Yours is out. I don't have one.YES IT IS!!!!
Wonderful and accurate post!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JW's Preach A Different Gospel
- Thread starter katiemygirl
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You use the word "esoteric" as if it were a four-letter word. In Isaiah, we are told that "the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." You don't start with the more difficult doctrines; you start with the basics and work from there. And from the moment that someone accepts the gospel, he is encouraged to become one of the "initiated few" (who really aren't "few" at all) and enjoy the blessings of the temple. Mormonism isn't underhanded in the way it presents its doctrines. It simply starts with the core doctrines and focuses on them. Once people understand those doctrines, they are ready to learn more. And you don't need to be among "an initiated few" to learn 99% of what Mormonism has to teach. Furthermore, you don't even need to join the church in order to be given the information. The amount of truly "esoteric" doctrine in Mormonism is truly miniscule.
Maybe part of the reason they don't tell you all of those things is that they don't actually even believe some of them. They don't believe, for instance, that Blacks, Indians and Hispanics are "cursed." That's your own spin on what you perceive their doctrine to teach. And while we may believe in the existence of "many Gods" -- as did Paul -- we worship only one God, as did he. You really ought to understand Mormonism before you attempt to explain to other people -- at least on this particular forum.
As usual more JW misinformation.
WHY DIDN'T YOU PASTE THE REST OF THE ARTICLE????
The last paragraph says it all-In summary, then, understand that the Witnesses’ use of the Bible typically involves two main problems. First, they quote passages out of context, highlighting only those verses which appear to support their beliefs, while ignoring others which contradict those beliefs. Second, their own NWT often distorts the text so as to support their beliefs. Be wary, then, when the Witnesses come to your door.
In their booklet entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, for example, may be found a chart titled "What Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe." This chart list beliefs and the supposed scriptural authority for them.
Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (In this tract we give scriptural passages from the Revised Standard Version, a sound Bible translation that is recognized by Catholics and Protestants alike as one of the most accurate and dignified English translations of Scripture. Bear in mind that the Witnesses’ use their own "in-house" Bible called the New World Translation (NWT), though it is regarded by Greek and Hebrew scholars as an extraordinarily poor and highly inaccurate translation. There are many places where it is not faithful to the Hebrew and Greek, especially where the text fails to support and often openly contradicts the Witnesses’ peculiar doctrines. In addition, the five members of the translation committee for the NWT completely lack credentials as Bible scholars. Four of them never studied the biblical languages, and the fifth studied non-biblical Greek for a short period.)
Is Christ God?
1. "Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him." Given in support of this position are these verses: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’" (Matt. 3:17). "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Cor. 15:28).
At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Or, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Or, "All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15). Or, "The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Or, "[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be g.asped" (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.
How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last five, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).
Was Christ Created?
2. "Christ was the first of God’s creations." Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation" (Col. 1:15). "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’" (Rev. 3:14).
In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that "first-born" implies succession and inferiority. But the title "first-born" refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as "the first-born over all creation," as in the New International Version of the Bible.
Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine, since God created everything.
The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him, and no created things were made except through him.
Hell No, We Won’t Go?
3. "Wicked will be eternally destroyed" (that is, no hell, just annihilation). Verses given in support: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:41, 46). (The NWT renders Matthew 25:46 as "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life." This is one example of many where the NWT distorts the text to suit the Witnesses’ beliefs.) "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thess. 1:9).
You can see for yourself that these verses actually prove the opposite of what the Witnesses teach that is, they prove the existence of hell. This is compounded when Revelation says of the damned: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name" (Rev. 14:11). If they are not given any rest, day or night, then obviously they are still around to experience torment.
No Blood Transfusions!
4. "Taking blood into the body through mouth or veins violates God’s laws." The Jehovah’s Witnesses are perhaps best known to other Americans as people who won’t allow themselves or their children to have blood transfusions. In fact, they will go so far as to allow a loved one to die rather than accept a transfusion, as they believe transfusions are a gross violation of God’s law. They support this notion with these verses: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen. 9:4). "You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28, 29).
There are several problems with interpreting these verses to mean that transfusions are forbidden, not the least of which is the fact that the context is referring to animal blood, not human blood. Moreover, there is a great difference between eating blood and receiving a life-giving blood transfusion. Eating blood was wrong because it profaned the life of the animal. But for a person to willingly share his blood intravenously in order to share life with someone does not profane anything. Indeed, even ultra-Orthodox Jews, who strictly observe the Old Testament kosher laws, recognize that blood transfusions are not prohibited by the command not to eat blood.
The Witnesses must avoid other problematic passages that deal with God’s prohibition of eating blood because these passages include a prohibition against eating fat. Witnesses do not believe eating fat is wrong, and would see no problem at all with someone munching on fried pork rinds (i.e., deep-fried pieces of pig fat) or sitting down to dinner and enjoying a nice fatty cut of prime rib. But their vehement opposition to eating blood, when contrasted with their approval of eating fat, presents a serious problem for them. Why? Because Leviticus, the book they go to in order to substantiate their prohibition of eating (and receiving transfusions of) blood, contains, in the same passages, prohibitions against eating fat.
Consider these examples: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (Lev. 3:17). "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it. For every person who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people. Moreover you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people’" (Lev 7:22–27).
These verses and others like them are difficult for Witnesses to explain, given that they lean heavily on the prohibitions against eating blood. It’s totally inconsistent to maintain that God’s "perpetual statute" against eating blood must be observed, while his "perpetual statute" (that appears in the very same context) against eating fat can be safely ignored. On this subject, as on many others, the Witnesses are highly selective and must ignore much of the Bible in order to make their beliefs seem "biblical."
Also, the Old Testament dietary laws simply don’t apply to Christians today (cf. Col. 2:16–17, 22), and the ones given at the Council of Jerusalem passed into disuse as Jewish conversions to Christianity became uncommon toward the end of the first century and the Church became mainly Gentile. They weren’t immutable doctrines, but disciplinary rules.
No Clergy!
5. "A clergy class and special titles are improper." In support of this position, Witnesses refer to these verses: "I will not show partiality to any person or use flattery toward any man" (Job 32:21). "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10). "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave" (Matt. 20:25–27).
These verses simply show our Lord was saying we shouldn’t give to men credit for what really comes to us from God the Father and that his followers should be willing to serve. But Jesus shouldn’t be understood in a crassly literal way. If Matthew 23:9 were taken that way, you’d have trouble finding a title for the man who married your mother.
Furthermore, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul called himself the father of the church he founded in Corinth: "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). He also referred, under divine inspiration, to Timothy as "my son" (1 Tim. 1:18, 2 Tim. 2:1), but if he could call Timothy "my son" then Timothy could call him "my father," so long as he didn’t confuse Paul’s fatherhood with the kind of Fatherhood God has (Matt. 23:9).
The Witnesses also ignore Scripture’s teaching concerning the authority of Church leaders and the appropriate honor that’s due them because of their office: "Respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and...esteem them very highly in love because of their work" (1 Thess. 5:12–13), "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor . . . " (1 Tim. 5:17), and "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Heb. 13:17).
In summary, then, understand that the Witnesses’ use of the Bible typically involves two main problems. First, they quote passages out of context, highlighting only those verses which appear to support their beliefs, while ignoring others which contradict those beliefs. Second, their own NWT often distorts the text so as to support their beliefs. Be wary, then, when the Witnesses come to your door.
So the second occurrence of theos ("God") in John 1:1 has no definite article ("the") it this refers to a lesser deity who simply has godlike qualities. But must theos ("God") without the ho ("the") refer to someone less than Jehovah? By no means!
The Greek word 'Theos' without the definite article 'ho' is used of Jehovah Himself in the New Testament with the exact same Greek construction used in John 1:1. Indeed, the "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" used in most Seminaries states the truth, that the word theos is used "quite predominantly of the True God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article." An example of this is in Luke 20:38, where we read of Jehovah, "He is A GOD, not of the dead, but of the living.
Secondly, everyone has observed how inconsistent the Watchtower Society translates occurrence is theos ("God") without the article. It's been noted that there are 282 such occurrences in the New Testament. At 16 places the NWT has (similar to its translation of John 1:1) either a god, god, gods, or godly.
16 out of 282 means that the NWT translators were faithful to their translation principle only 6% of the time. In other words, in the great majority of occurrences of theos without the article in the New Testament, the Watchtower did NOT translate it as "a god." Their choice to translate John 1:1 this way shows their extreme theological bias against the absolute deity of Christ shown throughout the Bible.
Did you know that if the Watchtower was consistent in translating other verses like they did in John 1:1, we'd have some very strange sounding verses? For example:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of A GOD." (Matthew 5:9)
"There came a man who was sent from A GOD whose name was A JOHN." (JOHN 1:6)
What does it say to you that the Watchtower translates the above verses correctly, but then sticks an indefinite article in John 1:1 in reference to Christ: "a god"? Are you sure you want to trust in the New World Translation?
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of credible Greek scholars in the world say the Watchtower Society is absolutely wrong and even deceptive in its translation including in John 1:1?
And finally, since the Watchtower Society claims that the phrase 'ho theos' ("the God") is not used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, while in Fact, John 20:28, Matthew 1:23, and Hebrews 1:8 DO USE this phrase of Jesus Christ.
You say Gods word says you shouldn't worship an angel. I agree
it also says that an angel can't rule the world or be called Gods Son and yet the Watchtower says Jesus is still Michael the Angel.Though "proskuneo" can sometimes just mean kneeling, it is the Dominant word for worship.
The fact is Jesus Christ was worshipped as God (proskuneo) many times according to the gospel accounts - and HE ALWAYS ACCEPTED SUCH WORSHIP AS APPROPRIATE.
Jesus accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28). All the angels are told to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6). The wise men worshipped Jesus (Matthew 2:11). A leper worshipped Him (Matthew 8:2). A ruler bowed before him in worship (Matthew 9:18). A blind man worshipped Him (John 9:38). A woman worshipped Him (Matthew 15:35). Mary Magdalene worshipped Him (Matthew 28:9), and the disciples worshipped Him (Matthew 38:17).
Related to this, it is significant that when Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra and miraculously healed a man by Gods power those in the crowd shouted, "the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" (Acts 14:11) When Paul and Barnabas perceived that the people were preparing to worship them, "they tore there garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men, of like nature with you." By contrast Jesus NEVER sought to correct His followers or set them straight when they bowed down to worship Him. Indeed, He considered such worship as perfectly appropriate.
In Revelation the Father and Son are clearly receiving the same worship. Revelation 4:10 where the Father is worshipped and Revelation 5:11-14 where we see all if heaven worshipping the Lamb if God, Jesus Christ.
To top it all off, even in the Jehovah’s Witnesses own New World Translation it translated "proskuneo" in Hebrews 1:6 as worship. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse p.100-101, this was true in the 1953, 1960, 1961, and 1970 versions of the New World Translation.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Wrong. Although I disagree with the Jehovah's WItnesses on many doctrines, I have found a great many of their beliefs to be more "biblical" than the beliefs of traditional Christianity. And Joseph Smith did not "decide to interpret the Bible differently," regardless of what you may think. If there really was an apostasy in the early Christian Church (as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and as the Bible teaches there would be), it would stand to reason that the teachings of both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons would both be different from the teachings of traditional Christianity -- the Christianity that both believe fell into apostasy. From both our perspectives, it's traditional Christianity that's teaching "a different gospel" than the one originally taught by Jesus Christ.
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
Luk 6:37 (ESVST) 37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.
In light of this verse, where do JW's stand?
In light of this verse, where do JW's stand?
We have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament then any other ancient document.
There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. Some even surviving from the second century. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000. And the scriptures prove time and time again in a Trinity. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are ALL called God. They ALL have the attributes of God. And they ALL do the works of God. Among others. This conspiracy theory doesn't hold up to historical evidence I'm afraid.
Great story. Got any more?
BTW, when you lose the supposed JW orthodoxy/truth for 1800 years, how do you even know what it is to regain it?
Christian churches don't say they are the "only" church God directs. They don't spout predictions over and over that don't come true so they have to have "new light" to make up for it. They don't say you can't interpret the bible yourself. It can only be done by us and then you believe it. That's the difference
The apostasy is believing in no hell, in universalism, in Dethroning Jesus as God, etc... The Watchtower holds they are bringing light to the apostate "Christendom" when the Bible speaks clearly that there beliefs are itself Apostate.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, that's kind of a matter of opinion, isn't it? I mean we all have beliefs someone else believes are apostate. The bottom line, though, is that unless you are a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian, you believe an apostasy took place at some point, too.
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Hello Katzpur,
Just joining with discussion. Yes, it is true that Mormons and JW teachings are absolutely different. But one thing that they are identical is the founder, a person who visited by an angel Moroni, which has to do with the Book of Mormons scriptures, and the other was the founder who (still) makes his own biblical interpretation. Why both had a person behind the beliefs?
Is it true that the reason why they founded this beliefs/religion is because of apostasy of Christianity?
Thanks
@Katzpur
"I" didn't make those claims about L.D.S.
I merely copied and pasted an article.
I haven't much info on L.D.S. 'cept what I learn from you.
Got that please? "I" wasn't bashing L.D.S.
To whoever posted "why didn't you post the entire article?" (fishy I suspect)
Because I posting the link! I posted the link for anyone to read.
This thread has gone so far beyond boring. It's downright hateful.
Yawn. G'night.
"I" didn't make those claims about L.D.S.
I merely copied and pasted an article.
I haven't much info on L.D.S. 'cept what I learn from you.
Got that please? "I" wasn't bashing L.D.S.
To whoever posted "why didn't you post the entire article?" (fishy I suspect)
Because I posting the link! I posted the link for anyone to read.
This thread has gone so far beyond boring. It's downright hateful.
Yawn. G'night.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
1 Cor 5:12
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I'm going to hold off in speaking on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as I believe they are better qualified than I to explain their beginnings. I will say, though, that no Christian denomination that I'm aware of was founded by an ordinary person or persons. Catholics, of course, will say that Jesus Christ founded their religion, and everybody else will say He did no such thing. But we do have, of course, all of the great Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Zwingli, etc.) whose teachings and interpretation of scripture inspired the establishment of new Christian denominations. No denomination started without a leader of some sort.
From the Mormon perspective... We believe that Jesus Christ did, in fact, establish His Church as part of His mortal ministry and that He ordained specific individuals to hold roles of authority in the administration of His Church, so that it could continue after His death and resurrection. We believe that, over time, men changed both the doctrines and the organizational structure of the Church He had established, and the authority once held by the Apostles was taken from the earth. We see this "apostasy" as having been prophesied by several of the Apostles themselves, especially by Paul. We also believe that a later "restoration" (or re-establishment) of of the original Church was prophesied to take place in the years prior to Christ's return and millennial reign. Since we believe that only Jesus Christ was in the position to re-establish the Church He had once set up, and that it was not something even the most well-meaning of men could do without His direct involvement, we believe in a complete "Restoration" as opposed to a mere "Reformation." When Joseph Smith was 14 years old, very concerned about the welfare of his soul, and frustrated because he was hearing so many different interpretations of the scriptures, he went directly to God in prayer to ask for guidance and direction in choosing which church to join. We believe that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him to join no church at that time as none of them was the "original" Church Christ had established. We further believe that God used him as a latter-day prophet through whom the original doctrines, organization and authority were restored to the earth.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Calm down. I didn't say you were bashing anybody. I merely stated that some of the information you posted (copied and pasted or not) was inaccurate.
Yeah, well that's o.k. Fine in fact to state your feelings about junk dug up on the net.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
In your estimation of things it probably appears so, but what are "the gates of hell" (hades)?
Please explain what you think that means.
And weren't the "weeds" of Jesus parable to grow in the world along with the wheat down to the time of the harvest? That means fake Christians have been in existence almost as long as Christianity itself. If the rot set in that long ago, how do you know that you aren't following the teachings of the weeds? We have cleaned up our worship and are obeying Christ's command to preach the good news of the kingdom in all the earth....what is Christendom doing? (2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Thess 2:9-12)
Only in "the time of the end" were God's worshippers going to experience a 'cleansing, whitening and refining' according to Daniel's prophesy. (Dan 12:4, 9, 10) Why was a cleansing and refining necessary in this time period, do you think?
Why would the wicked not understand a thing?
From the outset, the weeds did what weeds do best...they took over and all but choked the wheat out of existence. They persecuted and murdered those who dared to question their wicked ways. Why do you think Jesus said that only a relative "few" find the gate leading to the cramped and narrow road to life? (Matt 7:13, 14) Most who are on the 'freeway' are too busy promoting their own beliefs to even notice that there is an off ramp. Jesus is standing there with a "sign" but they ignore him. (Matt 24:3)
At the end of the present age, Jesus will come as judge of all the world. The nations will be gathered and separated as either "sheep" or "goats". Do the goats know that they are? By their response, apparently not.
Do those who consider themselves "Christians" believe that they are the "wheat"? They do, and even offer to the judge their defence....but it is totally rejected. (Matt 7:21-23)
He is already the reigning king, but now he will extract from the world all who have misrepresented and blasphemed his Father.
In a world ruled by the devil...nothing is as it appears...that is what deception is.