Talked to JW's today

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Odilon said:
My standard response is this: “So you are trying to tell me that God would allow a lie to continue on and on through many centuries condemning millions of souls to eternal damnation, until your guy came along in the year 1870 and suddenly got it all right”?
Click to expand...
Perfect.

This is pretty much why I didn’t join the Jehovah’s Witnesses over 30 years ago, when I was involved with them.

No disrespect to the Jehovah’s Witness poster on here, and I appreciate that person’s posts, but if I had joined, I would have been saying, in effect, that the learned men of mainstream Christianity who have studied the Bible and the original languages for hundreds of years have gotten it wrong, and one man who had no education beyond a 1611 version of the Bible knew more than they did.
 
ZeugenJehovas said:
they did not know better
Click to expand...
Do you claim to know everything about Christianity? Or even everything that the JW religion teaches? If not, what are some of the questions you wonder about? Maybe those questions have answers but the JWs don’t have those answers.
 
There is no claim on knowing everything , but simply meant “know better”. Jehovah’s Witnesses are constantly rereading and researching the Bible weekly in our congregations and privately in our homes.

In fact the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a tool for publishing new understanding of past misunderstood thoughts which any religion could get wrong the first time around, in contrast with religions that do not research their belief in accordance to God’s Word to make sure it’s right.

There are ‘fixed truths’, or never-to-be-changed truths. Some examples are: We will always believe Jehovah is the only God to be worshiped; Jesus Christ is a divine being, at such magnitude that he is at times called a god because of his closeness to God for being God’s first created, the “First Born”. They are distinct beings, only Jehovah is worshiped, not Jesus because he denied worship to himself. Those are fixed, they will never be changed in our religious belief system.
 
Last edited:
I usually don’t speak long to JW’s when they come knocking, which isn’t too often here.

I’m most likely just to smile and wish them a good day- they usually send attractive enough younger gals in my alley when they do dispatch this alley.

The real question I have for them is what is the story with the JW’s and pyramids?

The gravesite of JW founder Charles Taze Russell is just north of Pittsburgh, and you can see it climbing Cemetery Lane, is a huge pyramid overlooking the road. Can’t miss it if you are going up the road during the day.
 
No, the mainstream Christendom men were dishonest in their teachings for repeating doctrines which were taught by the great Apostasy (religious rebellion against Christ’s original teachings in exchange of their own benefit and not that of Christ’s) centuries before, instead of studying the Bible, which Charles T Russell did do with his collaborators, he clearly did not do it alone, Charles did not know more than them (but was going to); he sincerely preached what he learned while he did attempt to correct the Churches they denied him as being right thought he taught what the Bible said. I’m sorry that you misunderstood and have it all out of context about Charles T Russell because of hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Charles Taze Russell was affected by an idea that other Christian religions had: They believed the Hebrews (later known as Israelites) had built (a) pyramid(s) of Egypt during their slavery. He believed it was symbolic for the present time. Now Jehovah’s Witnesses with decades of study (Biblical research), also now understand only to apply prophesy (symbolism) for future or current event/times if the Bible explicitly says it is prophetic. Therefore, Charles T Russell’s idea was incorrect, that is why we never say he founded us, because he is not our savior, only Christ Jesus is, and Jesus is our teacher, our leader.
 
Last edited:
I had JW’s knock on my door today as well, I just bid them a polite not interested and wish them good day. However they still haven’t been back to my parents house in about 15 years thanks to my first girlfriend.
 
Once a JW group knocked on my door, so I decided to prank them a bit.
-Could we talk with you for a few minutes?
-About…?
-The Bible.
-Oh, I don’t believe in it.

I still remember the look on her face as I closed the door, horror.😂
 
I always talk to the JWs at my door. I may be the only person they meet who can explain the Catholic faith to them. I ask them about Bible translations, tell them about St Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, tell them about the church father’s - I try to give them something to think about when they leave. Once they accepted my invitation to come in. I talked to them about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We looked at John chapter 6. The one JW was receptive to what I was saying.
I always talk to the JWs because when I go to my judgement, I do not want to have to explain why I failed to talk about Jesus and His church to some people who showed up at my house and wanted to talk about religion. And I hope to see them in heaven one day.
 
(name removed by moderator) - I used to get JWs and indeed, Mormons, regularly knocking on my door, and used to enjoy the opportunity to turn things around and get them to reflect, in the light of ‘my’ reflections, answers, and questions, upon the veracity and validity of what they were preaching. These days they seem to leave me strictly alone - I get the feeling that at least some of them started to question things amongst themselves, and ‘the elders’ have put me ‘out of bounds’, as being a troublesome influence. If I have been influential in any way of getting one of them to move closer to the True Church, then I consider it time well spent. The trouble might come when they then see the current spiritual state of all too many within the clergy - it may be a minority, but if that is so it is a large minority. Let us not fool ourselves.
 
Let me make one thing clear.
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are so incredibly indoctrinated in proclaiming this message of theres with bible verses to back it up, and really to have an answer to anything critical someone may ask. They are trained to do this. It is amazing how fast they fall however when YOU out know them. I personally don’t try to engage with them. They are heretics really. Engaging with them just allows them to spew their apostasy bs which unfortunately many people easily fall for seeing the church now and knowing really little about the church history.
I remember one time Mormons telling me about the apostasy and I was like " well that’s great and all but what you just told me is exactly what happened in early Mormonism when Joseph Smith died in a shootout and some followers followed Brigham Young to Utah and others went to Independence Missouri where to this day there’s more than one ‘Mormon’ church. So I asked them why they don’t see the hypocrisy. They didn’t say much else.
 
No, rather Jehovah’s Witnesses have found various verses on certain topic and show the proof of how they came to the certain conclusion.

Its not the other way around, they don’t make the idea and then look through the Bible to get some superficial ‘evidence’. That would be the method protestant churches do and Catholics.
 
Last edited:
ZeugenJehovas said:
No, rather Jehovah’s Witnesses have found various verses on certain topic and show the proof of how they came to the certain conclusion.

Its not the other way around, they don’t make the idea and then look through the Bible to get some superficial ‘evidence’. That would be the method protestant churches do and Catholics.
Click to expand...
I dont know a religion or group that dont use this paradigm to justify their own belief and teachings, except Catholic and Orthodox that is.

What makes your interpretation of more scripture superior and infallable and how do you know?

Peace!!!
 
The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky.
To imply an apostasy occurred means there is no basis for believing the canon of the bible is correct which wasn’t even settled until the 4th century. Many early Christians went to their graves thinking certain books were scripture that didn’t end up being in the bible. The Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, all were cited by many early Christians. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul and Thecla to a lesser extent. Hebrews and Revelation were of the books that barely made the canon. The west embraced Revelation while the east embraced Hebrews and the other side was somewhat hostile to the book. It was a compromise. Hence why to this day Orthodox never read from Revelation. Interesting why these apostasy groups also only use the Hebrew Bible when the earliest Christian’s were only knowing to the Septuagint. If I was going to start a valid apostasy group that doesn’t contradict itself I would for one use the complete Septuagint. NETS is a fine translation. And then I would go through New Testament apocrypha and make my own Canon. Sounds ridiculous but at the same time so does the notion these apostasy groups make when saying the church was wrong about everything after the death of the apostles yet were right on the biblical canon. I know you are going to reply some thing that is a pre conceived counter argument which I have already heard I am sure but thats really the reality of it. If the church has no authority the canon is wrong and probably heretical too.
 
Onthisrock84 said:
The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. […] If the church has no authority the canon is wrong and probably heretical too.
Click to expand...
You do not determine how Apostasy was to have occurred, the Bible does. You do not determine that because of the fact that Apostasy occurred would it mean that the unbelievers had logical ideas to have deviated from the Bible’s Canon (Your preconceived idea of them having had good reasoning). In fact people can ignore teachings In spite of the evidence, that is how Apostasy develops.
The true Christians of the era had to adhere to both the Old and New Testament as evidenced in Romans 15:4 “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (ASV), and 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable [or beneficial] for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (KJV), It is well understood both Scritpures, Hebrew as Greek were both necessary to be understood jointly.
The thought of what Apostate groups had in mind has no value, because that mindset of which you refer them to be focusing in one scripture is useless from the Biblical standpoint, because all the scripture is to be considered and no part ignored. There was no sense in compromising when in fact its logical because prophesies of the Old Testament were cited to have been fulfilled in the New Testament.

The current Biblical Canon has no contradiction in its teachings. Jehovah God did not have to grant divine independent authority upon the Catholic Church. In fact Biblical stories prove Almighty God does not grant authority but only uses tools, entities or individuals to do what he wants them to do his way.
Here is a very grievous proof of his way of managing things: Balak son of Zippor, the King of Moab sent Balaam to curse the nation of Israel, the Hebrews (Numbers 22:17) but according to Deuteronomy 23:5 “God changed the curse into a blessing”. In the same manner God Almighty allowed for the Catholic Church to have in its hands the possession of the Holy writings but Jehovah did not allow for it to be corrupted sufficiently. I do not question God’s current and past acts or influence on humanity, I do know because of a well founded, scriptural-based faith. It was not by voluntary decision that the Bible leaked out from the Catholic (Vatican) grasp into the common languages, it was certainly God who made it be. The Catholic Church proved to be blood thirsty in daring to kill and torture in the name of God, burning people in the Inquisition for translating Bibles (which required deep language study such as the Polyglot of Casiodoro and the Complutensian Polyglot Bible). The Vulgate what the only oficial Bible, which the people did not understand since it was in Latin and was therefore only useful, if at all, for priests so no one could read the Bible for themselves. That was how in the Dark Ages, as historians fairly consider the epoch, was how dictatorial it was in killing.
 
mVitus said:
You might consider looking at the Early Church Fathers then who were definitely Catholic.
Click to expand...
The Early Church Fathers are also known as the Apostolic Fathers. Yet there is definitely no proof they thought what the Catholic Church taught. Actually it quite well proves the opposite of your claim. Of the earliest Christian statements found in The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles which historians date before the year 100 CE, in which Matthew 28:19 mentions the Father, Son, Holy Spirit yet never states they are equal in eternity, power, position or wisdom. No trinity at all, and in The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity Edwin Hatch comments about the Didache that "In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great advance [change] upon these simple concepts. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion.” (1957, page 252)
There was no change to the Biblical teaching that Christ is subordinate to God Almighty, as the Bible alone teaches that. That is why there could not have existed any discussion or debate on the equality because the teachings were still valid… that is what the Apostolic Fathers detail about, not in favor of Catholicism as proof of their writings show.

Clement of Rome makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthian, "The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”
“May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh—who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people—grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, 1885, Volume I, pages 5, 16, 21)

Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just “Father”) as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is “sent forth” by God, and God “chose” Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities. Clement never viewed Jesus as sharing in a godhead with the Father, we know here is no Trinity in Clement’s writings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top