Jehovah's Witnesses No Longer Participating In the Work of a Bible Society

[Yerusalyim]

It could be answered by either yourself as a past JWitness or a practicing one. It does not matter to me. I originally thought you had asked the question to which I am responding.

Here is an added question: Is it true that the founder of the JWitness Religion was a Catholic or is that just a myth or poor historical account?

Complete MYTH Charles Taze Russell started out as a Presbyterian, then a Congregationalist, then Adventist (forebearer of today’s SDA). He was NEVER Catholic.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Wow, I never knew there was such a thing as a Jewish annotated New Testament.

Yes. Here is a review of it in the U.S. Catholic:
uscatholic.org/church/2012/09/jewish-take-jesus-amy-jill-levine-talks-gospels

The NRSV text of the New Testament is that approved by the Catholic bishops in the United States and Canada.

While some of the commentary presented is not meant to be taken as authoritative Catholic doctrine, it does follow much along the lines of what was presented in The Pontifical Biblical Commission document entitled “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” released during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But for questions relating to how the Church officially interprets texts along this line, the document from the Holy See would be considered having authoritative say among Catholics.

 

[adf417]

Complete MYTH Charles Taze Russell started out as a Presbyterian, then a Congregationalist, then Adventist (forebearer of today’s SDA). He was NEVER Catholic.

It should be know that the JW organization has a video, “Faith in Action part 1”, currently being distributed depicting Henry Grew, a Baptist preacher, as the 1st guy that had the revolutionary concept to let scripture interpret scripture and came to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine was false. I say this to show that Russell may be credited with the starting of an organization, their doctrine begins prior to him.

I would like to get Delson’s take on this. I have asked JWs in the past to clarify this but I think they would rather over look this small piece of the video since it would confirm their doctrine does not date back to the Apostles.

Peace!!!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

It could be answered by either yourself as a past JWitness or a practicing one. It does not matter to me. I originally thought you had asked the question to which I am responding.

Here is an added question: Is it true that the founder of the JWitness Religion was a Catholic or is that just a myth or poor historical account?

The Trinity

Because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the authoritative form of revelation from God is limited to what is written in Biblical texts, they tend to read the same texts in a vacuum.

In an attempt to read the Bible literally, they mistakenly apply an Anglicized definition of “son” to texts in the Bible that call Jesus the “Son of God.” In Semitic life, and in the Hebrew and Aramaic language, calling someone a “son of” didn’t immediately mean “male offspring” as it does in English. Like John 17:12 where Jesus calls Judas “the son of destruction,” the term also means “one in the same.” Using this same meaning, Jesus also held the titles “Son of David,” even though he was actually a descendant, and “Son of Man” literally meaning “Son of Adam” stating that he was the equivalent of the perfect man Adam. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45) Even the Hellenistic and Roman worlds of the day used the expression “son of god” (in Latin ““divi filius”) to mean that the emperor was the physical incarnation of a god. From the beginning Christianity understood the title “Son of God” to mean the same thing in reference to Jesus.–See the Roman centurion’s words at Matthew 27:54 as he uses the secular description to describe what he came to believe about Jesus.

Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore this culturally influenced reading and interpret the text to mean what it does in English, namely that the word “Son” in the title “Son of God” means that Jesus is a created offspring of God. He has been identified in issues of their official doctrine journal, The Watchtower, as one and the same with St. Michael the Archangel.

Blood Transfusions

Jehovah’s Witnesses are no longer as strict about members taking blood transfusions as they were up to the 1990s. They strive to be merciful these days, understanding that it can be difficult when one is sick to use one’s facilities of judgment to adhere to their doctrinal demands. Some of the older ones might use the terms from the previous days, equating it to cannibalism, but that is generally gone.

The Witnesses do accept organ transplants, but there was a time this was forbidden also.

All this is due to the same mistake of forcing an Anglicized reading of Scriptural texts, namely Acts 15:28. 29. The text refers to dietary considerations for early Gentile Christians that would allow them to fellowship with Jewish Christians at table (to this day many Jewish Christians keep kosher because it is the only culture they know). As the New American Bible footnote shows, as well as Jewish history, the restriction against “blood” meant “blood-meats.” Since the subject is about the application of kashrut (Jewish dietary law), an implication that blood transfusion was meant is absurd.

The Virgin Mary

They admit that Jesus is unique and divine, but they do not mean “divine” in the sense of being one with YHWH. They mean “divine” in the sense that an angel can be described that way. As the archangel Michael, he is the head of all the angels, and therefore to them he is the most important of all God’s created beings.

While they accept the virginal birth of Jesus, they do not view Mary as the “Mother of God” since Jesus, to them, is not God. However their brochure “Should You Believe in the Trinity” admits that if Jesus does turn out to be God, then it would be dishonor not to call Mary the Mother of God.

Charles Taze Russell

Mr. Russell’s family joined the Presbyterian faith early in his life, but he later became associated with the Congregational Church as he got older. In 1870 he attended a presentation by Adventist minister Jonas Wendell from which Russell developed his belief that Christ’s return was in 1874 and that the world would end in 1914. While he believed in these dates till his death in 1916, the Witnesses would later claim that Jesus returned invisibly to the naked eye in 1914, and that before those old enough to hear their proclamation in the late 1800s and witness the events of 1914, the world would definitely end.

Of course we are here 100 years later.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

It should be know that the JW organization has a video, “Faith in Action part 1”, currently being distributed depicting Henry Grew, a Baptist preacher, as the 1st guy that had the revolutionary concept to let scripture interpret scripture and came to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine was false. I say this to show that Russell may be credited with the starting of an organization, their doctrine begins prior to him.

I would like to get Delson’s take on this. I have asked JWs in the past to clarify this but I think they would rather over look this small piece of the video since it would confirm their doctrine does not date back to the Apostles.

Peace!!!

Actually, the doctrine of “proof texts” goes back to the early Church in the days of the Gnostic challenge. This idea of providing “proof texts” to support interpretations of other texts was popularized by Marcion of Sinope (circa 85 – 160 AD).

Originally a bishop, Marcion believed that the philosophy of the Gnostics could be “catholicized.” But the teachings of the Gnostics and their claim to having special knowledge in holy writ that no others possessed led him to “proof text” him away from the teachings of the Church. (The Gnostics believed the words of Scripture possessed hidden knowledge about every subject of life and that therefore religious belief had to based on the text.)

Eventually, through the “proof texts” technique he came to develop the first Christian canon of “inspired writings” (the Church did not believe at that time that any of its writings were equally to the Jewish Bible, so there was no “New Testament” then). He “proof-texted” his way to reject the entire Old Testament, claiming it was the story of an inferior god. He claimed that doctrine should be based only on his edited form of the Gospel of Luke and several of Paul’s letters.

Marcion was reported to have actually been surprised when the Church excommunicated him for heresy.

While the Witnesses never claimed a belief in apostolic succession, they do claim that they are the same Church, just restored by God because only they were teaching the truth about the year 1914 when Jesus came to invisibly select which denomination of Christians were true in the early 1900s…of course, according to their beliefs.

 

[Yerusalyim]

It should be know that the JW organization has a video, “Faith in Action part 1”, currently being distributed depicting Henry Grew, a Baptist preacher, as the 1st guy that had the revolutionary concept to let scripture interpret scripture and came to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine was false. I say this to show that Russell may be credited with the starting of an organization, their doctrine begins prior to him.

I would like to get Delson’s take on this. I have asked JWs in the past to clarify this but I think they would rather over look this small piece of the video since it would confirm their doctrine does not date back to the Apostles.

Peace!!!

Oh, I agree…Russell’s heresies are NOT new…but he IS the founder of the JW’s.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Oh, I agree…Russell’s heresies are NOT new…but he IS the founder of the JW’s.

A big YUP to that!

 

[Cricket2]

Complete MYTH Charles Taze Russell started out as a Presbyterian, then a Congregationalist, then Adventist (forebearer of today’s SDA). He was NEVER Catholic.

Thanks for the answer. I never thought to ask my uncle, but had heard this myth years ago. Though, I have to say he changed shirts often.

One thing I want to ask about, in addition to other questions: Why do Witnesses refuse to enter other Churches. My Aunt (now deceased) would absolutely refuse to enter the Catholic Church when her husbands father died and had his funeral service. My uncle would only sit in the back and not approach the altar. Don’t you think that is being a bit extreme if not ridiculous.

I have attended marriages, funerals and other services with friends and the handicap to meet their needs or show respect. My aunt said it would cause her to lose her place in the Kingdom of God if she did that. I think that is just nonsense.

It is this kind of thing that is part of my inability to accept this belief system.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Thanks for the answer. I never thought to ask my uncle, but had heard this myth years ago. Though, I have to say he changed shirts often.

One thing I want to ask about, in addition to other questions: Why do Witnesses refuse to enter other Churches. My Aunt (now deceased) would absolutely refuse to enter the Catholic Church when her husbands father died and had his funeral service. My uncle would only sit in the back and not approach the altar. Don’t you think that is being a bit extreme if not ridiculous.

I have attended marriages, funerals and other services with friends and the handicap to meet their needs or show respect. My aunt said it would cause her to lose her place in the Kingdom of God if she did that. I think that is just nonsense.

It is this kind of thing that is part of my inability to accept this belief system.

I agree it is extreme…JW’s believe they are the only true Christians and everyone else tools of Satan…therefore attending other services would be sinful.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Thanks for the answer. I never thought to ask my uncle, but had heard this myth years ago. Though, I have to say he changed shirts often.

One thing I want to ask about, in addition to other questions: Why do Witnesses refuse to enter other Churches. My Aunt (now deceased) would absolutely refuse to enter the Catholic Church when her husbands father died and had his funeral service. My uncle would only sit in the back and not approach the altar. Don’t you think that is being a bit extreme if not ridiculous.

I have attended marriages, funerals and other services with friends and the handicap to meet their needs or show respect. My aunt said it would cause her to lose her place in the Kingdom of God if she did that. I think that is just nonsense.

It is this kind of thing that is part of my inability to accept this belief system.

This was me as well before I returned to the Catholic Church…so I can tell you firsthand that Witnesses are indeed against entering any house of worship that is not one of their Kingdom Halls. In fact, from experience I can tell you that some of them are downright too scared to do so.

The reason? Jehovah’s Witnesses really and truly believe that there is no middle ground when it comes to religion. Either you are a member of the only true religion and serve the true God or you are a member of a false religion, under the control of Satan–and are literally a worshipper of the Devil!

That means each and every house of worship, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc., whether it be a church, synagogue, temple, what have you, is literally infested with evil spirits.

Just because you think you worship God and have the Bible, doesn’t mean you are worshipping God. Even if you attend Mass at the Vatican, as far as the Witnesses are concerned you are serving Satan and all ministers of religion, especially the Pope, are the Devil’s agents.

Yes it is extreme. But in the mind of the Witness there is no middle ground. There is only true worship and the worship of Satan. If you do not worship with them, you are under Satan’s control.

 

[Cricket2]

This was me as well before I returned to the Catholic Church…so I can tell you firsthand that Witnesses are indeed against entering any house of worship that is not one of their Kingdom Halls. In fact, from experience I can tell you that some of them are downright too scared to do so.

The reason? Jehovah’s Witnesses really and truly believe that there is no middle ground when it comes to religion. Either you are a member of the only true religion and serve the true God or you are a member of a false religion, under the control of Satan–and are literally a worshipper of the Devil!

That means each and every house of worship, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc., whether it be a church, synagogue, temple, what have you, is literally infested with evil spirits.

Just because you think you worship God and have the Bible, doesn’t mean you are worshipping God. Even if you attend Mass at the Vatican, as far as the Witnesses are concerned you are serving Satan and all ministers of religion, especially the Pope, are the Devil’s agents.

Yes it is extreme. But in the mind of the Witness there is no middle ground. There is only true worship and the worship of Satan. If you do not worship with them, you are under Satan’s control.

Thanks for answering that question for me. As I said this is why I could never follow their belief system. Can you explain the reasoning behind not accepting blood and blood products? I heard it was their belief that this is like cannibilism.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Thanks for answering that question for me. As I said this is why I could never follow their belief system. Can you explain the reasoning behind not accepting blood and blood products? I heard it was their belief that this is like cannibilism.

It is due mainly to Acts 15:28. 29. The text refers to “abstaining from blood” as a dietary consideration for early Gentile Christians. Since the first Christians were Jewish, and their food customs were based on the Mosaic Law, the question arose if Gentile converts to Christianity had to live according to Torah, the Mosaic Law. The answer was no, that Gentiles didn’t have to assimilate.

The command from the Church elders in Acts 15 was made to allow fellowship with Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians to allow them to eat together. The prohibitions were against foods that were not only contrary to kashrut (Jewish dietary law) but would cause such upset to Jews as to make fellowship impossible with Gentile believers. The expression to refrain from blood meant refraining from “blood-meats" during such fellowship.

At a time that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were questioning most medical procedures, including immunization, it was taught that these verses in Acts 15 dealt with more than kosher food considerations. The Witnesses applied them to taking in blood transfusions as well, reasoning that if food could be taken intravenously then blood transfusions was tantamount to eating the blood of a human.

While they haven’t lifted the prohibition on blood transfusions formerly, they aren’t making an issue about them as they once did. As I explained before in a previous post, only older Witnesses may use the language where they once equated transfusions with “cannibalism,” but they did do this in my day back in the 1980s and early 1990s.

 

[Cricket2]

It is due mainly to Acts 15:28. 29. The text refers to “abstaining from blood” as a dietary consideration for early Gentile Christians. Since the first Christians were Jewish, and their food customs were based on the Mosaic Law, the question arose if Gentile converts to Christianity had to live according to Torah, the Mosaic Law. The answer was no, that Gentiles didn’t have to assimilate.

The command from the Church elders in Acts 15 was made to allow fellowship with Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians to allow them to eat together. The prohibitions were against foods that were not only contrary to kashrut (Jewish dietary law) but would cause such upset to Jews as to make fellowship impossible with Gentile believers. The expression to refrain from blood meant refraining from “blood-meats" during such fellowship.

At a time that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were questioning most medical procedures, including immunization, it was taught that these verses in Acts 15 dealt with more than kosher food considerations. The Witnesses applied them to taking in blood transfusions as well, reasoning that if food could be taken intravenously then blood transfusions was tantamount to eating the blood of a human.

While they haven’t lifted the prohibition on blood transfusions formerly, they aren’t making an issue about them as they once did. As I explained before in a previous post, only older Witnesses may use the language where they once equated transfusions with “cannibalism,” but they did do this in my day back in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[yellowbird]

. Besides that there is no failed prophecy since it was not a prophecy but just an interpretation of a written down inspired biblical prophecy.

So did we adjust our understanding of certain matters and prophecies? Certainly we did.

But again, i was not here to discuss doctrine. have a nice day

Does the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they interpret scripture with the help of Jehovah - or based simply on their own knowledge and understanding?