Jehovah's Witnesses

  • Thread starter Thread starter buc_fan33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buc_fan33

Guest
Has anyone had any success defending the Catholic faith against JW’s? I am locked in an ongoing debate with a number of JW’s from the area and it just seems to be going nowhere. I am surprised that as we dig in, we actually have more in common than one might first imagine. However, where I’m getting hung up is mostly on what Catholics believe about the Kingdom of God. A key component to JW eschatology is that we will remain on the earth. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe tha there will be a new heaven and a new earth but my study of Catholic eschatology is very limited, so I know next to nothing as far as how to respond to their claims. JWs also believe that 144,000 elect will be in heaven with Jesus ruling over everyone else who will remain on earth. Again, I know that as Catholics we believe that everyone has the possibility of cooperating with God’s grace in order to achieve eternal life, yet I do not know exactlly what we believe regarding the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation.

Other dificulties that I’m running into are based on the NWT (JW’s) translation of scripture which purposely mistranslates things in order to justify their doctrines. For example, Luke 23: 43 is translated as, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” This simple move of placing the comma after “today” instead of before changes the entire meaning of the sentence in order to justify the belief that paradise consists of a future life on earth, not a present life in heaven upon one’s earthly death.

This is just scratching the surface of the translation errors. However, most Catholic refutations that I would offer are further refuted in JW publications. For example, in John 1:1, the NWT translates the text to say, “the Word was a god.” This is to support their belief that Jesus is not God, or more specifically, that he is a god, just not Almighty God, or Jehovah. They justify this translation by asserting that in the Greek, there is no definite article. Tim Staples responds to this claim by arguing that the word “theos” is a predicate nominative and thus would not take the definite article. However, in their publication Should you Believe in the Trinity, the JW’s answer this argument on page 28.

Hopefully, by now you are getting the point. In essence, I am looking for suggestions on how to share the Catholic faith with JWs. I also am looking for a good book that argues point by point against JW publications, specifically “What Does the Bible Really teach” and “Reasoning from the Scriptures.” I am also in need of a good understanding of Catholic eschatology.

God Bless,
buc_fan33
 
Concerning the 144,000 they are all male virgins, without sin. Not one JW meets this combination that your JW friend will know of.

Revelation 14
1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

2And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Concerning Luke 23: 43, simple there are no commas in greek text. The comma added there is simply their interpretation of the text.

Concerning other texts, I recommend the following,

forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

forananswer.org/ABC_Index.htm

The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study

By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com

spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm

Also, look for the thread between Mannyfit and Bible Steve

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=193716&highlight=Jehovah+Witness
 
buc_fan33 said:
Has anyone had any success defending the Catholic faith against JW’s? I am locked in an ongoing debate with a number of JW’s from the area and it just seems to be going nowhere…

For example, in John 1:1, the NWT translates the text to say, “the Word was a god.” This is to support their belief that Jesus is not God, or more specifically, that he is a god, just not Almighty God, or Jehovah. They justify this translation by asserting that in the Greek, there is no definite article. Tim Staples responds to this claim by arguing that the word “theos” is a predicate nominative and thus would not take the definite article. However, in their publication Should you Believe in the Trinity, the JW’s answer this argument on page 28…

God Bless,
buc_fan33
Click to expand...
Dear buc_fan33,

Many who take issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” of John 1:1 (as, “a god”) often miss the point that the Grammatical construction there is * a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, and subject noun (implied or stated) *; and not just that the noun theos (in the third clause) lacks the Greek definite article or because it is simply a predicate nominative.

For other examples of the same Greek construction, please examine the few following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether they had inserted either an “a” or “an” there:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of the above verses, identity of the one being discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was.

Therefore, rather than changing their translation “to support their belief that Jesus is not God,” Jehovah’s Christian witnesses are, in fact, following just what others for centuries have done, that is, when translating verses of the Bible which display the very same syntax as that found in those other verses.

But now, when it comes to John 1:1, rather than let God’s Word speak for itself, Trinitarian influenced scholars seem to have forgotten their own guidelines in this and allowed their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, in fitting with their own ideology, we more commonly read, “and the Word was God.”

Along these very lines, a very good observation is attested to by the following:

“Here I may observe, that, to persons uninitiated in the doctrines of Christianity, this passage [John 1:1c], and other obscure passages of the present Gospel, must have appeared unintelligible; yet by the disciples of the evangelist, already acquainted with his language on such subjects, they would be easily understood. Their previous knowledge led them to the true explanation. At the present day, the readers of Scriptures have generally imbibed certain religious notions from education before they sit down to the task; and then, unconsciously, perhaps, but very naturally, they explain every difficulty in accordance with those notions. Hence it happens that men of every persuasion find the confirmation of their peculiar opinions in the sacred volumes: for, in fact, it is not the Scripture that informs them, but they that affix their own meaning to the language of Scripture.”

Taken From: Lingard, John (b.?-d.?). A New Version of The Four Gospels with Notes Critical and Explanatory, by a Catholic. (London, England: J. Booker, 1836), p. 330. BS2553 .L5 / 06-30318.

When I quote Mr. Lingard, as Catholic (and, therefore, Trinitarian), his intended purpose may very well have been to address the non-Trinitarian treatment of this verse during his day. Interestingly, when Lingard speaks of those “persons uninitiated in the doctrines of Christianity,” no doubt he would have it in mind to include those individuals not ‘initiated’ into the teaching of the Trinity doctrine. Therefore, by these very words he has unwittingly just admitted to being guided in his own rendering of this verse by the very thing he has critisized others. Otherwise, as a principal, his astute observation can be aptly applied to any translator or commentator, with any level of learning – and, most certainly, not to the exclusion of Trinitarian scholars/theologians themselves.

You may also want to examine the contents of these related links as well:

“Some Interesting Observations About the Trinity, Perhaps Not So Commonly Known”

“Some Powerful Reasoning’s About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed”
Code: 
Agape, Alan.
[email]john1one@earthlink.net[/email] 
[Good Companion Books](http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com)
 
buc_fan33 said:
Has anyone had any success defending the Catholic faith against JW’s? I am locked in an ongoing debate with a number of JW’s from the area and it just seems to be going nowhere. I am surprised that as we dig in, we actually have more in common than one might first imagine. However, where I’m getting hung up is mostly on what Catholics believe about the Kingdom of God. A key component to JW eschatology is that we will remain on the earth. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe tha there will be a new heaven and a new earth but my study of Catholic eschatology is very limited, so I know next to nothing as far as how to respond to their claims. JWs also believe that 144,000 elect will be in heaven with Jesus ruling over everyone else who will remain on earth. Again, I know that as Catholics we believe that everyone has the possibility of cooperating with God’s grace in order to achieve eternal life, yet I do not know exactlly what we believe regarding the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation.

Other dificulties that I’m running into are based on the NWT (JW’s) translation of scripture which purposely mistranslates things in order to justify their doctrines. For example, Luke 23: 43 is translated as, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” This simple move of placing the comma after “today” instead of before changes the entire meaning of the sentence in order to justify the belief that paradise consists of a future life on earth, not a present life in heaven upon one’s earthly death.

This is just scratching the surface of the translation errors. However, most Catholic refutations that I would offer are further refuted in JW publications. For example, in John 1:1, the NWT translates the text to say, “the Word was a god.” This is to support their belief that Jesus is not God, or more specifically, that he is a god, just not Almighty God, or Jehovah. They justify this translation by asserting that in the Greek, there is no definite article. Tim Staples responds to this claim by arguing that the word “theos” is a predicate nominative and thus would not take the definite article. However, in their publication Should you Believe in the Trinity, the JW’s answer this argument on page 28.

Hopefully, by now you are getting the point. In essence, I am looking for suggestions on how to share the Catholic faith with JWs. I also am looking for a good book that argues point by point against JW publications, specifically “What Does the Bible Really teach” and “Reasoning from the Scriptures.” I am also in need of a good understanding of Catholic eschatology.

God Bless,
buc_fan33
Click to expand...
It is possible to defeat their arguments, but you cannot use the Bible, as they will say you are misinterpreting it. What you can argue is their history, but most importantly, you can and should argue their Watchtower pamphlets. These have been changed many times. They really have little to say in return and that is why they don’t come to my house anymore…😉

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Dear Alexius,

I think you made a great point. Could you please tell me about changes in those phamplets or may be just to provide links to me. My brother in law turned into JW and even will marry one. He has become “unusual” in our family. I have no problem with his JW believe nor his marriage will be. I just want him not to have a blind faith of any believe.
 
buc_fan33 said:
Has anyone had any success defending the Catholic faith against JW’s? I am locked in an ongoing debate with a number of JW’s from the area and it just seems to be going nowhere. I am surprised that as we dig in, we actually have more in common than one might first imagine. However, where I’m getting hung up is mostly on what Catholics believe about the Kingdom of God. A key component to JW eschatology is that we will remain on the earth. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe tha there will be a new heaven and a new earth but my study of Catholic eschatology is very limited, so I know next to nothing as far as how to respond to their claims. JWs also believe that 144,000 elect will be in heaven with Jesus ruling over everyone else who will remain on earth. Again, I know that as Catholics we believe that everyone has the possibility of cooperating with God’s grace in order to achieve eternal life, yet I do not know exactlly what we believe regarding the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation.

Other dificulties that I’m running into are based on the NWT (JW’s) translation of scripture which purposely mistranslates things in order to justify their doctrines. For example, Luke 23: 43 is translated as, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” This simple move of placing the comma after “today” instead of before changes the entire meaning of the sentence in order to justify the belief that paradise consists of a future life on earth, not a present life in heaven upon one’s earthly death.

This is just scratching the surface of the translation errors. However, most Catholic refutations that I would offer are further refuted in JW publications. For example, in John 1:1, the NWT translates the text to say, “the Word was a god.” This is to support their belief that Jesus is not God, or more specifically, that he is a god, just not Almighty God, or Jehovah. They justify this translation by asserting that in the Greek, there is no definite article. Tim Staples responds to this claim by arguing that the word “theos” is a predicate nominative and thus would not take the definite article. However, in their publication Should you Believe in the Trinity, the JW’s answer this argument on page 28.

Hopefully, by now you are getting the point. In essence, I am looking for suggestions on how to share the Catholic faith with JWs. I also am looking for a good book that argues point by point against JW publications, specifically “What Does the Bible Really teach” and “Reasoning from the Scriptures.” I am also in need of a good understanding of Catholic eschatology.

God Bless,
buc_fan33
Click to expand...
Ask them if they know that Pope Benedict’s cousin is a JW.

Scroll down about halfway to a post by “Holy Spirit”.
 
mark_a said:
Ask them if they know that Pope Benedict’s cousin is a JW.

Scroll down about halfway to a post by “Holy Spirit”.
Click to expand...
That is the beauty of the Catholic Church. We don’t mind that any people have a different theology, and we will never disturb them. Pope B16 may be right about the cathedrals and churches in Europe, but it is completely different in my country. During a good friday service, a Catholic Church which capable of holding 2.000 people was crowded with 6.000. Even the parking lot just next to our church was full of people. In a weekly masses, it is always be that hundreds of people must have to stand outside the church, with no place to sit. Some even have to bring their own folding chairs.
 
The beginning apologetics booklets helped greatly on these matters. Also, they claim sola scriptura yet attach themselves to their teaching authority outside of scripture, which is another point at the root of their errors.

I always go to sola scriptura and that being the main difference of authority. History of scripture blows their minds, the fact that we needed the church to bring us the canon of scripture and that it did not occur until 382,393 and 397ad.

Also the fact that the NT was not brought together from all over the map to be studied as a whole until 197ad. What authority did the Christians use before that? How about that Paul didn’t even start writing the nT until 48ad? What did they use previous to that?
ANSWER: an authoritative Church which Christ promised He would never leave, would be with til the end of time and that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against.
 
Alexius said:
It is possible to defeat their arguments, but you cannot use the Bible, as they will say you are misinterpreting it. What you can argue is their history, but most importantly, you can and should argue their Watchtower pamphlets. These have been changed many times. They really have little to say in return and that is why they don’t come to my house anymore…😉

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
Dear buc_fan33,

The statement above is a good example of someone attempting to make an issue out of a non-issue. Please consider the following, that is, as had been explained from within a number of Watchtower magazines, throughout the years:

“We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change, - in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth…It is our duty to ‘prove all things,’ - by the unerring Word, - ‘and hold fast to that which is good [1 Thes. 5:21].’” – “The Ten Virgins,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, October 1879 (Reprint), page 38.

“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 what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth.” – “Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness,” No. 2, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080.

“…we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration…” – “Interesting Letters,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506.

“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, …” – Watchtower (August 15, 1950, page 263).

“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary,
as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)” –Watchtower (February 15, 1981, page 19).

Therefore, it has never been the thinking of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they should never change their views on anything. In fact, if, after learning new things and/or coming to a better appreciation about certain Biblical teachings - they were unwilling to change their views - then, as you can see, this would have been going against the very position they had taken right from the very beginning. And, again, in line with Proverbs 4:18, it is their view that such changes will very likely become necessary, that is, just as a new student of the Bible continues to grow in their own understanding of Spiritual things.

“But the path of the just is like shining light, that grows in brilliance till perfect day.” – (Catholic New American Bible).

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
 
justinthemartyr said:
…, they claim sola scriptura yet attach themselves to their teaching authority outside of scripture, which is another point at the root of their errors…
Click to expand...
It may interest some to know that, after having done a search within all of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses’ literature throughout the past 65 years, the term “sola scriptura” had only been utilitzed 3 times, and this was always in connection with the period identified as the Protestant Reformation.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do seek to found their beliefs upon God’s Word, the Holy Bible, as most know, such must also include consideration of the background of the Scriptures themselves:

“…wretched from the right context, words can convey wrong meanings…if what the New Testament says about [any teaching] is to be understood aright, it must be read not in accord with our linguistic English usage [of our day], but in the setting of the categories of thought and the linguistic idiom of its day, that is, in the context of the thought and speech of that first century Jewish and Hellenistic environment to which the New Testament documents belong.”

Taken from: Boobyer, George Henry (b.?-d.?), B.D., D.Th. Article appearing within: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, & etc.], vols. 1-54; April/June 1903-Spring 1972), vol. 50 (1967/8), p. 253. Z921.M18 B / 10-15345.

Yes, this is one of the main reasons why it is that I, personally, enjoy utilizing the Catholic New American Bible, especially with it’s many enlightening footnotes. Although I do not always agree with their assessments, I find that, beyond the wealth of useful information there, the translation, itself, is otherwise also quite good.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
…Concerning Luke 23: 43, simple there are no commas in greek text. The comma added there is simply their interpretation of the text…
Click to expand...
Actually, although regular and frequent use of any punctuation with the Koine Greek did not fully develope until centuries later, it may interest you to know that a few marks did appear within some of the earliest manuscripts of the “New Testament.”

With regard to Luke 23:43, there is this:

“Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found in some MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lower point (hypostigme) after SHMERON. Regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general “B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause.” (A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters in codex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribe traced over many of the letters and punctuation marks. However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.”

Taken from: Luke 23:43 - Where does the comma go?

On this, you may wish to also examine:

Luke 23:43 - Where should the comma be placed?

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
 
I strongly recommend getting a NWT and arguing with them from their own “Bible”.

It can be done. I had a Bible Study with a JW friend and her “pioneering” partner- didn’t convince them, but it went rather well, and I know I planted a seed.

“Beginning Apologetics” has a volume on how to talk to JW’s using the NWT- as horribly mistranslated as many passages are, there are many others, especially in the OT that are relatively untampered with and can be used to point them to the truth.
 
JohnOneOne said:
It may interest some to know that, after having done a search within all of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses’ literature throughout the past 65 years, the term “sola scriptura” had only been utilitzed 3 times, and this was always in connection with the period identified as the Protestant Reformation.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do seek to found their beliefs upon God’s Word, the Holy Bible, as most know, such must also include consideration of the background of the Scriptures themselves:

“…wretched from the right context, words can convey wrong meanings…if what the New Testament says about [any teaching] is to be understood aright, it must be read not in accord with our linguistic English usage [of our day], but in the setting of the categories of thought and the linguistic idiom of its day, that is, in the context of the thought and speech of that first century Jewish and Hellenistic environment to which the New Testament documents belong.”

Taken from: Boobyer, George Henry (b.?-d.?), B.D., D.Th. Article appearing within: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, & etc.], vols. 1-54; April/June 1903-Spring 1972), vol. 50 (1967/8), p. 253. Z921.M18 B / 10-15345.

Yes, this is one of the main reasons why it is that I, personally, enjoy utilizing the Catholic New American Bible, especially with it’s many enlightening footnotes. Although I do not always agree with their assessments, I find that, beyond the wealth of useful information there, the translation, itself, is otherwise also quite good.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
Click to expand...
Johnoneone, Although the term sola scriptura is not used, when asked what their authority is for what they believe, they will inevitably tell you it is scripture alone.
 
Byzcat said:
I strongly recommend getting a NWT and arguing with them from their own “Bible”.

It can be done. I had a Bible Study with a JW friend and her “pioneering” partner- didn’t convince them, but it went rather well, and I know I planted a seed.

“Beginning Apologetics” has a volume on how to talk to JW’s using the NWT- as horribly mistranslated as many passages are, there are many others, especially in the OT that are relatively untampered with and can be used to point them to the truth.
Click to expand...
Concering Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, it may interest some to know that there have been others who believe it is actually quite good:
Code: 
["Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly?"](http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/nwtbiased.htm)
“Truth In Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.”
Code: 
Agape.
[email]john1one@earthlink.net[/email]
[Good Companion Books](http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com)
 
In my opinion the best. easiest and clearest things to focus on are:
  1. The PHYSICAL Resurrection of Jesus from the dead considering the JWs believe Jesus arose only as a Spirit. The evidence of a physical resurrection is so strong that it isnt even a dispute (eg Jn 2:18-21; Lk 24:39; Acts 2:27-32; all the Resurrection accounts at the end of the Gospels).
2)The Soul is immortal which has strong evidence in the NT (Mt 10:28; Mt 25:41; Mat 17 [Transfiguration accounts], Phil 1:20-24; Rev 6:9, etc). The JWs are basically stuck with obscure OT passages like Eccle 9:5 which they put way way too much emphasis on, especially in light of NT revelation.
  1. Other issues like the literal 144,000 dont work considering that “limitation” is NEVER mentioned in the Gospels or by Paul. The fact is 144 is figurative. The context of Rev 7 actually says the number was too big to count:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
    That is a start. Clearly the evidence is way way against the JW claims for these doctrines they consider important.
Do NOT waste your time arguing things like Jn1:1, there is bigger, better, stronger arguments you can make.
 
justinthemartyr said:
Johnoneone, Although the term sola scriptura is not used, when asked what their authority is for what they believe, they will inevitably tell you it is scripture alone.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are three factors involved as the basis of “their authority…for what [Jehovah’s Witnesses] believe.”
  1. The Bible (1 Timothy 3:16, 17; Romans 15:4)
  2. Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13)
  3. The Anointed followers of Jesus (1 John 2:20, 27).
“Peter wrote: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9) …as a group, the anointed footstep followers of Jesus make up this “royal priesthood,” which Peter also called “a holy nation.” They constitute the channel that Jehovah uses to provide his people with instruction and spiritual direction.—Matthew 24:45-47.”

*** Watchtower, 2002 8/1 p. 13 par. 17 “Loyally Submit to Godly Authority” ***

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books
 
Catholic_Dude said:
In my opinion the best. easiest and clearest things to focus on are:
  1. The PHYSICAL Resurrection of Jesus from the dead considering the JWs believe Jesus arose only as a Spirit. The evidence of a physical resurrection is so strong that it isnt even a dispute (eg Jn 2:18-21; Lk 24:39; Acts 2:27-32; all the Resurrection accounts at the end of the Gospels).
2)The Soul is immortal which has strong evidence in the NT (Mt 10:28; Mt 25:41; Mat 17 [Transfiguration accounts], Phil 1:20-24; Rev 6:9, etc). The JWs are basically stuck with obscure OT passages like Eccle 9:5 which they put way way too much emphasis on, especially in light of NT revelation.
  1. Other issues like the literal 144,000 dont work considering that “limitation” is NEVER mentioned in the Gospels or by Paul. The fact is 144 is figurative. The context of Rev 7 actually says the number was too big to count:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
    That is a start. Clearly the evidence is way way against the JW claims for these doctrines they consider important.
Do NOT waste your time arguing things like Jn1:1, there is bigger, better, stronger arguments you can make.
Click to expand...
Dear Catholic Dude,

First of all, I do want to sincerely thank you for bringing to others’ attention the above points of contention, that is, between some of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses and those of others who also view themselves as Christian.

Along with you, I also think it is very imporant to know about the reasons/basis for anyone’s beliefs - especially if they call themselves a Christian.

Although, with the scriptures (and reasoning) you have outlined above may, in your view, fully support your position, I would also hope that you too (along with others looking on) would perhaps consider that we too have scriptures (and reasoning) which we feel fully supports our position as well.

And this is where, in our view, God’s spirit comes into play. It is our belief that if a person is, indeed, sincere in their efforts to get to know God and what we are to know about Him thru His Word, the Holy Bible, then He will surely answer that prayer. (Proverbs 2) And, I must admit, you are likely to feel/believe the same.

So, where does that leave us? Perhaps the key lies in what was just said - that this is not so much about how we two may explain our positions than to encourage any in search of “Truth” to not be in fear of asking the hard questions. Otherwise, it should be our duty to not only allow the questions to be asked, but also to not allow ourselves the opportunity to mis-represent the other side, only to make ourselves look good/right/correct.

On the other hand, for those who may wish to learn more about just what it is that make’s Jehovah’s people different, the following links might be of some help:

watchtower.org/

watchtower.org/e/beliefs_and_activities.htm

watchtower.org/e/current_topics.htm

jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
Good Companion Books

<<< FOR THE RECORD: When you said, “Do NOT waste your time arguing things like Jn 1:1, there is bigger, better, stronger arguments you can make,” mind you, I was initially only writing in reply to what I perceived as a sincere inquiry from one of your own Catholic brethern. And yet, I now wonder how he might have felt if, in response to his genuine plea, you would have been the first he would have heard from. >>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top