Jesus -Jehovah Witness pov

[Gaelic_Bard]

The New World Translation was done in the 20th century. From the Wiki: “Until the release of the NWT, Jehovah’s Witnesses in English-speaking countries primarily used the King James Version.”

So did the Seventh Day Adventists.

So do the Mormons (plus “continuing” revelation).

All of this error stems entirely from exactly the same bible! If the bible is an authority, how can this happen? For our answer, let’s go directly to the bible: Look at Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35. We see that someone in authority had to interpret. Yet, Peter says that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). So, to declare the JWs and SDA in error, what you propose to do is show the same KJV to them?

What is lacking is a referee, but that’s for another thread.

Needless to say I don’t think a referee is lacking. You’re correct that the NWT is later but that begs the question; why was a re-write necessary? Precisely because, like the Arians before them, they could not demonstrate their teachings from the tota scriptura. Hence the convenient changes (“the word was A god”). Yes, I do propose showing the KJV to them (the one that doesnt say Jesus was killed on a stake and says that he is co-substantial with the Father, etc).

 

[po18guy]

Needless to say I don’t think a referee is lacking. You’re correct that the NWT is later but that begs the question; why was a re-write necessary? Precisely because, like the Arians before them, they could not demonstrate their teachings from the tota scriptura. Hence the convenient changes (“the word was A god”). Yes, I do propose showing the KJV to them (the one that doesnt say Jesus was killed on a stake and says that he is co-substantial with the Father, etc).

You mention the Arians, and rightly so, as the JWs are heir to that heretical legacy. Yet, who was it that strenuously opposed the Arians over hundreds of years, and declared them heretics at a Church council so that you and I can believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the eternal Triune Unity? Who or what had the Divine authority to do that? Who went on from that point and declared the canon that we know as the bible? That would be the referee that I speak of. Not needed? .

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You mention the Arians, and rightly so, as the JWs are heir to that heretical legacy. Yet, who was it that strenuously opposed the Arians over hundreds of years, and declared them heretics at a Church council so that you and I can believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the eternal Triune Unity? Who or what had the Divine authority to do that? Who went on from that point and declared the canon that we know as the bible? That would be the referee that I speak of. Not needed? .

The divine authority to do what? To believe in the Trinity? I don’t believe in the Trinity because the council of Nicea or Cobstantinople addressed the question. I believe in the Trinity because the Scriptures teach the Trinity. Are the councils helpful? Absolutely.

 

[po18guy]

The divine authority to do what? To believe in the Trinity? I don’t believe in the Trinity because the council of Nicea or Cobstantinople addressed the question. I believe in the Trinity because the Scriptures teach the Trinity. Are the councils helpful? Absolutely.

The only problem is that nowhere and no one in scripture declares for all time, clearly and without doubt, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God in three Divine Persons. It was that “helpful” Church council that did that. The scriptures which you and I read are the ones that lead Arius to his heretical teachings - just as with Paul in Acts 15, the authoritative Church had to settle the dispute. That referee idea again. Paul did not believe the scriptures to be the supreme authority, because he went to the Church - that is irrefutable bible truth.

Private interpretation of scripture, without authority, is precisely what allowed Charles Russell to formulate the JW doctrines from the exact bible that you hold. Nothing else. By what authority then can you then declare him wrong? Your opinion? His proponents throw the exact same bible back at you, as do countless other denominations that disagree with you. I guess it just doesn’t matter who’s right. Or, does it?

I know that discussing this here can be uncomfortable for a bible Christian, as it forces a look at the foundations of Christianity. Yet, I am inviting you to question the recent beliefs that you hold. Recent? Yes, in all of human history, a few hundred years is very recent. Bible alone is very recent, and was not used against Arius, as it could not be.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

The only problem is that nowhere and no one in scripture declares for all time, clearly and without doubt, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God in three Divine Persons.

It does so quite nicely, actually.

It was that “helpful” Church council that did that. The scriptures which you and I read are the ones that lead Arius to his heretical teachings

I am not sure how to take this statement other than one that God is completely incompetent.

• just as with Paul in Acts 15, the authoritative Church had to settle the dispute. That referee idea again. Paul did not believe the scriptures to be the supreme authority, because he went to the Church - that is irrefutable bible truth.

Yes, he did go to the church. Again, we do not live in an era of continuing revelation. By the by, what was used in Acts 15 to make sure that Peter’s statement was in agreement with God’s truth?

Private interpretation of scripture, without authority, is precisely what allowed Charles Russell to formulate the JW doctrines from the exact bible that you hold.

You’ve asked me a lot of questions, po. Might I asked you several in return? Could you answer without asking me any in your answers?

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?

 

[po18guy]

It does so quite nicely, actually.

I am not sure how to take this statement other than one that God is completely incompetent.

Yes, he did go to the church. Again, we do not live in an era of continuing revelation. By the by, what was used in Acts 15 to make sure that Peter’s statement was in agreement with God’s truth?

You’ve asked me a lot of questions, po. Might I asked you several in return? Could you answer without asking me any in your answers?

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?

We are completely off topic in this thread. How about copying and pasting into the other thread? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=744102

 

[bzkoss236]

Needless to say I don’t think a referee is lacking. You’re correct that the NWT is later but that begs the question; why was a re-write necessary? Precisely because, like the Arians before them, they could not demonstrate their teachings from the tota scriptura. Hence the convenient changes (“the word was A god”). Yes, I do propose showing the KJV to them (the one that doesnt say Jesus was killed on a stake and says that he is co-substantial with the Father, etc).

But did Martin Luther not do the same thing (or at least similar) when he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from the original Christian canon established in the 4th century? He removed them because some of them contained things that supported Catholic doctrine of which he himself did not agree with (like praying for the dead).

 

[Kc906]

Okay, I just remembered in 1993 Michael Jackson said that he tried to imitate Jesus on how Jesus said to be like children and to be as innocent as children. Mind you, this was 6 years after he announced his departure from the religion, so maybe his understanding of Jesus had changed from their teachings, but if Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God, then who do they think he was and why would they want to imitate Him?

As other’s have mentioned, they believe that the man known as Jesus is Michael the Archangel born in the flesh. They believe that God the Father was all alone at one time, and his first creation was the Angelic being known as Michael. The Word of God, who is Jesus, is explicity called God with a capital G in their New World Translation in several places (Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 20:28.) Yet, they deny that Jesus is divine in his pre-incarnate existence as Michael (their belief) or as a human on the earth.

My understanding is that their rendering of John 1:1 calling the Word “a god,” does not mean that Jesus is a separate god to them, rather it means that the Word was a very powerful and mighty being…

Either way, they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and they rightly believe it is correct to immitate him. They are immitating a different Jesus though, as their Jesus is a creature and not deity in any way.

 

[Indifferently]

But did Martin Luther not do the same thing (or at least similar) when he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from the original Christian canon established in the 4th century? He removed them because some of them contained things that supported Catholic doctrine of which he himself did not agree with (like praying for the dead).

Luther didn’t remove them. This has been covered before.

 

[bzkoss236]

Luther didn’t remove them. This has been covered before.

Well, true to an extent. He pushed them back into an appendix, but they have since been removed from most if not all protestant bibles.

 

[yellowbird]

As other’s have mentioned, they believe that the man known as Jesus is Michael the Archangel born in the flesh. They believe that God the Father was all alone at one time, and his first creation was the Angelic being known as Michael. The Word of God, who is Jesus, is explicity called God with a capital G in their New World Translation in several places (Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 20:28.) Yet, they deny that Jesus is divine in his pre-incarnate existence as Michael (their belief) or as a human on the earth.

My understanding is that their rendering of John 1:1 calling the Word “a god,” does not mean that Jesus is a separate god to them, rather it means that the Word was a very powerful and mighty being…

Either way, they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and they rightly believe it is correct to immitate him. They are immitating a different Jesus though, as their Jesus is a creature and not deity in any way.

As a former JW - I agree.

Jesus (a/k/a Michael the Arch Angel) & Satan were both angels in the beginning - Satan fell and Michael was faithful.

They use the verse “first born of all creation” to prove he was created, not Divine. In the Col 1:16 when it speaks of Jesus creating all things, the NWT adds the word [other] changing the meaning to Jesus creating everything except himself whom Jehovah created.

Jesus is considered a “mighty god” but not Almighty God Jehovah. And they are quick to point out there are many false gods. Satan is the god of this system of things. The Bible does talk of false gods - and only one TRUE God. It never occured to me when I was a JW to ask if Jesus is not the one true God, doesn’t that make him a false god by default?

We believed we should be like Jesus because he was faithful to Jehovah and a good example to follow. We believed his death on the torture stake paid for our sins. And when I say “our” I mean the JW sins as we are the only ones on the planet following the true God Jehovah. Not to be confused wth the mighty god Jesus. (small g - never capital G when speaking of Jesus.)

Confused? Me too - and I was one.

 

[yellowbird]

Needless to say I don’t think a referee is lacking. You’re correct that the NWT is later but that begs the question; why was a re-write necessary? Precisely because, like the Arians before them, they could not demonstrate their teachings from the tota scriptura…

Not true.

As a former JW - I studied with the witnesses and accepted all their beliefs after studying with them using a KJV. I was not about to have them prove the tenents of their faith with their Bible - I made them prove it from my Bible.

It’s all in the interpretation. They claim Jevoah God gave the authority to correctly interpret scripture to his “Faithful and Discreet Slave” who was orignally Charles Russel, but morphed into the Governing Body of JW - a handful of men who are Jehovah’s spoken on Earth.

If you were to accept a study with the JWs today, they would use scripture from your own bible to prove their case. It’s not until they had you hook line and sinker that they’d insist you swap over the the NWT - and by then, they wouldn’t even need to insist - you would beg for the NWT with Jehovah’s name in it.

JWs are just one of many many who interpret the Bible they way they see fit. Once you toss aside the only Church Jesus established - the Church He said the gates of hell would not prevail against - it’s anyone’s guess what the scriptures actually mean.

 

[po18guy]

But did Martin Luther not do the same thing (or at least similar) when he removed the 7 deuterocanonical books from the original Christian canon established in the 4th century? He removed them because some of them contained things that supported Catholic doctrine of which he himself did not agree with (like praying for the dead).

I wonder how he feels about praying for the dead now?

 

[po18guy]

Not true.

As a former JW - I studied with the witnesses and accepted all their beliefs after studying with them using a KJV. I was not about to have them prove the tenents of their faith with their Bible - I made them prove it from my Bible.

It’s all in the interpretation. They claim Jevoah God gave the authority to correctly interpret scripture to his “Faithful and Discreet Slave” who was orignally Charles Russel, but morphed into the Governing Body of JW - a handful of men who are Jehovah’s spoken on Earth.

If you were to accept a study with the JWs today, they would use scripture from your own bible to prove their case. It’s not until they had you hook line and sinker that they’d insist you swap over the the NWT - and by then, they wouldn’t even need to insist - you would beg for the NWT with Jehovah’s name in it.

JWs are just one of many many who interpret the Bible they way they see fit. Once you toss aside the only Church Jesus established - the Church He said the gates of hell would not prevail against - it’s anyone’s guess what the scriptures actually mean.

Thousands of divided and disagreeing denominations are the proof. This is the elephant in the protestant living room.

 

[po18guy]

Luther didn’t remove them. This has been covered before.

He actually did worse: He, by his own authority, declared them to be non-inspired. He had no council behind him, only a collection of dissidents. Well did Gamaliel prophesy that those who opposed “the Way” might end up fighting against God Himself.

Acts 5:38-39
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)

“So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

 

[Skye_Ariel]

The Bible says you will know them by their fruit, and the fruit of Martin Luther’s breaking away was the altering of the Bible and the creation of thousands of different denominations and cults. God is not the author of confusion and what Martin Luther did caused nothing but confusion and delusion. Because of Martin Luther you have many who are truly seeking God and think they have found the truth because it sounds so close to the truth but it really isn’t.

 

[reslight]

Funny how that “supreme authority” of the bible lead Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White and Charles Taze Russell to almost completely different beliefs! The only things they share are the lies. Hmmmmm…

Both Joseph Smith and Ellen White claimed to be guided by spirits and visions, which actually led to them to not be in harmony with Bible. Russell claimed no spirits appeared to him, and he did not claim to have had any visions. His endeavor was to stay as close to the Bible as possible.

 

[reslight]

Setiously, po? I know your comment is an intentional jab, of course, so I will take it as such. So the Mormons have the infallibility of their prophets, along with the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, etc…White had her inerrant extra-Scriptural visions, Russell had his infallible WTS…and their opinion of the supreme authority of the Bible lead to their errors? It seems they all had other infallible authorities aside from Scripture…like some other institution I can think of…

Russell never claimed infallibility, nor did he claim that the WTS was infallible. In fact, many times he wrote that his conclusions were not infallible. Russell had no infallible authority aside from the Bible.

I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. I do not expect to be infallible until by the Lord’s grace I shall share a part in the First Resurrection; then, that which is perfect having come, that which is in part shall be done away; we shall see as we are seen and know as we are known. We accept the writings by the twelve apostles as being so supervised of the Lord as to be free from any error. He himself said of the writers, the apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind, enforce, on earth will be that which is recognized as bound or enforced in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose or release from on earth shall be loosed or released from in heaven. Hence we may regard the presentations of those twelve men, intended of the Lord to be his special representatives under the holy Spirit’s dispensation, as being infallible, true, inerrant. But there is no ground for believing that any others than the apostles have been so miraculously holden by the power of God as were those twelve, or that we have any authority in the Word of God for considering the words and writings of others as being above or beyond testing and proving by the Scriptures. This has invariably been our presentation. It has been our endeavor to present the Word of God faithfully as he has given us to understand it–to our own Master we stand or fall. Nevertheless we trust that our course has the approval also of such of the Lord’s dear people as, led by his Spirit, are now walking in the light of present truth.
agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r3745.htm

We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented;–the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations–and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as “Brethren” all sanctified believers in the precious blood. — Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, page 294.
agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4067.htm

We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can. (What Pastor Russell Said, Q56:1, 1910)

Russell did not believe in a “governing body” such as the JWs have created, nor did he believe in the authoritarian methods used by the JW leadership.

See more at:
ctr.reslight.net/?cat=85

 

[po18guy]

Both Joseph Smith and Ellen White claimed to be guided by spirits and visions, which actually led to them to not be in harmony with Bible. Russell claimed no spirits appeared to him, and he did not claim to have had any visions. His endeavor was to stay as close to the Bible as possible.

All three groups were founded on private interpretation of the KJV. White’s visions came later on. All were lead by a spirit, whether seen or unseen. But, notice that among these three similar but disparate groups, all retain that bible so that they could privately interpret it to fit their opinions of what it says? And, if you follow anything that Russell taught, how do you know he is not a false teacher or a false prophet? What we have is a whole lot of emotion, zero physical evidence, and one man’s opinion. One man. You and I have exactly as much authority to found a religion as Russell. Maybe more.

I strongly believe that we should buy American - but not a made in USA religion.

 

[reslight]

What jab? Russell used the KJV to arrive at the odd JW beliefs. How do you prove him wrong, since he relied on the authority of the bible to reach his conclusions? Unless it is not actually the supreme authority.

Was it a jab at those who privately interpret the bible - in violation of that very bible? Yes! Show me the verse that authorizes the private interpretation of scripture and I will immediately concede.

Russell did indeed use the KJV, the ARV, the Diaglott as well as Greek and Hebrew texts to arrive his beliefs, but Russell was not with the JWs, and did not arrive at their beliefs at all, not by the Bible, or any other way.

Russell did not believe himself to any central authority; he did not believe that the WTS was a central authority. His belief:

The Apostle distinctly points out that a servant is not a ruler, that a servant has no authority. Indeed, so far as the true Church is concerned, the only authority in it is the Lord, the Head of the Church, and his Word, and the words of those whom he specially chose to be his mouth-pieces, apostles. the apostles. — Watch Tower, July 1, 1900, page 195.

Nothing must be allowed to separate between us and the inspired Word if we would walk in the Light. Whatever “helps” really point us to the Bible as the only authority, and assist us in rightly dividing it, are profitable to us as servants and guides: but that which attempts to be to us instead of God’s Word is a dangerous foe. Watch Tower, August 15, 1897, page 240…

The Lord himself is the only rightful Head of the Church, and consequently the only authority in it. A recognition of his headship or supreme authority in the Church, and of his Word alone as its doctrinal standard, with faith in him as the Redeemer and in the power of his truth to sanctify, together with a recognition of the individual liberty of consecrated believers, to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, is the only proper attitude of the Church. — Watch Tower, March 1, 1892, page 67