Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible

[WebersHome]

.
[font=Verdana]CONTACT

My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and inexperienced; and thus assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down my dad's driveway was a typical Christian.

But when I talked this over with an elder; he became alarmed; and urged me to read a little book titled "30 Years A Watchtower Slave" by William J. Schnell; whom the Society at one time demonized as an agent of Satan. I would not be surprised if it still does.

After getting my eyes opened by Mr. Schnell's book, I was afterwards steered towards another book titled "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter Martin. No doubt the Society demonizes Mr. Martin too.

Around late 1980, my wife and I attended a series of lectures sponsored by a local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The speaker (call him Pete) was an ex JW who had been in the Watchtower Society system for near three decades before terminating his involvement; so he knew the twists and turns of its doctrines pretty good.

Later on, I read a book titled "Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. I also read the Society's little brown book titled "Reasoning From The Scriptures".

(This was all before the internet and the ready volume of information available online, e.g. YouTube.)

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although the Watchtower Society uses many of classical Christianity's standard terms and phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in the Witness mind than what you'd expect because the Society has re-defined the meanings of those terminologies.

So the first challenge with Watchtower Society teachings is to scale the language barrier. That by itself is an Herculean task because we're not only be up against a tangle of semantics, but also a Jumanji of twisted scriptures, double speak, humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, and clever sophistry.
_[/font]

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by WebersHome]

Precisely how an everlasting creator can exist simultaneously as a created thing is one of the mysteries of classical Christianity that has to be taken on faith rather than reason

Let me take a stab at it. As Paul points out, Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence(1.Cor.8:6), but as the means, Christ is not a thing. The common denominator among all that exists is existence, but no one has their own existence. Things exist because existence exists.

The creator doesn't exist "as a created thing" though, but within created things, and not just Jesus. As Christ points out, "Apart from me, you can do nothing". Paul reiterates this by pointing out that "within him all the fulness of the godhead dwells". God is the origin of all that exists, but God is also the origin of existence. Therefore, the fullness of God can only be expressed in, with, and through existence, and by extension all that exists.

people taught never to speak with Jesus Christ in prayer are dead on the hoof; which is indeed tragic because it is God's pleasure that people communicate with His son.

I would only add that it is not just with, but in and through His son.
====

CHRIST'S PARABLES

Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Yes, and even though the stories are not historically factual, they are not only plausible, but can be about personages who actually exist.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that the story is fiction;

It is not just commonly alledged. The structure of the gospel itself testifies to the fact that the parables Christ has just related previously necessarily include this one as well. There is a chiasma which matches this parable with another set of miracles earlier in the gospel narrative. To say this is not included with the other parables would be like saying that one of the miracles recorded earlier wasn't actually a miracle because there is some logical explanation.

the parable theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character:

Again, there is no rule or law or anything within the definition of the figure Parable that prevents parables from employing real people. The figure is also known as "a continued simili". The critical thing to remember here is that the events must be possible, but not in all aspects or points regardless of whether they are true or imaginary.

One need look no further than current events reported in the news to find parables. A Tsunami drowns the inhabitants of a tropical resort, but later we discover that the wildlife evacuated twenty minutes prior to the first wave hitting. Evolutionists and Creationists alike are left scratching their heads as to how the crowns of evolution or creation could be oblivious to how what God or evolution tells us are lower or to be put under our control are now reigning with no human beings to knock them off their thrones.

I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's buddies.

The problem arises in not being cognizant of the context in which this set of parables occur in the narrative. They correspond to the miracles in chapters 11-13. We do not have the authority to take a set of parables and inject an arbitrary rule to set apart one from the rest and declare it literal historical fact simply because a personage from history is being employed. Paul himself takes a historical event and blatantly turns it into allegory. No one would then come to the conclusion that the historical event the allegory was drawn from is no longer a historical event, nor is there any reason to assume Paul has become a liar.

Jesus is addressing the Pharisees for their false doctrines as well as their self justification which he terms "an abomination". He then proceeds to relate to them a parable using their own false doctrines to condemm them. It is a parable that can only be inspired by God in its effectiveness in cutting them down to the bone into inconsequential sub-atomic particles.

the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

You have just effectively stated that if the story is fiction, then it is bearing false witness, but that's a non sequitur because the story is pressented as a work of fiction; a parable. Not only is it not a violation of the commandment, the Pharisees are well aware that Jesus isn't relating an actual event to them at all. They are ready to kill him for the explicit message of the story. They are the rich man in the story, and their own father of the faith is pointing out that they blew it. Christ is using doctrines the Pharisees brought with them from the Babylonian captivity e.g. the three places one goes after death, 1. The bosom of Abraham; 2.under the throne of glory; and 3. the garden of Eden. They also taught that there were three sets of angels that carried off wicked men, and another set for others (e.g." and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom")

Here's the structure (the figure is known as Alternation) of the passage:

Christ address to the Pharisees.

A. What the Pharisees esteemed (God's abomination) vs.15
B. The law and the prophets proclaimed vss. 16,17
A.What the Phariees taught (God's abomination) vss.18-30
B. The law and the prophets not believed vs. 31

This condemnation extends to modern Christianity as well in that the law and the prophets are effectively rendered inconsequential by modern day Christian traditions and doctrines. The supreme irony here is in noting that Christians believe the teachings of the Pharisees rather than what Christ taught. Christ's conclusion to his parable is just as applicable.


Your conclusion, which follows is also a non sequitur

So,... there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety

No, this is what the Pharisees taught. This passage has been used by scholars to suggest that Christ himself was a Pharisee. Christ uses their own false doctrines against them. He always speaks in the language of those he is addressing. He uses terminology, ideas, imagery, etc. that they can understand clearly. The only exception being parables that aren't meant for others to understand. In this case it is meant for those spreading these false doctrines.


====

The Watchtower Society will never accept classical Christianity's teaching that Jesus Christ is Jehovah incognito simply because the Society's undying premise is that it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously.

I could be wrong here, but I'm not so sure that classical Christianity believes that Christ is Jehovah incognito. We could just as easily say that a river, stream, or a cup of water are the ocean incognito. Paul clearly distinguishes between God and Christ in 1Cor.8:6, and when he states that "in" Christ is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, he is not suggesting that the bodily form is God. Christ points out that "that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and never the twain shall meet. The flesh sins while the spirit is everlasting life. Those who walk after the spirit are not those who walk after the flesh. Paul points out that we "walk in the flesh", but one cannnot be in something and be that thing as well. We can walk in a suit, but we are not that suit.

1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed attentively and our hands felt, concerning the word of life, (yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,)

The Greek word for "everlasting" in that passage is aionios (ahee-o'-nee-os) which essentially means perpetual; viz: without interruption.

The Word's human existence as per John 1:14 was as a mortal life and thus easily interrupted; but seeing as how the Word's spirit existence as per 1John 1:1-2 is an everlasting life, then it's impossible for the Word's spirit existence to be interrupted.

This all makes sense except for the part where you say "as a mortal life". I think it would be more accurate to say "in a mortal life", no? The Word is essentially existence itself so it does not exist as anything, but in, with, and through those things. In other words, the Word is not what it creates, but the means of creation itself. Both examples from John are pointing out that what they are witnessing are life being made manifest, but they are not mistaking the works of creation with the animating force of creation.

Jehovah cannot interrupt His existence as God because Jehovah is an everlasting life (Gen 21:33, Rom 16:26). In the same manner, the Word cannot interrupt his existence as the Word because the Word is an everlasting life too. (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2)

I don't see this as accurate either. Neither Jehovah or the word are "an" everlasting life. Jehovah is the source of everlasting life, while Christ is the means of everlasting life. They are respectively, the essence and expression of everlasting life. It is redundant to say "an" everlasting life. It suggests that there are others when there can only be One.

The Word may have temporarily divested himself of his glory when he came to the earth to live and die as a human being, but he did not, and could not, divest himself of his spirit existence because in order to do that, he would have to die; which is an impossibility for everlasting life. If that were not so, then it would be possible to assassinate Jehovah. In point of fact, it would even be possible for Jehovah to commit suicide.

There's a certain logic to what you're saying here, but I see no need to make it so complicated. The word has no self, and does nothing temporarily. The emptying is intrinsic to the Word. The glory emanates from Jehovah, and the Word is that glory being emptied eternally. Christ shows that the glory of God is manifest in, with, and through not just Jesus, but all of humanity. The problem is in not noticing that the rest of humanity see's themselves as a termination point for God's glory, grace, mercy, etc. rather than as a channel. Christ doesn't just make the command, but simply observes that "you are the light of the world".

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by WebersHome]

Precisely how an everlasting creator can exist simultaneously as a created thing is one of the mysteries of classical Christianity that has to be taken on faith rather than reason

Let me take a stab at it. As Paul points out, Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence(1.Cor.8:6), but as the means, Christ is not a thing. The common denominator among all that exists is existence, but no one has their own existence. Things exist because existence exists.

The creator doesn't exist "as a created thing" though, but within created things, and not just Jesus. As Christ points out, "Apart from me, you can do nothing". Paul reiterates this by pointing out that "within him all the fulness of the godhead dwells". God is the origin of all that exists, but God is also the origin of existence. Therefore, the fullness of God can only be expressed in, with, and through existence, and by extension all that exists.

people taught never to speak with Jesus Christ in prayer are dead on the hoof; which is indeed tragic because it is God's pleasure that people communicate with His son.

I would only add that it is not just with, but in and through His son.
====

CHRIST'S PARABLES

Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Yes, and even though the stories are not historically factual, they are not only plausible, but can be about personages who actually exist.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that the story is fiction;

It is not just commonly alledged. The structure of the gospel itself testifies to the fact that the parables Christ has just related previously necessarily include this one as well. There is a chiasma which matches this parable with another set of miracles earlier in the gospel narrative. To say this is not included with the other parables would be like saying that one of the miracles recorded earlier wasn't actually a miracle because there is some logical explanation.

the parable theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character:

Again, there is no rule or law or anything within the definition of the figure Parable that prevents parables from employing real people. The figure is also known as "a continued simili". The critical thing to remember here is that the events must be possible, but not in all aspects or points regardless of whether they are true or imaginary.

One need look no further than current events reported in the news to find parables. A Tsunami drowns the inhabitants of a tropical resort, but later we discover that the wildlife evacuated twenty minutes prior to the first wave hitting. Evolutionists and Creationists alike are left scratching their heads as to how the crowns of evolution or creation could be oblivious to how what God or evolution tells us are lower or to be put under our control are now reigning with no human beings to knock them off their thrones.

I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's buddies.

The problem arises in not being cognizant of the context in which this set of parables occur in the narrative. They correspond to the miracles in chapters 11-13. We do not have the authority to take a set of parables and inject an arbitrary rule to set apart one from the rest and declare it literal historical fact simply because a personage from history is being employed. Paul himself takes a historical event and blatantly turns it into allegory. No one would then come to the conclusion that the historical event the allegory was drawn from is no longer a historical event, nor is there any reason to assume Paul has become a liar.

Jesus is addressing the Pharisees for their false doctrines as well as their self justification which he terms "an abomination". He then proceeds to relate to them a parable using their own false doctrines to condemm them. It is a parable that can only be inspired by God in its effectiveness in cutting them down to the bone into inconsequential sub-atomic particles.

the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

You have just effectively stated that if the story is fiction, then it is bearing false witness, but that's a non sequitur because the story is pressented as a work of fiction; a parable. Not only is it not a violation of the commandment, the Pharisees are well aware that Jesus isn't relating an actual event to them at all. They are ready to kill him for the explicit message of the story. They are the rich man in the story, and their own father of the faith is pointing out that they blew it. Christ is using doctrines the Pharisees brought with them from the Babylonian captivity e.g. the three places one goes after death, 1. The bosom of Abraham; 2.under the throne of glory; and 3. the garden of Eden. They also taught that there were three sets of angels that carried off wicked men, and another set for others (e.g." and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom")

Here's the structure (the figure is known as Alternation) of the passage:

Christ address to the Pharisees.

A. What the Pharisees esteemed (God's abomination) vs.15
B. The law and the prophets proclaimed vss. 16,17
A.What the Phariees taught (God's abomination) vss.18-30
B. The law and the prophets not believed vs. 31

This condemnation extends to modern Christianity as well in that the law and the prophets are effectively rendered inconsequential by modern day Christian traditions and doctrines. The supreme irony here is in noting that Christians believe the teachings of the Pharisees rather than what Christ taught. Christ's conclusion to his parable is just as applicable.


Your conclusion, which follows is also a non sequitur

So,... there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety

No, this is what the Pharisees taught. This passage has been used by scholars to suggest that Christ himself was a Pharisee. Christ uses their own false doctrines against them. He always speaks in the language of those he is addressing. He uses terminology, ideas, imagery, etc. that they can understand clearly. The only exception being parables that aren't meant for others to understand. In this case it is meant for those spreading these false doctrines.


====

The Watchtower Society will never accept classical Christianity's teaching that Jesus Christ is Jehovah incognito simply because the Society's undying premise is that it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously.

I could be wrong here, but I'm not so sure that classical Christianity believes that Christ is Jehovah incognito. We could just as easily say that a river, stream, or a cup of water are the ocean incognito. Paul clearly distinguishes between God and Christ in 1Cor.8:6, and when he states that "in" Christ is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, he is not suggesting that the bodily form is God. Christ points out that "that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and never the twain shall meet. The flesh sins while the spirit is everlasting life. Those who walk after the spirit are not those who walk after the flesh. Paul points out that we "walk in the flesh", but one cannnot be in something and be that thing as well. We can walk in a suit, but we are not that suit.

1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed attentively and our hands felt, concerning the word of life, (yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,)

The Greek word for "everlasting" in that passage is aionios (ahee-o'-nee-os) which essentially means perpetual; viz: without interruption.

The Word's human existence as per John 1:14 was as a mortal life and thus easily interrupted; but seeing as how the Word's spirit existence as per 1John 1:1-2 is an everlasting life, then it's impossible for the Word's spirit existence to be interrupted.

This all makes sense except for the part where you say "as a mortal life". I think it would be more accurate to say "in a mortal life", no? The Word is essentially existence itself so it does not exist as anything, but in, with, and through those things. In other words, the Word is not what it creates, but the means of creation itself. Both examples from John are pointing out that what they are witnessing are life being made manifest, but they are not mistaking the works of creation with the animating force of creation.

Jehovah cannot interrupt His existence as God because Jehovah is an everlasting life (Gen 21:33, Rom 16:26). In the same manner, the Word cannot interrupt his existence as the Word because the Word is an everlasting life too. (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2)

I don't see this as accurate either. Neither Jehovah or the word are "an" everlasting life. Jehovah is the source of everlasting life, while Christ is the means of everlasting life. They are respectively, the essence and expression of everlasting life. It is redundant to say "an" everlasting life. It suggests that there are others when there can only be One.

The Word may have temporarily divested himself of his glory when he came to the earth to live and die as a human being, but he did not, and could not, divest himself of his spirit existence because in order to do that, he would have to die; which is an impossibility for everlasting life. If that were not so, then it would be possible to assassinate Jehovah. In point of fact, it would even be possible for Jehovah to commit suicide.

There's a certain logic to what you're saying here, but I see no need to make it so complicated. The word has no self, and does nothing temporarily. The emptying is intrinsic to the Word. The glory emanates from Jehovah, and the Word is that glory being emptied eternally. Christ shows that the glory of God is manifest in, with, and through not just Jesus, but all of humanity. The problem is in not noticing that the rest of humanity see's themselves as a termination point for God's glory, grace, mercy, etc. rather than as a channel. Christ doesn't just make the command, but simply observes that "you are the light of the world".

[JehovahsWitness]

... Christians really ought to know something about New Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about the kingdom.

WHY ARE JEHOVAH'S WITTNESSES SO FAMILIAR WITH THE BIBLE?


JEHOVAH'S Witneses are well educated when it comes to teaching and preaching the good news of the kingdom. They have all completed a bible course designed for new disciples and all new ministers are trained in the field individually on a one on one basis by an experienced teacher. As well as the above ALL all Jehovahs Witnesses follow an ongoing weekly training program solidly based on the holy bible and how to use it effectively in teaching.

Those in a position to do so who preach full time also attend regular specially designed training programs for full time evangelizers and the Jehovahs Witnesses also have a number of bible schools for intensive bible classes which range from one week to 5 months . Arguably Jehovah's Witnesses is the religion whose members are most familiar with the bible due to their extensive bible educational programs.

All bible educational programs are conducted free of charge.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

How is it that Jehovah's Witnesses are so familiar with the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p961599

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

What is the official statement of the JWs regarding the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 25#p873125

What is a Kingdom Hall and what happens in them?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 86#p960286

How can I contact Jehovah's Witnesses ?
viewtopic.php?p=1058289#p1058289

FURTHER READING: Do Jehovah's Witnesses Have Their Own Bible?
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... bible-nwt/

Go to other posts related to JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , THE NEW WORD TRANSLATION and ...JW ARTWORK

[shnarkle]

... Christians really ought to know something about New Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about the kingdom.

WHY ARE JEHOVAH'S WITTNESSES SO FAMILIAR WITH THE BIBLE?

Jehovah's Witnesses are so familiar with the bible for the exact same reason Pharisees are so familiar with the bible. There are two problems with this level of familiarity. The first is that even though they may be some of the most familiar with these texts, their interpretations are just as incorrect as their Pharisaic counterparts. Secondly, a familiarity is of no use when one isn't reborn (e.g. Nicodemus).

I have had Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly point out to me that Jehovah has cast away the Jews. When I show where Paul says the exact opposite, they become mute, and leave. Why? Because they have no defense for their position.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not alone in this predicament. All of Christianity has no clue how to defend their faith. They can't even begin to comprehend what Paul is saying in his letters.

Jehovah's Witnesses get some things right, but then completely blow it. They can see that Jesus isn't God, but then assume that Jesus created the world never noticing that when John says, "the word became flesh", it doesn't mean that Jesus became a human being. It means that the word became a human being who was then named Jesus.

They assume that Jehovah created "the word" never noticing the difference between "progeny" and a "project".

All of Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses included, are incapable of distinguishing between keeping God's laws, and the laws that were added to deal with transgression of God's laws. They can't distinguish between laws that are "established" verses those that are done away. They can't distinguish between laws that are "for" our benefit verses those that are "against us".

All of Christianity assumes that it is possible to worship God objectively, never noticing that to do so is to become an idolater. The whole world is truly deceived, and when Christian has no explanation or defense for their faith, they are no different than anyone who blindly follows the teachings of a cult.

[JehovahsWitness]

The goal is to show missionaries that the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option

QUESTION Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe their interpretation of scriptures is true because they haven't heard any alternatives?

♦ANSWER Certainly not. Jehovah's Witnesses are well aware that there is a plethora of biblical interpretations in the world, and are usually intimately familiar with many of them. The Jehovah's Witnesses know there are many religious views some elements of which are similar or exactly the same as their own, and others very different.

#1) The study of the beliefs and practices of various religions is part of their public ministry training program. After all, how can one attempt to expose the teaching of the trinity as a falsehood, if one has never heard of it or doesn't know what that teaching is? It is not unusual for the Jehovahs Witness literature to refer to what biblical scholars and church leaders teach as part of a thie exzmjnaation of a particular bible topic.

#2) Further, many of Jehovah's Witnesses are actually former Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists.. ect and believed alternative readings Indeed, it should also be noted that the majority of Jehovahs Witnesses were not raised in the faith, and some even vehemently opposed the religion of Jehovahs Witnesses in favor of their own .. so naturally such ones are very familiar with alternative understandings of Scripture. Other Jehovah's Witnesses are in marriages divided on religious matters where their spouces propose alternative beliefs and interpretations and, as is their right, teach such alternatives to any children they may have. All Jehovahs Witnesses have non-witnness friends and family members and it would be most unusual for Witnesses not to engage in religious discussions with them.

The majority of Jehovahs Witnesses were not raised in the faith but came to it as adults from atheism or alternative religions.

#3) All JWs also engage in public ministry, preaching house to house and meeting people of all kinds of faiths so they are regularly exposed to different interprtations of Scripture. Indeed JWs are arguably the most informed people on earth when it comes to what people believe and how others interpret scripture.

CONCLUSION Unlike some religious adherents that are raised in a commune and have little contact with the outside world and little exposure to alternative views, Jehovahs Witnesses do not hold their present viiews because they are unaware or unfamiliar with alternative belief systems and interprtations. They believe as they do because after due reflection and diligent examination of the facts they have come to the conclusion their organisation holds the biblical interpretations that best reflect God's revealed enlightenment at his due time.

RELATED POSTS

Are Jehovah's Witnesses concerned that most of the world's religions hold different beliefs to their own?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 000#926000

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe their is the only true religion?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 315#868315

Go to other posts related to JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , THE NEW WORD TRANSLATION and ...HERMENEUTICS*

* Interpreting the bible