Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?

[Ronald Nolette]

Who assigned the faithful slave sir, and what is his purpose? Mat 24:45-47

Well as that was a parable and not to be taken literally, that is your first big problem with the phony "faithful discreet slave class". they do not serve but rule.

But if you wish to know if God gave enlightened men to help guide His people to understand and apply the truth of His Word:

Ephesians 4:11-15
King James Version

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:


God calls them Pastors and teachers! They encourage us to read teh Word apart from any books or magazines ( as we are not part of a strict sect like you, the Mormons and the Romn=ans) we are free to look at aqll sorts of books to help us live holy lives.

So it is pastors and teachers and prophets and evangelists given to us to mature us. Not a parabolic slave class.

 

[Webers_Home]

As for your claim that Hebrew midwives had lied to save life: There is no
Scriptural support for that conclusion.

I avoid saying dogmatic things like "there is no scriptural support" just in
case somebody uncovers a passage and/or some language and grammar
that I somehow overlooked.

Instead I say:

"I have yet to discover a passage in the Bible supporting yada, yada, yada,
yada. I'm not saying there isn't one; only that I have yet to discover it"

That way I save myself the humiliation of being forced to eat my words.
_

 

[Robert Gwin]

Here is the proof that shows that you JW guys used to believe the King James Bible was the best.

Here is the JW quote:

1927 "Doubtless there has never been a more masterful and perfect english publication than the Authorized Version of the Bible." [King James Verson] (Creation; 1927; p. 117).​

Now, you JW guys are saying that this is not the case. In fact, you have created your own English translation thinking it is better.
So you are not consistent with JW beliefs of the past. You guys just keep flip flopping between doctrines or beliefs.

One can check out more of these doctrinal changes by JW’s over the years here:

Doctrinal Flip Flops of Jehovah's Witnesses!

So what will the JW religion look like many years from now?
Will all their beliefs remain the same?
They seem to change their colors more than a chameleon.

Perhaps you are unaware of Dan 12:4 or Proverbs 4:18. What does your faith do when they discover what they are teaching does not line up with Scripture? Thank you for acknowledging our willingness to change when Jehovah reveals we are incorrect about one of our doctrines sir.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Already did. You either live in denial or are just a lazy reader. But as I have posted them- you can feel free to see your own lies I showed you.

You likely wrote me a book when you did, keep it simple and I will be willing to post evidence. Likely we did discuss it, but it came to the point of disagreement.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Well as that was a parable and not to be taken literally, that is your first big problem with the phony "faithful discreet slave class". they do not serve but rule.

But if you wish to know if God gave enlightened men to help guide His people to understand and apply the truth of His Word:

Ephesians 4:11-15
King James Version

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:


God calls them Pastors and teachers! They encourage us to read teh Word apart from any books or magazines ( as we are not part of a strict sect like you, the Mormons and the Romn=ans) we are free to look at aqll sorts of books to help us live holy lives.

So it is pastors and teachers and prophets and evangelists given to us to mature us. Not a parabolic slave class.

May be sir, but one thing is true, we are being fed quite well, how many other faiths do you know that have anything even close to what we have? So the passage is fulfilled, even if it is not to be taken literally, but it sure convinces me. What point in history from the time Jehovah made a covenant with us, has He not educated us spiritually sir? Is not Isa 2:2-4's fulfillment clearly seen today?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I avoid saying dogmatic things like "there is no scriptural support" just in
case somebody uncovers a passage and/or some language and grammar
that I somehow overlooked.

Instead I say:

"I have yet to discover a passage in the Bible supporting yada, yada, yada,
yada. I'm not saying there isn't one; only that I have yet to discover it"

That way I save myself the humiliation of being forced to eat my words.
_

I am confident that God is good. That is what is on the line here in this type of discussion.
I am also confident of certain truths in the Bible (like the Trinity, the blood atonement, Jesus is the only way to God the Father, etcetera).
Granted, I have changed my views on certain theological things over the years (Note: As of the date of this writing, so far I changed on 20 theological beliefs in God’s Word).

You can check out these changes here (if you are interested):

What theological things were you mistaken about in your growing knowledge of God's Word?

For me: It was not embarrassing to change my views on these things because God’s Word reveals truth by what His Word says in deeper ways than we realize. For me: It is a humbling experience to be corrected by God by His Word.

Praise the Lord!

Side Note:

As for the JW’s and their doctrinal flip flops: This is a larger body of believers and they held to certain things for a really long time (in some cases a hundred years) and then they changed. So I don’t see my growing change in the study of God’s Word over the small time of my life on my own personal study with God as the same as them. They also hold to exceptionally gross errors in these types of changes, as well. In two particular cases (off the top of my head, two of their changes went from the truth to extreme error).

Their quote of Daniel 12:4 is misplaced. Nowhere does it say that a larger body of believers can go from error to extreme truth as a part of this verse. Knowledge increases. It can and does. But to hold to extreme error for an exceptionally long time is not in view of Daniel 12:4.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One of your best posts BH. I would recommend you confess to Jehovah however as Jesus recommended. Be sure to ask Him in Jesus' name however. As long as it is in line with Scripture, what you ask the Father in Jesus' name, it will be given you. Jn 15:16 Certainly asking for forgiveness of sin is in line with Scripture.

So you are commending my post for confessing our sins to Jesus?
If so, this is contrary to the Watch Tower’s stated beliefs.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Continued From No.356

• John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society capitalize God in that verse when it
makes Thomas appear to be a polytheist?

REPLY: I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus
the attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just
declare that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my"
god. Here's what it looks like in the Kingdom Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own free will; which is
really important because the covenant forbids them to possess more than
one god. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only
god.

• Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah-- in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

• Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant
to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why
it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the
Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when his apostle addressed him as such?

REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting his apostle's statement without
protest.

• Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_

 

[Bible Highlighter]

.
• John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society capitalize God in that verse when it
makes Thomas appear to be a polytheist?

REPLY: I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus
the attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just
declare that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my"
god. Here's what it looks like in the Kingdom Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own free will; which is
really important because the covenant forbids them to possess more than
one god. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only
god.

• Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah-- in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

• Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant
to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why
it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the
Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when his apostle addressed him as such?

REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting his apostle's statement without
protest.

• Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_

Well said.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord today.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You likely wrote me a book when you did, keep it simple and I will be willing to post evidence. Likely we did discuss it, but it came to the point of disagreement.

Nope just quoted the verseswith very little commentary. So I did not likely write a book.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

May be sir, but one thing is true, we are being fed quite well, how many other faiths do you know that have anything even close to what we have? So the passage is fulfilled, even if it is not to be taken literally, but it sure convinces me. What point in history from the time Jehovah made a covenant with us, has He not educated us spiritually sir? Is not Isa 2:2-4's fulfillment clearly seen today?

Well no other sect has such authoritarian rule as do the Watchtower. And what they are feeding my taste good and fill you rbelly, but it is hot dogs not real meat.

 

[Keiw]

Well no other sect has such authoritarian rule as do the Watchtower. And what they are feeding my taste good and fill you rbelly, but it is hot dogs not real meat.

Are you kidding? The teachings of Jesus in every translation on earth back the JW teachers all the way, as do the facts of true God worship history--Beside those 2 things there is nothing. Where does that leave the other 99% of a house divided( 33,998) trinity based religions) that will not stand? They fail this true mark 100%= 1 Cor 1:10= Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division. Only the darkness cannot see it.

 

[tigger 2]

John 20:28[/URL] . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society capitalize God in that verse when it
makes Thomas appear to be a polytheist?

...................................................................
I don't know why the WTS used capitals for "Lord" and "God" there. When I did my independent studies of trinity "proofs," I was attempting to decide between the trinity and the single-person God. I used mostly my own studies into the NT Greek and information from trinitarian scholars. Here is what I found about John 2028:

1. John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ word as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

- “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

From my "My God" study: Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

 

[Keiw]

...................................................................
I don't know why the WTS used capitals for "Lord" and "God" there. When I did my independent studies of trinity "proofs," I was attempting to decide between the trinity and the single-person God. I used mostly my own studies into the NT Greek and information from trinitarian scholars. Here is what I found about John 2028:

1. John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ word as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

- “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

From my "My God" study: Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

To begin with Thomas was confused. He didnt believe Jesus rose from the dead. When Jesus showed him it was him, Thomas called Jesus his Lord and we believe he looked to heaven and said my God. Because itsFact that the Israelites knew the Messiah was not God, but has a God-Psalm 45:7)
John wouldnt contradict Jesus ever--John 17:3--This means eternal life, their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Christ Jesus--so all can see Jesus clearly taught that his Father is the only true God, and as well the only true God sent Jesus, meaning God did not come but sent another.
It takes believing Jesus over errors translated in that contradict him to the core. I havent met a trinitarian yet that will believe Jesus. That is sad, because all his true followers do. Especially since God commanded all-This is my son the beloved in whom i am well pleased-LISTEN TO HIM.

 

[Robert Gwin]

So you are commending my post for confessing our sins to Jesus?
If so, this is contrary to the Watch Tower’s stated beliefs.

Read my reply one more time BH

 

[Robert Gwin]

Nope just quoted the verseswith very little commentary. So I did not likely write a book.

I went all the way back to post 1, we talked about you posting evidence, you calling me a liar, You saying Jesus is Divine, which we agree on by the way, but do not agree that he is equally Divine as Jehovah, I really agreed greatly with your post 109 on it. You said you posted evidence Jesus is called Yahweh, but you didn't. You said I was like a Mormon. We discussed the physical resurrection of Christ. And that pretty much sums it up. Anything else Ron?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Well no other sect has such authoritarian rule as do the Watchtower. And what they are feeding my taste good and fill you rbelly, but it is hot dogs not real meat.

The faithful slave is given authority correct? Has that not always been the case? Ever read about Korah? It is true, they are the highest authority on earth, subjected to actually being the faithful slave of course. So it is obvious we see the slave differently, what is your understanding of who the faithful slave really is, just like the verse asks sir Mat 24:45

 

[Brakelite]

It's interesting that the "war" in heaven spoken of in Revelation 12 doesn't necessarily mean a battle involving weapons in the historical sense. That word "war", is polemos, from which we get the words politics and polemics, which means debating ideas o and arguments. Satan in Eden deceived Eve by his use of argument and deception. Could what we are doing now be merely a continuation of that war in heaven by the user of debate and argument to convince others of our ideas and ideologies,? Is that why Satan wasn't destroyed after his rebellion? If he was destroyed, his ideas and slanders would have carried on and maybe even confirmed by God's doing away with him. So I'm order to prove Satan's ideas and ideology wrong, God has given him limited license to hang himself and prove his rebellion unfounded and selfish.
Question is, how do we best avoid following his footsteps? This thread goes to the center of the debate... The nature and character of God. The original debate and rebellion was focused on that. The character of God... All rebellions are the result of different opinions on the nature and character of the governing power. That's what this thread is about. I think we best tread carefully.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Continued From No.368

• 1John 4:1 . . Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but
test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,
because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

The Greek word translated "false prophets" roughly defines a supposedly
inspired speaker who's actually on the wrong side of the aisle, viz:
imposters; and they are everywhere, e.g. radio, television, the internet,
social media, in print, and at our very doors.

Jesus said that false prophets are known by their fruits (Matt 7:15-20). For
example: the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's predictions regarding
Armageddon and Christ's return have been incorrect every time. Seventh
Day Adventism's performance hasn't been any better.

Well; if a religion's predictions fail, then prudence requires that we assume
its theology is highly suspect no matter how convincing their explanations
may appear.
_

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Read my reply one more time BH

My mistake. I thought you said “commend” and not “recommend.”
In any event, the Bible teaches we can pray to Jesus.

1. We are commanded to pray to Jesus: Jn 14:14; James 1:1-7; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 5:19; Acts 8:22
2. We have apostolic examples of praying to Jesus: Rev 22:20, 2 Cor 12:7-9, Acts 7:54-60; Acts 8:24
3. We have necessary inferences of pray to Jesus: 1 Jn 5:11-15, Acts 1:24; Heb 7:25.

Source:
Yes we can pray to Jesus! Prayer is simply talking to Jesus

1 Corinthians 1:2 says,
“call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,”

THE WATCHTOWER REVERSES ITS POSITION
(Involving worship of Jesus)

While there may have been an earlier hint, the new antiworship doctrine was first clearly stated in the 1 January 1954 Watchtower, where, in contradiction to what was just published in “Make Sure of All Things,” it concludes, “No distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ now glorified in heaven. Our worship is to go to Jehovah God.” Yet, the next year, the Society’s “application for an amended certificate of authority” to operate in Illinois (dated 7 February 1956) included “Exhibit A,” which reproduces almost all of Article II, including the statement of purpose: “for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus...”(emphasis added).

How would this doctrinal contradiction in the amended charter, which speaks of the “worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus,” be hidden in Watch Tower publications? It is quoted in the 1 April 1953 Watchtower with a number of lines omitted before this statement, and then the section is picked up again after the words “such worship” (see figure 3). The book Qualified to Be Ministers (1955) quotes a portion of article II and skips over the section in question after the ellipsis it quotes the words immediately following: “...to arrange for and hold local and world- wide assemblies for such worship” (see figure 4). The reader is left wondering what “such worship” means.

When Article II is reproduced in the 1969 Yearbook and the 15 December 1971 Watchtower, there are again obvious attempts to hide what the charter states.​

Source:
https://www.equip.org/PDF/DJ922.pdf