Reasons why the Jehovah’s Witness religion is false (Despite my love for them as human beings)

[The Learner]

I hear what you are saying, but at the same time it is good to air differences in a civil fashion if possible. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Jesus did not hold back from exposing the Pharisees, sometime using very strong condemnation. (Matt 23)

I have studied with a lot of Catholic people in my ministry and they all said the same thing….they were never encouraged to read the Bible…only to attend mass and go through the motions of church rituals, believing that they will be saved if they baptized their infants and attended Mass and confession.…and parroted off a set number of “hail Mary’s” “and Our Father’s”. Many did not even know the difference between a Bible and a catechism.

Upon learning what the Bible teaches, they were appalled at the lack of Bible education they received which was only snippets of Scripture heard, but never explained. Needless to say, they never wanted to go back.
Once they studied the Bible for themselves, they became hungry for the truth, seeing Christianity as something completely different to what they had been taught from infancy.

And the fact is, that a large proportion of our brotherhood is made up of those who have abandoned Christendom like myself, not being raised with JW teachings at all, but finding them clearly stated in the Scriptures.

Unless people hear both sides of the story, how will they ever make their own choices?
I do not attack the people but I will expose what they believe as false as they can with us…..we are to defend our faith and if we cannot, that speaks volumes to those who are searching.

Every of the hundreds of Catholics I know read and study the Bible.

 

[The Learner]

Let me see if I am following your argument:

1) These "apostolic fathers“ are never mentioned as those who would carry on the Christian faith;
2) A foretold apostacy was at work at the same time that these "apostolic fathers" were active;
Therefore,
3) These "apostolic fathers" MUST BE THE APOSTACY.

Do I have your argument right?

The beaste and antichrist is not here yet for the great apostacy.

 

[The Learner]

1) Monkeys have legs.
2) I have legs.
3) Therefore I am a monkey.

I think you understand the argument.

I forget my science, we are of the same something.

 

[The Learner]

According to Biblegateway, apostacy is ə pŏs’ tə sĭ (מְשׁוּבָה, H5412, apostasy; παραπίπτω, G4178, to fall away). The abandonment of one’s religion.
This simplistic definition is, roughly, in agreement with every major encyclopedia on the plant, Christian or secular. It's like saying, "I am leaving this house I am not in". It's a logical conundrum, not apostacy.

In the NT apostasy occurs when men turn aside from following Jesus (John 6:66 f.) and deny Him after having previously confessed Him as Lord. It manifests itself in falling away from faith under persecution (Matt 24:9-13), denying the deity of Jesus (1 John 2:22), or living a life of open sin that denies the faith (2 Pet 2:20).

Well, that won't work if all translations are corrupted. The NWT is strangely absent from BibleGateway's exhaustive list of translations. What does the NWT say?

From the WTS: Overview of 2 Timothy​

• PEOPLE “IN THE LAST DAYS”; APOSTATES ALREADY PRESENT (3:1-13)
  • People will love themselves, money, and pleasures instead of God (3:1-5)
  • The folly of apostates will be plain to all (3:6-9)
  • Paul’s example of endurance (3:10-12)
  • Wicked men “will advance from bad to worse” (3:13)

For starters, so far so good. (3:1-13) makes no mention of the Apostolic Fathers, or, it must be demonstrated that the Apostolic Fathers meet the description of the worst of amoral low-lifes, who seduced weak women. They weren't Christians in the first place. The only historical evidence available is what they wrote; such evidence would be acceptable in a court of law, if the AF were to be charged with apostacy today. No such evidence exists.

The Watchtower Society lists 1,132 definitions/examples/attributes of apostacy or apostates. This one is where the trouble starts:
The Watchtower (1983)
Why So Many Religions All Claiming to Be Christian?

apostate Christianity. Among these were Alexandria and Carthage, in North Africa, and Byzantium (later to become Constantinople), at the frontier between Asia and Europe. In the West, a rich and powerful church developed in Rome, the capital of the Empire.​

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY™​

It must be demonstrated, that the North African councils that defined the canon of the NT used by everyone today, including the NWT, were apostate councils. This is illogical and self defeating.
OR
the canon of the NT was the result of agreement by a plurality of elders, apart from the historic Church. There is no historical evidence, secular or Christian, to support this theory.

A rich and powerful church developed in Rome... What "power and wealth" and how was it used? This is where historical fabrications sneak in. It makes no distinction between Christian Rome and pagan Rome. Dave Hunt commits the same error. Pagan Rome ultimately embraced the Christian faith. It took 4+ centuries that could never be accomplished by human power. Wealth was used to feed the hungry, not for lavish lifestyles.

You may have heard it said, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” It’s often said to point out that persecution, rather than diminishing the church, often has the opposite effect. It’s counter-intuitive. Where do we get this saying from?

The original source is the early church father Tertullian (~155-~240 AD). He was an African church father based out of Carthage. He lived in the days of the Roman Empire and so was familiar with persecution and martyrdom. Tertullian’s most important writing is entitled The Apology, a work in which he provided a defense of the Christian faith to the provincial governors of the Roman Empire. Towards the end of the document, Tertullian makes the memorable statement: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed” (Apol. 50.13, original Latin: “Plures efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum.”).

There is some variation in how these words are translated in various English editions. Many translators have felt compelled to add some words to explain what the seed is going to produce: faith, a greater harvest, the church, or a new life. However, the context is clear enough. Tertullian believed that God uses martyrdom and persecution in some mysterious way to cause the Christian faith to grow in strength and numbers.
No emperor ever killed an apostate, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Another problem for the WTS, and fundamentalists, is they can't name any martyr from the 2nd, 3rd or 4rth century, yet they talk about "the blood of the martyrs" in Revelation.

The WTS indirectly asserts Tertullian, from Carthage, was an apostate. Nothing in his writings, available on line for everyone to see, even hints at such lunacy.

3:1-5 suggests idolatry, IMO. It must be demonstrated that the Apostolic Fathers meet the description here, by examining what they wrote, and more importantly, the consensus and unanimous agreement that went on for centuries, even after the canon of the NT was ratified. Since they were all allegedly apostates, the only way around this problem is to change the meaning of "Apostolic Fathers".

winner

 

[The Learner]

How was I changing the subject, when the Catholic Church is founded on twisting the teachings of the “church fathers” rather than on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ? The further away we got from the teachings of Christ’s apostles, the worse it became.

Are you pulling a lawyer tactic on me?…..as the two are inextricably linked, I will bring in the evidence as I understand it….Your Honor.

I am saying that the foundation of Christendom was laid by those who were taught by the early church fathers. On investigation, it seems that Greek philosophical influence was more at work in formulating “Christian“ doctrine than the Bible.

The current philosophical conceptions of the day influenced the interpretation of Scripture. . . . The church can be accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories suited to their era.….the first Christian “theologians” if you will.
Those early “theologians” then set about adapting primitive Bible-based Christianity to the current philosophical ideas of the day.

I feel like this is a cross examination…..I am stating what I already said in post #508
We are not to base our beliefs on anything other than God’s word…..it is why it has been so carefully preserved for thousands of years……humans did not accomplish this….even though some want to take credit for that.

Who were the accusers though? If the heresies were already planted and accepted as truth because “the church“ leaders said so…..don’t we see the same scenario that occurred in Jesus’ day? Those who were the “learned ones” in Judaism were the accepted authority on all things related to God and his worship, and yet what did Jesus say to them? Citing one of their twisted traditions he said….

”….To uphold your tradition you have made God’s word null and void. You hypocrites! How rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (NCB)
Is not Christendom itself filled with man made religious traditions, slavishly followed? None of them are biblically based.

To the teachers of God’s Law. . . .Jesus said….
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the entrance to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor do you allow others to enter”. . . . .“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You journey over sea and land to make a single convert, and then you make that convert twice as worthy of Gehenna as you are”. . . . . “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and then swallow a camel!“
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of decay. In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.“
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to Gehenna?”

“Behold, your house has been abandoned and left desolate. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you murder the Prophets and stone the messengers sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not allow it! I tell you, you will not see me again until you say: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (From Matt ch 23 NCB)

For the last 2000 years, the Jews have denied Jesus as the Christ….as vehemently today as they did back then, such is their indoctrination. Christendom is a mirror image of first century Judaism.….left without God’s guiding spirit or support for centuries, allowing the rot to fester….to produce a pathetic imitation of what Christ started. This is what Jesus and his apostles foretold. These are the important details of why we see the situation we do in the world of today‘s disunited church systems…..hopelessly lost in a mire of conflicting beliefs and practices……a world away from what the apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:10, should identify true Christianity.

Pedantic concentration on semantics is a waste of time. It’s the big picture that needs to emerge because we are all a part of it. Step back and expand your vision…..this is not our courtroom.

not keeping up. nothing like myths of greek philosphy. check out Hellenistic commentary to the NT.

 

[The Learner]

New #119
Amos 6:10e

"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”

ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."

CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”

DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”

NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this command!!! lol

 

[The Learner]

New #119
Amos 6:10e

"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”

ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."

CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”

DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”

NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this command!!! lol

 

[The Learner]

New #119
Amos 6:10e

"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”

ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."

CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”

DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”

NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this command!!! lol

 

[The Learner]

But according to you God’s word has not been preserved. It has been distorted, altered, changed to the point that God’s name was removed and the only way to make sense of it is to do studies of the original language, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, it has to be decoded and only the JWs have the secret decoder ring to get the true meaning.

Amos 6:10e

"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”

ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."

CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”

DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”
NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this command!!!

 

[The Learner]

Banned topic.

what is Economical Trinity?

 

[The Learner]

I started to post my list of scriptures that support the Trinity when I realized this is a closed topic and not open for discussion.

https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical%20Basis%20Trinity%20Bowman.pdf

 

[The Learner]

not keeping up

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

what is Economical Trinity?

It's an incorrect derivative from the phrase, "Eternal Economy of the Trinity." It's a theological term, not a math equation. I've seen the term only used once in my life, written by a famous scholar (who is married with 5 children). The article is hard to find but easy to read. PM me in Conversations and I'll send you a file.:cool:

 

[Keiw]

רוב הנוצרים קוראים גרסאות באנגלית, לא עברית.
Yeshua is the Hebrew pronunciation for Jesus. I don't contest that. Most Christians read English versions in English speaking countries., not Hebrew.
I've produced non-biased evidence the "Jehovah" pronunciation for God is a man made tradition from the middle ages. No scholarly evidence to the contrary presented, just vain repetitions.

Man says they made that name--Man is wrong on that matter.
Jesus promised to keep on making his Fathers name known--he does through his real religion and true followers.
Jehovah himself glorifies his name= always-John 12:28)

 

[Aunty Jane]

The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ('my Lord')

“Came to be avoided” was in direct contradiction to what God told them in Exodus 3:13-15....The name God himself gave to them was to be his memorial for all their generations.....they were never told to cease using it. It was never “too sacred to be uttered” or the pre-Christian servants of God would avoided using it.....they did not as it is written almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.....that is a lot of substitution without God’s permission. That makes almost all modern English Bibles, faulty translations.
There is no substitute for the name of God in the Scripture he inspired. He is the author of his word...not any man or institution. To follow the traditions of apostate Judaism, makes all complicit who failed to restore God’s name to his own Scripture. The Jews at least retained it in their written text...they just refused to say it. Christendom has eliminated it all together, making a mockery of the Lord’s Prayer.

The historical vocalization was lost, substituted with Adonai ('my Lord') As found in the Hebrew Bible (Luke 1:43), not because of disobedience. Point 1.

Yes, because of disobedience....God never commanded them not to mention his name....just the opposite.

The Hebrew Bible is in Hebrew, and nothing to do with the English NWT. What is to be avoided is the New World Translation, point 2

What is to be avoided are those who avoid using God’s name as if it isn’t important.
For Catholics who repetitively pray the “Our Father”.....”hallowed be thy name” should be “hallowed be thy title”.
Your church is built on human traditions, not God’s word, as is obvious from the fact that no scriptural support can be given for any of your doctrines. Still waiting for my questions to be answered.....please give us scriptural evidence for your beliefs....you know there aren’t any or they would have been posted pages ago.

and Tyndale was a trouble making heretic. point 3

Only to Catholics......funny that....perhaps it’s the real “trouble making heretics” who should be punished for giving him a hard time.

His version of the Bible was condemned and banned twice by King Henry VIII. point 4

And King Henry the Vlll was such a good Christian.....are you serious?
King Henry Vlll started the church I was raised in.....the Catholic church refused to annul his marriage so that he could marry another woman in order to produce a male heir, so he decided to form his own church and separate from Catholicism. He was the self-appointed head of the Church of England. Trouble was, Henry was producing female offspring (the father determines the sex of his children) and it was all his own fault that no male heirs were born to him. He was blaming the women. His choice to divorce and remarry was against God’s law. So why would you even include him in this discussion? Grasping at straws much?

Yahweh is the name for God, and it refers to the same Divine Person: Adonai, Hebrew for "Lord"; found in Luke 1:48 Point 5

From your Catholic Bible....
Luke 1:45-47....Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her....
“And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (DRA)
Read it again....Jesus was not born yet. The Lord is Jehovah/Yahweh....Mary’s savior.......why would Mary need a savior if she was sinless? It’s nonsense.

proper name, of deity Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel —

Assumed to be the pronunciation, but no one really knows. That is the whole issue. We have no problem with either Jehovah or Yahweh.....using God’s name is the issue. He gave mankind his name for a reason.

 

[Aunty Jane]

1 ᵑ0 יְהוָֺהC518 (Qr אֲדֹנָי), or יֱהוִֺה305 (Qr אֱלֹהִים), in the combinations אדני יהוה & יהוה אדני (see אֲדֹנֶי), and with preposition בַּיהוָֺה, לַיהוָֺה, מֵיהוָֺה (Qr בַּאדֹנָי, לַאדֹנָי, מֵאדֹנָי), do not give the original form. ᵐ5 and other Vrss follow the Qr. On the basis of Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:11 יהוה was regarded as a nomen ineffabile (see Philode Vita Mosis iii. 519, 529), called by the Jews הַשֵּׁם and by the Samaritans שׁימא. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety (compare Bö§ 88). The traditional Ἰαβέ of Theodoret and Epiphanius, the יָֿהוּ, יְהוֺֿ of compound proper name and the contracted form יָהּ all favour * יַהְוֶךְ *(compare יַהֲלֹמ֑וּן Psalm 74:6; תַּהֲרוּ Isaiah 33:11), see LagSym i.14 BaudStudien i.179 ff.; DrStud.Bib.i.1 ff. For Jeve see StaZAW 1881, 346 Deib.1882, 173 f. & Gn. Excurs. ii.

LOL...I love the way you post these things as if you know what they mean....why not offer that to the readers in plain English? Please explain this quote....

"I AM WHO AM" is not a name, it's a rhetorical answer God gave to Moses because to name God at that time is to define Him, and God cannot be defined by a name, so God used a non-name to make a point..
That's why some Jews today use the term G-d. They can't say His name out of respect.

According to the Jewish Tanakh, God’s name is “I will be what I will be” which makes more sense than “I Am”. What was the point of telling his people that he existed when they already knew that he did?

Who said God cannot be defined by a name? What utter nonsense....what does Psalm 83:18 say?
Let them know that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High over all the earth.” (NCB)
There is a definition for you...”the Most High over all the earth”.....and the Tetragrammaton is in the Hebrew text, so his name is not “the Lord”...is it?
Hallowed by thy title......?

Exodus 3:14 – God says “I AM who I AM” – John 8:58 – Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I AM” in reference to Himself.

He didn’t say that actually....he was answering a question about his age, not his status as a deity. He was asked a past tense question and gave past tense answer....”before Abraham was, I have been”. He was indicating that he was in existence before Abraham....and he was as God’s firstborn son.

John 1:1 – John writes, “the Word was God.” This is clear evidence of Jesus Christ’s divinity. (Note: in the NWT the passage was changed to “Word was a god.” This is not only an embarrassing attempt to deny the obvious divinity of Christ, but it also violates the first commandment and Isaiah 43:10 because it acknowledges that there is more than one God).

Do a study on the Greek word “theos” and see what primary definition Strongs gives for it.
It means “any god or goddess, divinity or deity”.....so not just one meaning. Remembering too that the Greeks had many gods who all had names.....the “one God” of the Jews was nameless, and so the only way to identify him was to add the definite article (ho). Jesus is never once called “theos” with the definite article. Fact.

John 1:18 – the Greek word for “only-begotten” is “monogenes” which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

It actually means an only child....it is not a special word used just for Jesus, but is used elsewhere to indicate an only child. Like the widow’s son whom Jesus resurrected.

John 1:18 is also interesting for a couple of reasons which you omitted. One of which states that “no man has seen God at any time“....how many people saw Jesus?

In Greek it reads “monogenes theos” which is “only begotten god”.....so how can God be “begotten”?
Someone who is “begotten” needs a “begetter” who existed before them.

Col. 1:15 – Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the “firstborn” of all creation. The Greek word for “first-born” is “prototokos” which means eternal preexistence (it never means created).

Can you make an image of something invisible? I’d like to see that. Will it have a halo? (Borrowed from sun worship)

“Firstborn of all creation” makes Jesus part of that creation as he himself said in Rev 3:14. He is “the beginning of God’s creation”. You have to ignore the contradicting scriptures to hold any of your beliefs. But there are no contradictions in Scripture. It is beliefs that contradict Scripture, and no one does that quite like Catholicism.

Are any of these Hebrew names for God in the NWT?

Yes, all of them....but all are titles bar one.

note: English didn't begin to develop as a language until the 9th century. Moses didn't know English.

Well now, that was in intelligent statement....”Moses didn’t know English”.....is this the level of your arguments? Good grief.....

 

[Jack]

Is there any verse in the Bible that JW's don't twist the Hell out of? They even reject their own NWT bible!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Man says they made that name--Man is wrong on that matter.

God said, "I AM WHO AM", not man. You are wrong on the matter. "Jehovah" as a name for God is an invention from the middle ages, and no one has provided evidence to the contrary. A distorted Bible doesn't cut it.

 

[Keiw]

God said, "I AM WHO AM", not man. You are wrong on the matter. "Jehovah" as a name for God is an invention from the middle ages, and no one has provided evidence to the contrary. A distorted Bible doesn't cut it.

The Hebrew scholars say that statement in their Hebrew written ot translates-I will be what i will be. Trinity misleading put -i am that i am. Thats who you listen to over the facts.

 

[Berean]

If God truly ordained your man, Charles Russell, and we can truly "thank God" for Russell as the man to bring THE truth to Christianity, why has your church Changed Some of Their Beliefs?

Did God not give Russell the truth and some of your men had to change the truth God gave Russell? Are some of the things Russell taught "not scriptural and backed up by the rest of the Bible"?

Hello there Curious, don't you know that while C.T. Russell founded the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, he was not the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses? The JW's evolved out of the teaching of Russell, which they soon abandoned and became Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, 15 years AFTER his death. AJ, will tell you that since Russell, their God, JEHOVAH has revealed to them "new light." They get the idea from Proverbs 4:18 "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." They have since revised that verse so that in their new New World Translation, it reads "But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight." Only problem is, the light got brighter after Russell, then it got brighter after J.F. Rutherford, then it got brighter after N.H. Knorr and it got brighter after Fred Franz, and continues to get brighter. Only problem is, the light flip flops, what was truth yesterday, is not truth today, but may be truth tomorrow.