D
- Status
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Where are you going with this? All you need to know is that the Church teaches that Jesus is God. Why are you so opposed to this (the trinity)? Is it because of the watchtower magazine that has convinced you? Please justify your beliefs, state something that is different than just your opinion.FightingFat;5853266 said:
Let me make sure I understand your beliefs…
In 325 C.E., a council of bishops in Nicea in Asia Minor formulated a creed that declared the Son of God to be “true God” just as the Father was “true God.” Part of that creed stated:
“But as for those who say, There was [a time] when [the Son] was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
–A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse, 1980 Edition, page 53.
Thus, anyone who believed that the Son of God was not coeternal with the Father or that the Son was created was consigned to everlasting damnation. One can imagine the pressure to conform that this put on the mass of ordinary believers.
In the year 381 C.E., another council met in Constantinople and declared that the holy spirit should be worshiped and glorified just as the Father and Son were. One year later, in 382 C.E., another synod met in Constantinople and affirmed the full divinity of the holy spirit.4 That same year, before a council in Rome, Pope Damasus presented a collection of teachings to be condemned by the church. The document, called the Tome of Damasus, included the following statements:
“If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.”
“If anyone denies that the Son of God is true God, just as the Father is true God, having all power, knowing all things, and equal to the Father: he is a heretic.”
“If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit . . . is true God . . . has all power and knows all things, . . . he is a heretic.”
“If anyone denies that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, . . . he is a heretic.”
“If anyone says that [the Son who was] made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while he was on earth: he is a heretic.”
“If anyone, while saying that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, . . . does not say that they are one God, . . . he is a heretic.”
–The Church Teaches, translated and edited by John F. Clarkson, S.J., John H. Edwards, S.J., William J. Kelly, S.J., and John J. Welch, S.J., 1955, pages 125-7
The Jesuit scholars who translated the foregoing from Latin added the comment: “Pope St. Celestine I (422-32) apparently considered these canons law; they may be considered definitions of faith.” And scholar Edmund J. Fortman asserts that the tome represents “sound and solid trinitarian doctrine."
—The Triune God, by Edmund J. Fortman, 1982 Edition, page 126.
On the Incarnation, translated by Penelope Lawson, 1981 Edition, pages 27-8
Do these statements define your faith? And did you realize that to believe in the Trinity doctrine as taught by the churches requires you to believe that Jesus was in heaven while he was on earth? This teaching is similar to what fourth-century churchman Athanasius stated in his book On the Incarnation:
“The Word [Jesus] was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence in the body prevent His being present elsewhere as well. When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. . . . He is still Source of life to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the whole.”
— The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, editor in chief, 1987, Volume 15, page 54.
Before I go on—is this correct?
D
dj_dave
Guest
No answer, so I will continue…
Now, from what I have gathered in reading posts on this site…the Trinity doctrine is not a simple idea. Instead, it is a complex set of separate ideas that have been brought together over a period of time and interlocked into one another.
From the picture of the Trinity doctrine that appeared after the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E., from the Tome of Damasus in 382 C.E., from the Athanasian Creed that came some time later, and from other documents, we can clearly determine what all of Christendom means by the Trinity doctrine. It includes the following definite ideas:
- There are said to be three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit—in the Godhead.
- Each of these separate persons is said to be eternal, none coming before or after the other in time.
- Each is said to be almighty, with none greater or lesser than the other.
- Each is said to be omniscient, knowing all things.
- Each is said to be true God.
- However, it is said that there are not three Gods but only one God.
Was it a teaching of Jesus and his disciples?
If so, it should have appeared fully formed in the first century of our Common Era. And since what they taught is found in the Bible, then the Trinity doctrine is either a Bible teaching or it is not. If it is, it should be clearly taught in the Bible.
It is not reasonable to think that Jesus and his disciples would teach people about God and yet not tell them who God is, especially when some believers would be asked to give up even their lives for God. Hence, Jesus and his disciples should have given the highest priority to teaching others about this vital doctrine. Compare John 17:3
I invite you to search the Bible, especially the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, to see for yourself if Jesus and his disciples taught a Trinity. As you search, ask yourself:
- Can I find any scripture that mentions “Trinity”?
- Can I find any scripture that says that God is made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son, and holy spirit, but that the three are only one God?
- Can I find any scripture that says that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom?
“The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.”
----New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume XIV, page 295
Many may say that the Bible “implies” a Trinity. But this claim is made long after the Bible was written. It is an attempt to read into the Bible what clergymen of later times arbitrarily decided should be doctrine.
Ask yourself: Why would the Bible only “imply” its most important teaching—who God is?
The Bible is clear on other basic teachings; why not on this, the most important one?
Would not the Creator of the universe author a book that was clear on his being a Trinity if that were the case?
The reason the Bible does not clearly teach the Trinity doctrine is simple: It is not a Bible teaching. Had God been a Trinity, he would surely have made it clear so that Jesus and his disciples could have taught it to others. And that vital information would have been included in God’s inspired Word. It would not have been left to imperfect men to struggle with centuries later.
When we examine texts offered by Trinitarians as evidence that the Bible “implies” a Trinity, what do we find? An honest appraisal reveals that the scriptures offered do not speak of Christendom’s Trinity. Instead, theologians try to force into the scriptures their preconceived ideas of a Trinity. But those ideas are not in the scripture texts. In fact, those Trinitarian ideas conflict with the clear testimony of the Bible as a whole.
continued…
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
“The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Now what?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Now what?
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Here is an ask an apologist question from Catholic answers
**
The Watchtower Society’s booklet “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” makes numerous references to Bible scholars who seem to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. What should I make of this?**
Answer
Not much. This booklet, first published in 1989, is a classic example of how the Watchtower Society (WTS), the parent organization for Jehovah’s Witnesses, misrepresents and distorts what these authors said. The WTS eliminates crucial portions of excerpts by means of an ellipsis or pulls a sentence or two completely out of context, resulting in an opposite twist on the passages in question. While numerous examples could be given, here are two:
On page four of the booklet, a quote is taken from Jesuit author Joseph Bracken’s book What Are They Saying About the Trinity? . The quote reads: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday.” It seems Fr. Bracken is saying that priests are reluctant to teach on the topic of the Trinity in general. What the first ellipsis eliminates, though, is an important modifier. The sentence actually reads, “Priests who with considerable effort learned the Thomistic explanation of the Trinity during their seminary years . . .” (Bracken, 3; emphasis added). In other words, Fr. Bracken is talking about one specific way of explaining the Trinity doctrine, not the doctrine itself.
On page 6 of the booklet, the New Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying, “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT [Old Testament].” While it’s true that this doctrine is not expressly taught in the Old Testament, the booklet gives the impression that the concept of a triune God is wholly absent from the pages of the Old Testament.
If you look up the encyclopedia article, just four sentences after the statement quoted there is this: “On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel’s pagan neighbors, it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity.” Two sentences further we read, “The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT [New Testament], where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 14:306). So clearly the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the Trinity doctrine was present, either in foreshadowing or in substance, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
**
The Watchtower Society’s booklet “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” makes numerous references to Bible scholars who seem to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. What should I make of this?**
Answer
Not much. This booklet, first published in 1989, is a classic example of how the Watchtower Society (WTS), the parent organization for Jehovah’s Witnesses, misrepresents and distorts what these authors said. The WTS eliminates crucial portions of excerpts by means of an ellipsis or pulls a sentence or two completely out of context, resulting in an opposite twist on the passages in question. While numerous examples could be given, here are two:
On page four of the booklet, a quote is taken from Jesuit author Joseph Bracken’s book What Are They Saying About the Trinity? . The quote reads: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday.” It seems Fr. Bracken is saying that priests are reluctant to teach on the topic of the Trinity in general. What the first ellipsis eliminates, though, is an important modifier. The sentence actually reads, “Priests who with considerable effort learned the Thomistic explanation of the Trinity during their seminary years . . .” (Bracken, 3; emphasis added). In other words, Fr. Bracken is talking about one specific way of explaining the Trinity doctrine, not the doctrine itself.
On page 6 of the booklet, the New Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying, “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT [Old Testament].” While it’s true that this doctrine is not expressly taught in the Old Testament, the booklet gives the impression that the concept of a triune God is wholly absent from the pages of the Old Testament.
If you look up the encyclopedia article, just four sentences after the statement quoted there is this: “On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel’s pagan neighbors, it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity.” Two sentences further we read, “The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT [New Testament], where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 14:306). So clearly the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the Trinity doctrine was present, either in foreshadowing or in substance, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
D
dj_dave
Guest
dj dave;5858095 said:
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Please tell me, do you believe that the JW organization is infallible in all of its teachings and teaches truth and only truth and that it is the only true church (God’s church)?
D
dj_dave
Guest
my turn…christiantruth.com/mt16.html
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Answer?
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Aramaic in the New Testament
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
“What’s more,” I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
From catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
“What’s more,” I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
From catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
The Bible was not written in English. The Church fathers believed Peter was the first Pope I shouldnt need to argue that with you it is obvious
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Please read this. catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Christ is supreme:
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[e]
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.[f]
So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth
by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.
Colossians 1:15-20
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[e]
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.[f]
So he is first in everything.
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,
20 and through him God reconciled
everything to himself.
He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth
by means of Christ’s blood on the cross.
Colossians 1:15-20
D
dj_dave
Guest
The following answers those questions…
rs p. 203 - p. 205 Jehovah’s Witnesses
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that their religion is the only right one?
The Bible does not agree with the modern view that there are many acceptable ways to worship God. Ephesians 4:5 says there is “one Lord, one faith.” Jesus stated: “Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. . . . Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”—Matt. 7:13, 14, 21; see also 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to the body of true Christian teachings as “the truth,” and Christianity is spoken of as “the way of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15; 2 John 1; 2 Pet. 2:2) Because Jehovah’s Witnesses base all of their beliefs, their standards for conduct, and organizational procedures on the Bible, their faith in the Bible itself as God’s Word gives them the conviction that what they have is indeed the truth. So their position is not egotistical but demonstrates their confidence that the Bible is the right standard against which to measure one’s religion. They are not self-centered but are eager to share their beliefs with others.
Do not other religions also follow the Bible?
Many use it to some extent. But do they really teach and practice what it contains? Consider: (1) From most of their Bible translations they have removed the name of the true God thousands of times. (2) The Trinity doctrine, their concept of God himself, is borrowed from pagan sources and was developed in its present form centuries after Bible writing was completed. (3) Their belief in immortality of the human soul as the basis for continued life is not taken from the Bible; it has roots in ancient Babylon. (4) The theme of Jesus’ preaching was the Kingdom of God, and he sent his disciples out to talk personally to others about it; but the churches today seldom mention that Kingdom and their members are not doing the work of preaching “this good news of the kingdom.” (Matt. 24:14) (5) Jesus said that his true followers could be readily identified by their self-sacrificing love for one another. Is that true of the religions of Christendom when the nations go to war? (6) The Bible says that Christ’s disciples would be no part of the world, and it warns that whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God; but the churches of Christendom and their members are deeply involved in the political affairs of the nations. (Jas. 4:4) In view of such a record, can it honestly be said that they really adhere to the Bible?
As for fulfillment of prophecy, they apply what Jesus said about being alert to events that correspond to what was foretold. (Luke 21:29-31; compare 2 Peter 1:16-19.) Conscientiously they point out those events and draw attention to what the Bible indicates they mean.
Jesus said that he would have on earth a “faithful and discreet slave” (his anointed followers viewed as a group), through which agency he would provide spiritual food to those making up the household of faith. (Matt. 24:45-47) Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that arrangement. As was true of first-century Christians, they look to the governing body of that “slave” class to resolve difficult questions—not on the basis of human wisdom, but by drawing on their knowledge of God’s Word and his dealings with his servants, and with the help of God’s spirit, for which they earnestly pray.—Acts 15:1-29; 16:4, 5.
Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) Thus, the prophets who were divinely inspired to write portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12)
The apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12) The Bible shows that there would be a great increase in knowledge of the truth during “the time of the end.” (Dan. 12:4) Increased knowledge often requires adjustments in one’s thinking. Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing humbly to make such adjustments.
Notice With regard to 1914: : “We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even claim that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them” WT Jan 1st 1908
With regard to 1925: “The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year.” --WT Jan 1st 1925 P.5…more? web.archive.org/web/20040204191946/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
- Is the Watch Tower Society Reliable?
Among other things, the WTS predicted the following:
1889 "The ‘battle of the great day of God almighty’ (Rev 16:14) which will end in AD 1914 . . . " (Studies, Vol. 2, 1908 edition, 101).
1891 “With the end of AD 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy” (Studies, Vol. 3, 153).
1894 “The end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (WT Reprints, 1-1-1894, 1605 and 1677).
1897 “Our Lord is now present, since October 1874 AD” (Studies, Vol. 4, 1897 edition, 621).
1916 “The six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th day, the 1000 years of Christ’s reign began in 1873” (Studies, Vol. 2, p. 2 of foreword).
1917 “Scriptures . . . prove that the Lord’s Second Advent occurred in the fall of 1874” (Studies, Vol. 7, 68).
1918 “Therefore, we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 89).
1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914” (WT, 9-1-1922, 262).
1923 “1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge” (WT, 4-1-1923, 106).
1925 “The year of 1925 is here. . . . Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year” (WT, 1-1-1925, 3).
1931 “There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah’s faithful ones on earth concerning the dates 1914, 1918, & 1925 . . . and they also learned to quit fixing dates” (Vindication, 388, 389).
1939 “The disaster of Armageddon is just ahead” (Salvation, 361).
1941 “Armageddon is surely near . . . soon . . . within a few years” (Children, 10).
1946 “Armageddon . . . should come sometime before 1972” (They Have Found a Faith, 44).
1966 “Six thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E” (Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 29).
1968 “The end of the six thousand years of man’s history in the fall of 1975 is not tentative, but is accepted as a certain date” (WT, 1-1-1968, 271).
catholic.com/library/Stumpers_for_Jehovah_Witnesse.asp
**
Come on. JW are terrible at interpreting scripture. This really sets it in stone. The JW society is not the Church of God. If the JW’s teach only the truth then why have they failed so many times? How can you now say that anything the JW’s teach is true?**
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
The changes in doctrine over and over again, The abysmal translation of the Bible, the absolute worst way of evangelizing by going door to door annoying everybody until they think of them as a joke. I mean come on, wake up and smell the roses man.
Notice how many times the Catholic Church has changed it doctrine 0
The true Church does not change with the times. I am praying for you that you will one day come to realize that you are part of a cult.
May the graces of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and through the merits of his cross you may come to the Church that he has established. The Holy Roman Church.
God Bless
Notice how many times the Catholic Church has changed it doctrine 0
The true Church does not change with the times. I am praying for you that you will one day come to realize that you are part of a cult.
May the graces of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and through the merits of his cross you may come to the Church that he has established. The Holy Roman Church.
God Bless
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Sorry for acting a little mean 
D
dj_dave
Guest
**
Actually, I laughed at thoses early comments too. OH, AND THE WTBTS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN INSPIRED PROPHET–EVER!
THIS LINK WILL REVEAL WHAT ELSE WAS REALLY SAID …IN CONTEXT
users.picknowl.com.au/~hepburn/prophecy.htm#INTRO#INTRO
SEE ALSO jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html
**
Actually, I laughed at thoses early comments too. OH, AND THE WTBTS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN INSPIRED PROPHET–EVER!
THIS LINK WILL REVEAL WHAT ELSE WAS REALLY SAID …IN CONTEXT
users.picknowl.com.au/~hepburn/prophecy.htm#INTRO#INTRO
SEE ALSO jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
So many failures for the JW “true church” why wouldn’t God protect it from so many errors regardless of the WT being infallible?
- Status