The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

How can Jehovah's Witnesses be the "one true church" if they themselves make mistakes and revise their doctrine, dogma and practices?

Exhibit a) before the NWT (New World Translation) of the Bible was published, Jehovah's Witnesses used the American Standard Version (ASV). Both translations honor the name of Jehovah but there are stark differences.

The NWT is the only translation (that I know of) which has Jesus "impaled on a stake" instead of crucified on a cross, as virtually every other translation posits.

The first volume of the NWT was originally released in 1950.

How can JWs be the "only true church" if it was evolving, fallible and subject to revision?

And exhibit b) how can JWs be the only true church with dimly supported and strange doctrines such as the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before the Nativity?

Exhibit c) How can the JWs be the only true church if they falsely predicted that Jesus would return in 1914?

And when that return did not materialized, they revised their prediction and now conveniently claim his return was "invisible".

"One true Church" or fringe sect?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #11

Post by JehovahsWitness »

QUESTION: Have other religions and bible scholars identified Michael as Jesus Christ?

"We believe that the term "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God [...]" - Seventh Day Aventist Website (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q08.htm)

"As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Vol.2 (1561), Chapter 12, Lecture Sixty Fifth

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael (the archangel) with the preincarnate Christ" - John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. III, p.2048.

"Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector. 'At that time,' when the persecution is at the hottest, 'Michael shall stand up,'" - Matthew Henry's Commentary

"We have shown elsewhere that the Archangel Michael is an image of Christ victoriously combatant. Christ is an Archangel in His quality of judge ..." Lange's Commentary (1874), on Rev. 12:1-12, Exegetical and Critical Synoptic View, p. 238.[/i]

"A dispassionate consideration can scarcely fail to convince us that this being whom Daniel saw [Daniel 12:1] is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God." - Fairbair's Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ" - Gill's Exposition of the Bible

"Shall Michael stand up,] i.e., The Lord Christ (that Prince of angels, and protector of his people)..." - John Trapp's Commentary

"The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel." - Geneva Notes

"So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant."-- International Bible Dictionary, A Bible Dictionary by Logos International,

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." - An Exposition of the Bible produced by 27 different scholars

"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree." -- William L Alexander, doctor of divinity stated, a Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, vol. 3, p. 158

Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:21 am, edited 14 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #12

Post by Pierac »

Elijah John wrote: How can Jehovah's Witnesses be the "one true church" if they themselves make mistakes and revise their doctrine, dogma and practices?

Exhibit a) before the NWT (New World Translation) of the Bible was published, Jehovah's Witnesses used the American Standard Version (ASV). Both translations honor the name of Jehovah but there are stark differences.

The NWT is the only translation (that I know of) which has Jesus "impaled on a stake" instead of crucified on a cross, as virtually every other translation posits.

The first volume of the NWT was originally released in 1950.

How can JWs be the "only true church" if it was evolving, fallible and subject to revision?

And exhibit b) how can JWs be the only true church with dimly supported and strange doctrines such as the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before the Nativity?

Exhibit c) How can the JWs be the only true church if they falsely predicted that Jesus would return in 1914?

And when that return did not materialized, they revised their prediction and now conveniently claim his return was "invisible".

"One true Church" or fringe sect?

You just described every... and I mean every single Christian Church in Biblical History!
I could substitute "Jehovah's Witnesses" with "Roman Catholic" in your question and we would have the same out come! Along with "Methodist", "Baptist", "Presbyterian"... and the list could go on and on etc.... What's your point? So... you disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses... yet you have no more Biblical support for your Christian Cult than they do... That's what you fail to see... your no different in the "revise their doctrine, dogma and practices" department... AS... Every Christian religion has been there and done that!!!

:study:
Paul

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #13

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 12 by Pierac] Are we to simply forget that they refer to every other branch of Christianity as part of Satan's orginization?


Perhaps that makes sense from the 1931 perspective, but it certainly will not work from this months statement.
12. Since the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible, what questions arise?

12 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,� which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?� (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. THE WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) FEBRUARY 2017
I think the GB is disassociating themselves of responsibility for the actions of its followers. They are going to throw the rank and file to the wolves.

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #14

Post by Pierac »

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 12 by Pierac] Are we to simply forget that they refer to every other branch of Christianity as part of Satan's orginization?


Perhaps that makes sense from the 1931 perspective, but it certainly will not work from this months statement.
12. Since the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible, what questions arise?

12 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,� which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?� (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. THE WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) FEBRUARY 2017
I think the GB is disassociating themselves of responsibility for the actions of its followers. They are going to throw the rank and file to the wolves.
Trust me... you go against any organized Christian organization... and you will be hit with the same accusation... that was my point!

You don't agree... then you are of Satan! that's everyone's motto!


:study:
Paul
Last edited by Pierac on Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #15

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Elijah John wrote:

OK here's a tougher one. Prove from Scripture that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

I already did , here's the link in case you missed my explanation. Additional references above.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 86#p780486
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Re: The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses

Post #16

Post by Pierac »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Elijah John wrote:

OK here's a tougher one. Prove from Scripture that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

I already did , here'so the link in case you missed my explanation. Additional references above.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 486#780486
He's not..... Jesus is not even born yet! Yet to exist except in the mind of God!

Scripture is clear on this topic....


The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord or Michael the Archangel being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son� (v 1-2).
So, the Son of God “did not speak� in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in “portions,� whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared “in these last days� that we have heard God speak “in his Son.� This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

Paul could not be more clear... Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son� (v 1-2).


:study:
Paul

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #17

Post by Elijah John »

Elijah John wrote: Just to clarify, my point is not to suggest that the JWs have no value as an organization, or are evil or deceptive, but rather that they do not, (and no one for that matter), have any grounds to make such and exclusive claim as to being the "only true Church".

The implication being, that every other one is false.

I applaud JWs for teaching love of God and Neighbor..like most every other Christian sect, Judaism and Islam too for that matter!

And isn't that unifying teaching of love far more important and essential than anything else a given religion teaches in their attempts to differentiate themselves from "the other"?
@ Pierac

That's part of my point Paul. Please review this post of mine. (#4) I think we are in agreement.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #18

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to Elijah John]

To answer your question, I find the Watchtower Society to be an anti-intellectual, anti-social fringe sect or cult.

By discouraging members from voting, saying teh Pledge of Allegiance, singing the "National Anthem," obtaining a higher education, celebrating Christmas, etc., it is seeking to isolate members from participating in the larger whole of society. And that is precisely what cults do.

The Society is vehemently anti-intellectual, noted for its rantings against higher education. Accordingly, Charles Taze Russell said, " I advice all Christians not to send their children to colleges or universities; for if they do, they risk a great deal through infidelity and unbelief, and they will be doing their children a positive injury." This demonizing of higher education is echoed time and again in the Watchtower literature. "Watchtower," 1969, Mar. 15, p.171 says, " Many schools have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school. Do not be deceived by them. Do not let them brainwash you with the Devil's propaganda."

The Society has a long, well=documented history of vicious anti-Semitic propaganda. Rutherford, the Society's president for over 20 years, said that the Jew is that hook-nosed guy standing on the corner, trying to grab every nickel you have.
In 1933, the Society published its "Declaration of Facts" and also a letter to Hitler. In the former document, it embraced the Nazi ideology that Jewish bankers are responsible for all the world's troubles. It also stated that as far as New York goes, the Jews own it, the Catholics run it, and the Americans pay for it. In previous posts, I have published the full texts of these documents, by the way. In the Society's "Reasoning from the Scripture," a special section is devoted to "Jews." There, we are told the Jews are definitely not God's chosen people. Accordingly, 'if the Jews who say they are under the Mosaic law, were today in Jerusalem as God's chosen people, would not the temple devoted to his worship have been rebuilt?" And we are also told of Israel that "its leaders do not give credit to the Lord God."

The majority of major biblical scholars consider the NWT to be a corrupt translation. Metzger, one of the great deans of NT scholarship, called it "a frightful mistranslation,""erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible." And rightly so, given that it inserts "Lord Jehovah" over 239 times in the NT, where it was never used in the original text, not to mention that "Jehovah" itself is major mistranslation. Also, its translation of John 1 as "a god" is totally unwarranted, breaks Colwell's rule, and is totally out of context.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Post #19

Post by 2timothy316 »

Elijah John wrote: Just to clarify, my point is not to suggest that the JWs have no value as an organization, or are evil or deceptive, but rather that they do not, (and no one for that matter), have any grounds to make such and exclusive claim as to being the "only true Church".

The implication being, that every other one is false.

I applaud JWs for teaching love of God and Neighbor..like most every other Christian sect, Judaism and Islam too for that matter!

And isn't that unifying teaching of love far more important and essential than anything else a given religion teaches in their attempts to differentiate themselves from "the other"?
At some point everyone should ask this question about their religion or the doctrines they follow.

So what other questions should we be asking?

The first major question is, 'Is all worship acceptable to God'?

No. Even in the first case of two competing acts of worship, one was favored and the other was not.

Cain and Abel: "Abel became a shepherd of the flock, but Cain became a cultivator of the ground. After some time, Cain brought some fruits of the land as an offering to Jehovah. But Abel brought some firstlings of his flock, including their fat. While Jehovah looked with favor on Abel and on his offering, he did not look with any favor on Cain and on his offering." Gen 4:2-5.

So we can see there is a right way and wrong way. The wrong way can be corrected. We read further that Jehovah told Cain that he can turn to correct worship in Gen 4:7.

Throughout the Bible this plays out in many more accounts of what is accepted and what is not. Those that do worship correctly are called 'God's people'. Jeremiah says it this way. "“Obey my voice, and I will become your God, and you will become my people. You must walk in all the way that I command, so that it may go well with you.� Jeremiah 7:23.

So how do people become 'God's people'? They obey His voice.

That leads to more big questions. Who are listening to His voice and obeying His commandments? What is God's voice? What are God's commandments?

This is where people start muddying the waters with their own beliefs and personal desires. If Jehovah didn't give us a way to find out then that would be unrighteous of Him. So there must be a way to know. If there is a way to know then there is a way to obey and if there is a way to obey, then there are those that God calls His people.

Therefore before JWs can even be identified as God's people one needs to answer, ' has God ever had a people'? According to the Bible the answer is yes. He has always had a group of faithful people that obey Him. Bibically speaking He has always had some group of people, sometimes a few and sometimes many. From Able to the last living apostle, Jehovah has always had people that He calls His own.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #20

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 19 by 2timothy316]
What then? Would it be rightous of God to bring a true represetitive into disrepute or insist that people must obey false doctrine or lose their salvation?
Deuteronomy 18:21-22New International Version (NIV)

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?� 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

Post Reply