by AuldSoul 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
Jehovah's Witnesses set their dogma and religion in the place of Jesus. They refer to their dogma and religion by a role that Jesus said he would personally fulfill; they call it "The Truth."
Good point! Yes they've substituted Jesus with their own Organisation. To me this is the Watchtower putting itself in a position of self idolatory.
I used this point with my jw, his response was that because he 'had' the truth he had Jesus. He really didn't get the point.
I would add more - "You can't go through somebody without going TO this somebody". You can't get THROUGH Jesus Christ without going TO Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ told - come to me, be in me, rest in me. Christ is our rest. Christ is freedom in its real meaning. I don't know any JW who would say that he is free, he is saved or he is IN Christ. And no... you have to have Christ to have Truth. Not otherwise around. Not every "truth" is Christ. But Christ IS THE Truth, Salvation, Ressurection, Life, Forgiveness of Sins. And I agree with Honesty, Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God, and I worship Him. As it is sayed, who has Son has Father. Father and Son are One. I have them both by having Jesus Christ. JW don't have neather as they reject Jesus Christ, they think that they Know Jesus Christ, but they never ever talk to him, how can you know somebody without actually having relationship with him?
The thing that truly intrigued me about the way WT followers view the word "Truth" is the way the word was portrayed in one of their publications.
Back in 1968, at the infamous assembly when the 1975 end-of-the-world-but-we're-not-saying-anything-that-cant-be-denied-later doctrine was announced, they produced the publication "The Truth That Leads to Everlasting Life" Selling a hefty 120M copies worldwide, it is still the WTS's biggest selling propaganda item of literature. Notice the word "That" It happens to be a neuter adjectival modifier for the word "Truth" so whatever else the WTS and its accolytes believe the "Truth" to be, it is to them an "It" and not a person.
It is conventional wisdom for the R&F membership to regard the word "Truth" to refer to the entire corpus of currently accepted WT doctrine, as sanctified by its appearance in WT literature. It is because of this that the "Truth" does not always remain "true" since, to the chagrin of the WTS, practical events overtake these "Truths" and they get discarded and become "falsehood"
The WTS, by encouraging a corporate theological amnesia on its membership, manages with a nimble dexterity that is only possible in a hermetically sealed society, to overide any qualms that the majority would have.
Such an arifice would not have been required if the WTS had actually stuck to the thematic centrality of the Bible - Jesus Christ - who is the Truth. In this respect the book ought to have been entitled: "The Truth Who leads to Everlasting Life"
An organisation that cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood, and which, through strident campaigning, covers up the falsities it creates, must surely have diabolical origins.
Cheers
Great points! I love the proof of their thinking right there in the title of their book, moggy lover.
Keeping in mind that Jesus said he is "the truth," his remarks to Pilate and Pilate's reply become more interesting to me.
John 18:37 — Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
In other places we find that anyone who is of Christ hears his voice. Pilate replied, "What is truth?" The answer is similar to the answer for the question "Where will you go away to?" The truth isn't a "what" or a "where," it is a "who."
So the question becomes, are Jehovah's Witnesses in Christ Jesus? I say they are not. They aren't even on speaking terms with him.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I'll call you christians on your Jesus - what do you actually mean by the religious techno-speak that Jesus IS the truth? What does that actually mean and where is Jesus since you seem quite comfortable describing Him in ownership terms as His rep. I am more willing to accept dogmatic statements if the statement maker can explain why they are able to make them and that some organisation (such as the JWs) are not qualified to.
Let me lay some markers out:
1/ Without the bible does Jesus still retain His truth? Without the Johannine comma is He a composite or does He become an individual.
2/ Is He literally son or just adopted son, physically or just spiritually.
3/ How do you come to Christ? Where is He - everywhere , nowhere? Could you come to Him if you lived in Stonehenge while He hung on the cross?
4/ Can you be saved in ignorance? Is there any other way to know about Jesus other than by what the organised church decided we should accept (any chance any gnostic traditions or ethos were /are correct?)
5/ Is He risen (could He die? - did the universe have a period without its triune God?). Is the Truth physical or is that a form that is created at will and discarded at will (is Catholic transubstantiation therefore possible?) If you met Jesus today would you see God, a dove, a man with physical form? What is the resurrection if the body is non-permanent anyway?
6/ Can you be saved in your sins or must you be saved from your sins? Did Jesus save backslidders?
7/ How does the 'truth' manifest itself today , via a bible, via speaking in tongues, with prophecy or by personal revelation, by anointing with fire or by the rite of baptism? Is the truth found in all christian churches, all protestant christian churches or is it more generic than that - is the truth merely found in believers no matter what they belief (be they of any faith whatsoever?).
8/ How does the truth propagate itself - door knocking, bookstores, preaching, dreams, organisation, anointing or calling?
9/ Does the truth dwell within our without can it be lost or found?
1/ Without the bible does Jesus still retain His truth? Yes.
2/ Is He literally son or just adopted son, physically or just spiritually. Literally, both.
3/ How do you come to Christ? Where is He - everywhere , nowhere? Could you come to Him if you lived in Stonehenge while He hung on the cross? Cornelius was able to do so while giving alms in pagan temples. He is not far off from each one of us. Yes, you could come to him if you lived in Stonehenge.
4/ Can you be saved in ignorance? No. But knowing of Christ does not require the Bible. The Bible just makes it easier.
5/ Is He risen (could He die? - did the universe have a period without its triune God?). Is the Truth physical or is that a form that is created at will and discarded at will (is Catholic transubstantiation therefore possible?) If you met Jesus today would you see God, a dove, a man with physical form? What is the resurrection if the body is non-permanent anyway?
Yes, he is risen. Yes, the universe had a period without its complete trinity. The truth is spiritual and physical manifestations are created and discarded at will, therefore Catholic transubstantiation is possible. On that note, physical manifestations of all sorts wink in and out of observable/testable existence continually. The form in which you would "meet" Jesus is nonessential. The resurrection is the standing again of a person, not the standing again of a body.
6/ Can you be saved in your sins or must you be saved from your sins? Did Jesus save backslidders? Yes, you can be saved in your sins. The freedom of Christ can be used for the flesh. Paul simply counsels that it not be used that way. Jesus saved the whole world, including "backsliders;" all that is incumbent upon an individual now is to truly accept that salvation.
7/ How does the 'truth' manifest itself today , via a bible, via speaking in tongues, with prophecy or by personal revelation, by anointing with fire or by the rite of baptism? Is the truth found in all christian churches, all protestant christian churches or is it more generic than that - is the truth merely found in believers no matter what they belief (be they of any faith whatsoever?). He manifests himself however he wills. The truth is not bound by religious dogma, nor by any barrier. If He was bound in this way someone would have to be exposed to a representative of that religion in order to find the truth, the way, and the life. Jesus is not far off from anyone.
8/ How does the truth propagate itself - door knocking, bookstores, preaching, dreams, organisation, anointing or calling? He propogates an understanding of himself in whatever way he chooses. Visions on a roadway to Damascus. Opening jail doors. Inspiring writers. Even the stones could cry out.
9/ Does the truth dwell within our without can it be lost or found? We dwell within the truth, we become one with Christ. Once found, it cannot be lost. It can only be intentionally rejected by force of will.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Thanks - a much more useful interpretation of the 'truth'!
Just a few further questions if you will indulge me:
If Jesus retains His truth without the bible did any of the answers to the questions derive from any source other than the bible? That use of the bible to derive the truth about Jesus would suggest that despite Jesus retaining the 'truth' we ourselves cannot approach that truth without a/ Actual experience of Christ (like an apostle but unlike Cornelius who had to be further instructed), b/ Listening to the teachings of one who has had point a. and by corrolary (since it is the main accepted source of point b's) reading the bible.
If Jesus is not far from us does that mean physical proximity or spiritual (or are they the same?) and could Jesus(the triune version) appear to anyone else at the same time while in the human form? The only biblical example that can be claimed is the baptism of Jesus but technically God was in one place then.. Is there biblical (or any evidence) of multiple apparation of the body of Jesus? Would that disqualify the 'Jesus is everywhere' hypothesis?
Since you are saved only upon the acceptance of Jesus why are there commandments? Since the 'law' is done away surely commandments are also done away? This then derives down to what the 'gospel' is - is it the simple 'saved by belief' truth or do any of the commandments have any vital significance? Does the acceptance of Jesus require an accurate knowledge of Him (maybe not in one possible interpretation of Cornelius) and if not then does any statement about Jesus' presence or abilities merely worthless discussion rather than pointers to the 'truth' - i.e. we would be saved by Jesus even if we didn't believe in the triune form since acceptance of Jesus doesn't seem to entail acceptance of a definition of Jesus. Was Cornelius acclaimed of God by His actions or by His beliefs or by God's anointing/selection etc..? From Cornelius and maybe the thief on the cross do we determine that the 'truth' is slightly more arbitrary (i.e. God selects who He will despite action or current belief) or is it the action of fearing God itself which engenders being saved (again Cornelius and the thief were in a state of fearing rather than 'true knowledge'.) and therefore the truth is not about knowledge but simply about an attitude? Therefore the truth that is IN Jesus is not dependent on the BA/Catholic/Mormon/JW interpretation of Jesus at all but merely upon fearing God in whatever form one wants to worship? If that is so is it not wasteful to preach any doctrine other than to fear God in whatever form you wish since God will accept the state of fearing? Is this the truth of Jesus and what would save all mankind the majority of whom have never heard of Jesus or accepted Him but most of whom (historically) have feared some supernatural deity?
Sorry for taking SOOO long to reply, Qcmbr.
That use of the bible to derive the truth about Jesus would suggest that despite Jesus retaining the 'truth' we ourselves cannot approach that truth without a/ Actual experience of Christ (like an apostle but unlike Cornelius who had to be further instructed), b/ Listening to the teachings of one who has had point a. and by corrolary (since it is the main accepted source of point b's) reading the bible.
I believe this premise limits the hand of One who demonstrates an array of methods for communicating truth. Primarily, He provides the Spirit of Truth as a Comforter, as a guide into all truth. I think my biggest problem with the construction here is that "main accepted source" does not equal "source", but the strong inference of the Scripture is that it either does or should.
The Bible as we have did not exist when Cornelius came to Christ, nor for the Ethiopian eunuch who, immediately after baptism, reportedly went back to Ethiopia capable of sharing the gospel. It seems to me that the Spirit of Truth equips Christians for this purpose.
If Jesus is not far from us does that mean physical proximity or spiritual (or are they the same?)
I'm not certain we know enough about the underlying nature of reality to answer this question with any degree of accuracy. I do know that His ability to respond seems unlimited by the bounds of relative location (distance) or seemingly solid physical subtances. There is a lot of evidence indicating properties of reality that would easily fit these categories. I seriously doubt anything science discovers will ever be named "Holy Spirit" or "a property of God" but that doesn't mean proof of the spiritual realm doesn't already exist. It may very well simply be mislabeled by human researchers as something other than what it is.
Since you are saved only upon the acceptance of Jesus why are there commandments?
Despite the fact that Jesus is never recorded as asking his twelve apostles to write down what he said, did, or thought, it seems many of them did so. Others who believed also believed that the instructions Jesus gave the twelve applied to them, too. The books and letters from Matthew through Jude (of the KJV canon) were not communicated as though the writers believed their own writings to be inspired of God.
From Cornelius and maybe the thief on the cross do we determine that the 'truth' is slightly more arbitrary (i.e. God selects who He will despite action or current belief)
With notable exception to the usual negative connotations of the term "arbitrary", I will take you to ask whether selection and salvation is according to the sole determination of God despite current action or current belief and without appeal to a higher authority. If that is what you are asking, then yes, it is according to God's arbitrary decision. It seems that the motivations of a person has more to do with calling than current actions or current beliefs.
I hope that answered your questions fully enough.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
When it comes to the way individuals should relate to Jesus we can see the Judaic influence in the JW organisation at its greatest. They even did away with the way the early church related to Jesus as a Lord, relegated him to a very marginal position and persuaded virtually all their members to not become part of the new covenent. They are like branches detached from the trunk of the vine.
