ADMISSION: JW Beliefs Don't Come From The Bible

[imJRR]

After only a minute or so found what you asked for. From Be Big Enough to Admit a Mistake we read:

So read it and weep--you falsely accused the Jehovah's Witnesses of not admitting error. And note that they cite the Bible to base their beliefs on--more proof that you are wrong about them.

I wonder if your admission of error will happen.

I'm no supporter of the Watchtower, and I disagree with them on many issues, but I just won't stand by while they are libeled. What you've posted is bearing false witness against the Witnesses.

No weeping or libel or false witness here at all - What you've posted does not work, and here's how and why:
First of all, the observance of Christmas is not a doctrinal issue to begin with - It is a personal conscience issue that people can decide on for themselves...unless you are a JW thrall and are absolutely bound to receive, believe and follow whatever the JW "leaders" dictate to you.

Secondly, the whole "pagan origins" idea is as bogus as a three dollar bill. The JW insistence that whatever meaning a certain day was given way, way back when for some pagans who lived way over wherever, those ancient meanings are still binding on people today is simply not true. Here's why: There are many things we utilize today that have their origin in paganism, such as our calendar. (You do know that the days of the week and months are named after pagan gods, yes?). If JWs were truly concerned and consistent regarding their belief and argument of "This has pagan origins, and therefore should not be observed/used", then they should never use calendars. But the truth is, JWs use the verse mentioned in the article to justify their cherry-picked "convictions".

The simple fact, truth, and reality is that many things that were at one time venerated/worshiped by ancient pagans on the other side of the world do not have today whatever idolatrous meaning and significance they were once given. Even the JW "leaders" admit to this:
From the Watchtower magazine of May 15, 1972 (p. 295): "Whether an object is an idol or not primarily depends on how it is viewed…. the fact that various creatures, plants and heavenly bodies – all parts of God’s creative works - have been and still are being given veneration would not in itself make them unacceptable for decorative or ornamental purposes. Many things that were at one time worshiped by the ancients have lost their idolatrous significance and are generally regarded as being merely ornamental."

More from the JW "leaders" on holidays and decorating for them: "The fact that other religions might take these natural things that God created and use them as symbols in idol worship did not make it wrong for true worshipers to use them decoratively. Anyone visiting the temple could tell that God’s people were not worshiping these decorations or venerating them as sacred symbols. So the Christian needs to be primarily concerned about what? Not what a certain symbol or design possibly meant thousands of years ago or how it might be thought of on the other side of the world, but what it means now to most people where he lives. With so many different designs having been used in false worship, if a person went to the trouble and took the time he might find an undesirable connection with almost every design he sees around him. But why do that? Would it not be needlessly upsetting? And is that the best use of one’s time and attention?" (Awake!, Dec. 22, 1976, pp. 12-15)

Admission of error? Nope - What they've done is a flip-flop in doctrine. Significant difference between the two things. Also, I remind you about the fact that the JW "leaders" have stated that whatever they write is to be received, believed, and followed as coming from God. Well, evidently, the "god" of the JWs changes his mind and flip-flops.

And as far as the idea of JWs "are to be in subjection to the governments of this world so long as these do not ask Christians to go contrary to God’s laws. When such governments do, then the Christian must obey the higher law" - If that is true, then WHY are the JWs so vigorously pursuing reversing the decision by the Norwegian government to not give them any more $$? Which one of "God's laws" is the Norwegian breaking by their refusal to give the Watchtower any more $$?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No weeping or libel or false witness here at all - What you've posted does not work, and here's how and why:
First of all, the observance of Christmas is not a doctrinal issue to begin with - It is a personal conscience issue that people can decide on for themselves...unless you are a JW thrall and are absolutely bound to receive, believe and follow whatever the JW "leaders" dictate to you.

I don't wish to get into a lengthy argument over what's "true" about what the Bible says about Christians observing pagan holidays although I think the Jehovah's Witnesses are right on that issue. But right or wrong, my point is that the Jehovah's Witnesses appear to genuinely think they erred by observing holidays that they later began to believe were not to be practiced, and they admitted that supposed error. Their admission of apparent error is the fact that runs counter to what you allege about them.

 

[imJRR]

What they did was flip-flop in their belief and teaching - BOTH of which are to be received, believed and followed as coming from God.

I asked you previously to consider what another poster wrote about this: What if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant or true. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

And what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more "new light", BOTH doctrines A and B are no longer true - NOW you have to believe doctrine C as truth coming from God?


Now THINK about this: The JW leaders have stated that whatever they put out in the publications is to be received, believed and followed as being truth from God. That is a fundamental and required and binding belief of JWs. There is no questioning or challenging of this allowed if a person is a JW. So whatever the JW "leaders" write at one time about holidays being "pagan" - That WAS/IS supposed to be received, believed and followed as truth from God without any question or challenging.

And then, when they flip-flop and write things like, "It depends on how a thing is viewed" and that "any things that were at one time worshiped by the ancients have lost their idolatrous significance and are generally regarded as being merely ornamental" and that the big issue is not "what a certain thing possibly meant thousands of years ago or how it might be thought of on the other side of the world, but what it means now to most people where he lives" - THAT ALSO is to be received, believed and followed as truth from God.

So WHICH ONE of these diametrically opposed "truths from God" really WAS/IS from God?

Again - Evidently, the "god" of the JWs changes his mind and flip-flops about "the truth". This absolutely begs the question: DOES God and His truth really and truly flip-flop the way the JWs do?

And the real point here is this: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how often or to what degree the JW "leaders" flip-flop and change their beliefs. Whatever tune the GB is currently playing, that's what the JW masses will dance to. This is absolutely required; this NEVER changes, no matter what.

Oh, they said the very opposite just a year or two or three ago? That doesn't matter at all - If you're a JW, you will dance to today's tune; whatever it is. This is what it is and means to be a JW. It means to be a very tightly controlled and unthinking person - a thrall - to whatever the JW "leaders" dictate to you; even when it's a flip-flop from previous "food from God". So, all of their apparent admissions don't mean squat. The rock bottom, fundamental, required belief for a JW that NEVER changes no matter what is that you receive, believe and follow WHATEVER the JW masters dictate to you - whatever it may be at the time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What they did was flip-flop in their belief and teaching - BOTH of which are to be received, believed and followed as coming from God.

God flip-flops, so I see no problem with his presumed followers doing the same. (More on this fact shortly.)

I asked you previously to consider what another poster wrote about this: What if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant or true. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

And what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more "new light", BOTH doctrines A and B are no longer true - NOW you have to believe doctrine C as truth coming from God?

Religion is like that. Doctrine evolves which is very obvious as we read the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses are no different in that regard.

Now THINK about this: The JW leaders have stated that whatever they put out in the publications is to be received, believed and followed as being truth from God. That is a fundamental and required and binding belief of JWs. There is no questioning or challenging of this allowed if a person is a JW. So whatever the JW "leaders" write at one time about holidays being "pagan" - That WAS/IS supposed to be received, believed and followed as truth from God without any question or challenging.

Can you cite a Watchtower publication that states that Jehovah's Witnesses are inerrant spokespeople for God? I couldn't find that on their website.

And then, when they flip-flop and write things like, "It depends on how a thing is viewed" and that "any things that were at one time worshiped by the ancients have lost their idolatrous significance and are generally regarded as being merely ornamental" and that the big issue is not "what a certain thing possibly meant thousands of years ago or how it might be thought of on the other side of the world, but what it means now to most people where he lives" - THAT ALSO is to be received, believed and followed as truth from God.

So WHICH ONE of these diametrically opposed "truths from God" really WAS/IS from God?

I suppose both might be from God depending on His dispensation. Christians have developed the idea of dispensationalism which is "a theological framework of interpreting the Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages or 'dispensations' in which God acts with his chosen people in different ways." So many Christians, and not just Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that God flip-flops.

I should emphasize that I'm not saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are necessarily right or wrong regarding how they interpret the Bible. What I do contend is wrong is the claim that they say that their core theological beliefs don't come from the Bible.

 

[imJRR]

God flip-flops, so I see no problem with his presumed followers doing the same. (More on this fact shortly.)

* Nope - You're wrong about that. God doesn't flip-flop. All you have posted is an imagination-based assertion. More on this later.

Religion is like that. Doctrine evolves which is very obvious as we read the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses are no different in that regard.

Nope - "Evolving" is one thing. Doing a total flip-flop is something different. And remember the REAL point with that: The real point here is this: It doesn't matter. For JWs, it doesn't matter how often or to what degree the JW "leaders" flip-flop and change their beliefs. Whatever tune the GB is currently playing, that's what the JW masses will dance to. This is absolutely required; this NEVER changes, no matter what.

Oh, they said the very opposite just a year or two or three ago? That doesn't matter at all - If you're a JW, you will dance to today's tune; whatever it is - even if it goes totally opposite of what you were previously told and required to believe. This is what it is and means to be a JW. It means to be a very tightly controlled and unthinking person - a thrall - to whatever the JW "leaders" dictate to you; even when it's a 180 degree flip-flop from previous "food from God". So, all of their apparent admissions don't mean squat. The rock bottom, fundamental, required belief for a JW that NEVER changes no matter what is that you receive, believe and follow WHATEVER the JW masters dictate to you - whatever it may be at the time.

Can you cite a Watchtower publication that states that Jehovah's Witnesses are inerrant spokespeople for God? I couldn't find that on their website.

No problem - Here is what the JW "leaders" have said about themselves and what they write:

"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower." Watchtower magazine, “Taught of God”, 11/1/31, paragraph 19

“The Governing Body publishes spiritually encouraging literature in many languages. This spiritual food is based on God’s word, thus what is taught is not from men, but from Jehovah.” (The Watchtower, "Unity Identifies True Worship", September 15, 2010, paragraph 8.)

JWs are directed to “….respond to the directions of the “slave” (the Watchtower Society) as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.” (Watchtower, June 15, 1957, p.370)

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981.

Did you get that? If you read the Bible by itself, you will become a Christian because that is exactly what the Watchtower is referring to here when it says "apostate doctrines." In other words, if you read the Bible alone, you will not arrive at Watchtower doctrines. This is an amazing admission by the JW "leaders" that clearly shows that Jehovah's Witnesses do not get their teachings from the Bible, but from the Watchtower literature.

THINK about the meaning of this quote:
By reading the Bible without JW literature, you are first of all like Satan.
By reading the Bible without JW literature you will not arrive at JW beliefs.
By reading the Bible without JW literature you will actually move away from JW beliefs to Christian beliefs.

From the October 1, 1967 Watchtower: “Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”

So, besides openly declaring that a person CANNOT understand the Bible without the Watchtower, they're also saying that it's not the Bible that has the final say in a person's life; it's what the JW masters SAY the Bible says that has the final say.

“Jehovah God caused the Bible to be written in such a way that one needs to come in touch with His human channel before one can fully and accurately understand it. True, we need the help of God’s holy spirit, but its help also comes to us primarily by association with the channel Jehovah God sees fit to use.” Watchtower Feb 15, 1981.

"Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize Jehovah's visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" and be submissive to it." Watchtower 1967 October 1 p.590 – “Finding Freedom with Jehovah's Visible Organization

"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses." Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197

The JW "leaders" use the very word prophet to designate themselves
1.Wt, 1/15/1959, pg 40, 41 Whom has God actually used as his prophet?...Jehovah’s Witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them.

2.Wt, 4/1/1972, pg 197 Who is this prophet?..Today they are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

3.Wt, 10/1/1982, pg 27 ...“prophet” class yet on earth. The “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Har-Magedon could not start before this composite “prophet” ends his work.

4.Awake, 6/8/1986, pg 9, ...all of whom are prophets, or witnesses for God. In fact, they are known throughout the world as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Now.....Are you aware of the #1 requirement in the Bible to be a prophet of God? You have to be 100% correct 100% of the time.
To say the JWs have failed at this is an understatement - They have failed miserably and repeatedly.

The JW "leaders" also exclusively claim to speak in Jehovah’s name.
1.The Nations shall know 1971, pg 58-62,....as a mouthpiece and active agent...... commission to speak as a prophet in the name of Jehovah...

2.Wt,3/15/1972, pg 189...commission to speak as a “prophet” in His name....

3.Wt,9/1/1979, pg 29, ...those of the Jeremiah class have been sent by Jehovah to speak in his name......back up their message by quoting the words, “This is what Jehovah has said.”

The JW "leaders" also claim to be the official mouthpiece and channel of Jehovah.
1.Zion’s Wt, 9/15/1895, pg 1867, reprint,.....as God’s mouthpiece in.....

2.Zion’s Wt, 7/15/1906, pg 3821, reprint.....the truths I present, as God’s mouthpiece.....

3.Wt, 7/1/1943, pg 203He merely uses his "servant" class to publish the interpretation after the Supreme Court by Christ Jesus reveals it.

4.Wt, 7/1/1943, pg 205Jehovah speaks to us through his Son....He has appointed his "faithful and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece...These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals...

5.Informant(KM), 1/1956, pg 1,...And how does he speak? Through his appointed channel of communication- his collective congregation of anointed ones...the Watchtower...to dispense Jehovah's communications.

6.Wt, 6/15/1957, pg 370 identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day......respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is his provision.

7.Wt, 1/15/1959, pg 40, 41...Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his word in their mouths.

8.Wt, 7/15/1960, pg 439,...collectively served as the channel of communication from heaven to earth.....

9.Wt, 9/1/1991, pg 19,...faithful and discreet slave has also been called God’s channel of communication,...

10.Wt, 2/1/1957, pg 79, 80, God interprets and teaches, through Christ the Chief Servant, who in turn uses the discreet slave as the visible channel, the viable theocratic organization...

The JW "leaders" also claim to be a chosen and secret organization with special knowledge and angelic transmission.
Article: Vindication 1, 1931, pg 76 God’s organization is his chosen nation.

Article: Preparation, 1933 ,pg 36, 37, 64 ...transmission of information to God’s anointed people...the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it; the scriptures and the facts show that it is done...convey the thoughts to their minds...To all on the outside of the organization of Jehovah his is a secret organization.

Article: Holy Spirit 1976, pg 175, 176He put his word in the mouth of his chosen people ....He has put his word, his message of the hour, into the mouth of the spiritual remnant.

Wt, 10/15/1980, pg 17God gives his humble servants special knowledge that others do not have... having advance knowledge from Jehovah, his servants are equipped .....

 

[imJRR]

You wrote: I suppose both might be from God depending on His dispensation. Christians have developed the idea of dispensationalism which is "a theological framework of interpreting the Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages or 'dispensations' in which God acts with his chosen people in different ways." So many Christians, and not just Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that God flip-flops.

Nope. Doing things differently depending on the dispensation is not the same thing as flip-flopping. And no - Christians don't actually believe that God flip-flops. Christians believe that God is steady and stable constant in His being; He is not undecided or wishy-washy or unstable.

I should emphasize that I'm not saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are necessarily right or wrong regarding how they interpret the Bible. What I do contend is wrong is the claim that they say that their core theological beliefs don't come from the Bible.

The quote that's been previous supplied and at least one of the several quotes provided in my post above prove that they do not.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

* Nope - You're wrong about that. God doesn't flip-flop. All you have posted is an imagination-based assertion. More on this later.

Yep. A good example of a Biblical "flip-flop" is that of the prohibition of "unclean" foods in the Law of Moses which was rescinded in the New Testament. Again, there's nothing unbiblical about the Jehovah's Witnesses changing their doctrine.

Nope - "Evolving" is one thing. Doing a total flip-flop is something different. And remember the REAL point with that: The real point here is this: It doesn't matter. For JWs, it doesn't matter how often or to what degree the JW "leaders" flip-flop and change their beliefs. Whatever tune the GB is currently playing, that's what the JW masses will dance to. This is absolutely required; this NEVER changes, no matter what.

What you're doing here is arbitrarily defining words to save your position. You find yourself in a bind after having claimed incorrectly that "flip-flops" do not and cannot occur in scripture, and when I prove you wrong demonstrating that contrary to what you say God's revelations do in fact evolve, you try to slip out of it by saying that a flip-flop is not scripture evolving!

Do you hate the Jehovah's Witnesses so much that you will continue to libel them in the face of proof to the contrary?

 

[imJRR]

Yep. A good example of a Biblical "flip-flop" is that of the prohibition of "unclean" foods in the Law of Moses which was rescinded in the New Testament. Again, there's nothing unbiblical about the Jehovah's Witnesses changing their doctrine.

What you're doing here is arbitrarily defining words to save your position. You find yourself in a bind after having claimed incorrectly that "flip-flops" do not and cannot occur in scripture, and when I prove you wrong demonstrating that contrary to what you say God's revelations do in fact evolve, you try to slip out of it by saying that a flip-flop is not scripture evolving!

Do you hate the Jehovah's Witnesses so much that you will continue to libel them in the face of proof to the contrary?

I believe you may be referring to the story found in Acts 10 and 11. I don't believe your example works, and here's why: Because of the full and comprehensive sacrifice of Christ, all the Old Testament (or Mosaic) dietary and ceremonial and sacrificial laws have been fulfilled (not rescinded), and believers have been set free from being required to follow all that. Paul speaks about the believer's freedom in Christ in both Galatians and Colossians. I invite you to read those two epistles.

And yes, there is something unbiblical about JWs changing their doctrine. Here's why:
It has already been established that the JW "leaders" have claimed and declared for themselves without ANY biblical support whatsoever the following: They are the only, ONLY ones who..
- were appointed by God and have His approval and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY ones who can interpret the Bible correctly and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY communicators of God's truth - they are God's prophets - and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY ones who have the genuine message of salvation and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

Okay, first - NONE of these 4 totally exclusive and totally condemning of ALL others declarations have ANY biblical support at all. They are nothing but (extremely arrogant) self-claims.

Second - Remember what I said in my previous post: If you're going to self-identify as "God's Prophet" - as the JW "leaders" have done, then according to the Bible, you have be 100% correct 100% of the time in what you say.

Do you understand what that means? It means that flip-flopping from what you have officially proclaimed in the past as "God's Truth" (which people are absolutely required to receive, believe and follow as such) to something opposite from what you originally said was "God's Truth", and now proclaiming "What we're saying now is 'God's Truth" (which people are absolutely required to receive, believe and follow as such) - That ISN'T allowed.

And that brings us back to an earlier point that another poster made: What if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant or true. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

To add to the above, what if you get told one day that NEITHER Doctrines A or B are true - You are now required to believe Doctrine C as being "God's Truth"?

This has already happened with the JWs - several times. One of the biggest places it happened is with their view of Christ. JW founder C.T. Russell did not believe that Christ was Michael the archangel as modern JWs do. That is not a small change by any means.



As for the remainder of your post, I don't believe I have arbitrarily defined words as you've asserted. Nor have I I have libeled JWs as you've asserted. I believe that a fair and honest review of the postings here will show that to anyone.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I believe you may be referring to the story found in Acts 10 and 11. I don't believe your example works, and here's why: Because of the full and comprehensive sacrifice of Christ, all the Old Testament (or Mosaic) dietary and ceremonial and sacrificial laws have been fulfilled (not rescinded)...

You keep playing these word games! There's nothing in the Old Testament that says the Law of Moses would ever be fulfilled--which as we all know were never to be rescinded.

and believers have been set free from being required to follow all that. Paul speaks about the believer's freedom in Christ in both Galatians and Colossians. I invite you to read those two epistles.

The dietary laws laid down by Moses appear in Leviticus 11. Throughout Leviticus the eternal nature of those laws are emphasized. That was the flip, and the flop occurs as you say in Acts 10.

As for the remainder of your post, I don't believe I have arbitrarily defined words as you've asserted.

The facts are all there in black and white. If scripture is proved to have changed, then you deny the change by saying it isn't a "flip-flop."

Nor have I I have libeled JWs as you've asserted. I believe that a fair and honest review of the postings here will show that to anyone.

I encourage that review!

 

[imJRR]

You keep playing these word games! There's nothing in the Old Testament that says the Law of Moses would ever be fulfilled--which as we all know were never to be rescinded.

The dietary laws laid down by Moses appear in Leviticus 11. Throughout Leviticus the eternal nature of those laws are emphasized. That was the flip, and the flop occurs as you say in Acts 10.

The facts are all there in black and white. If scripture is proved to have changed, then you deny the change by saying it isn't a "flip-flop."

I encourage that review!

I haven't played any word games at all, nor have I arbitrarily defined words, nor have I libeled JWs - Certainly not because you say so. Again - Because of the full and comprehensive sacrifice of Christ, the Old Testament (or Mosaic) dietary and ceremonial and sacrificial laws have been fulfilled (not rescinded), and believers have been set free from being required to follow all that. Paul speaks about the believer's freedom in Christ in both Galatians and Colossians.

In my previous post, I invited you to read Galatians and Colossians. See for yourself.
It's not a difficult thing to understand: Being set free is not the same thing as making a doctrinal flip-flop.

I also submit that your above post greatly dodges and avoids pretty much all of the rest of my post - which is quite central to our discussion since it very directly involves the JWs and their multiple and extremely arrogant self-claims.

 

[Mik]

What's wrong with a Christian organization saying that you need them to know what their beliefs are and that you can't arrive at those beliefs by simply reading the Bible?

If the beliefs are not in the Bible, then they are not Christian. Cults have beliefs not found in the Bible. That is why jw is a cult.

I can't know what your beliefs are by reading the Bible

Of course you can, I'm a Christian. Again, if your beliefs are not in the Bible, then they are not Christian. Cults have beliefs not found in the Bible.

, and it would be unfair for me to conclude that you're a member of a cult for that reason.

Of it would be unfair since my beliefs are found in the Bible.

The Bible is a very large and difficult book written over a period of centuries by dozens of authors in languages few people speak today.

That's why Bibles are translated (from Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic) into the language of the reader.

It is then only reasonable that different sects will interpret it differently

No, Cults will interpret it differently and also have beliefs not found in the Bible, which you have already admitted the jw's have this problem.

, and that includes the Jehovah's Witnesses.

That's why they are considered a cult.

I think that the quotation in the OP reflects this fact.

I already knew that jw beliefs don't come from the Bible.

The way Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible won't necessarily be evident from just reading the Bible.

Of course it won't. I already know that. That is why they are considered a cult.

That's true for all Christian sects.

No. It is true of cults.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If the beliefs are not in the Bible, then they are not Christian. Cults have beliefs not found in the Bible. That is why jw is a cult.

All Christian sects have beliefs that are not found in the Bible. The Trinity and opposition to abortion are but two examples. One of the basics of Christian theology is that the Bible is not "all truth." That is, there are truths not found in scripture.

Of course you can, I'm a Christian.

Where in the Bible can I find what you believe about euthanasia? And obviously you believe Jehovah's Witnesses espouse what's not in the Bible. Where does that appear in scripture? (Hint: The Bible doesn't mention Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Again, if your beliefs are not in the Bible, then they are not Christian. Cults have beliefs not found in the Bible.

Then the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a Christian belief. It's not in the Bible.

Of it would be unfair since my beliefs are found in the Bible.

The same goes for the core beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe in God and that Jesus is the son of God. Both beliefs come from the Bible, of course.

That's why Bibles are translated (from Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic) into the language of the reader.

And did you ever notice that those few people who can read Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic (including some Jehovah's Witnesses) so often disagree regarding doctrine? Translating those dead languages into the vernacular is a great effort that has had limited success in creating a harmonized Christianity. In fact, that translation(s) has appeared to make the confusion over the Bible worse. Much, MUCH worse.

No, Cults will interpret it differently and also have beliefs not found in the Bible...

Then either Baptists or evangelical Christians or both are "cults." They interpret the Bible differently.

...which you have already admitted the jw's have this problem.

If differing Biblical interpretations are a problem, then it appears all Christian sects are cults--including your sect.

That's why they are considered a cult.

May I call your sect a cult?

Of course it won't. I already know that. That is why they are considered a cult.

Then your sect is a cult. I can read the Bible and not know if your sect believes in the Trinity.

No. It is true of cults.

Then all Christian sects are cults.

I'd recommend you give these issues more thought. You seem to be oblivious of a very relevant fact: The Bible is a huge, strange, badly organized, and ambiguous set of books that has confused millions of people for over two thousand years. That's why none of the thousands of Christian sects have convinced everybody that what they preach is true.

 

[Mik]

All Christian sects have beliefs that are not found in the Bible. The Trinity and opposition to abortion are but two examples. One of the basics of Christian theology is that the Bible is not "all truth." That is, there are truths not found in scripture.

Where in the Bible can I find what you believe about euthanasia? And obviously you believe Jehovah's Witnesses espouse what's not in the Bible. Where does that appear in scripture? (Hint: The Bible doesn't mention Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Then the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a Christian belief. It's not in the Bible.

The same goes for the core beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe in God and that Jesus is the son of God. Both beliefs come from the Bible, of course.

And did you ever notice that those few people who can read Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic (including some Jehovah's Witnesses) so often disagree regarding doctrine? Translating those dead languages into the vernacular is a great effort that has had limited success in creating a harmonized Christianity. In fact, that translation(s) has appeared to make the confusion over the Bible worse. Much, MUCH worse.

Then either Baptists or evangelical Christians or both are "cults." They interpret the Bible differently.

If differing Biblical interpretations are a problem, then it appears all Christian sects are cults--including your sect.

May I call your sect a cult?

Then your sect is a cult. I can read the Bible and not know if your sect believes in the Trinity.

Then all Christian sects are cults.

I'd recommend you give these issues more thought. You seem to be oblivious of a very relevant fact:

Nothing but excuses from the 'father of lies' to keep you in your cult.

The Bible is a huge, strange, badly organized, and ambiguous set of books that has confused millions of people for over two thousand years.

True Born-Again believers, children of God, are not confused. People in cults are definitely confused about the Word of God. Cultist also throw doubt on the True Word of God (Bible), like you just did, so they can teach their lies from the 'father of lies'. They do not have the Helper, The Holy Spirit. That's why cultists are confused. Jw's are cultists if their beliefs can not be found in the Bible (which you already admitted they can not).

That's why none of the thousands of Christian sects have convinced everybody that what they preach is true.

True Born-Again believers, children of God, preach the True Word of God. It is not our job to 'convince' anyone what we preach is true. The Holy Spirit will do that (John 16:8).

Pray that God will send you the Holy Spirit to understand the True Gospel.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nothing but excuses from the 'father of lies' to keep you in your cult.

I'm not going to trade insults with you. Instead, I'm going to turn the other cheek like Jesus commanded and say that I will defend the Jehovah's Witnesses from being libeled no matter how much it invites attack.

True Born-Again believers, children of God, are not confused.

They shouldn't be confused by scripture, but as we all know, people disagree over its meaning. I can live with that.

People in cults are definitely confused about the Word of God.

Many of them are not able to tolerate disagreement over the Bible and characterize those who disagree with their interpretation as stupid or foolish.

Cultist also throw doubt on the True Word of God (Bible), like you just did, so they can teach their lies from the 'father of lies'. They do not have the Helper, The Holy Spirit.

Yes, beware those who claim to speak for Jesus yet disobey Him.

That's why cultists are confused. Jw's are cultists if their beliefs can not be found in the Bible (which you already admitted they can not).

Some people might not "find" Watchtower beliefs in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible, of course.

True Born-Again believers, children of God, preach the True Word of God. It is not our job to 'convince' anyone what we preach is true. The Holy Spirit will do that (John 16:8).

True followers of Christ get their own houses in order to see clearly the disorder in the houses of others.

Pray that God will send you the Holy Spirit to understand the True Gospel.

Of course.

I should end this post saying that I've spoken to a Jehovah's Witness about the issue raised in the OP. He said that not only does he get his beliefs from the Bible, but he proved he did by citing the story in Acts 8 where the Ethiopian eunuch tells Philip that he cannot understand a passage from Isaiah. Philip then, like the Watchtower today, explained that scripture to the eunuch. So the OP is wrong in at least two ways:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses do get their beliefs from the Bible.
2. And one of those beliefs they get from the Bible is that reading scripture does not guarantee understanding what others believe.

 

[Mik]

I'm not going to trade insults with you. Instead, I'm going to turn the other cheek like Jesus commanded and say that I will defend the Jehovah's Witnesses from being libeled no matter how much it invites attack.

It wasn't an insult. Trying to warn those in cults to seek the True Christ.

They shouldn't be confused by scripture, but as we all know, people disagree over its meaning. I can live with that.

We aren't. The jw's and mormons are.

Many of them are not able to tolerate disagreement over the Bible and characterize those who disagree with their interpretation as stupid or foolish.

That is why they remain in their cults. They believe the lies of their cult leaders instead of the True Word of God.

Yes, beware those who claim to speak for Jesus yet disobey Him.

Corrects. Exactly what the cult leaders of the jw's and mormons do.

Some people might not "find" Watchtower beliefs in the Bible,

Because you can't.

but that doesn't mean that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible, of course. Of course.

That is one mark of a cult. They 'think' they get their beliefs from the True Word of God. They had to change some Words in the True Bible to fit their lies.

True followers of Christ get their own houses in order to see clearly the disorder in the houses of others.

Correct. That is why it is easy to spot a false 'house' like jw's and mormons.

I should end this post saying that I've spoken to a Jehovah's Witness about the issue raised in the OP. He said that not only does he get his beliefs from the Bible, but he proved he did by citing the story in Acts 8 where the Ethiopian eunuch tells Philip that he cannot understand a passage from Isaiah. Philip then, like the Watchtower today, explained that scripture to the eunuch.

Of course he would say that. He doesn't realize he is in a cult, led by the self-proclaimed speaker for God, the 'watchtower'.

So the OP is wrong in at least two ways:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses do get their beliefs from the Bible.

You have not proven that.

1. And one of those beliefs they get from the Bible is that reading scripture does not guarantee understanding what others believe.

Cultist's are blinded by the lies of the 'father of lies'. Of course they can not understand the Word of God. They need to pray to God to open their eyes and heart to the Truth of His Word.

 

[imJRR]

I'm not going to trade insults with you. Instead, I'm going to turn the other cheek like Jesus commanded and say that I will defend the Jehovah's Witnesses from being libeled no matter how much it invites attack.

They shouldn't be confused by scripture, but as we all know, people disagree over its meaning. I can live with that.

Many of them are not able to tolerate disagreement over the Bible and characterize those who disagree with their interpretation as stupid or foolish.

Yes, beware those who claim to speak for Jesus yet disobey Him.

Some people might not "find" Watchtower beliefs in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible, of course.

True followers of Christ get their own houses in order to see clearly the disorder in the houses of others.

Of course.

I should end this post saying that I've spoken to a Jehovah's Witness about the issue raised in the OP. He said that not only does he get his beliefs from the Bible, but he proved he did by citing the story in Acts 8 where the Ethiopian eunuch tells Philip that he cannot understand a passage from Isaiah. Philip then, like the Watchtower today, explained that scripture to the eunuch. So the OP is wrong in at least two ways:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses do get their beliefs from the Bible.
2. And one of those beliefs they get from the Bible is that reading scripture does not guarantee understanding what others believe.

Nope. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch doesn't work for JWs. Here's how and why that's true:
- The New Testament had not yet been written. The story comes from the very beginning of the preaching of the Gospel.
- All the eunuch had to go on was an Old Testament prophecy concerning "Someone"; he did not know who that was.
- The eunuch, therefore, did not know about Christ.
- Philip explained to him about Christ - And the Christ Philip explained was the REAL Christ; not the phony Christ of the JWs.
- As for the quote by the JW masters - That refers to the WHOLE Bible (New Testament as well as Old); and it flat out declares that a person cannot and will not ever arrive at JW beliefs by reading the Bible no matter how much they read it.
- That does mean that JW beliefs don't get their beliefs from the Bible - JW beliefs come from outside the Bible.
- That means that any "explanation" they give comes from outside the Bible.

 

[imJRR]

I also point out that you have failed to engage in any meaningful way with what was said and shown in Post #48. For instance:
It has already been established that the JW "leaders" have claimed and declared for themselves without ANY biblical support whatsoever the following: They are the only, ONLY ones who..
- were appointed by God and have His approval and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY ones who can interpret the Bible correctly and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY communicators of God's truth - they are God's prophets - and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.
- are the only, ONLY ones who have the genuine message of salvation and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

NONE of these 4 totally exclusive and totally condemning of ALL others declarations have ANY biblical support at all. They are NOT found in the Bible ANYWHERE. They are nothing but (extremely arrogant) self-claims.

That's just one of the things you have failed to engage with in any meaningful way.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nope. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch doesn't work for JWs. Here's how and why that's true:
- The New Testament had not yet been written. The story comes from the very beginning of the preaching of the Gospel.

That doesn't matter. You're moving the goalposts because you originally claimed that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible. So as long as it can be shown that they do get their beliefs from the Bible, and that has been shown, then it's false to deny it.

- All the eunuch had to go on was an Old Testament prophecy concerning "Someone"; he did not know who that was.
- The eunuch, therefore, did not know about Christ.
- Philip explained to him about Christ -

That's right--so as we can see the Bible itself teaches that reading scripture does not ensure understanding scripture. The Jehovah's Witnesses get that correct.

And the Christ Philip explained was the REAL Christ; not the phony Christ of the JWs.

Your judgment of the Christ the Jehovah's Witnesses profess is not only prejudiced but irrelevant. The fact is that they get their beliefs in Christ from the Bible, of course. Are you trying to say they made up their own Jesus Christ on their own without the Bible?

- As for the quote by the JW masters - That refers to the WHOLE Bible (New Testament as well as Old); and it flat out declares that a person cannot and will not ever arrive at JW beliefs by reading the Bible no matter how much they read it.

The Bible teaches that in Acts 8.

- That does mean that JW beliefs don't get their beliefs from the Bible - JW beliefs come from outside the Bible.

OK. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Adam and Eve. Where "outside the Bible" do they get that belief?

- That means that any "explanation" they give comes from outside the Bible.

What is this mysterious source of Watchtower beliefs outside the Bible?

Your assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible I know is false. It says something about your own beliefs and what they're based on.

 

[imJRR]

Answers will be preceded by *

Nope. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch doesn't work for JWs. Here's how and why that's true:
- The New Testament had not yet been written. The story comes from the very beginning of the preaching of the Gospel.

That doesn't matter. You're moving the goalposts because you originally claimed that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible. So as long as it can be shown that they do get their beliefs from the Bible, and that has been shown, then it's false to deny it.

* Oh, it most certainly DOES matter, and here's how and why: You made the claim that JW beliefs are biblical, and you presented the story of the Ethiopian eunuch as proof. That was refuted, line by line. For you to now say "That doesn't matter" is nothing less and nothing other than YOU moving the goalposts. Physician, heal THYSELF first, before you try to cure others.

- All the eunuch had to go on was an Old Testament prophecy concerning "Someone"; he did not know who that was.
- The eunuch, therefore, did not know about Christ.
- Philip explained to him about Christ -

That's right--so as we can see the Bible itself teaches that reading scripture does not ensure understanding scripture. The Jehovah's Witnesses get that correct.

* Nope. I've already explained WHY the Ethiopian didn't understand what he was reading.

And the Christ Philip explained was the REAL Christ; not the phony Christ of the JWs.

Your judgment of the Christ the Jehovah's Witnesses profess is not only prejudiced but irrelevant. The fact is that they get their beliefs in Christ from the Bible, of course. Are you trying to say they made up their own Jesus Christ on their own without the Bible?

* You're wrong again and here's how and why: It is not "prejudiced" because I have not pre-judged anything. What I've said can be SHOWN. The Christ of the JWs is NOT the Christ of the Bible. The false, unbiblical beliefs of the JWs is the subject here, and that makes the false, unbiblical Christ of the JWs relevant. JWs deny and reject the Deity of Christ and believe that Christ is a created being (angel), and that after dying His body was dissolved into gasses and He arose an invisible spirit creature who then became an angel again.
And then there's their whole 1914 doctrine concerning Christ. Not merely unbiblical and false - It's total nonsense And yes - This is a false, unbiblical, made-up Christ.
SERIOUSLY - You REALLY should have read up on WHAT the beliefs of the JWs ARE - BEFORE you tried to defend them.

- As for the quote by the JW masters - That refers to the WHOLE Bible (New Testament as well as Old); and it flat out declares that a person cannot and will not ever arrive at JW beliefs by reading the Bible no matter how much they read it.

The Bible teaches that in Acts 8.

* Nope. I've already shown, line by line, WHY what you've written is not true. You can deny and protest all you wish - That means nothing.

- That does mean that JW beliefs don't get their beliefs from the Bible - JW beliefs come from outside the Bible.

OK. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Adam and Eve. Where "outside the Bible" do they get that belief?

* LOL! We are talking here (at least I am) about the admission statement made by the JW masters. Are Adam and Eve mentioned in it?
No. But the declaration reads that a person cannot and will not ever arrive at what JWs call "the truth" regarding God, Christ, the kingdom, and so on. These are HUGE things, and your saying, "Well, they believe in Adam and Eve (so there)" looks really lame compared to those MUCH bigger issues.

- That means that any "explanation" they give comes from outside the Bible.

What is this mysterious source of Watchtower beliefs outside the Bible?

* Easy (and obvious) - Since the admission is that a person cannot and will not ever arrive at JW beliefs by reading the Bible no matter how much they read it, then that means that JW beliefs concerning God, Christ, the kingdom, and so on come from the JW masters - They are man-made up.

You wrote:
Your assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses don't get their beliefs from the Bible I know is false. It says something about your own beliefs and what they're based on.

* You're wrong again. My posts are showing that JW beliefs are false and unbiblical. As for what I believe - Yes, I know you'd like to change the discussion to Christian beliefs; but that is not what this forum is for and it's not going to happen. The focus will remain where it is. If you want to debate what Christians believe with Christians, then follow the moderator's directive which is pinned to the top of this forum.

And I note that you are still avoiding what was said and shown in Posts 45 and #48. There are probably more posts being avoided also.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I also point out that you have failed to engage in any meaningful way with what was said and shown in Post #48.

That's probably because that post is very verbose, and I've already demonstrated that the Jehovah's Witnesses do get their core beliefs from the Bible.

For instance:
It has already been established that the JW "leaders" have claimed and declared for themselves without ANY biblical support whatsoever the following: They are the only, ONLY ones who..
- were appointed by God and have His approval and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

You can say the same thing for Paul. He was made God's prophet by Jesus with no "Biblical support." And as Paul made very clear, those who competed against him were "accursed." So the Jehovah's Witnesses are in line with the Bible in that regard. Besides, it's a lie to say the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only ones appointed by God. They revere William Tyndale, for example, for translating the Bible.

- are the only, ONLY ones who can interpret the Bible correctly and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

But that's what you say about the Jehovah's Witnesses: they are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on. Why are they wrong for saying so and you right?

- are the only, ONLY communicators of God's truth - they are God's prophets - and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

That's what Christianity as a whole says. You criticize your own beliefs.

- are the only, ONLY ones who have the genuine message of salvation and ALL others are false, wrong, apostate, of Satan and so on.

That's what Christianity as a whole says.

NONE of these 4 totally exclusive and totally condemning of ALL others declarations have ANY biblical support at all. They are NOT found in the Bible ANYWHERE. They are nothing but (extremely arrogant) self-claims.

LOL--I'm wondering what Bible version you are reading. Claims of exclusive appointments from God are throughout the Bible as well as condemnation of religious adversaries. No doubt the Jehovah's Witnesses get all of that directly out of the Bible.

That's just one of the things you have failed to engage with in any meaningful way.

I have now, and I don't believe for a minute that all the facts I've posted will be accepted by you. You appear to be completely in the dark about both the Watchtower and the Bible. If any Jehovah's Witnesses read what you've posted, then they'll feel vindicated knowing just how wrong their critics are.