do not hold to the nation here.

That is as simple as it gets. To choose a political presider would go against that and divide one into countries when Christians are not to be.

 

[po18guy]

What difference does that make?

Jehovah’s Witnesses as true Christians do not hold to political nations created by man. Since we are a worldwide brotherhood, that means that ones in Indonesia do not adhere to the nation there and ones in the USA do not hold to the nation here.

That is as simple as it gets. To choose a political presider would go against that and divide one into countries when Christians are not to be.

First, you are pseudo-Christian, similar to LDS. Christian thought and teaching, from day 1 has been that he is Eternal and Divine. Two, you completely blew off your accusation that swariffin was being untruthful. Swariffin was relating a personal experience, and you made an accusation.

You can do better than that. Catholics freely admit the errors made by the church. Has WTBTS ever made a mistake? Has any one of the JW members ever made a mistake in teaching style or content? Or, in your view, is it perfect?

 

[lurdes]

Hi MH84:

My family has all the old Watchtower literature, as my great-great-grandfather joined the Bible Students in the late 1800s.

I have a scanned copy of the page in question uploaded here:

webs.ashlandctc.org/rleone/DOC021408.pdf

The scripture citation (i.e., Heb. 1:6) is omitted, but the portion in quotes is an exact quotation from the KJV rendering of Heb. 1:6.

If you read the entire article, you see that Russell at that time held many ideas that are very different from the current Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Any inquiry into what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach must be qualified by a time statement. I was born into the JW faith in 1952, and personally lived through many doctrinal changes.

We must continue to persevere in prayer for Bible Steve and all Jehovah’s Witnesses that they be granted the grace of Faith.

Thanks be to God that I will soon be Catholic!

Pax,

Ruth

Who will be baptized at the Easter Vigil 2008 – March 22

hello Nanar, thanks be to God and we welcome you home, and please pray for my sister so she also receive the same grace you have recive

 

[NanaR]

Dear Ruth,

I stand by the statement and ask that you look up the article. The phrase “inspired prophet” is never used. JW’s have emphatically denied being “inspired prophets” verbally and in writing from inception. So, the Catholic quote is absolutely an inaccurate quote:

Catholic.com specifically says: “The WTS… claims to be God’s inspired prophet” and quotes the 1972 WT Article. That is a false statement… emphatically denied in multiple articles for over a hundred years.

You are correct the article used the word “prophet” and it should be noted that throughout the article it puts in “quotes”. Let me ask…why do people using “quotes” around certain words?

If I say I say it’s always a “joy” to speak with JW-critics and they are always so “polite” what am I REALLY saying? That I’m using the word in a **figurative **way, suggesting something other than how the word is commonly used and understood.

The 1972 article puts the word “prophet” in quotes because it was using it in the same figurative way. The Pope himself has used the phrase in the same way.

This is semantics, Bible Steve. If you say you “enjoy” conversing with JW-critics on the internet, you are being facetious – you intend the meaning to be the OPPOSITE of what you have written.

Surely the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves to be the OPPOSITE of “prophets”. That is just unreasonable.

You may believe that the appellation prophet was intended to convey the meaning of witness-bearer, but others might come to different conclusions.

I reread the article, and you are correct that it doesn’t use the phrase “inspired prophet”. However, I would venture to say that most persons reading the article would reach the conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be God’s modern day prophet. You are, of course free to disagree. Any of the other readers here who would like to peruse the actual article may pm me and I will see that they get to read it in its entirety.

JW’s have long noted and used the word “prophet” with multiple meanings including simple talking or witnessing to others about the Bible:

Even your own Pope has said figurative things like this:

The article in question was drawing a parallel between the modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Biblical prophet Ezekiel. Since Ezekiel was inspired to write the Bible, received visions from God, etc., it is pretty clear to me that more than the idea of simple witnessing or talking is being conveyed.

As Ravyn pointed out in another post, whatever the Pope said or did not say is totally irrelevant to this discussion which is quartered in the NonCatholic religions forum and is specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I 100% stand by my statement that the claim on Catholic.com is a misquote. That 1972 article they quoted never claimed we were “inspired prophets” and we have never made that claim ever.

I consider you to be mistaken as to the conclusion that a reasonable person would reach after reading the article.

We must agree to disagree on this point.

I am still praying for you, Bible Steve.

Pax,

Ruth

 

[BibleSteve]

The article in question was drawing a parallel between the modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Biblical prophet Ezekiel. Since Ezekiel was inspired to write the Bible, received visions from God, etc., it is pretty clear to me that more than the idea of simple witnessing or talking is being conveyed.

How many times does someone have to put in writing they don’t consider themselves to be “inspired”, “inspired prophets” before you’ll consider that you are reading something into the article that wasn’t intended?

And since you now agree “inspired prophets” was never used in that article, it’s clear that Catholic.com has completely misquoted by referencing that article. JW’s have never used the phrase “inspired” or “inspired prophets” to describe our Bible teaching work. Never. And yet that is what is stated with a specific quote on your website.

As Ravyn pointed out in another post, whatever the Pope said or did not say is totally irrelevant to this discussion which is quartered in the NonCatholic religions forum and is specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s completely relevant.

The Pope specifically references Moses comments about “prophets” and he and other Catholic authorities use the word “prophet” and “prophetic” to describe Catholic evangelism.-

Nobody here complains, argues, or misunderstands what he means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same phrase, in the same way to describe our evangelism and everyone’s arguing we’re claiming to be “inspired prophets”.

Ask any JW anywhere:

Has your group ever claimed to be “inspired” or “inspired prophets”?

And the answer will be a resounding No, of course not!

Is it really truthful for Catholic.com to then state “The WTS… claims to be inspired prophets”?

It is not.

 

[BibleSteve]

1896 Watchtower: "Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is, that they are they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine word…

1947 Watchtower: “This pouring out of God’s spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine, The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.

 

[lurdes]

Who said to test the teaching of the WTBTS?
Not me.

Test the teachings of Jehovah’s Witneses.

And if you found it wanting, what alternative is there?
Catholicism? that is definitely wanting as they do not believe in preaching and teaching the kingdom.

JW teachings change because we grow and learn as one should.

No, I don’t wonder about the organization as I said I learn every day by listening.

yes you’re right we all change as we grow and learn, but the teaching of the church Jesus founded doesn’t change, becuse we have and unchanging GOD his church was is and it always be the same the truth don’t change.

 

[TobyLue]

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

Post #47 emphatically shows that we have only made the claim we are giving our interpretation and explanation about the prophecies in the Bible.

Just as scientists change their opinion about what the information they are studying means, so Jehovah’s Witnesses update their understanding of what various prophecies mean.

This is just a cop out BibleSteve. So you say that JW update their understanding of what various prophecies mean. Changing back and forth, back and forth is not a new understanding at all Steve. You use the lame excuse of updating their understanding. So in other words whatever they say now no JW can be certain that it will be changed.
So in quoting in 1883 that they are not prophets it seems like a new understanding was made in 1959 “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.” Look at what they say Steve The own words of Watchtower “THE PLAIN FACTS,” How much plainer can that get. That seems like a “new understanding”. But wait… There was another new understanding in 1974 ““Jehovah’s Witnesses are not infallible or inspired prophets”. But wait again in 1986 “God has on earth a people, all of who are prophets, or witnesses for God…Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Sorry Steve, anybody with a little sense can see that these are not “new understandings” but plain flip-flops. So with this new understanding in 1986 the JW’s really have no guarantee that these are true. The same with all the flip-flopping they have made about “ OK to worship Jesus” to “NOT OK to worship Jesus. And no blood transfusions allowed, but those JW’s in Bulgaria can use their conscious on whether to choose to have blood transfusions or not. These are not new understanding my friend. These are plain doctrinal flip-flops.

So when is this going to end? In other words, whatever the Watchtower organization is teaching this very moment may change tomorrow with a “new understanding”. So the claim that the WT is Gods organization and the one through whom God speaks to the world may or may have change already. New understanding huh? Saying “These are God word not ours” has changed then. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Watchtower, God’s Organization is not the same as yesterday and may change tomorrow because of “new understanding”.

I’m not going to spend any more time arguing about your “beef”.

Yes, go ahead and sidestep the question. You fail to address post #61 but thats OK ....no need to.  We know you don’t have any answer..

Thanks for enlightening us about the JW “God’s Organization”

I’m through with you my friend. You have shown that you have no explanation as to why the watchtower changes other then use the “change because of new understanding” excuse.
That is really a farce my friend.
I pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ, God almighty may have pity on the JW organization that truly has deceived millions.
I leave you with these crystal clear bible verses. We know there is ONLY ONE GOD.

Isaiah: “I, I am Yahwah, THERE IS NO OTHER SAVIOR BUT ME”
2 Peter “….by coming to know OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST…”
Acts “….that you should lie to the Holy Spirit…. It is not to men that you have lied, but to God.”

So long to this thread… over and out……

 

[BibleSteve]

This is just a cop out …You use the lame excuse …Sorry Steve, anybody with a little sense can see … So when is this going to end? … Yes, go ahead and sidestep the question…We know you don’t have any answer…I’m through with you my friend. You have shown that you have no explanation as to why the watchtower changes other then use the “change because of new understanding” excuse…That is really a farce my friend.
I pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ, God almighty may have pity on the JW organization that truly has deceived millions.
…

Is handing out a brow-beating like this your way of sharing the fruitage of your Christian faith with me? If your intent is to draw people towards your Catholic faith, I’d recommend another approach.

 

[swariffin]

You think the Catholic Church wrote the Bible?

Were there any Protestant, Mormon, JW during the 3rd - 4th century?

 

[swariffin]

You are incorrect. It is not strict. And it is not forbidden to vote in a presidential election. You just do not understand that to be a Christian we are a member of Christ’s government so that to vote for a human as president will disavow one from Christ.

Why do you say “your presidential election”? As if you have one.
The reason that we don’t vote in political affairs is that they divide people and we do not wish to get divided. Your participation in Indonesia politics would divide you from the Witnesses in the other countries. How can you say you were a JW if you did not appreciate and understand that?

As to the cross. No one knows the shape because it was not defined in the Bible.

Dear Sklemetti,

I was a JW back in 1984. The teaching at that time was strict. Our elder (we called them “Penatua”, I don’t know your current terminology) said that we could not chose in the Presidential Election, not even enter the election booths. What I mean by “my Presidential Election”, is participating in a general election to elect the President of the Republic of Indonesia. I hope I made myself clear to anybody. I never mean that I am participating as one of the candidate of the President of RI. The changes I know, back in 2004 where one of my colleague who is a JW did vote in our 2004 Presidential Election. She told me that the new teaching allows her to do so. You by a matter of fact supports her.

As to the cross, why don’t you learn from the history of Roman empire on how they executed prisoners. How can you conclude that things not mentioned in the bible does not exist? If the bible never mentioned the Chinese, does it means to you that the Chinese never existed? Do you mean that if the bible mentioned “Stauros”, then there could not be any crucifiction? Stauros in Greek also mean crucifiction. A word in Greek can have more than 1 mean. Just like the english word “before” can means “a thing/action preceding” or “in front of”. When the gospel writers wrote their gospel of Jesus, the Roman Empire were there together with their customs including the way they executed their prisoners.

 

[BibleSteve]

Were there any Protestant, Mormon, JW during the 3rd - 4th century?

The Bible wasn’t written by them either.

Does the claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible fit the facts? In answering that question let us first note that the Bible is God’s Word. That being so, then ever since Moses completed the Pentateuch (the five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) God’s Word has been available to his servants. As other inspired servants wrote it grew and grew so that by the time Malachi penned his prophecy God’s Word, the Bible, had grown to 39 books. These 39 books constituted the sacred Scriptures that Jesus and his disciples used and which they encouraged others to study.—John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2*Tim. 2:15; 3:15-17.

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 (or the Apocalypse), 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 these facts, 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?

 

[luvlife]

When I studied & became a JW, I was taught without question that the Watchtower Society spoke for Jehovah. They were Jehovah’s mouthpiece. (isn’t that what a prophet does?) It would have been unthinkable to disagree with anything published by them because to do so would be the equivalant of disagreeing with Jehovah.

Bible Steve, would you honestly EVER read a Watchtower or Awake magazine, or any other publication and publically state you disagree with what’s written? Never. Because to do so would be to disagree with Jehovah.

May I ask you a question Bible Steve?

WHY did that generation pass away? For years & years the JW’s (as Jehovah’s mouthpiece) taught that the generation would NOT pass away. I was taught that one had to be born in approx 1900 to recognize that the difference in the system of things prior to 1914 & after.

Also, how many of the 144,000 are left? Can’t be many since their spots were filled in 1925. I am sincerely curious how the WT explains that today?

 

[lurdes]

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.

I thought that the WT discourage their witnesses from going in the internet and say they the don’t have a official website. This I know because my sister is a jw and she’s the one who told me.