The Vatican is concerned about Jehovah's Witnesses

[Soutane]

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.
But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circumincession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term “Son,” and the period of His “generation” (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like “the second God,” concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, “subordinate” to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

 

[Soutane]

History
Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, and Bishop of Antioch, may be judged the true ancestor of those heresies which relegated Christ beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The man Jesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton’s later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264-268, or 269) condemned and excommunicated the Samosatene. But these Fathers would not accept the Homoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of the heathen philosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from the Catholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited the Septuagint and became at last a martyr. From this learned man the school of Antioch drew its inspiration. Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian’s influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.
Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletian schism, was made presbyter of the church called “Baucalis,” at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge with Eusebius, the Church historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their “fellow-Lucianist,” as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to synods in Egypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoring ecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down the Donatists at the Council of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedian prelate, had boldly rejected the Catholic faith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious to exercise over the Catholic Church a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over the pagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (See FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority of Christian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among the bishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthful deacon, the ever-memorable Athanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of the Catholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionately orthodox; while a letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save the Homoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of the Church. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, “I and the Father are one”. Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The “consubstantial” was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable.

 

[Soutane]

Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who considered heresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, the Bishop of Nicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence in Illyria. But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter, proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those political prelates who sided with Eusebius carried on a double warfare against the term “consubstantial”, and its champion, Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in the Egyptian patriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which no Catholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine’s favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor’s sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine’s leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop’s prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.
Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; his spiritual director, Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term “like in substance”, Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of the Catholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended its archbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor’s son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degraded Athanasius, who now took refuge in Rome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts “a judicious observation” of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when the Eastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established the orthodox creed by the help of the Latin bishops. Therefore it was that Athanasius repaired to Rome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West from Illyria to Britain, summoned the bishops to meet at Sardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern, prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that the Council of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappy schism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or the Roman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted by Innocent I in his correspondence with the bishops of Africa.

 

[Soutane]

Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincible Athanasius received from his Oriental and Semi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, like Eusebius of Caesarea, held a Platonizing doctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arian blasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent to dogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict and pious Homoiousians, not friends of Athanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to the true creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and his Semi-Arian brother was left supreme, the persecution of Athanasius redoubled in violence. By a series of intrigues the Western bishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles, Milan, Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”. For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day, Liberius, brave at first, undoubtedly orthodox, but torn from his see and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius, but made a stand against the so-called “Homoean” formulae of Ariminum. This new party was led by Acacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and not St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was metropolitan over Palestine. The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the “Consubstantial”. A more extreme set, the “Anomoeans”, followed Aëtius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be “unlike” the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace. George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert among the solitaries. Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.
However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour of Catholic tradition. Western bishops, like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae banished to Asia for holding the Nicene faith, were acting in unison with St. Basil, the two St. Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzus --Ed., and the reconciled Semi-Arians. As an intellectual movement the heresy had spent its force. Theodosius, a Spaniards and a Catholic, governed the whole Empire. Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of which Meletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a long schism; but he made peace with Athanasius, and now, in company of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately. St. Gregory Nazianzen, who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, to St. Epiphanius and the Church of Jerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. Ulphilas (311-388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught the Goths across the Danube an Homoean theology; Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But the Socinian tendency out of which Unitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to the school of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero — the undaunted Athanasius — whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended.

 

[Soutane]

There ya go-your Heretical cult explained in one gigantic albeit segmented post.Bet you don’t read a word of it.

 

[Soutane]

I’m also going to provide you with testimonies of ex-JW cultists and how they escaped from the Wizards of Brooklyn.

freeminds.org/support/cult-survival/how-to-start-an-ex-jehovah-s-witness-support-group.html

xjw.com/

jwfiles.com/x-files/xfiles.htm

spiritandsky.com/skeptics/christianity/jehovah_s-witnesses/personal-experiences/

ericdunbar.com/blog/?p=397

exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com/

culthelp.info/index.php?Itemid=21&id=1164&option=com_content&task=view

virushead.net/exjw.html

youtube.com/watch?v=vISWAgy_emg

4jehovah.org/ex-jehovahs-witness.php

norrisnet.net/chat/

exjws.net/

4witness.org/wfjhome/events.php

freeminds.org/

God Bless you friend and may Christ free you from this deceptive,brainwashing cult.I will offer today’s Rosary and tomorrows reception of the Body,Blood<Soul and Divinity of Christ sacramentally specifically for you

 

[Lycorth]

EXACTLY. All of you in here slamming JW and you don’t even know your own bibles! JW would run circles around you with their knowledge of the bible. I’ll tell you why the Vatican is concerned about JW: because they will actually teach you what’s in that old dusty book sitting on your mantle as a show piece.

Misrepresentation of the Bible happens all the time with people who claim to know it. And those who deliberately distort Scripture for their own ends also can be said to know the Bible very well. Just knowing what’s in the Bible doesn’t make one a good or even educated Christian.

The JW are a dangerous cult of modern invention, the product of Martin Luther’s schismatic rebellion. If they were the true Church, they would have existed from the very beginning, with clear and traceable roots back to Christ Himself.

As for the Bible, it defends Catholic belief.

 

[Soutane]

QUESTIONS THAT JEHOVAH"S WITNESSES DO NOT LIKE TO BE ASKED.
If the organization did not actually prophesy the end in 1925 and 1975, then how come so many Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? (“They lost roughly three-quarters of the movement between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end didn’t come as they had implied over and over again,” said Jim Penton, an ex-Witness who writes entries on Jehovah’s Witnesses for the Encyclopedia Americana.)
If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them “inspired” yet the Watchtower organization does call themselves “God’s Spirit-directed Prophet” what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an “uninspired prophet”? See Organization claims inspiration
Has the Society ever taught anything scripturally incorrect? See Prophecy Blunders of the Organization
Might the Society be teaching anything scripturally incorrect now?
Since the Organization has received “new light” regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their view on this, does this mean that all the former Jehovah’s witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted into fellowship again? Were these Ex-Jw’s in fact disfellowshipped for truth and knew things that the governing body did not? See Jw’s were disfellowshipped for rejecting generation doctrine
Can Jehovah’s Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other Jehovah’s Witnesses opinions that differ from orthodox Watch Tower doctrine?
Can individuals read & understand the Bible alone, or do they need an organization and it’s publications to do so? Click here find the answer!
How do you prove from the Bible that 1935 was the year for the selection to heaven stopped due to being filled? What is the difference between a Catholic appealing to “what the organization tells him” about December 25 being the date of Jesus’ birthday and a Jw’ appealing to “what the organization tells him” about the date 1935? Is it not hypocritical when you chide the “poor deluded Catholic” that his faith cannot find a Bible passage to support it, when the same goes for you and 1935?
How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any records from the first century?
Why are you called, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and not “Christians”? Since Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to Isa 43:12; 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” then what was the “new name” prophesied in Isa 62:2? Can’t be “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be “Christian” after our savior “Christ”?
Why would the name God gave to His people not be “Christians” since Acts 11:26 says, “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch”? Why is the name “Jehovah’s Witness” found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God’s divine name for His people under the new covenant? Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name “Jehovah’s Witness”. Does this mean that first century Christians were not known as Jehovah’s Witnesses"?
If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the name of God, “YHWH” when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower organization as unreliable?
If the name “Jehovah” is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name [v10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved”? Would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name “YHWH”?
What is the correct spelling of God’s proper name “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”? If Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that “Yahweh” is more proper, why do they misspell it “Jehovah”? If the name of God is so important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too? Is not spelling more important than pronunciation?
Since the Jehovah’s Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject “Judge” Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916 - 1942, how can we be sure that in 25 more years, Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t also reject the current president, Milton G. Henschel (1992 - present), as they did Russell and Rutherford?

 

[Soutane]

In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is “coming quickly”, says of himself, " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who “became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever”, refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, “…I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end …”. God is also referred to as the “first” and the “last” in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?
Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created “all things”, but in Isa 44:24, God says that he “by myself” created the heavens and the earth and asks the question “Who was with me?” when the heavens and the earth were created. How can this be since if Jesus was created by God, then he would have been with God when everything else was created?
Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that “… All [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM”. If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created “everyone … for my OWN glory…”.
The Watchtower Society teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If chapter 7 of Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the Bible say that the 144,000 will come from? (See Rev 7:5- 8).
If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28?
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as “… and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god”. How can the Word (Jesus) be “a god” if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me …”?
Jesus Christ is referred to as “Mighty God” in Isa 9:6 (“For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us … And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God …”). Jehovah is referred to as “Mighty God” in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?
If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, why does Jn 20:25 say “…Unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS …”, indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands?
Jesus uses the phrase “Truly I say to you, …” over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is placed after the word “you” every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word “today”. Why is the comma placed after “today” instead of after “you” in this verse? If the translation of this phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it appears (see concordance), and the comma was placed after the word “you”, how would it read?
The NWT translates the Greek word “esti” as “is” in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as “means” in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word “esti”? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word “esti” as “is” in these verses, what would these verses say?
In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as “Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy”. This translates literally as “the Lord of me and THE God of me”. Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn’t the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn’t Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?
If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will he be seen by “ALL the tribes of the earth” (Mt 24:30) and by “EVERY eye” (Rev 1:7) when he returns?
If the Holy Spirit is God’s impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as “he” and “him” in Jn 16:7-8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness - Jn 15:26; Feel hurt - Isa 63:10; Be blasphemed against - Mk 3:29; Say things - Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 21:11, Heb10:15-17, Rev 2:7; Desire - Gal 5:17; Be outraged - Heb 10:29; Search -1Cor 2:10; Comfort - Acts 9:31; Be loved - Rom 15:30 ; Be lied to and be God - Acts 5:3-4?
What is the meaning of Rev 14:9-11, which says, “… If anyone worships the wild beast … he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur … And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever …”. Where could “anyone” be “tormented … forever and ever”?
Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence”. How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.
If the spirit of a man has no existence apart from the body, why does Stephen just before his death in Acts 7:59, pray to Jesus to “receive my spirit”?

 

[Soutane]

How could Jesus receive Stephen’s spirit if a man’s spirit ceases to exist when the body dies?
If the great crowd is to have everlasting life on paradise EARTH, why does 1Thess 4:17 say, “…we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR; and thus we shall always be with the Lord”?
If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope, and a great crowd of people who have another hope of everlasting life on paradise earth, why does Paul say that there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two?
If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the “spirits in prison” be preached to by Christ after his death (1Pet 3:18-20) and how could the good news be “declared also to the dead” (1Pet 4:6)?
In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word “other”, even though it doesn’t appear in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word “Jehovah” a name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word “other” had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
Heb 9:28, speaking of Christ, says “… and the second time he appears…” How can Christ APPEAR a second time if he will not have a visible return to earth?
Amos 4:11 says, “‘I caused an overthrow among you people, like God’s overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. And you came to be like a log snatched out of [the] burning; but you did not come back to me,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.” How can Jehovah speaking in this verse refer to another person as God ("… like GOD’S overthrow of Sodom …")?
In Rev 19:1, where does it say that the “great crowd” will be?
If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah’s name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus’) name instead of Jehovah’s (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:12, 17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)?
In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word “other” 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl interlinear). Why is the word “other” inserted? How would these verses read if the word “other” had not been inserted?
In 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word “the”. Why is it inserted? How would the verse read if the word “the” was not inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? (See Prov 30:5-6).
In the sermon on the mount, when Jesus was addressing the “great crowd” (Lk 6:17), why did he tell them in Lk 6:22-23, “…your reward is great in heaven …”?
In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means “With Us Is God”?
In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be “happy” and find “rest” if there is no conscious awareness after death?
If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, instead of on a cross with both hands outstretched, why does Mt 27:37 say that the sign “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” was “posted above his HEAD” instead of being posted above his hands? How could it have been posted above his head if his arms were stretched out over his head?

 

[Soutane]

In Lk 4:12, the NWT translates “kyrios” (Gr-lord) as “Jehovah”, which makes the verse read “… ‘You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.’” See Gr-Engl Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated as “Jehovah” in this verse? Was the devil, in Lk 4:9-11, putting Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the test?
The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc.)?
Referring to Isa 14:9-17, if there is no conscious awareness after death, how could Sheol “… become agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in…” (v.9), how could the souls in Sheol “… speak up and say to you…” (v.10-11), how could the souls in Sheol when “…seeing you will gaze even at you; they will give close examination even to you, [saying,] ‘Is this the man’…” (v. 16-17), and how would you be aware that this was happening?
Heb 3:1 refers to “holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling”. In Mk 3:35, Jesus says, “Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother …”. Therefore, according to the Bible, whoever does the will of God is a brother of Jesus and a partaker of the heavenly calling. How can this be if the Watchtower Society teaches that only 144,000 people go to heaven?
Heb 11:16, in speaking about some of the faithful people of the Old Testament (Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc.) says, “But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven…” and, “… their God for he has made a city ready for them.” The footnote on the word “city” refers to HEAVENLY Jerusalem of Heb 12:22 and Rev 21:2. How can this be since according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, the only people who will go to heaven are the 144,000 spirit anointed who have been chosen from people who lived after Christ died?
Rev 20:10 says, “And the Devil … the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” Where will the devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be “tormented day and night forever and ever”?
In Lk 24:36-39 and in Jn 20:26-27, Jesus showed his disciples the wounds in his body as proof of his resurrection. If Jesus’ body had been destroyed by God after he died, how could Jesus show the disciples his body which had the wounds in his hands, feet, and side and claim that he is not just a spirit, “because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have” (Lk 24:39)?
If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God could have ever been without wisdom?
Rev 7:11 says that “before the throne” is in heaven where “all the angels were standing”. Rev 14:2-3 says “And I heard a sound out of heaven … And they were singing as if a new song before the throne …”. Rev 7:9 says, “… look, a great crowd … standing before the throne…”. Rev 7:14-15 says, “…There are the ones that come out of the great tribulation … That is why they are before the throne of God …”. Therefore, if "before the throne " means in heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the “great crowd” is “before the throne” (Rev 7:9, 7:14-15), where does that mean that the great crowd will be?
If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, how can Mt 25:31 say, “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and ALL the angels with him, …”. Since “all the angels” would certainly include Michael the Archangel, is it possible that Jesus could return with himself?
In Lk 20:37-38, how could Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be “all living to him (God)”, since they all died hundreds of years before Jesus said this?
If the soul dies when the body dies, how could the “souls” of Rev 6:9- 11, who were of those who had been “slaughtered” (i.e., killed), cry out “with a loud voice, saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord …”?
In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize “people of all the nations …in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit”. Why would the disciples be instructed to baptize in the name of anybody or anything who was not God? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses follow the command of Jesus and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit”?
If the human soul IS the person, how could the soul go out of a person (Gen 35:18) or come back into a person (1Kings 17:21)?
The Watchtower Society teaches that the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated. How can it be, then, that God says in Isa 51:6, “… the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants will die like a mere gnat …”, and that Jesus says in Mt 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away…”, and that John says in Rev 21:1 that he saw “… a new heaven and a NEW earth, for the former heaven and the FORMER earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.”?
Referring to Lk 12:4-5, what would be left of a

 

[Soutane]

person after they were killed that could be thrown into Gehenna?
Who or what does the spirit of Christ (Phil 1:19, Gal 4:6, Rom 8:9) refer to? In Gal 4:6, how is it possible that the spirit of Christ could come into our hearts? How is it possible that the spirit of CHRIST could reside in someone? If what the Watchtower Society teaches is true, how could Paul make this statement if Christ was a spirit person residing in heaven?
In Jn 8:56, Jesus says, “Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced”. Since Abraham died hundreds of years before Jesus said this, how could Jesus say that Abraham “saw it and rejoiced”, if there is no conscious awareness after death?
In Jn 6:51, Jesus says that a person must eat “of this bread” in order to “live forever”, and that “the bread that I give IS my flesh”. In Jn 6:63, Jesus says “… Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.” In Jn 6:54-55, Jesus says, “He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life…” and “… for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” Do you partake of the flesh of Christ , as Jesus commanded, in order to have life in yourself and in order to live forever?
Every true Christian would agree that we should follow the commands of God. In Mk 9:7, God the Father commands us to listen to Jesus. Do you follow this command and listen to Jesus? After all, Jesus died for your personal sins (1Jn 2:2, 1Pet 2:24). Jesus tells us to go directly to him (Mt 11:28-30), and the Father commanded us to listen to Jesus. Why? Because JESUS gives us everlasting life (Jn 10:28), and so that JESUS will enter our house and be with us and give us the right to sit on his throne (Rev 3:20- 21). Do you pray to Jesus as Paul and the early Christians did (1Cor 1:2)? Do you partake of the flesh of Christ as Jesus commanded (Jn 6:51)? If not, then are you following the command of the Father who said “Listen to him”?
Series of questions?
As many are aware, JW’s have for years had a two-tier class system in place. In fact, when I was at Bethel, Freddy used to tell us for years they called them “Secondary Christian” aka “second class”. According to the boys in writing, God put this second class system in FULL SWING OR place in 1935. So this afternoon I get a call from this non-JW I have known for some years. I told him the next time a JW stopped by to ask them this question: “How do you prove from the Bible that 1935 was the year that the selection to heaven stopped due to being filled?” On Saturday, 2 friends stopped by his house in service. He and his wife invited them in and allowed them to go through their little funky CANNED presentation from this month’s KM. After their friends finished, they said, “We have a question,” and they asked them to show them from their KJV or their JW Bible where it indicates that in 1935 the door to heaven was shut? We all know what happened. They could not take them to the Bible and show them that, so they asked to return on Sunday with someone who was more INFORMED ON EXPLAINING THE DEEEEEEEPER THINGS IN THE BIBLE so the couple agreed. Today the brother returned with one of the ELDERS. YEP they get to COUNT it as a RV. Anyway the elder prepared himself before they came. JW’s have a very up-to-date Kingdom Hall, you see. They have a computer in the Elder’s Office at the hall so the elder printed out a ton of WT publications to take over. I guess to show the non-JW that it does states 1935 as the year the door was closed “IN PRINT”. Due to the fact that I had prepared him, the non-JW was ready. The elder went into the talk that Rutherford gave in DC, and showed him all the articles that stated the door shut in 1935. The non-JW was ready with his questions. SO HE ASKED HIM a series of questions:

1. Were ANY of the publications that stated 1935 as the year, INSPIRED?
2. Was the Writer of those articles INSPIRED?
3. WAS J.F. Rutherford INSPIRED WHEN he gave that talk in DC stating that 1935 was the date?

We all know what the poor elder had to say to ALL those questions 1. NO 2. NO 3. NO. SO THEN MY MAN said he asked the elder again, "Could you take me to the Inspired Word of God using either your Bible or mine and show me where it indicates 1935 as the year the door to heaven was shut? Once again the poor elder couldn’t do it. So my friend asked him, “Since you can’t take me directly to the Bible and show me this, unlike if I asked is stealing ok then would you agree that it calls for some form of INTERPRETATION?” OUR DEAR ELDER MADE a serious mistake here for he said, “Yes it does.” So my dear friend asked him, “Who in the JW religion does the interpretation? In my faith, it’s the Pope, who does it for you?” Well, the bro told him the FDS helps us to understand the deeper meaning of things. So he asked him, “Are you saying that they INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR YOU?” and the elder said, “Yes they do.” I had already told him that JW’s normally say (if they are UP-TO -DATE): “We don’t try to interpret the Bible, the Bible says interpretation belong to Jehovah.” So the dear elder opened his mouth and inserted his foot. So the non-JW told him that he had spoken to a former Bethelite who worked at the World Headquarters of JW’s aka “1” who indicated to him that, “As JW’s, we don’t do interpretations since it only belongs to Jehovah.” So he said at this point, the poor elder just started to get bent out of shape. He was lost, so the elder told him that what he needed was A BIBLE STUDY. THIS WAY HE COULD LEARN THE DEEEEPER THINGS IN the Bible; but first he needed to learn the basics. So my man asked him, “If I have a Bible study, will I then be able to turn to the Inspired Word of God and find the 1935 date showing that God shut the door?” The poor elder told him, “No, he would not. BUT you would understand how we came to understand that 1935 was the date according to the Bible.”

 

[Soutane]

You’ve got to feel sorry for the dear elder and especially the poor publisher who saw an elder bring a ton of UNINSPIRED printouts and couldn’t just take the Word of God and answer the man’s question. So the next time a JW stops by, ask for Inspired Word of God Bible text that says that in 1935 the door was shut. Don’t settle for anything less than the real Inspired Word of God, not some Knock off brand called the WT publications. Is it not amazing how when a non-JW knows just a little about the organization and WT teachings how they can bring your average 20-40 year JW to his knees just by asking a few simple questions. How sad!

 

[Soutane]

Come out of the Darkness of this Heretical Cult and into the Light of the One True Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church that Christ founded.Do not follow these false prophets who will only lead you to Perdition.We are praying for you friend that the Holy Spirit will save you.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Wow ignorance at its finest. If you study the history behind birthdays and MANY holidays that we celebrate today you will see that they had and still do have very cultish/pagan origins and symbols. JW just did their homework and choose not to partake. Looks like you should be doing yours as well. You could be partaking in pagan rituals and not even know it. His people will parish for lack of knowledge.

Wow ignorance at its finest

Just had to put that out there again.

Wow ignorance at its finest

Because that describes your post. Have you ever read the bible? I mean the real bible, not that New World thing.
Cthulhu Bryan's Book of Cults:

If, in order to justify your religion, you have to edit, add to or redact the Bible; you are probably a cult

If you read the Bible then maybe you saw this part:
1st John 4:1-3:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Two things there. First, to not be a false prophet you have to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is from God, not a creation. Second, false prophets by their very nature prophecy falsely. Obviously CTR did this. Unless the world really did end one of the three times he said it would and no one told me.

 

[Lycorth]

If, in order to justify your religion, you have to edit, add to or redact the Bible; you are probably a cult

A simple and wise way to put it.

Only the Catholic Church can claim belief in and acceptance of the pure Scriptures. At the Council of Rome, the Holy Spirit guided the Church and through the Church gave us the only authoritative Bible necessary.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept this Bible in its entirety. They accept a man-made Bible which is based on the true Scriptures but edited heavily by human hands. Parts were removed, substitutions were added, and the whole thing was edited to suit the agenda of a man-made sect.

That alone is a red flag that ought to send every single honest Jehovah’s Witness running as fast as they can to the nearest Catholic Church.