JWs and Authority to Interpret Scripture

[DelsonJacobs]

I agree with all of this except it does presuppose the JW you are speaking to understands and appreciates logic and reason. Otherwise you will continue in the circular arguments based on what is published by the Watchtower.

Peace bro!!!

Since they do not appreciate any type of logic besides the “proof text” and quoting “authority” blurbs, the average JW will not respond well if one tries to steer them away from their trademark formula of doing things.

The advice I gave, of course, is not meant to be shared with the JW per se. It is meant to be used as an approach by a non-JW if they get in a discussion with them. If you just presented them with my comments on this forum the JW would see no benefit in it, which I am sure you realize.

Because of pride and fear of going against direction of accepting any other type of logic except for that which comes from their Governing Body, one should not expect discussions with JW of any type to produce anything but a “backfire effect.” We increase their faith in their beliefs by letting them go through their “proof texts,” because they are reminders for them that become ingrained via such repetition. So the best thing to do is not allow a discussion to go the way they’ve practiced or have been taught will go.

Discussions with them are rarely helpful because they believe that any second of doubt can be a literal attack of Satan upon their person. Cognitive dissonance experienced by them whenever they are proved wrong or left speechless by some argument or example that goes against what they’ve been taught can actually cause them to become ill.

As a Witness I’ve seen it firsthand: a good friend of mine fainted when something occurred that was “impossible” according to JW theology and had to be cared for over several weeks by her daughter–even while she was on her honeymoon!

Another friend who experienced the falsehood of the JWs firsthand locked himself in his bedroom for weeks and went into a depression that almost ended his marriage.

And the woman I almost married when I was a JW, when she had such an experience in which her beliefs were jarred disappeared for a day. When she was found (in another city I might add) she was out of touch with reality so badly that she had to be checked into a mental health hospital where she removed her clothes and went looking for a long-lost husband from her past–who never existed in the first place.

All of these recovered, dismissed or forgot they ever had such experiences where the belief system of the JWs was proven wrong and made them lose it. They sadly went back to following the Governing Body blindly.

Do your best when discussing things, but be aware while you do that it may not do much. They have been given new instruction recently, insisting that they must obey their Governing Body, even if it “may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us [Jehovah’s Witnesses] must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive [from their Governing Body], whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.”–The Watchtower, Study Edition, November 12, 2013, page 20.

 

[CutlerB]

Since they do not appreciate any type of logic besides the “proof text” and quoting “authority” blurbs, the average JW will not respond well if one tries to steer them away from their trademark formula of doing things.

The advice I gave, of course, is not meant to be shared with the JW per se. It is meant to be used as an approach by a non-JW if they get in a discussion with them. If you just presented them with my comments on this forum the JW would see no benefit in it, which I am sure you realize.

Because of pride and fear of going against direction of accepting any other type of logic except for that which comes from their Governing Body, one should not expect discussions with JW of any type to produce anything but a “backfire effect.” We increase their faith in their beliefs by letting them go through their “proof texts,” because they are reminders for them that become ingrained via such repetition. So the best thing to do is not allow a discussion to go the way they’ve practiced or have been taught will go.

Discussions with them are rarely helpful because they believe that any second of doubt can be a literal attack of Satan upon their person. Cognitive dissonance experienced by them whenever they are proved wrong or left speechless by some argument or example that goes against what they’ve been taught can actually cause them to become ill.

As a Witness I’ve seen it firsthand: a good friend of mine fainted when something occurred that was “impossible” according to JW theology and had to be cared for over several weeks by her daughter–even while she was on her honeymoon!

Another friend who experienced the falsehood of the JWs firsthand locked himself in his bedroom for weeks and went into a depression that almost ended his marriage.

And the woman I almost married when I was a JW, when she had such an experience in which her beliefs were jarred disappeared for a day. When she was found (in another city I might add) she was out of touch with reality so badly that she had to be checked into a mental health hospital where she removed her clothes and went looking for a long-lost husband from her past–who never existed in the first place.

All of these recovered, dismissed or forgot they ever had such experiences where the belief system of the JWs was proven wrong and made them lose it. They sadly went back to following the Governing Body blindly.

Do your best when discussing things, but be aware while you do that it may not do much. They have been given new instruction recently, insisting that they must obey their Governing Body, even if it “may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us [Jehovah’s Witnesses] must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive [from their Governing Body], whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.”–The Watchtower, Study Edition, November [15], 2013, page 20.

Oh dear, those experiences sound frightening and show how destructive the Watchtower is.

The “new instruction” leaves me with only one exclamation: How can anyone be so blind?! I just read the paragraph concerned, and, in my opinion, that theoretically permits cult-like mass suicide or other very strange and harmful things. That was the first thought I had when I read it.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Yes, same thing crossed my mind. Frightening!

Thanks for changing the date on that Watchtower for me. A slip of the fingers caused my typing the “12” when the issue is the “15” of November.

 

[CutlerB]

Yes, same thing crossed my mind. Frightening!

Thanks for changing the date on that Watchtower for me. A slip of the fingers caused my typing the “12” when the issue is the “15” of November.

No worries, one knows these sorts of things when one reads lots of it… Don’t know if that’s good or bad!

 

[SteveVH]

BTW, JW’s cannot ascribe to anything from the pagan world therefore logic derived from Aristotle and probably Socrates in null to them. The funny thing is they use the logic formulas and don’t even know it.

Peace

They also wear wedding rings (pagan origin) and use calendars with pagan names of the days of the week.

 

[CutlerB]

They also wear wedding rings (pagan origin), use calendars with pagan names of the days of the week.

I told him that when we were in Rome and he had a fit about early Christians painting Christ with a Cross in the catacombs, saying it’s pagan, rather than realising their belief was refuted right there. He said he would check about what I had said, but never got back to me.

 

[SteveVH]

I told him that when we were in Rome and he had a fit about early Christians painting Christ with a Cross in the catacombs, saying it’s pagan, rather than realising their belief was refuted right there. He said he would check about what I had said, but never got back to me.

Classic!

 

[adf417]

They also wear wedding rings (pagan origin) and use calendars with pagan names of the days of the week.

And they don’t even realize it. I mentioned the wedding ring thing, pointing to his, being of pagan origin to a friend and his eyes went . I’m sure he went searching the Watchtower docs for proof of this.

 

[CutlerB]

And they don’t even realize it. I mentioned the wedding ring thing, pointing to his, being of pagan origin to a friend and his eyes went . I’m sure he went searching the Watchtower docs for proof of this.

Actually, there is an article in one of their Watchtowers that deals with this or something similar, and it concludes that that’s ok! I shall look for it later.

 

[CutlerB]

I discovered there are multiple articles on the subject of “pagan” practices that state something rather important, here are excerpts:

Watchtower 15 January 1972, p.63 Questions from Readers

Is it proper for a Christian to wear a wedding ring?-Greece.

…]

It is thus seen that the precise origin of the wedding ring is uncertain.** Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.**

Of course, our concern is greater as regards the use of wedding rings, since this relates, not to minor secular matters, but to the marriage relationship, which the Christian rightly views as sacred before God. Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were originally used as part of false religious practices and still retain such religious significance.

It might be worth noting that the very same article quotes from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine somewhere in the area of the first omission I made. It says:

Many sincere Christians have asked this question out of a desire to avoid any custom of which God might disapprove. Some of the questioners know that Catholic prelate John H. Newman wrote: “The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, . . . sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” (An Essay on the Development of the Christian Doctrine, 1878)* While the facts prove that many of the current religious practices Newman lists definitely were adopted from pagan worship, is that true of the wedding ring?

[Note the “. . .” in the Watchtower’s quote. It’s one of their favourite methods of deception. Newman’s quote says within that ellipsis:

… and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields …

Things that ancient Israel had as well, which would destroy the Watchtower’s claim that such things are all pagan and un-Christian.]

Here is another article:

**Awake! 22 September 2003, pp.23-24 **
“When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues.”

Thus, the Watchtower is basically saying: There’s nothing wrong with these things per se, rather it depends on why you’re doing them. If you intend to do exactly what the pagans did, that’s wrong, but if you’re doing it for some other reason, it’s fine.

Interestingly, this pulls down all of their “That’s pagan!” reasoning concerning Christmas and virtually everything else.

 

[adf417]

Interestingly, this pulls down all of their “That’s pagan!” reasoning concerning Christmas and virtually everything else.

Yup! Dat what Im sayin…

 

[CutlerB]

Update!

He’s now back from their convention thing, and we continued the discussion.

I will post important excerpts again to provide you with where we are at, and what each’s main points are. His comments in red, mine in blue.

It is my position that one can’t just say “the Bible teaches” as if the following words were a clear cut case, but rather that every instance in which one appeals to the Bible is an interpretation.

I don’t agree. Not everybody can be right.

Exactly!

Someone (hopefully) does represent the cause of the Bible. What the others do has certainly nothing to do with it. …]

I agree. That leaves us with the question of whose interpretation is correct.

We have only one source for that: the Bible. So, if we can’t agree on one text, we look for a second one to compare, and so on. Until the picture is complete. [Just as I predicted it would happen…]

So we throw interpretations at each other until one of us surrenders? That worked astoundingly bad in history, which is why we have more than 30 000 protestant denominations.

And Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Yes, and even non-Christians like the Mormons, who also appeal to the Bible.

**And I think that’s where our paths diverge. I believe that if one reads the Bible without any bias and completely, one will reach only ONE conclusion. **[Again, I had a feeling this would come]

But that is exactly what all of the above groups have tried to do! (Except maybe the Catholics and Orthodox, although in a different sense) **

Yes, “tried” is about it.

And every one of them believes it worked. All of them say "we’re right!"

…]

So how do you think one could answer this question?

For example, by finding out which Church (I use this in a neutral way meaning “group”) Jesus Christ founded. That would be the one in which the Apostles and those taught by them were, the one which was called to “go forth to all nations”, make all people disciples, baptise them in the Name of God, and to “teach them to observe all I have commanded you”, the one with whom He would be until the end of time. He commanded His Church to teach, so we could know – when we find her – that He is with her and she does His Will.

What criteria would you use to determine which one is the true group?

There would be many, but here are a few: 1. She exists visibly and continually since the Apostles, 2. She is universal , 3. She is One., 4. She claims to be the Church founded by Christ.

1. Why necessarily visible? …] Concerning that, I would like to cite Matthew 13:24-30.
[This is the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds, which I have http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=824855”]opened another thread on, knowing this would come]

I cite Matthew 5:14, "YOU are the light of the Word. A city on a hill cannot be hidden."

Wouldn’t [our interpretation of Mt 13:24-30] contradict the constant visibility?

Yes, it would. It would also contradict Jesus’ words and prayer (Mt 5:14; Jn 17:20-23) as well as Paul’s words (Eph 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col 1:18,24). We should take care not to bombard each other with verses.

That is where he effectively said: “I have an idea of how the apparent contradiction between Mt 13 and the other verses can be resolved. But I need time for that, and I will be on holiday for the next two weeks. Could you remind me?”

So, maybe we can work with this new content? For the Wheat and the Weeds, please refer to the other thread linked above. I’d like this one to remain about how to continue the argument to prove Christ founded Holy Church.

 

[adf417]

Update!

He’s now back from their convention thing, and we continued the discussion.

I will post important excerpts again to provide you with where we are at, and what each’s main points are. His comments in red, mine in blue.

That is where he effectively said: “I have an idea of how the apparent contradiction between Mt 13 and the other verses can be resolved. But I need time for that, and I will be on holiday for the next two weeks. Could you remind me?”

So, maybe we can work with this new content? For the Wheat and the Weeds, please refer to the other thread linked above. I’d like this one to remain about how to continue the argument to prove Christ founded Holy Church.

Good stuff Cutler, keep up the good work! Remember, you can point scripture this and scripture that all you want but in the end this exercise, in it self, fails because of the fact that scripture, as we know it, did not exist for a period of time. The people in this time period that were responsible for protecting and preserving scripture are the key in my book. I keep trying to find out from the JW’s a name of someone who either help in the protecting/preserving of scripture and or who helped dissolve one heresy that held JW beliefs. Their website is full of quotes from early Christians promoting JW points of interest but I haven’t seen one quote from someone in early Christianity who was JW. I find this extremely odd.

Peace!!!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

It’s good that you’ve been open to dialogue, but have you ever considered that this exchange may not be profitable for you or the JW?

Pope Francis, just this past week, made some interesting points about the type of discussions we have with others over the Internet (and sometimes in person) with those of a different faith.

In a news article highlighting the Pope’s words, he said it is important “to know how to dialogue and, with discernment, to use modern technologies and social networks in such a way as to reveal a presence that listens, converses and encourages.” Communicators need to portray “the face of a church, which is ‘home’ to all,” and convey the beauty of faith and joy of meeting Christ.

“The church must warm the hearts of men and women. Do our presence and plans measure up to this requirement?” he said, “or do we remain mired in technicalities?”

The time has come for some of us in the Church to stop pontificating, so to speak. We might be excellent defenders of our faith, know what Scriptures and facts to bring out, etc., but when a person we are discussing these things with doesn’t respond to this form of witness then we need to acquiesce to the fact that we may be using an ineffective approach for this particular person. They obviously need something else and we can’t supply them with it if all we want to do is talk, talk, talk.

Are we ‘warming the hearts of men and women’ by our online discussions? Are we truly listening to what’s behind the points they are making in order to discover their true needs and minister to those? Are we seen by them as an encouragement to join us in worship or as a debate opponent?

While I am* not* telling you that you MUST stop your discussion with this JW, I am encouraging you to give it prayerful consideration. If this person is not moved by your appeal to reason, might they be moved by our undeniable way of life, which is a powerful wordless testimony in itself? This person may never discuss things with you again if you go that route due to proximity issues, but if more of us spent more time living out the gospel and loving people–especially the poor and sick as did Christ–wouldn’t that leave JWs with less to be able to argue against?

Don’t just read or explain a “proof text,” be a “proof text!”

 

[CutlerB]

Good stuff Cutler, keep up the good work! Remember, you can point scripture this and scripture that all you want but in the end this exercise, in it self, fails because of the fact that scripture, as we know it, did not exist for a period of time. The people in this time period that were responsible for protecting and preserving scripture are the key in my book. I keep trying to find out from the JW’s a name of someone who either help in the protecting/preserving of scripture and or who helped dissolve one heresy that held JW beliefs. Their website is full of quotes from early Christians promoting JW points of interest but I haven’t seen one quote from someone in early Christianity who was JW. I find this extremely odd.

Peace!!!

Thank you.

The real problem I face is their interpretation of Matthew 13:24-30. It’s the foundation of his entire argument. That interpretation enables him to say “yeah, we were there all along (the gates of hell did not prevail) but were just hidden among all the apostates”. I need to get around this point (not evading it, but overcoming it) in order to proceed, and I am not sure how to do that.

For that reason, I kindly request people’s responses to this thread and, if they would, their prayer.

 

[CutlerB]

I’ll announce that my friend has said his reply will not be far away. It should arrive soon. I’ll post as the discussion progresses.

 

[adf417]

Hey sorry I just say this post.

Thank you.

The real problem I face is their interpretation of Matthew 13:24-30. It’s the foundation of his entire argument. That interpretation enables him to say “yeah, we were there all along (the gates of hell did not prevail) but were just hidden among all the apostates”. I need to get around this point (not evading it, but overcoming it) in order to proceed, and I am not sure how to do that.

For that reason, I kindly request people’s responses to this thread and, if they would, their prayer.

The Matthew 13:24-30 argument will never hold water because it can be used by anybody. The challenge is to prove they were there all along. As I said above, it doesn’t make any sense to say “we were there all along” and then quote Catholics to bolster this statement.

Peace and of course prayers!!!

 

[SteveVH]

Hey sorry I just say this post.

The Matthew 13:24-30 argument will never hold water because it can be used by anybody. The challenge is to prove they were there all along. As I said above, it doesn’t make any sense to say “we were there all along” and then quote Catholics to bolster this statement.

Peace and of course prayers!!!

I agree completely. Let them show an unbroken line of succession back to Peter. Let them prove that their doctrines are the same as the early Church.

 

[CutlerB]

He says he’s forgotten what his “idea to reconcile the passages” was, but we are at this very moment discussing.

I brought him back to the indefectibility of the True Church. He is now asking lots of questions about “positions”, “offices” and their guidance by Christ and consequently infallibility. I keep emphasising that it is not by human but by divine power that His institution is infallible and indefectible.

Please continue to pray for both of us. Thank you, I shall keep you posted.

 

[CutlerB]

Update!

This is where we finished our discussion for tonight. I will summarise the points.

1. We agreed that the institution Christ founded is guided and protected by Him.
2. We agree that this institution must have existed since that time.
3. He says that “Just because someone holds an office doesn’t make his teaching right.”
4. I ended on the question: “This leaves us with the task of finding out who has Christ’s guidance: Which institution did Jesus found?”
5. He says “To me it’s: ‘the one who teaches truth is the one Christ founded’, not ‘the one who claims to be the one Christ founded teaches truth’”.

That’s our next topic.

What do you think? Do you see avenues of argumentation I could go down?

I appreciate all prayers. I need them. Thanks for all the helpful posts, keep them coming!