Jehovahs Witnesses

[BibleSteve]

This will help you understand JW beliefs more accurately:

watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm

Note the tab on the left “What Do They Believe” and then scroll to the bottom of the page for a summary with supporting scriptures.

 

[excaliber]

Because I am a heretic, I would like to mention something that I think is problematic for Catholicism concerning this topic.

The Catholic Church declares that JW/Arian baptism is not valid. This is a pretty clear change in Catholic practice which it would seem is directly connected to “faith and morals.”
If Arian baptism was invalid, then the majority of folks baptized in the 4th century were not really baptized. In the 4th century they did not “re-baptize” those baptized by Arians. In the 4th century there were times when the majority of bishops were Arian (and the few who were not Arian at heart generally acquiesced and embraced an Arian creed anyway).

So, either Arian baptism was valid in the 4th century and now is not.
Or
Arian baptism was not valid in the 4th century and the majority of church for a number of years was not validly baptized (and the church leaders were wrong to say Arian baptism was valid).
Or
The magisterium did err in the 20th century when it declared JW baptism invalid because it was Arian.

As a Catholic I would subscribe to the first because the others are not acceptable, but as I regularly say Catholicism must have a very strong acceptance of development.
I suspect that some Catholics might try to subscribe to the 2nd, but they should read their councils and Arians of the Fourth Century by Newman.

Charity, TOm

Correct me if I am wrong…but wasent it the eastern orthodox that believed in Arianism.

The bishop of rome NEVER taught arianism. So the Catholic Church has never made an error in faith or morals.

 

[Burning4Christ]

From a Catholic point of view, how are they any different to any bible-only Protestant religion?

Like Rollitude said, They have warped and changed the bible to fit there doctrine. bible-only Protestants believe (with the exeption of the Apocrypha) in the same bible as the Roman Catholic Church, Protestants just base there doctrine solely on the bible. The Watchtower society has a tract record of changing the bible to fit there doctrine. They have changed it so many times, each time after they found a verse that contradicts there doctrines. Its funny, The watchtower societies own Interlinear bible (where the greek/hebrew is written on the side of the bible, with the literal translations under them) contradicts the New World Translation. Thats why there diffrent from protestants. Say what you want about protestants but most if not all of us beleive in the basic tenants of the Nicene and Apostles creed, The JW’s dont.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Correct me if I am wrong…but wasent it the eastern orthodox that believed in Arianism.

The bishop of rome NEVER taught arianism. So the Catholic Church has never made an error in faith or morals.

I don’t believe the Orthodox Church ever believed in Arianism. I think that no Christian could believe in Arianism and still be Christian. It’s just not compatible.

 

[BibleSteve]

The Watchtower society has a tract record of changing the bible to fit there doctrine. They have changed it so many times, each time after they found a verse that contradicts there doctrines.

Quote from “Truth In Translation - Accuracy and Bias In English Translations of the New Testament” - Jason David BeDuhn - Associate Professor of Relgious Studies - B.A. University of Illinois, M.T.S. Harvard Divinity School, Ph.D. Indiana University

"People are quick to charge inaccuracy and bias in someone else’s Bible. On what basis do they make such charges? Charges of inaccuracy and bias are based upon the fact that a translation has deviated from some form of what the translation should be. So what is the norm? It seems that for many the norm is the King James Version of the Bible. If a new translation varies very far from that norm, it is criticized as inaccurate and erroneous, and its translators are suspected of ulterior motives in producing a different translation, a hidden bias that perverts the truth of the King James version. You hear it all the time: someone has “changed” the Bible by offering a new translation. The changes from the standard of the KJV, which was, after all, presented as the “standard” translation. If a translation differs from the “standard”, clearly it must be wrong.

Unfortunately, this view of things is based on ignorance of the most basic facts about the Bible…

In order to have any ability to make a judgment about the accuracy of the translation of the New Testament from its original Greek into modern English, you have to know how to read Greek, and the particular kind of Greek in which the New Testament was originally written… yet, amazingly, the majority of individuals who publicly pass judgment on Bible translations… do not know how to read Greek.

The obvious question to be asked here it is: then how can they tell what is a good translation and what is not? The fact is that they cannot. Their opinions are based not on the accuracy of translating Greek words into English words, but on the agreements of the final product with their own beliefs about what the Bible must say…

Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses are well outside of the Christian mainstream, the impression among the general public, and among several important Bible scholars, is that the differences of the New World translation from other translations are due to the peculiar ideas and biases of the witnesses. ** I have identified a handful of examples of bias in the New World translation, where in my opinion accuracy was impaired by the commitments of the translators. But the biases of the New World translators do not account for most of the differences of the New World translation from the other translations. Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the New World Translation **as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers…

While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the New World Translation emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared."

 

[ricko]

The New World Translation (NWT), the JWs’ own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an “anonymous” committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.

The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) as “do obeisance” every time it is applied to Jesus, but as “worship” when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

The NWT also translates the Greek word kurios (“Lord”) as “Jehovah” dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word “Jehovah” is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kurios as “Jehovah” in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!
Catholic Answers

Dishonest is more correct for the NWT. I also found in the NWT (and showed it to a JW.) where a man fell down and WORSHIPPED Jesus. OPS, yall missed that one!

 

[Yerusalyim]

1. They will serve in the miltary but not in a fighting unit.

This is incorrect, a baptized JW can not serve in the military and is suppossed to go to jail rather than doing so. However, the Governing Body of the JW’s did approve the “brothers” in Mexico getting a stamp on their reserve service card by paying a bribe to the reserve officials. This allowed them to travel because Reserve military service was cumpulsory in Mexico in the 60s and 70s…with out the stamp you could not travel outside of Mexico…but many were in the habit of paying this bribe…and the Governing body wrote a letter to the Mexican JWs that this was acceptable…the hypocracy in this is that at the same time in the African Country of Malawi the “brothers” were being persecuted…women raped, men murdered, because they would not pay 25 cents for a communist party membership card. The law of the country of Malawi mandated that ALL PEOPLE have this card, it was essentially a tax. The JW’s in Malawi asked for the governing body to allow them to pay this and not be excommunicated from the JW congregation since it was really just a tax. Membership in political parties and politcal activism, even voting are disfellowshipping (excommunication) offenses for JWs. The governing body refused. Many Malawian JW’s were beat, tortured raped, and killed

So…we have Mexican JWs who are allowed to pay a bribe (illegal) in order to get a reserve service card stamped (effectively MAKING THEM members of the military…for which they would be disfellowshipped) if they didn’t pay the bribe and get the stamp they couldn’t travel out of the country…however, in Malawi, what was essentially a tax was being levied and the Governing Body refused to give the JW’s in Malawi an out and many suffered…some great system.

See, being disfellowshipped by the Witnesses is harsh…all your friends and family that you know, love, and associate with are members of the JW Church in most cases. When you are disfellowshipped most communication is cut off except for “essential family business” like a death notification. I’ve seen families torn assunder by this “loving provision” My step son who is still a JW hasn’t spoken to his mother in YEARS because she left the JWs and became a Catholic…and he was her baby…he the child closest to him. Nor has he spoken to his other two brothers who left. Can’t ya feel the love.

So, aside from leading people away from true worship the JWs are dangerous because they destroy families…protect pedophiles in many cases…(if a child makes an accusation of abuse to the elders he/she must have two witnesses in order for the pedophile to be excommunicated…when is there ever two witnesses to a child rape? I’ve seen victims and families of victims of sexual abuse disfellowshipped because they continued to warn members of their local congregation that “Elder such and such” touched our little girl…and the Elder remains in place…because there weren’t TWO WITNESSES. I’ve seen victims excommunicated because they went public with their case…even after the conviction of the Elder who molested the girl…she was ostracized, he, though finally “disfellowshipped” was still coddled.

 

[ralphinal]

Tom,
How were the baptisms in the 4th century Arain? If they were done with the Trinitarian formula, they count.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, I guess I would ask does the catholic church believe that they are Christians? What is the churches position on there theology. What are the personal opinions of those of catholic faith concerning the JW’s?

Id love to hear someone who defends there faith, see what they think.

Their doctrine of Christ is more Arian than that of Arius - the Church had no time for his ideas, so there is even less place for those of Charles Taze Russell & his successors. Russell lied under oath: for he said he knew Greek when he was in court, being sued for selling “Miracle Wheat” which he untruthfully claimed was superior to ordinary wheat; it turned out to be slightly inferior. Asked whether he knew Greek, he said he did - his assertion was tested; it turned out that he did not. He also lied under oath about his qualifications as a minister; he was brought to admit that he had never been ordained.​

A triple perjurer is no true prophet of God. Comparisons with Peter fail because Peter was restored & converted after his falls - Russell’s lies were told during his career as a teacher of others. Perjury is a terrible sin - & the New Jerusalem has no place for liars:

• Rev 21:5 And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
• Rev 21:6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment.
• Rev 21:7 He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.
• Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."
  The heresy of Russell & his successors is worse than that of Arius, for Arius at least can be excused by the fact that when he first ventilated his ideas (in 318), Nicea & its Christology were still in the future. And he did not make Christ a mere creature, as they do. Nor did he issue falsified translations of the Bible, as the Watchtower does.

Individuals in this group may be Christian - but not because of the heresies of the Watchtower: because of the grace of Christ, which no human wickedness can overcome. The same applies to other cults, such as Mormonism, the SDAs, Christian Science.

 

[petite_foireuse]

@BibleSteve:
As far as I know this isn’t the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Bible (correct me if I’m wrong). The Council of Trent specifically said that the “standard” for Catholics was St Jerome’s Latin version, which they declared to be free of theological mistakes (so, the definition is not about the actual words, but rather about the teachings behind them; Catholics can afford such a definition because we don’t interpret the Bible by ourselves but submit to the “official” Catholic teaching; moreover, the “official” translation does not require reference to ancient Greek or Hebrew texts, where there are often differences between manuscripts and difficulty of interpretation, whereas the availability of a Latin standard means we have a complete reference text). Catholics are supposed to make sure they read a Catholic Bible (which the King Jame’s version is not), because there are some more books in the Catholic Bible than in the Protestant Bible (called “deuterocanonical” by the Catholics and “apocryphs” by the Protestants - the word “apocryph” is also used by Catholics, but it relates to even other books, just to make things simple!)
– petite foireuse

 

[flameburns623]

Because I am a heretic, I would like to mention something that I think is problematic for Catholicism concerning this topic.

The Catholic Church declares that JW/Arian baptism is not valid. This is a pretty clear change in Catholic practice which it would seem is directly connected to “faith and morals.”
If Arian baptism was invalid, then the majority of folks baptized in the 4th century were not really baptized. In the 4th century they did not “re-baptize” those baptized by Arians. In the 4th century there were times when the majority of bishops were Arian (and the few who were not Arian at heart generally acquiesced and embraced an Arian creed anyway).

So, either Arian baptism was valid in the 4th century and now is not.
Or
Arian baptism was not valid in the 4th century and the majority of church for a number of years was not validly baptized (and the church leaders were wrong to say Arian baptism was valid).
Or
The magisterium did err in the 20th century when it declared JW baptism invalid because it was Arian.

As a Catholic I would subscribe to the first because the others are not acceptable, but as I regularly say Catholicism must have a very strong acceptance of development.
I suspect that some Catholics might try to subscribe to the 2nd, but they should read their councils and Arians of the Fourth Century by Newman.

Charity, TOm

Tom:

I think the difference is that in the 4th century, Arian was only just being defined as a heresy. Those who were baptised Arian in the 3rd and 4th centuries sincerely meant to be Christians in the full sense of the word but there were reasonable doubts among Christians of good will as to whether or not Arianism was true or not. There were errors of doctrine at stake but this did not make the intention of those who received Arian baptism defective, because the issue had not been infallibly defined, and those who accepted baptism at that time accepted such baptism with the intent of doing all and believing all that the Church infallibly taught and held as true concerning the Trinity.

Since that time, the Church has spoken clearly and infallibly on the subject and those who embrace Arianism in view of that long history of condemnation have essentially rejected what the Church is on record as having declared infallible. The doctrine of Trinity has become a normative doctrine for virtually all who identify with the name of Christ, so that rejection of that doctrine, as defined in those councils and creeds of the 4th century represents a rejection of a fundamental element of what it means to be a Christian.

In other words, those who accepted Arian baptism in the 4th Century were willing to submit to the authority of the Church once the issues were clearly defined. Those who embrace Arianism today clearly are NOT so willing. If they later change their minds and seek admission to the Christian faith, the Church presumes there was a defect in the intention of the prior baptisms of such persons and therefore re-baptizes them.

 

[Cleopas]

Though I find many of their beliefs questionable, if not heretical … one in particularly is damning.

They deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord. This is a damnable heresy. As the apostle Paul said, if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead then we are yet in our sins (1 Cor. 15).