JW's Preach A Different Gospel

[Yoshua]

What is your basis for comparison?
Can you show which belief is the one true belief of the one true god?
If not, what is your basis for comparison?

Hi Mestemia,

Just want to join in the discussion. To know the belief which is the true or not is by means of the standards of biblical interpretation. This biblical studies includes the original Hebrew (Old testament) and Greek text (New testament); the scriptural context; custom and traditions, geography and others. This is the basis on how we detect if what is right and wrong. The reference would still be the Holy Scriptures--the Bible. Some of the beliefs are dependent on what their founder interpreted and likes. Their members blindly followed and have no chances to seek the truth.

Thanks

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia,

Just want to join in the discussion. To know the belief which is the true or not is through the standards of biblical interpretation. This biblical studies includes the original Hebrew (Old testament) and Greek text (New testament); the scriptural context; custom and traditions, geography and others. This is the basis on how we detect if what is right and wrong. The reference would still be the Holy Scriptures--the Bible. Some of the beliefs are dependent on what their founder interpreted and likes. Their members blindly followed and have no chances to seek the truth.

Thanks

so, which version is the one true version of the one true god?

 

[JayJayDee]

Jesus wasn't named-Jesus either--that is the English version of his real name--Yeshoua--but we do not speak Hebrew, we speak--English--so yes Jehovah is YHVH name.
If you didn't know--In the Hebrew written language vowels were never written.

Yes, those who have a problem with Jehovah's name but accept "Jesus" as the name of his son are nothing but nit-picking hypocrites. English is not Hebrew. Pietro, Pita, Petros, Pietari, Pedro, Petari....all mean Peter....does God not speak every language?

If Jesus is God then shouldn't we be saying his name in Hebrew? Or should we rather adopt the Jewish practice of substituting his ambiguous title instead of his personal name?

Shouldn't we then demand that the Bible be rewritten to take out all the "J" names because most of them incorporate the divine name, Jehovah?

Where do you stop?

 

[Pegg]

Your doctrine and NWT makes you gnostic Arians, not me.

Ill stand on the side of a murdered brother any day if it means i dont have to worship an all mysterious pagan trinity.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

For the denominations, yes. But take note that we had the Early Church Fathers (after Paul's time) who are in the midst of propagating and defending the faith. There are apologist who defended and preserved Jesus Christ established ministry. Their faith is the same faith as with the Protestant Reformers. Churches who are not inclined with the orthodox teachings can be traced in their Statement of Faith. The sprouted beliefs/religion like Church of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ).......founded in 1800's-1900's claimed as the true church. They have their founders and claimed they are called and chosen by God.

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.

 

[Pegg]

Yeah, but it's entirely possible to say that other groups have some teachings that are in error, while still refraining from telling their members that "My Jehovah God is gonna annihilate you all someday because you're wicked!"

Hj Katzpur... Do mormans use the name of God as part of their worship?

 

[JayJayDee]

As usual more JW misinformation.

Let me show you why it's not. And I won't use the NWT once. I will take these one at a time to show you how wrong our critics are and how distorted the information is that is put up as proof that our beliefs are unscriptural. I will not cut and paste, but answer in my own words.

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.

These verses do not just seem to indicate that Jesus is inferior to his Father, but are proof that he is not equal with his God.

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."

John 17:20-22.....“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one" (ESV)

So are the disciples part of the godhead too? Same expression in the Greek in both instances.

"He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Like Father like son......Colossians 1:15..."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
He is the image of his Father....an image is a reflection of the original. He is also called "the firstborn of all creation" so this is proof that Jesus is created.

"All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15).

Seriously? As a firstborn this was given in Jewish understanding. All the son has was given to him by his Father. This is proof of what?

"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).

Who said he was making himself equal to God? Jesus or the Jews who were accusing him of blasphemy?

"[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be g.asped" (Phil. 2:6).

Read it again....he "did NOT count equality with God something to be grasped". So again an empty claim.

These seem to contradict the other verses.

Seem to contradict the truth? Not even close!

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).

John 5:18 was not an admission by Jesus that he was God at all...it was a baseless accusation made by the Jews to convict him of blasphemy.

 

[katiemygirl]

@JFish123
and woodwerk

Here and try not to choke up on this. I'd hate to see you guys get sick.

Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

Read it and weep. If you can weep. (that's a joke of course)

Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses are strikingly similar!

FACT: The vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses were former Catholics.

1. They had very little real change to make.
2. They just switched organizations and creeds!!!
3. Now you know why.

Why are most Jehovah's Witnesses former Roman Catholics?

Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses share exactly these same qualities:

1. Centralized World-wide church government from which all official doctrine comes. The Pope and the Governing body.
2. A city where world headquarters permanently resides: Rome, Italy and Brooklyn, NY, USA
3. Authority of this "world organization" is not to be questioned.
4. Both consider God to be the head of the world organization.
5. Both the Pope and the Governing body both claim inspiration.
6. Both organizations are "spirit directed" by God.
7. A simple definition of both is as follows: "Definition of a Catholic/Jw: 'Someone who accepts Rome/Brooklyn as God's visible spirit-directed theocratic organization upon the earth.
8. Both have official yearly meetings of the world leaders.
9. The official doctrines that have changed dramatically over time.
10. Both claim "new light" or progressive revelation to explain doctrinal changes.
11. Both share a similar hermeneutic on how to determine truth: Catholics have a system called, "Doctrine of Development" popularized by Dr. Newman, but anticipated by the German theologian Mohler in his work, Symbolik. This hermeneutic contended that Christ had committed to His Church certain seeds and germs of truth, destined afterwards to expand to definite forms; that He did not intend that the teaching of His Church should be always the same; but ordained that it should go on continually improving under the guidance of His Holy Spirit. Jw's employ exactly the same hermeneutic but call it by a different name: "New Light"
12. Both teach the organization is supreme over the Bible rather than the Bible being supreme over the organization.
13. The average members are told by the organization that they cannot understand the Bible without the help of the official organization.
14. Both discourage independent thinking from the world organization.
15. Both continue to blindly follow the organization in spite of major doctrinal changes, reversals and flip-flops.
16. Both "explain away" doctrinal changes, reversals and flip-flops by claiming "new light".
17. Both view every other church as heretical and false.
18. No salvation outside of their organization.
19. The word of the organization is unquestionably final.
20. Interpreting the Bible is the sole right of the organization.
21. Both make claims that because of their size, growth, activity, they must have the truth.
22. Both have authoritative writings in addition to the Bible. Creeds, catechisms and the watchtower.
23. Both teach that you cannot understand the Bible unless you compare the Bible with their official "authoritative writings" Creeds and Watchtower.
24. Both have an official clergy system with special privileges and rights the common member does not have. Priests and the Governing body.
25. Both have system of monasteries where "most holy and dedicated" selflessly pledge to do the "work for God" without any material rewards. No children are allowed in both. Catholic = monasteries; JW = Bethel
26. Both withhold the Lord's Supper/communion from the common people. Only the governing body (the 144,000) of Jw's are allowed to have communion, the average "publisher" that knocks on your door is not allowed to obey Jesus' command to communion weekly on the first day. For Catholics, there was about 900 year period (Council of Lambeth, Council of Trent, communion under one kind/species) that ended in the 19th century under Vatican II (1970 AD), where only the priests were allowed to have the blood. (This policy was changed and now Catholics are allowed to have the blood) It is interesting that when Jw's were formed 1880-1925 AD, Roman Catholics did not partake of the blood/wine in communion.

Yup, they are both false religions and have much in common.

 

[JayJayDee]

Was Christ Created?

Yes he was.

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).

The NWT is not the only translation that renders this verse as "the firstborn of all creation". The NASB, ESV and YLT all translate it that way.

"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).

Again the NWT is not the only translation to render the verse this way. It clearly says that he is the "beginning of God's creation"....that makes Jesus a created being.

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.

Nice bit of fancy footwork to translate something so simply stated. "Can be" doesn't mean "is".
* "Firstborn" means the first child in a family. "Only begotten" is "monogenes" which means an only child. There are no qualifications attached to these words at all. So no fancy footwork is required......unless you are trying to make scripture say what you want it to.

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.

Again, we need some fancy footwork to explain why many Bibles translates this verse simply and according to all the rules of Greek grammar. No one can deny that Christ is a divine being, but he is not the Almighty.

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.

Well, no it doesn't. "In the beginning" alludes to what? An eternal God has no beginning. Yet the Word has a beginning. It also confirms that the son was used as the agency of creation. All things were made "through" the son. (Prov 8:22, 30, 31) There are not two creators...just one...the Father. The son fabricated creation from the raw materials that God brought into existence.
As Colossians 1:16 confirms...."For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him." (NASB)

What a strange thing to say if Jesus is God. How are "all things created through him and for him" if he is the creator? If someone creates something "for" you...is it you who created it for yourself? If someone does something by means of you, does that make you and the one doing it the same person? If the Word was "with" God "in the beginning"...how can he BE the same person as the one he was with? If you are "with" someone, can you BE the same person? That makes no sense at all.

*edit

 

[katiemygirl]

..and you're darned right they preach a different Gospel!
Why would they adhere to Holy Tradition and go alone with the satanic lies
that permeate Christendom?
..and about Jesus being put to death upon a cross.
Yes indeed the Historical Jesus was most likely tortured on a cross.
It seems to have been the Roman way, but understand the Romans didn't always
use the cross. A cross was laborious to make, took time and a bit of skill and TOOLS
which were expensive to get. It was easier to use a simple sturdy tree trunk stuck
in a hole in the ground and it could be used over and over and more cheaply.
Do some real research and anyone can learn a torture stake wasn't uncommon.
I still think it was a cross but the means has little to do with the Jesus story.
It's what the cross has come to SYMBOLIZE that many Bible students object to.
Get it?

Yes JW's preach another gospel, a different gospel from what we read in the NT.

Please prove with Scripture that Jesus' 2nd coming occurred in 1914 because that is the gospel JW's preach.

 

[katiemygirl]

@katiemygirl
et.al.
Here are some KIND words from a Catholic site about J.W.s.
(really!)
(about 66% of J.W.s are former Catholics!)
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite forthcoming about their religious beliefs. Their religion, unlike Mormonism, isn’t an esoteric one with secret doctrines known only to an initiated few.

When Mormons come to your door, they don’t tell you that they believe in many gods, that Jesus and Lucifer were "spirit brothers," and that dark skin (in the case of blacks, Indians, and Hispanics) is supposedly a curse from God in punishment for wickedness. If they told you such things up front, you’d close the door immediately. Such teachings are saved for initiates. Thus, Mormonism is an esoteric religion (Webster: "esoteric: designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone").

The religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, is exoteric (Webster: "suitable to be imparted to the public"). They’re happy to tell you up front exactly what they believe, and they tell you not just when at your door, but in their publications.

From:
Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses | Catholic Answers

Now, now, don't get upset with me I'm only human and not a J.W.
I DO believe J.W.s have uncovered much about the pagan (statanic) influences
on Christendom.
I strongly believe that's why they are HATED so much by others who CLAIM
to be Christians. Christendom is AFRAID that the J.W.'s might just be dead right on
about much they speak of as "the Truth".
NO ONE like a teller of the truth.
Read "The Wild Duck" by Henrik Ibsen. It's a very short and famous play.
Well famous to most who attended universities. I had to read it and write essays
on the play when I was in one of the universities I graduated from.

You're preaching to the choir here, my friend. I happen to see all three of these religions, JW's, Mormons and Roman Catholicism as false. Any religion which claims a human leader as its head is from Satan, and not from our one true GOD.

I hate the false teachings of all three of these groups, and not because any of them have uncovered any untruths that I had not been aware of. Studying the Bible for myself, I am able to see the truth clearly.

Jesus is not Michael the archangel. God did not come from another planet, and the Pope is not Jesus Christ's spokesperson on earth.

 

[katiemygirl]

Its fact. It occurred here--Rev 6- the first ride of the white horse--bible chronology backs it.

It occurs to me that you really believe that Watchtower's and your interpretation of Revelation and the other prophetic books are perfect and without flaw. That you or anyone can make such a claim is ludicrous.

Do yourself a favor. Read your organization's history. How any honest hearted JW could actually read for himself the history and continue to be faithful to Watchtower is beyond my comprehension.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Ill stand on the side of a murdered brother any day if it means i dont have to worship an all mysterious pagan trinity.

You do worship a trinity of a sort, JW's worship a man made, self proclaimed "COMPOSITE" slave.


*** w13 7/15 p. 22 par. 10 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
Note, however, that the word “slave” in Jesus’ illustration is "singular," "indicating" that this is a "composite" slave. The decisions of the Governing Body are thus made collectively.


*** rs p. 218 par. 2 Jesus Christ ***
Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the "plural" in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)

Interestingly, when the singular "slave" is used, it means composite, to fit the GB teachings of an 8 member slave. But when archangel is used in the singular, it means only one, also to fit the GB teachings. Why is that?

 

[katiemygirl]

I don't know. I was a UPC member for 20 years and only recently had the courage to leave it. They had beliefs that seemed over simplified. I haven't found a church, yet that is perfectly sound, doctrinally. One preacher implied that I was hopeless because I didn't believe their doctrine, hook, line and sinker. Please don't argue with me to just to elevate yourself. I'm really trying to resolve something.

I know how you are feeling. I was there once. Follow the teachings, examples and patterns found in the New Testament and you can't go wrong.

If the Bible says it, believe it. If the Bible doesn't teach it, then don't teach it.

Where people make a mistake is trying to find a church that makes them happy rather than finding a congregation that comes as close to Bible teaching as you can find.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[katiemygirl]

Luke 12:32= the little flock= the anointed= the bride of Christ---the great multitude is listed in Rev

How is it YOU are such an expert in interpreting Revelation and ALL others outside Watchtower's Org are incorrect? Has Jesus spoken to YOU personally and told YOU what each vision means?

Look how wrong Watchtower's previous interpretations have been. How could any right thinking person ever believe or trust the interpretations of Watchtower or YOU?

 

[JayJayDee]

Hell No, We Won’t Go?

3. "Wicked will be eternally destroyed" (that is, no hell, just annihilation).

"Hell" in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew "Sheol" and the Greek "Hades". Sheol is translated in the Septuagint as "hades" yet the Jews have no teaching about "hell" according to Christendom's version. Sheol was the place where all the dead went, both good and bad. There was no conscious existence in this place. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)

Hell is simply the common grave of mankind. Bible translations who render the word "Gehenna" as "hell" mislead people. Hades is not Gehenna.

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).

So which scenario fits God's personality?....the fiendish torturer?.....or the God who withdraws life from those he considers unworthy to retain it?

How many people have heard the verse in John 3:16...so often quoted in church as I recall.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (ESV) What does the word "perish" mean here? It is contrasted with eternal life as an opposite.
According to Merriam Websters Dictionary, as it relates to humans, it means.......

": to die or be killed

: to disappear or be destroyed : to cease to exist"

.......so 'annihilation' fits what the rest of the scriptures say about the death of the wicked. That means that the opposite of everlasting life is everlasting death. It isn't that complicated.

When you create beliefs about an immortal soul, you have to invent places for them to go after death. The Bible doesn't do that. Death is death...it isn't another form of life lived somewhere else.

Adam wasn't told that he would go to a place of eternal torment if he sinned...he was simply told that he would die and return to dust...nothing more.

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.

There is nothing to torment. At death a person ceases to exist. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10) There is no immortal soul, so the dead sleep in a peaceful rest until the resurrection. Which does not take place until God's kingdom is ruling the earth. (John 5:28, 29) if Christ calls the dead from their graves, then they must all still be in them...both righteous and unrighteous.

When Jesus sentenced the Pharisees to "Gehenna" he was simply saying that they would not be considered worthy of a resurrection. Those in Gehenna stay dead.

In Revelation 14:11 it says that the "smoke of their torment goes up". Picture it in your mind. What is smoke an indication of? A fire obviously...and what is fire used to symbolise in the Bible? Complete destruction! What is left after a fire has destroyed everything, reducing them to ashes? The smouldering continues as the last vestiges are consumed.
You cannot torment the dead...only the living.
The Bible says that only the righteous are granted everlasting life.....in order to torment the wicked, God would have to make them live forever too....wouldn't he?

God is not a fiend...he is the epitome of love.....how is this eternal torment an expression of his love or his justice? An eternal punishment for a short life of sin? The punishment does not fit the crime! Nor does it fit God's personality at all.

This is nonsense!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

There is nothing to torment. At death a person ceases to exist. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10) There is no immortal soul, so the dead sleep in a peaceful rest until the resurrection. Which does not take place until God's kingdom is ruling the earth. (John 5:28, 29) if Christ calls the dead from their graves, then they must all still be in them...both righteous and unrighteous.

Rev 6:9-10 (ESVST) 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Does "SLAIN" mean killed? Does being killed mean you're "DEAD"? Were the "DEAD" souls talking in their sleep? These verses show a much different view of death than the WT/GB tell. "IF" the souls didn't exist, why were they given white robes and told to "REST A LITTLE LONGER"?


2Co 5:1-8 (ESVST) 1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened — not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Sure sounds like there is more to our body then a life force! Our bodies are just earthly homes, tents. Which means there is something alive, living in these bodies!

 

[JayJayDee]

Yes JW's preach another gospel, a different gospel from what we read in the NT.

No....JW's preach a different gospel to Christendom's interpretation of the NT...that would be because Christendom has never taught the truth about Jesus.

Please prove with Scripture that Jesus' 2nd coming occurred in 1914 because that is the gospel JW's preach.

It's quite simple. The Bible itself gives the formula for calculating the time of Jesus' return as king of the kingdom.
It's the same method from the book of Daniel that the Jews used to calculate when Messiah was due to put in his first appearance.

Under the heading "Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that God’s Kingdom was established in 1914?"
We demonstrate how the calculation was made.

Dates — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

It is noteworthy that understanding when the "last days" began, does not allow us to figure out when the end will come. But world events indicate that it must be close. We continue to keep on the watch as Jesus told us. (Matt 24:42-44)

Daniel saw in vision, the future enthronement of Jehovah's king. (Dan 7:13, 14) This was unseen to human eyes and like all of Daniel's prophesies, pertained to "the time of the end" (Dan 12:4, 9, 10)

The fact that Jesus needed to give a "sign of his presence and of the conclusion of things" means that we can only identify his "presence" as king by the signs he told us to look for. (Matt 24:3-14) It was to begin with unprecedented war, followed by food shortages, pestilence, great earthquakes, an increase in lawlessness and the love of people growing cold. (Luke 21:7-28) A global preaching was also to take place during this time.

By the time people "see" Jesus "coming on the clouds with power and great glory" it will be too late for people to respond to the preaching that Jesus commanded for this time period.

This is why we see 1914 as the beginning of the time of the end. Christ is reigning as king of God's kingdom right now, but he has not made his appearance as judge yet. (2 Thess 1:6-9) Time is running out.

 

[Pegg]

How is it YOU are such an expert in interpreting Revelation and ALL others outside Watchtower's Org are incorrect? Has Jesus spoken to YOU personally and told YOU what each vision means?

Look how wrong Watchtower's previous interpretations have been. How could any right thinking person ever believe or trust the interpretations of Watchtower or YOU?

It comes down to drinking from clean water sources

 

[savagewind]

God .........is the epitome of love

Tell me please that if God is the epitome of love (I believe it!) and love does not become provoked how is it that God has been provoked many times and will be provoked in the future to destroy a world of people?

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love+ is patient*+ and kind.+ Love is not jealous.+ It does not brag, does not get puffed up,+5 does not behave indecently,*+ does not look for its own interests,+ does not become provoked.+ It does not keep account of the injury.*+6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness,+ but rejoices with the truth.7 It bears all things,+ believes all things,+ hopes all things,+ endures all things.+

Was not God provoked (or moved to action) when God sent Jesus to the earth?

pro·voke
prəˈvōk/
verb

1. stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
   "the decision provoked a storm of protest from civil rights organizations"
   synonyms: arouse, produce, evoke, cause, give rise to, occasion, call forth, elicit,induce, excite, spark off, touch off, kindle, generate, engender,instigate, result in, lead to, bring on, precipitate, prompt, trigger;
   literarybeget
   "the plan has provoked outrage"
   • stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them.
     "a teacher can provoke you into working harder"
     synonyms: goad, spur, prick, sting, prod, egg on, incite, rouse, stir, move,stimulate, motivate, excite, inflame, work/fire up, impel
     "she was provoked into replying"
   • deliberately make (someone) annoyed or angry.
     "Rachel refused to be provoked"
     synonyms: annoy, anger, incense, enrage, irritate, infuriate, exasperate,madden, nettle, get/take a rise out of, ruffle, ruffle someone's feathers, make someone's hackles rise;