O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
That’s from Daniel 12:1 not Matthew.
- Status
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
It’s not my tripping stone. It’s not my problem. It was yours. I’m glad for not having lived in those times. You being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness and to have not known why God’s Organization was fine to have changed their beliefs from God’s viewpoint… certainly you did nothing for yourself in affirming (studying biblical reasons to know) Jehovah’s Witnesses are His people. Something that won’t affect you I’m sure because of your stance, but a Biblical example of misunderstanding was that of Jesus’ disciples who did not understand God’s Kingdom would not bring back sovereignty to Jerusalem. Take a look in Acts 1 if you were educated by one, you should know the idea.
Connections with Freemasons is not a big deal since those connection are currently broken… or would you say not, with evidence?
Last edited:
C
convertingtocatholic
Guest
Are you a Jehovah’s witness just Curious God bless you.
Last edited:
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
It’s in his name and his posts indicate it.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
That sounds like you’re saying Truth, even biblical Truth is allowed to change over time because the Society, being lead by Jehovah, is authorized to make such changes. However, the changes aren’t being implemented to further a “Truth” which was already known, but rather to address issues of failed or soon to fail teachings regarding interpretations of certain biblical passages regarding “bible chronology”.
If that’s true, then why subscribe to a belief system that has the potential to change it’s teachings and doctrines from decade to decade. What the Society says in 2018, may not be what they hold to in 2030, that doesn’t give much comfort to those seeking the “truth”, if in less than a single generation, that truth will change.
Last edited:
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
- Our technical method of studying has been of exegetical interpretation of multiple bible verses that speak of a certain topic.
(Exegesis is a word for the systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage) - Afterwards, we form a conclusion by blending together all of the exegetical interpretations of the individual verses.
- Based on the foundation established, anything related is then primarily checked exegetically and following, instead of blending all again, it is then interpreted eisegetically according to the exegetical interpretations when it’s most directly applicable. (Exegetic reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text)
- Philippians 2:5, 6 "Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
Matthew 4:10 where he directed worship is to be given to God and not even hinted to himself. - Based on the exegetical interpretation of theses (including Ephesians 1:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 1:1, John 14:28, Psalms 90:2 with Revelation 1:5 & 3:14, John 8:42 etc.), we believe that the Bible’s teachings is consistent (Ephesians 4:5).
- So, when the majority of the verses portray a teaching in a certain manner, then, when few verses appear controversial (As John 1:1), we base our eisegetical interpretation on the exegetical interpretation that has already been made (as explained)… because the majority of the Bible (as “listed”) teaches a certain way, we cannot infer (in contrast to the rest of the Bible), that John meant Jesus was the God to be worshiped by us.
Last edited:
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
Official Reason/explanation
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/do-jehovahs-witnesses-tithe
Crusader13
New member
The verses you quoted, when viewed from a Catholic perspective can just as easily be used to show support of Jesus being Divine. Philippians 2:5, 6 are perfect examples. I would argue that, even using your translation, existing in God’s form, is to show that by His very nature, He is God. It even makes more sense when you look at it through the lens of the Trinity. Because even though by his Divine nature He is shown to be God, He does not cling to his equality with the Father, but instead empties Himself of all the glory that He is entitled to as God and takes on the from of a slave. Being in this form shows that He is being submissive and obedient, as a slave/servant does.Crusader13:
For example, multiple verses says only God is to be worshiped as in the Old Testament as in the New Testament to mention a couple,
- Our technical method of studying has been of exegetical interpretation of multiple bible verses that speak of a certain topic.
(Exegesis is a word for the systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage)- Afterwards, we form a conclusion by blending together all of the exegetical interpretations of the individual verses.
- Based on the foundation established, anything related is then primarily checked exegetically and following, instead of blending all again, it is then interpreted eisegetically according to the exegetical interpretations when it’s most directly applicable. (Exegetic reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text)
- Philippians 2:5, 6 "Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
Matthew 4:10 where he directed worship is to be given to God and not even hinted to himself.- Based on the exegetical interpretation of theses (including Ephesians 1:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 1:1, John 14:28, Psalms 90:2 with Revelation 1:5 & 3:14, John 8:42 etc.), we believe that for the Bible’s teachings to be consistent (Ephesians 4:5), when the majority of the verses portray a teaching in a certain manner,
- then, when few verses appear controversial (As John 1:1), we base our eisegetical interpretation on the exegetical interpretation that has already been made (as explained), because the majority of the Bible (as “listed”) teaches a certain way, we cannot infer in contrast to the rest of the Bible, that John meant Jesus was the God to be worshiped by us.
Crusader13
New member
Yet, there are WT tracts from the early days of their inception that show Jesus was to be worshipped.
If even foundational doctrines such as these are subject to change, where does it stop?
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
No, Jesus is a Divine being. Don’t you know the word “godly” exists?
No, clearly he did not accept to be thought of as God. (Philippians 2:6)
and THEN “God exalted him to a superior position”.
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
The Bible is the Bible. Russell formed the International Bible Student Association, not the “Perfection At Start”.
Crusader13
New member
Διὸ, the English translation is usually “wherefore” or more commonly “therefore”. The use of “THEN” implies a state of time at which point only afterwards was this “superior position” given to Him.
However, as it says in John 17:5 “and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” The glory or superior position had always been His.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
It wasn’t just Russel who subscribed to this belief.Crusader13:
The Bible is the Bible. Russell formed the International Bible Student Association, not the “Perfection At Start”.
Then even Knorr:
It was, from my understanding, shortly afterwards, that Knorr changed this teaching.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
True, the “Bible is the Bible”. The truths of the bible should not be subject to change. Especially those truths which are doctrinal and foundational to one’s faith. What was taught and believed by the early church, should apply to all of it’s followers down through the ages, regardless of how much time has elapsed. If the early Christians were taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, it would make no sense for Christians in the 21st century to be taught something different.
If the early church believed that nobody would know the date of Jesus’s return and the end of this world, then it makes no logical sense, that Christians, 2,000 years later were given several different dates and interpretations of the meaning of “this generation” and its application to teachings on eschatology.
Last edited:
Z
ZeugenJehovas
Guest
Well, the change has been established since Knorr. What else can I say? These changes in beliefs does not discredit Jehovah’s Witnesses, it rather well shows their humility in accepting change from their past misunderstanding rather than continue believing what is wrong in spite of the evidence.
Jesus asked to be placed to his original glory, but God did more than that for him.
I should now give emphasis: “ God exalted him to a superior position”. (Jesus is at the right hand of the Majestic one). There would be no point in differentiating the position if it were not higher than the original position. The Bible would render ‘God honored him his original favored position’, but it does not say so. It says “superior”, not “original” or its technical equivalent to it.
The main point observed is that God exhalted him, God had authority OVER him, it does not say either ‘God Jesus exhalted himself higher than a God’, that is because there is nothing higher than God Almighty if he were already God.
Even then, Christ was in the presence [alongside] God. They are different beings.
“I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28)
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God” (John 20:17)
“the Father is greater than I am” (John 14:28)
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
The JW interpretation of these verses is not the Christian understanding of these verses.
Even if JWs don’t believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, please think on this. Angels cannot become God. Jesus referred to Himself as I AM not I have been.
John 1:1 refers to Jesus as the Word. Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Michael the Archangel is the Word?
I see nothing in the Bible showing worship of Michael the Archangel or of any angel. It is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped not the angels who are lower than God.
Even if JWs don’t believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, please think on this. Angels cannot become God. Jesus referred to Himself as I AM not I have been.
John 1:1 refers to Jesus as the Word. Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Michael the Archangel is the Word?
I see nothing in the Bible showing worship of Michael the Archangel or of any angel. It is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped not the angels who are lower than God.
A
adf417
Guest
A
adf417
Guest
Im sure @Crusader13 will address this more eloquently but i must say how disturbing this comment is ZeugenJehovas. If the organization was teaching wrongly in the past and didnt know they were, you might want to consider they dont know they are teaching wrongly now also. I mean, really, how can you know, right?Crusader13:
Well, the change has been established since Knorr. What else can I say? These changes in beliefs does not discredit Jehovah’s Witnesses, it rather well shows their humility in accepting change from their past misunderstanding rather than continue believing what is wrong in spite of the evidence.
Peace!!!
Crusader13
New member
Well that doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter. In a sense, that answer is brought about purely by necessity. To admit anything else, would be like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on. It’s not as if these men and by association, the Governing Body of today, were putting out teachings that were publicly known to be their OWN ideas and interpretations. As much of the Witness literature has shown, they have spoken with AUTHORITY and while admittedly this is not the same as being inspired, they have nevertheless been guided by Jehovah and “holy spirit” to bring about “TRUTHS” of his Kingdom.
So if their past misunderstandings were done while being guided by Jehovah and filled with “holy spirit”, then the logical question would be “How is that possible?” This opens up a door of serious doubts and concerns as to whether the Governing Body, (the faithful and discreet slave) is truly working with Guidance from Almighty God!
Isn’t it odd that most of their changes in doctrine and belief have stemmed from their understanding of Biblical Chronology. Even their new understanding of the Overlapping generation is still predicated on a belief that the end of this present system of things will happen during a fixed time period. Rather than saying “we have no idea when that will be or to which generation this refers to…” they still insist on tying this belief to the anointed of 1914. That has to raise some eyebrows and give rise to the possibility that their organization is not what it claims to be!
- Status