Roundup of a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness

[CutlerB]

I have just finished a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness, a very kind lady, and would like to summarise it here and post a few questions.

I was going to try and stay on one topic, but I failed baaaaadly. The topic I chose (she offered me to choose!) was Jesus Christ. However, we quite often drifted off into the Canon of Scripture, the authority of the Church and the Witnesses’ changed teachings.

The reason I chose Jesus as a topic was that I was wanting to get her to rethink the Divinity of Christ. It didn’t turn into Bible ping-pong, however the verses I had picked in support of it, focussing on the application of Old Testament passaged about Got to Jesus, didn’t go as well as I thought they would. The only exception to the OT passages was Jesus’ role as Creator: John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-19. from those I set out to show her that Jesus being created was impossible. Of course, the lady didn’t say “Oh wow! Jesus is obviously God!” But she couldn’t offer any answer to it.

So, the Old Testament passages I chose were these:

John 12:36b-41 — Isaiah 6:1,5
John says: “These things Jesus spoke: and he went away and hid himself from them. And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him: That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said: Lord, who has believed our hearing? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted: and I should heal them. These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. However, many of the chief men also believed in him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue.”

Isaiah says: “In the year that King Ozias died, I saw the Lord [Jehovah] sitting upon a throne high and elevated: and his train filled the temple. …] And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that has unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts.”

My point was that John was clearly saying that Isaiah had seen God the Son, who is called Jehovah in the New World Translation. But that didn’t go as I thought it might. I personally have not changed my mind, but the lady just would not let this come true. Here is was she said.

“Well, look. Jesus is being spoken of in the first part. Then, John jumps back into Isaiah and is obviously speaking about Jehovah God. And after that he comes back into Jesus’ time.” The parts in blue are what she made refer to Jesus, while the red is what she says is the jump back into Isaiah, speaking about Jehovah. My response was something like this: “Well, but look, Joh is always saying ‘he’, creating a linked context that obviously refers to Jesus, because it says that the Pharisees did not confess him!”

The lady just continued saying: “There is no connection there. John is writing of two different times!” I must admit, I have no idea what the first quote from Isaiah is talking about. Did Jesus make them blind and harden their hearts?

The second Old Testament quote I used was this one.

1 Pet 2:3-4 — Ps 34:8 (Quoted from NW)
Peter: “provided YOU have tasted that the Lord is kind. Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God”

Psalm: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good”

Again my point was to show that Peter was applying something about God to Jesus. The Witness lady replied: “That doesn’t mean Jesus is God. First of all, there are two different words ‘kind’ and ‘good’. Therefore it is not a quote. And after all, why can’t Jesus be kind?” I couldn’t go further on that.

Some of the other things she said were:

1. The Bible was persecuted by the Church in the Middle Ages. It was forbidden to own one then, and people were burned with Bibles around their necks.
2. The Church is not of relevance to knowing the Bible is inspired. Its characteristics like scientific accuracy, prophecy and claims to inspiration are enough to know.
3. World War II wouldn’t have occurred without the Church. Priests blessed the weapons, Christians fighting and killing Christians. That’s not “good fruit” as Jesus said his followers would produce!
4. Priests should not be called Father. The Pope is called Holy Father.
5. The Pope is venerated!

I didn’t go into those claims, except for saying that point 2 wasn’t possible as not all of the books meet that criteria, stating that the Pope’s office is deeply biblical and that he is not venerated as well as that there is support for calling priests Father.

We also touched upon the history of changed doctrines and where the Witnesses were before the 1800s. Her responses were, respectively: “Changed doctrines don’t matter to me, they don’t change the way I live!” and “Modern day witnesses started in the 1800s, but there were people who taught the Bible’s message all along. In fact, they were persecuted! That they didn’t have all of our beliefs is irrelevant, as light gets brighter.”

Please feel free to comment, especially on the two Old Testament —*New Testament thingys.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Some of the other things she said were:

1. The Bible was persecuted by the Church in the Middle Ages. It was forbidden to own one then, and people were burned with Bibles around their necks.
   …

So where is the evidence that Gutenberg was persecuted for inventing a way to produce a lot of Bibles? You have to be careful when debating the Bible with JWs because they use a different Bible. I told one that I did not accept her Bible, and that ended the debate before she could start it.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

I have a couple of posts to get to before I go to work so I’ll come back to the scripture (requires more focus).

1. The Bible was persecuted by the Church in the Middle Ages. It was forbidden to own one then, and people were burned with Bibles around their necks.

-I need proof. She can not just say it she has to give evidence. Still, the Church has been the main target of satan since it was founded. This, to me, is more evidence that the Church is the right place to be that is why I came back.

1. The Church is not of relevance to knowing the Bible is inspired. Its characteristics like scientific accuracy, prophecy and claims to inspiration are enough to know.

Everything that I know of the bible in my adult life I read and interpreted myself. Part of the reason I came to this forum was to compare and contrast my interpretation. So far from what I can tell the Church and I agree on everything.

1. World War II wouldn’t have occurred without the Church. Priests blessed the weapons, Christians fighting and killing Christians. That’s not “good fruit” as Jesus said his followers would produce!

1)The Lord warned us of fake Christians and worship that is in vein. 2) World war II was fought against Nazi’s who were indiscriminately killing and torturing the chosen people of the old testament. If we had to fight it again I would be one of the first to sign up (hopefully not infantry). I completely believe that Hitler and most of the Nazi party were possessed. They were involved in the occult this only adds more evidence. 3) The soldiers were not volunteers. I see no problem blessing their weapons. 4) Today the soldiers are not forced to fight but they are DECEIVED into fighting. I still see no problem blessing their weapons. Furthermore I see no problem with having references to scriptural passages inscribed on the serial number to their m4’s. If it is not God’s will it won’t make a difference anyways.

1. Priests should not be called Father. The Pope is called Holy Father.
   I do believe the main reason we call them father is because in confession we are confessing to the Father through them. Am I wrong? I personally have never and will likely never be convinced to call the pope “holy father.” I can not find a scriptural reason. I have never been given a reason though so I am out of bounds here.

 

[Razanir]

So where is the evidence that Gutenberg was persecuted for inventing a way to produce a lot of Bibles? You have to be careful when debating the Bible with JWs because they use a different Bible. I told one that I did not accept her Bible, and that ended the debate before she could start it.

This wasn’t mentioned before, but the Greek text of John actually supports the Catholic interpretation. The way it was worded in Greek translates in meaning to “…and the Word was God.” not “…and the Word was a god.”

 

[CutlerB]

1. You won’t get very far telling them “we were warned of fake Christians.” Basically every denomination claims that of the others. The Witnesses say that this set in right after John the Apostle died and the resulting powerful Church (supported by Constantine as they say) suppressed the “true followers” (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
2. As we are in Germany she said “The Church supported the Nazis”. Priests prayed on both sides for the victory of theirs, blessed weapons on both sides. And as they should be role models and examples, they should not be doing that. That’s her stance.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Funny about the wives’ tale about Constantine establishing the Church :hypno: St. Helena, his mother no less, tried to convert him for quite a long time - how could Constantine start a church that his mother was already a member of???. Helena was the first Christian archeologist traveling to the Holy Land in search of the true cross, not stake. The Church was clearly established from the time of the Great Commission @ the Ascension & the Apostles went to all ends of the earth known at that time.

“Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel to every creature.”

My advice is to get Jason Everts’ book “Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses” & read several times & commit major points to memory.

 

[CutlerB]

Funny about the wives’ tale about Constantine establishing the Church :hypno: St. Helena, his mother no less, tried to convert him for quite a long time - how could Constantine start a church that his mother was already a member of???. Helena was the first Christian archeologist traveling to the Holy Land in search of the true cross, not stake. The Church was clearly established from the time of the Great Commission @ the Ascension & the Apostles went to all ends of the earth known at that time.

“Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel to every creature.”

My advice is to get Jason Everts’ book “Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses” & read several times & commit major points to memory.

Well, they don’t argue he established the Church, as far as I know. They say he supported it so that it would become so powerful and She “violated the command not to be ‘part of the world’”.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

1. You won’t get very far telling them “we were warned of fake Christians.” Basically every denomination claims that of the others. The Witnesses say that this set in right after John the Apostle died and the resulting powerful Church (supported by Constantine as they say) suppressed the “true followers” (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
2. As we are in Germany she said “The Church supported the Nazis”. Priests prayed on both sides for the victory of theirs, blessed weapons on both sides. And as they should be role models and examples, they should not be doing that. That’s her stance.

I think it is less of a denomination issue. More of a faith issue.

If the Church supported the Nazis it was either or both A - a front for the Nazi political agenda (most likely) or B - A satanic attack on the Church. Did they continue to support the Nazi’s after the persecution of Jews began and Hitler announced his plans of world domination? If so, they were not Christian. They did not belong to the same Church as me regardless of “denomination”. They definitely did not serve the same Lord as me.

EDIT: also about Constantine!! what a great man. History has twisted this up even in school. Have you ever read off brand gospels (Thomas, Mary Magdalen)? I run the risk of blasphemy by saying this but I do completely believe that they are demonic. I may have read a bad translation but wow if I didn’t it is demonic. Gnostics are a real problem. Have you read their teachings!? read them and go read a satanists teachings. Very clear similarities. I once talked bad about Constantine because I watched a program on TV and read online about him. Then I started thinking for myself. How wrong I was and how sorry I am…I hope I am forgiven for my blasphemies. I will surely be punished that is God’s word I just hope it is in this life and not the next.

 

[sedonaman]

…
My advice is to get Jason Everts’ book “Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses” & read several times & commit major points to memory.

Even then you are at a disadvantage because JWs are very well prepared. Any new questions they encounter from their door-to-door discussions are taken back and addressed by their group. They live their points every day; it’s impossible for the average person to be as well-versed.

catholic.com/library/Strategies_of_Jehovah_Witness.asp

catholic.com/library/Stumpers_for_Jehovah_Witnesse.asp

catholic.com/library/History_of_the_Jehovah_Witnesesses.asp

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Christians fighting Christians. Hmmmm

Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill” as in MURDER, but it is just to kill in self-defense.

Husband MUST protect wife if some criminal accosts her on the street; if husband smacks him, he hits the curb, falls & breaks neck & dies from result, bad for him but husband is correct, right! If no attempts of protection towards wife, no defense offered on her behalf, then one is immoral, passive.

Jesus is the Bridegroom, the Church - WE are the Bride. He died for his Bride to SAVE HER, to save US!!! Christ shed his BLOOD for his BRIDE.

Take that up to the level of a country. We MUST defend against unjust aggressors. Jesus never told soldiers to be pacifists! He said WE MIGHT EVEN BE CALLED TO SHED OUR OWN BLOOD FOR THE TRUTH! We MUST defend against EVIL & Nazis were that.

JW sometimes have a bizarre interpretation of scripture. No excuse concerning Bible; the largest Jewish community in the world outside Israel is probably New York City, Brooklyn, HQ of the WTBTS, not to mention huge Catholic population & scholars in NYC; they could clean up errors in their version of Bible easily by consulting with their next door neighbors in Brooklyn throughout the years who know Bible very well! But that would tube justification for their existence, their ensuing power grab and piece of religious pie.

 

[peace2u2]

Here are some good articles to help you lead Jesus’s lost sheep back into the fold:

catholic.com/tracts/the-god-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses

catholic.com/tracts/strategies-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses

ewtn.com/library/answers/incredjw.htm

ewtn.com/library/answers/witwatch.htm

Good luck. I have been told by JW’s that they won’t accept my material on the Catholic faith because they are going out of their way to evangelize me and they often repeat that we have the wrong interpretation of the Bible.

So, I just casually ask who is the founder of their church and when did this person establish this church. They never say Jesus in the year 33 probably because that was the year Jesus established His Catholic Church!

 

[littlechicken]

Please ignore me, I am just here to learn and find this topic fascinating.:yup:

 

[benjohnson]

1. The Bible was persecuted by the Church in the Middle Ages. It was forbidden to own one then, and people were burned with Bibles around their necks.

The only thing I can think of is that it would be almost impossible for a family to own a bible - remember it would take many scribes many years to prepare,copy, illuminate, and bind a bible. If a family did have a bible, you could almost assume it was stolen from a church. Sort of like if a modern family had an functional aircraft carrier - you could safely assume that something fishy was going on.

Even if someone were to murder someone by burning them - almost nobody would burn the Bible. It would be too valuable.

 

[CutlerB]

The only thing I can think of is that it would be almost impossible for a family to own a bible - remember it would take many scribes many years to prepare,copy, illuminate, and bind a bible. If a family did have a bible, you could almost assume it was stolen from a church. Sort of like if a modern family had an functional aircraft carrier - you could safely assume that something fishy was going on.

Even if someone were to murder someone by burning them - almost nobody would burn the Bible. It would be too valuable.

That was my thought as well, when she said that. Why can’t they think things through?!

 

[sedonaman]

…Even if someone were to murder someone by burning them - almost nobody would burn the Bible. It would be too valuable.

This is a good example of why lies about the Church survive: people have to do a little thinking to expose them for what they are.

 

[aicirt]

1. The majority of people in the Middle Ages were unable to read. Those who were educated were taught to read by monks and priests. Monks wrote Bibles by hand and this took years and years to complete. Only the wealthy could afford one. The cost was probably close to the cost of a house.

Guttenberg’s first book was a Catholic Bible. Even then the cost was prohibitive and still the masses were illiterate but his invention would improve the situation over time.

Bibles were burned when mistakes were found. There were heretical books around too.

You might remind her that Christ gave us the Church. The Bible came almost 400 years after His death. And even then, scriputre was taught orally to the masses. It was the Catholic Church which discussed which writings should comprise the New Testament and combine that result with the Jewish Old Testament.

 

[aicirt]

Yes, priests blessed the troops and the weapons. They’ve been doing that for hundreds of years prior to WWII. If we followed her logic, it would appear that because Catholic priests blessed weapons and the troops, the Church is, therefore, responsible for all the world’s wars. :whacky:

I suppose if the priests had not done the blessings, Hitler would have said, “Oh shucks, we can’t have a war because the Catholic priests aren’t blessing the troops or weapons.”

The JWs had MANY victims because of Adolph. Does she think that when the Christian men entered the camps her fellow JWs chided the soldiers for having been blessed? Nope, don’t think so.

 

[aicirt]

4 and 5…Venerated means worship. We do not worship the Pope. It also means to show great respect. That we do.

Yes, Jesus did say not to call any man Father but the JWs have messed about with so much in the Bible that they’re not even Christians. Christians believe in the Trinity. They don’t. Jesus, to them, is the Archangel Michael.

It is difficult to find a point on which one could agree. If you do start making headway, she’ll be told to avoid you as we are evil. Apparently, that is the bottom line for any and all who do not agree with them.

 

[austenbosten]

My Lutheran pastor had a very simple way of dealing with JW’s.

Pastor: So you guys believe in how many go to Heaven?

JW: Oh, exactly 144,000 according to Revelations!

Pastor: and how many members are in your church?

JW: Oh we have almost 8 million!

Pastor: So let me get this straight, there are 8 million of you, but only 144,000 get to go to Heaven.

JW: Yes!

and after awhile it sinks into the JW, that chances are Heaven’s already booked full and they are probably not going to make it.

my pastor would then close the door with a “Good luck with that.”

Works like a charm

 

[FaithInTheSon]

One point I have to make. It is true that our Lord told us to never call a man father because our father is in heaven. Priests are acting as a mediator between the confessor and the Father and as a guide in the confession to the Father.

For this reason, I often refer to priests as priests instead of fathers. I feel like that should only be used in confession. At the same time, I figure I am probably missing something and therefore submit to the Church on this one.