What is your take on "Jehovah's Witnesses" sect?

[Radish]

Here is my take.

I’ve known and befriended several JWs. They aren’t horrible people - however I would absolutely never join them.

A girl and a boy I knew from work were married at 15-16. They had been excommunicated and their parents threw them out if their house and shunned them a year or so before. I never knew what they did to be excommunicated. These weren’t two hellions either - they were calm nice kids. They actually had nothing bad to say about the JWs and couldn’t wait to be accepted back so they could talk with their families again.

What…the… Heck?!

I cannot imagine my parents disowning me and tossing me out of their house before I could even get a job or got out of high school!

My husband worked with a JW as well. Somehow they got onto the subject of excommunication and he agreed with what I saw with the kids I knew at work. He told my husband he would throw his kid out of the house if she ever disagreed with the JWs. He wouldn’t talk with her again. She was two years old when he said this. Maybe he was very confident she wouldn’t disagree with the JWs but still - I can’t imagine telling anyone if my son didn’t want to be a catholic I would kick him out of the house at 12 or 14.

Their magazine comes off a little disingenuous.

For some reason I get copies of the watch tower magazine. I read an article about death. It was pretty hilarious. I believe it was written from the POV of an Anglican mother who recently lost her husband. She said she spoke with her priest about where we go when we die. His reply was we don’t know. So that’s when she went and became a JW. Really? A priest told her we don’t know where we go when we die right after losing her husband?

Anyway - these are just my opinions.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Are you an apostate?

Were you convinced JW’s were the truth -and something stumbled you - and now you work against what you knew was true?

You certainly seem very angry at the JW’s.

Jesus said at Matthew 7:6: “…do not throw pearls before swine.”
Mental note Logically: “Do not reply to Delsonsjacobs posts again.”

I, like Saul of Tarsus, persecuted the Catholic Church while I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I condemned the Church and those who freely chose to follow them in opposition to all the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses teach.

Then, like Saul of Tarsus, I witnessed several miracles through the hands of a family member who is a Catholic.

The evidence was so convincing that I left the Watchtower, and I did so quietly.

I gave a public talk (sermon) one day and left the next. It was that sudden.

I have no anger or hatred or ill feelings for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I did suffer from a handful who were later removed from their positions or stepped down because of what they did, but I have only fond feelings of the lovely people I left.

While I didn’t agree with some things, I had no reason to make it an issue afterwards. That was about 20 years ago. I don’t look back. I left on good terms.

I recently began posting on this site because of the following:

1. 
   *]I learned that Jehovah’s Witnesses were still spreading falsehoods about me after I left, some claiming I left because I was being inappropriate with women or because I was gay and wanted to live the gay lifestyle.
   
   *]I had been told by the JWs that I would never live to see my 40th birthday and that the world would never get to the year 2014. (I am almost 50 now, by the way.)
   
   *]I had preached such horrible things about the Catholic Church when I was a JW and felt I owed it to Catholics to teach them what I knew.
   
   *]I was asked by several Catholics to post what I knew on this site because they wanted to defend the Church against the claims of the Witnesses.
   
   I felt I needed to address these issues.
   
   It also turns out that, over 20 years after I left, that it was discovered that my baptism as a Jehovah’s Witness was invalid. Due to a technicality which made it impossible for me to disassociate myself with by connections to Judaism and the State of Israel, I was not free to be baptized when I was. Despite this I have turned down all invitations to return to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
   
   So I am not an apostate. My reference to what I wrote to Logically was about his proclamation that he liked to refute what was written on forums like this, even though the Governing Body has stated that “true Christians” don’t do such things. As he has before, he skirted the issue instead of explaining how his actions are not contrary to the direction I cited.
   
   Do I believe Logically serves God? Yes. I believe we both worship the same God, despite our differences. I believe that God loves him and God is working with him and those he worships with. Jehovah is the same God we worship in the Catholic Church, and we Catholics are a part of his true organization, no less than the Witnesses are. We both have some differences to iron out–some of them great–but nothing God can’t fix.
   
   And that is the difference between me and Logically and his religion. His religion doesn’t believe we can call what we have the Truth or that we too are truly Christians. And that is his right. It’s also his right to keep skirting the issues and not treating them directly.
   
   So go ahead and condemn my religion and my Church and my actions for leaving a religion I was never officially a part of. It’s what I’ve come to expect from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Logically, like the persecutors of my family during the Spanish Inquisition, has labeled me “swine.” We Marranos of Sephardic Jewry are used to it. With that hateful insult from him I will quietly exit.
   
   But I believe my time spent speaking about the Witnesses was not wasted. Thanks for all those who have written to thank me for doing so.
   
   *–I have been away due to preparations for Holy Week and Passover, but I had some free time today. I will be gone again after tonite until after Divine Mercy Sunday. Happy Easter to you all.

 

[hello123]

A week ago,i was approached by two JW inside Costco ,who told me they were going to give me Christian literature.At that time,I didnt know,they were JW,but when i look at the back of it,which states watchtower,i declined and left.I just dont know,why Costco allow it,unless their GM was one of them.Last week,i received another literature in the mail,which was written in vietnamese,which i am not and not even understand a word of it.The address was from their church. I didnt how they were able to know,my name and my address,as i dont even know any of them.I have one client who has a sign on her door that states"jw members,keep out or ill call the police for harassment". I wish i just have the balls to do that,but my neighbors infront are jw and dont want to infuriate them.im just upset,almost wherever i go,im being harrassed by them!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Are you an apostate?

Were you convinced JW’s were the truth -and something stumbled you - and now you work against what you knew was true?

You certainly seem very angry at the JW’s.

Jesus said at Matthew 7:6: “…do not throw pearls before swine.”

What Jesus meant was - don’t waste valuable things on ones who do not appreciate them. It is a vivid illustration the son of God made isn’t it? Imagine putting precious pearls before swine. They would just trample them or eat them!
What a waste.

i suppose I could set aside several hours and write posts refuting your bitter accusations - but why? What would be the point?

Would you appreciate them?

Is there a 1% chance you would say: “Oh - good point. I never thought of that. You are right.”

No.

You admit you were a JW! An elder perhaps? (you refered to “other elders and ministerial servants”)

So you must have spent years studying with them.

You were* totally convinced* and could prove with references and evidence and scriptures they were the truth!

You voluntarily promised publicly to follow the truth you had found.

Now you work against what you knew was the truth from Jehovah.

Should i spend time trying to refute your accusations?

Jesus answers that at Matthew 7:6.

Rant away good sir. Beg me to reply and confront you!

I will not.

Mental note Logically: “Do not reply to Delsonsjacobs posts again.”

I am not an ex-JW yet you choose not to answer my posts?

 

[Logically]

UOTE=Logically;11871986]…
I don’t know the exact dates but once the Witnesses worshiped Jesus and now they don’t.

Hmm. I’m not sure what you are referring to here, because we never “worshipped” Jesus like we do Jehovah (the Father.)
From the first issues of the Watchtower JW’s have insisted Jehovah and Jesus are not the same God as the Trinity doctrine teaches.

Jesus himself said “it is Jehovah your God you should worship – and it is to him alone you you must render sacred service” -Matthew 4:10. (Jesus was quoting Deut 6:13 where the divine name YHWH or “Jehovah” was used) So only God (the Father, Jehovah) is to be worshipped according to Jesus.

Possibly with the “worship” change you are thinking of is the 1984 revision of the New World Translation (the Bible we usually use).
Prior to that I think there were several uses of the word “worship” being applied to Jesus.

After 1984 the term “did obesience to” or “bowed down to” was used.

Why the change? were we changing our belief?

No.

The meaning of the word “worship” has changed in the English language over the centuries.
In modern English “worship” is a word used only when referring to the devotion given to a god.

But in the past “worship” had a far broader meaning in English. The word could properly be used when referring to the respect and honour shown any person of high rank. (the Bible uses the same word in the ancient languages when referring to God as when referring to Kings, masters and Jesus)
It basically means “bowed down to” which was done to anyone with authority in Bible times. (not only to god’s)
In some countries a Judge is still referred to as “your worship”. To acknowledge he has authority…

The English language has changed – not what the Bible taught.

In modern English “worship” is no longer the best word for respect of authority. It confuses people into thinking the object is considered a god!

So to better present the true meaning of the Bible text to a modern reader – the NWT replaced the word “worship” with “did obesience” or “bowed down to” if the context showed it was not being applied to Almighty God.

The teaching of the JW’s didn’t change. We didn’t “stop worshipping Jesus” as you have heard.

(I think some make a big deal about this because they count on the use of the word “worship” being applied to Jesus to support the Trinity doctrine.)

UOTE=Logically;11871986]
I believe in Matt.13:33 they believed that the leaven was bad and now they believe,just recently I think, that now it is good leaven. Just to mention 2. I am sure if you read your own history you would find many more.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you are refering to here. But it sounds like a minor detail on the understanding of one statement, not a massive change of direction by the organisation.

UOTE=Logically;11871986]
The councils were to define dogmas that they always held from the beginning but were questioned by heretics. The councils didn’t make or change dogma they explained dogma. There have been some changes to disciplines .
…
God Bless.

Well, infact some very different understandings were confirmed at some of these councils.
Can I quote the encyclopedia Britanica under the word “Trinity”:

Quote: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament…
…The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons…
End of quote.

So it wasn’t until the councils of Niceea and Constantinople and Carthage - 300 years after Jesus - that the doctrine of “the Trinity” appeared.

Jesus said “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Paul said: “The head of Christ is God” (1 cor 11:2) The new Trinity doctrine taught that they were equal.

So the Trinity was was a huge, Religion changing belief. (the very nature of who God was!) It wasn’t taught from the beginning at all.

Not only was it a massive change, it contradicted what the Bible clearly said.

When JW’s have adjusted their beliefs, they have always used what the Bible says to support such changes.

 

[LittleDavid]

Here’s my take for what it’s worth…I have studied the past two years(1 hr. every week) to learn EXACTLY what they believe. Also have done much studying online and bought the book, “Crisis of Conscience” which was written by a man who was on the “governing body” of the JWs and was excommunicated. JWs believe that the “governing body” is the “faithful and discreet slave” described in Matthew that will provide spiritual food for the church. (Much like good Catholics follow the pope and bishops without questioning or going against them.) So if you wonder why JWs interpret scripture the way they do, it’s because the “governing body” in Brooklyn NY have passed it down that way, through their publications. As for “shunning” …it’s in the Bible(Paul’s writings)…blood being sacred(therefore, no blood transfusions)…it’s in the Bible(Genesis)…no spilling of semen on the ground…it’s in the Bible (Genesis Chapter 38). BUT Catholics don’t interpret those verses the same way always, because they just do whatever the pope and bishops say is right. It’s a lot like us today interpreting the U.S. constitution,(a written document, written years ago) the courts do that for us, and we are supposed to try to obey. Then there is the Bible,(a written document, written many, many, many years ago…we don’t even have the original documents, and there are differences between the manuscripts we have!) It’s no wonder there are different interpretations.

 

[Logically]

UOTE=Logically;11871986]
…How can the Witnesses claim that they have the truth when they are about 150 years old and are scripture only people. Where are the writings of their church fathers, where is their ancient history? .

You answer your own question. We are “scripture only” people.

The Bible is our text book, not the writings of non-inspired people later on.

UOTE=Logically;11871986]
They were founded by Mr. Russell as you know and now most of his teachings have been reformed or redacted by Mr. Rutherford. .

Humans can be wrong. We don’t base our beliefs on what individuals understood.
Hence some of what Russel said – is no longer believed by JW’s! (he had a thing for the pyramids he tried to include in Bible chronology! Why would monuments built by pagans have anything to do with the truth? Let’s put that behind us!)

UOTE=Logically;11871986]So if you are the true religion why were the changes made by Mr. Rutherford and please don’t tell me he was" enlightened" If your founder was enlightened by the spirit the Watchtower would not have had to make so many changes…
.

Why such changes? Because God’s word the Bible is the true authority! Not Mr. Russel or Mr. Rutherford. Who cares what they said.
What did Jesus and the inspired prophets and apostles say? That is the truth.

So suppose Russel or Rutherford believed “x” and then later JW’s studies of the bible reveals that the Bible actually says “y”. What should we do?
We could stick to what Russel or Rutherford understood, (and save face with critics) or we could go with what God’s word says. (which we now know is the truth)

The answer is obvious.

But when the issue is something minor like: “Did Jesus mean leaven is good or bad?” or “Should we use the word worship or bowed?” it isn’t really a problem.

Thanks for your post friend. I hope mine made sense.

 

[Logically]

Here’s my take for what it’s worth… … It’s a lot like us today interpreting the U.S. constitution,(a written document, written years ago) the courts do that for us, and we are supposed to try to obey. Then there is the Bible,(a written document, written many, many, many years ago… It’s no wonder there are different interpretations.

Hey thank you. What a cool post. I love the constitution illustration.

I think we can’t just go with what we are told by someone. We have to find reason to believe them first. We need evidence!

 

[Logically]

I am not an ex-JW yet you choose not to answer my posts?

No. I don’t refuse.

I notice your posts usually require a lot of time and research to do justice. I am often swamped with replies and can not reply to them all.
Sorry. It is nothing personal.
The fault is my own.

You are a regular when JW’s are mentioned. May I ask why that is?

I can imagine two possibilities.
Either you are interested in learning more about them, or you feel the need to counter their teachings.
Are either of these the case or is there another reason?

All the best.

Logically.

 

[adf417]

Hmm. I’m not sure what you are referring to here, because we never “worshipped” Jesus like we do Jehovah (the Father.)
From the first issues of the Watchtower JW’s have insisted Jehovah and Jesus are not the same God as the Trinity doctrine teaches.

You need to check your own publications. Last year I was given a dvd by a JW to refute many of the historical misunderstandings that he felt needed to be addressed and his attempt to give a picture of historical figure heads in the organization proving lineage back to Christ. His word was 'lineage" as he was trying to establish his rendition of apostolic succession which we both agreed was important since I accused him of believing in a religion started by a man in the 19th century. The name of the dvd is “Faith in Action part 1”. Well into the video the narrator introduces a man by the name of Henry Grew which seemed to come into play sometime between the time of Joseph Priestly and Charles Russell. The narrator introduces Grew as a Baptist preacher, tells how Grew came up with the revolutionary concept to let scripture interpret scripture and then he came to the conclusion that the trinity doctrine was false and began to preach/teach accordingly . This was considered heresy in the Baptist religion and he had to leave.

I was shocked also as all of this came from a JW source - believe it or not.

BTW, there is no question here you need to be concerned about answering. This was just an FYI.

Peace!!!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

No. I don’t refuse.

I notice your posts usually require a lot of time and research to do justice. I am often swamped with replies and can not reply to them all.
Sorry. It is nothing personal.
The fault is my own.

You are a regular when JW’s are mentioned. May I ask why that is?

I can imagine two possibilities.
Either you are interested in learning more about them, or you feel the need to counter their teachings.
Are either of these the case or is there another reason?

All the best.

Logically.

Like you Logically I am a seeker of the Truth and as the Watch Tower make such a loud hue and cry about being the sole posses of Gods Truth on earth today I feel if one is honestly and diligently seeking the Truth it is ones obligation to investigate those who make such claims, and if it is Truth that they are teaching then it should be self evident and there should be no ambiguity or confusion of doctrine and all the world should be blessed through this outpouring of Truth as it says in Rev: 17 And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: *and he that will, let him take the water of life, gratis.
Or they are not teaching Truth and are taking advantage of the naïve, ignorant and vulnerable for there own gain. As St Peter tells us 2Pet:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be lying teachers among you, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their luxuries, through whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed:

3 And through covetousness with feigned words they shall make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time ceaseth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.

My interest is in “Truth” and in those who claim to posses it.

 

[Logically]

You need to check your own publications… The name of the dvd is “Faith in Action part 1”. Well into the video the narrator introduces a man by the name of Henry Grew which seemed to come into play sometime between the time of Joseph Priestly and Charles Russell. The narrator introduces Grew as a Baptist preacher, tells how Grew came up with the revolutionary concept to let scripture interpret scripture and then he came to the conclusion that the trinity doctrine was false and began to preach/teach accordingly…
Peace!!!

Thanks. You are quite right.

There have been ones throughout the centuries who have concluded the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply the JW’s invented the idea. Isaac Newton was another one who saw it as a later addition - (I believe he was the one who exposed that 1 John text as a sneaky attempt to add some support to the Trinity 600 years late, and then pretend an apostle wrote it )

My use of the words “since the first issue of the WT” was to show the basic conclusions the JW’s hold have not changed every few years like our friend understood.

I know there have been heaps who have seen through the Trinity since it was formulated in the 4th century. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Thanks. You are quite right.

There have been ones throughout the centuries who have concluded the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply the JW’s invented the idea. Isaac Newton was another one who saw it as a later addition - (I believe he was the one who exposed that 1 John text as a sneaky attempt to add some support to the Trinity 600 years late, and then pretend an apostle wrote it )

My use of the words “since the first issue of the WT” was to show the basic conclusions the JW’s hold have not changed every few years like our friend understood.

I know there have been heaps who have seen through the Trinity since it was formulated in the 4th century. Thanks for the correction.

Logically as I have pointed out to you before in another post you are misquoting Newton here in an attempted to use his credentials to boost your position.
Newton, as you point out, certainly did not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. However he knew as do nearly all scholars that the New Testament clearly teaches Christ’s divine nature and contains the essentials of the Trinity doctrine. Newton on this understanding dismissed the entire New Testament as an unreliable text teaching a false doctrine. This is a matter of record, at no time did Newton say that the New Testament does not contain the doctrine of the Trinity as you are asserting.
Truth Logically, we are after Truth.

 

[adf417]

I know there have been heaps who have seen through the Trinity since it was formulated in the 4th century. Thanks for the correction.

Since you seem to be open to correction and that Matt has dealt with most of this post I would like to correct this statement. There was no formulation of the trinity in the fourth century or at any time - only the Church’s best attempt to describe this formulation for non believers. Which, btw, would might never have had to be done if it were not for the Arian heresy which your organization seems to follow quit closely.

On a similar note, if you must believe the doctrine of the Trinity was a “formulation” in the fourth century, remember that this “formula” was described by the same folks which also "formulated’ the canon of scripture. You know, the canon from which you quote from, well in which you mostly quote from plus a little more.

Peace!!!

 

[Logically]

Logically as I have pointed out to you before in another post you are misquoting Newton here in an attempted to use his credentials to boost your position.

Hi Matt.
I know you to be quite scholar, so I was about to just say: “You would know more about this than me.” But I did a quick google search on Newton (which is often my scholarly limit ) and found some bits that I will quote.

Newton, as you point out, certainly did not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. However he knew as do nearly all scholars that the New Testament clearly teaches Christ’s divine nature and contains the essentials of the Trinity doctrine. Newton on this understanding dismissed the entire New Testament as an unreliable text teaching a false doctrine.

“Sir Isaac Newton . . . was also eminent as a critic of ancient writings, and examined with great care the Holy Scriptures. What is his verdict on this point? ‘I find,’ says he, ‘more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane [secular] history whatever.’
S. Austin Allibone. The Union Bible Companion,

Wikipedia says:
According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism.[9][22][23] ‘In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin’.[24] … …A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published. …
…T.C. Pfizenmaier argued Newton was neither “orthodox” nor an Arian,[25] but that, rather, Newton believed both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation
…
Newton spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible…
(end of wikipedia quote)

So rather than dismissing the Bibe as unreliable - Newton seems to be very interested in what it says. No doubt you have research that says otherwise. Wikipedia is just current majority opinion.

also on this site:

skyscript.co.uk/newton.html

…During his studies Newton had come to believe that the central doctrine of the church, the Holy and Undivided Trinity was a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the fourth century by Athanasius…
(notice, not - “the Bible was corrupted” - Logically )
…
Although these views make Newton a heretic from the perspective of established Christianity, he was in fact a fervent believer in the Bible. Newton’s laws of motion contradicted the accepted biblical doctrine in the same way that Galileo’s views had. But rather than contradicting the Bible, Newton believed that the Bible was accurate and that it was the interpretation of theologians that was wrong. He continued to study biblical prophecy until his death,

This is a matter of record, at no time did Newton say that the New Testament does not contain the doctrine of the Trinity as you are asserting.
Truth Logically, we are after Truth.

I disagree. But my research was brief.

But we are getting off track. The thread is “what is your take on JW’s” perhaps start another thread on “What did Sir Isaac think about the Trinity and the Bible?”

Enjoy your day.
Logically.

 

[Waynec]

You answer your own question. We are “scripture only” people.

The Bible is our text book, not the writings of non-inspired people later on.

Being as the bible is your text book I guess the JW"s could not have been around at the time of Christ since the bible as we know was not put together by the Catholics until about 300 or 400 AD.

The early Christians did not have the bible as we know it but they still believed in all the dogma/doctrines that Catholics and many Christians believe today except the Jw’s.
For example, the Real Presence, the Trinity and the bodily resurrection of Jesus were always believed. How did this happen without a bible you may ask? Well by letter and traditions taught orally by the apostles.

Are you saying that early Christians that did not have the "textbook’ had no way of knowing Jesus and had no means of salvation?

Funny you should mention non-inspired people. Is not that what you study from every week–a magazine written by non-inspired men?

I would rather read the writings from men that were writing about 50 or so years from Christ’s walking on the earth than from a group of unidentified men writing in the present time.

Smarter people than I have written about the Trinity and also the councils.

God Bless

 

[Logically]

Since you seem to be open to correction … I would like to correct this statement. There was no formulation of the trinity in the fourth century or at any time - only the Church’s best attempt to describe this formulation for non believers. Which, btw, would might never have had to be done if it were not for the Arian heresy which your organization seems to follow quit closely.

Noted. I will address this in another post.

On a similar note, if you must believe the doctrine of the Trinity was a “formulation” in the fourth century, remember that this “formula” was described by the same folks which also "formulated’ the canon of scripture. You know, the canon from which you quote from, well in which you mostly quote from plus a little more.

Peace!!!

Now I dealt with this in several posts a month or so back!
Was that also with you? Is this the question you were growling at me that I didn’t answer?

Sorry, but I really don’t have more to add than last time.

Here, I have found a quote from someone who knows more than me:

Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune says: “Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council or by any single person . . . The criteria were quite open and very sensible: Writings from the first century C.E. that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or ‘gospels’ that were written later were not included . . . This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. (end of quote)

So the Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated.
but the canon, was already settled by then. Believers knew which were included and were happily quoting from them
(they weren’t waiting with baited breath for the church to set up a council in a few hundred years and tell them . )
And it was settled, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place.
The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

I will save this reply incase I have to answer the same question again.

 

[Waynec]

(I think some make a big deal about this because they count on the use of the word “worship” being applied to Jesus to support the Trinity doctrine.)

The Christian dogma of the Trinity certainly does not rely on one word.

When JW’s have adjusted their beliefs, they have always used what the Bible says to support such changes.

This sounds like a contradiction to me. If the Bible is your text book why would you have to “adjust” your beliefs? Your beliefs should not need adjusting right?

God Bless

 

[Logically]

… if it were not for the Arian heresy which your organization seems to follow quit closely…

When people call JW’s Arians it makes me chuckle. Name calling is a tactic used when relying on evidence isn’t going to help their cause. We all remember that from the school yard.

Calling us “followers of the Arian heresy” is name calling. It is a tactic people use to make listeners stop thinking before they begin. Or intimidated into agreeing with the attackers conclusion.

I once saw a similar tactic on a TV debate. A TV network had refused to broadcast a pro-gay program.
The promoter of the program called the TV director a “Nazi” several times.
Was the TV producer a secret disciple of Adolf Hitler? Of course not. He had done research and found that the majority of his viewers did not want the program aired. That the Nazis spoke against homosexuality had nothing to do with it.

Name calling.

Pick someone who is widely considered a villain, and lump your opponent in with them. Hopefully that will shut off peoples thinking process before they start.

Accuser: “JW’s are “Arians” and “followers of the Arian heresy!”

Simple listener: “Oh dear. I have heard Arian is some kind of bad guy. I had better not consider what JW’s say about the Trinity or I am listening to a heretic.”

A cunning tactic eh?

JW’s do point out that the Bible does not mention or teach the Trinity (quoting Bible writers and Christian writers from before Arius was born)

• and people call them Arians? If Arius came to a similar conclusion – good for him. But we aren’t following him.

Are the JW’s Arians? Do they follow a Catholic bishop who argued Jesus and God aren’t equal? Of course not. No more than the TV presenter was a nazi.

By that logic the apostle Paul was an Arian! At 1 Corinthian 11:3 he wrote “the head of Christ is God.”
(That’s an Arian statement if ever I heard one!)

Jesus said “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

And "I am ascending to my Father, to your God and my God.” (John 20:16)

Was Jesus an Arian?

That JW’s are Arians is nonsense.

 

[Logically]

The early Christians did not have the bible as we know it but they still believed in all the dogma/doctrines that Catholics and many Christians believe today except the Jw’s.
For example, … the Trinity … were always believed. …

The church tells you this my friend.
Infact you need the big complex councils where people were called heretics if they didn’g tow the line to come up with confusiong doctrines like the Trinity.

There is no mention of God being a Trinity in the Bible, and no mention of a mysterious “3 person in one God” until hundreds of years after the apostles had died.

Infact Jesus and his apostles taught something different. it is such a clear and simple truth the Bible actually teaches! (below is a link that shows how simple it is)

jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/

No wonder the church kept the Bible in Latin for so long, and labeled anyone a heretic who disagreed with the councils.

Smarter people than I have written about the Trinity and also the councils.

God Bless

Smarter people than you? Don’t put yourself down friend. We don’t need to be scholars to understand the Bible.

Lots of “smart people” tell us evolution is true and there is no God! But simple sincere people like us can see that is impossible. The smart can’t! (or wont)

Popes have called the Trinity “an unfathomable mystery”.
Even Popes don’t understand it!
Because it goes against common sense! How can three people who talk to each other, are described in different, unequal roles, (one of which is not even a person) be one?

It simply doesn’t make sense, and is not found in the God’s word." You would need to be deeply indoctrinated in greek philosopy to even pretend you understand it.

Yet at Acts 4:13 the Jewish clergy called Jesus apostles “Unlettered and ordinary.” They were simple fishermen and farmers.

One ancient Bishop (I must look him up again) said something like: “If believing the Trinity is a pre-requisit salvation, then no simple peasant has a chance, because you need a deep knowledge of philosophy to understand it.”

Jesus used such simple, unlettered ones for a reason. They are usually much more humble and open to reason.

Peace to you my friend! Thanks for your post. i hope I hear from you again