'Easy' argument to disprove jw teaching? - Needing input...

by esw1966 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • esw1966
    esw1966

    Thinking out loud - My belief is that jw follows a false gospel. That they got it wrong. Now, how to 'prove' that to a family member who is still jw?

    I am figuring they have accepted individual 'truths'. (A+B+C) And then they just figured, as I did, that it all added to D. I feel that if they added it all up they would see it doesn't add up. Here's my thought process:

    Ask them, 'How do you escape Armageddon?' 'How is it you gain righteousness?'

    Their whole premise is that Jesus died only for 144,000. That he is only the mediator for the 144,000. That only the 144,000 get undeserved kindness. (grace)

    So, basically that leaves everyone else out. Thus, we are all in the same boat - destined to die. The only thing that next separates us according to jw teaching is that 'the great crowd' gives the 144,000 'a drink of water' and the rest of us don't. The 'great crowd' supports Jesus' people.

    That means that by becoming a slave to man and worshipping man, they gain the bread crumbs that have fallen off the table and maybe get life. That is there only grasp at life, otherwise, they are no better than any of us. So it is a race to see who can be the best brown noser to gain someone's graces.

    If grace is applied only to the 144,000, then what in the Bible really applies to the 'great crowd'? The only part of the Bible that applies to them is the kiss up part. There is no forgiveness only rewards for servitude. (Is that the gospel?) That path to 'eternal life' is called idolatry in the Bible.

    Then have them read the Bible and see if that is what is being taught? The Bible teaches none of us can work for any righteousness and that it is a gift not deserved. And that by putting your faith in Christ, his righteousness is transferred to us lovingly and free.

    Does this argument hold merit? Do you see any holes in it? Is there a simpler way to say all of that? Is it a way to get a jw to think?

    I'm confident in my new beliefs, but I am going to move back to my old state next year and I will be seeing my dad, my sister, and my daughters, and whomever else and I will have to put up a 'defense' for my faith. I am also interested in helping them out of it. Is this a good line of reasoning that is simple for them to investigate on their own and will it work?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Frankly I don't think this is going to work because it is both a caricature of JW teaching (believable to anybody except them) and a (Protestant) reduction of NT doctrine.

    Never afaik have JWs taught that Jesus died only for the 144,000, nor that "undeserved kindness" applies only to them. The "mediatorship" restriction is but a technicality which most of them do not even realise. Otoh the "justification/salvation by faith alone, regardless of works" is a simplification of Paul's teaching in Romans and Galatians -- which is strongly denied in other parts of the N.T. (Matthew's Gospel, Epistle of James). As a whole, there's enough contradictory stuff in the N.T. to combine into some "synergical" doctrine (combination of "grace" and "works") such as the WT presents, for both the so-called "anointed" and "non-anointed". As a result, about any JW listening to your argument will conclude that you misrepresent both their doctrine and the N.T.

    Questioning the "two-hopes" doctrine (which has practically no scriptural ground) for itself is another thing.

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    Hate to piss on your fire, but, you cannot prove a JW teaching as wrong to a JW unless they are ready to accept it. If they are ready to accept it then just about any valid argument will work.

  • Hermano
    Hermano

    You're going about it the wrong way. You're trying to be logical. I think the best chance you got is to realize it's a cult. Approach it as you would trying to get anyone out of a cult. Trying to argue technicalities in doctrine is pointless cause they go to meetings that reinforced the doctrines. And to them, you're the one who is confused and doesn't understand the Bible.

  • B_Deserter
    B_Deserter

    It's best if you completely discount the Bible altogether. All JW teachings are built on the pre-conceived assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Take away that assumption, and the rest is not even debatable.

  • uninformed
    uninformed
    It's best if you completely discount the Bible altogether. All JW teachings are built on the pre-conceived assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Take away that assumption, and the rest is not even debatable.

    That is not true.

    They believe that the WT is the inerrant word of God.

  • Spook
    Spook

    I have had the best luck with zooming in on what you may call the "foundation" of the individual's belief system. You can identify these as...

    1. The charasmatic JW who focuses on love, love within the congregation, and the superior nature of a god who would not use hellfire. Useful arguments with them are theodicy arguments in plain terms (arguments from the existance of evil). These are atheistic arguments.

    2. The historical / prophetic JW. Encouraging them to read history that is not about doctrine. Propose a deal: You will read any book they give you if they commit to reading one page of ancient mesopotamian history or the history of the early church for every page of WTS literature they read for three months. That should get them through a few books.

    3. The scientific creationist JW: Agree to a research project in which you both seek out and discuss the bibliography of any of the JW publications about evolution.

    You'll notice these are all anti-theistic arguments. If you want a religioius one, I might suggest the questions that get at biblical interpretation principles indirectly. "Would it ever be reasonable to have to reinterpret the majority of scriptures related to a given teaching about a minority of scriptures?"

    I see theistic arguments over a cults sacred text to be rather like wrestling a pig for the puddle.

  • Kiera
    Kiera

    There is no need to supply proof that a lie is untrue, it is a basic courtesy to substantiate the truth of what you say.

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    Hi ESW1996. Here are a couple of "easy" contradictions you can bring up that are not too involved:

    Thinking out loud - My belief is that jw follows a false gospel. That they got it wrong. Now, how to 'prove' that to a family member who is still jw?

    1) The parable of the VINEYARD WORKERS. JWs identify themselves with the last-hour workers against whom the first-hour workers murmur. So they have superficially seen themselves as the late-comers in the preaching work and the first-hour workers as the Catholic Church who don't like them. This is their persecution complex working overtime. But the fact is, not only do the first-hour workers receive their penny, but if JWs think they are the only ones going to heaven, and the penny represents that hope, then where does that leave the third, sixth and ninth-hour workers? All of whom get the penny?

    So this is a FUN one to bring up. I suggest you bring it up as a question since in that way the error will be obvious. You could ask: "Say, I was wondering about something. You know the WTS claims they are the 11th-hour workers in this parable. They get the penny. The penny represents heavenly life. So who are the third-hour workers who get the penny? And by the way, how can Christendom be the first-hour workers since they get the penny also and thus also go to heaven? I'm really confused!! ???"

    It's a WRONG interpretation obviously. You don't even have to know the correct understanding either. Just knowing this is WRONG is enough, right?

    2) Also very direct but a little more detailed. Again, this is just to show them WRONG without correcting anything, which is your goal. You can point out to them Jer. 52:30 which mentions the LAST DEPORTATION was year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. That means 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem. The question is, of course, where did these last deportees come from? After all, the land was allegedly desolate by the 7th month after the fall of Jerusalem, right?

    Here is what the WTS claims:

    Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. PROBABLY from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—JewishAntiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7).

    Problem is, Josephus is specific about who was deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is a blatant example of misquoting by the WTS! Note what this reference actually says:

    ...... he [Nebuchadnezzar] made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned (16) and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews,

    Note how Josephus specifically tells us from where the Jews in year 23 were deported! They were deported from Egypt! So why is the WTS avoiding that reference? Why would they say "probably from among the nations" as if there is no direct historical reference where the Jews came from, particularly since they are quoting Josephus!!

    The reason is, because if they let on that the Jews of the last deportation were from Egypt, then obviously it would be presumed they would have to trek back through Judea and thus the land would not have been desolate!!!

    Fact is, the Bible specifically indicates that those who had "escaped the sword" of Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt would indeed return to Judah, apparently only for a short time, (a few months?), before returning to Babylon!

    14 And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”

    28 And as for the ones escaping from the sword, they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number; and all those of the remnant of Judah, who are coming into the land of Egypt to reside there as aliens, will certainly know whose word comes true, that from me or that from them.”’”

    So what we have here is Josephus telling us specifically where those deported in year 23 came from. You have the Bible merely noting that they would return to Judea, which does not contradict Josephus since Judea is on the way to Babylon. But the WTS inventing Jews scattered to the surrounding nations, and thus suggesting that those last deported were NOT deported from Egypt. But there is no Biblical basis for needing to presume any of the Jews scattered at this time after Gedaliah was killed, when you have such a direct account of precisely where those last remaining Jews as a group went. Which was to Egypt.

    So you can NAIL THEM on this. Misquoting, misrepresenting Josephus. Not acknowledging that the last deportation was from Egypt, and not acknowleding that the Jews would go back through Judea on their way to Babylon.

    Further linking these specific Jews as the ones of the last deportation is the fact that they are call the "ones who escaped from the sword" in various places in the Bible. Thus note 2 Chronicles 36:

    20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

    Those "remaining from the sword" would be those not killed down in Egypt. Therefore, this specifically identifies who were deported before these seventy years at the time of the last deportation. It was the last remaining ones from Egypt. Again, this contradicts the WTS trying to create the subliminal idea that the last deportation was from areas around Judea, specifically avoiding the reference to Egypt. And that is only because the truth, the final deportation of those from Egypt, contradicts their teaching that the land was desolate from the 18th year, when in fact there were still people there right up until the 23rd year per the Bible.

    Now, again, it is IMPORTANT to note that Josephus says those deported were deported specifically from Egypt. So there is no reason for the WTS to have to guess and suppose and imagine where any of these Jews might have come from. So it's not simply inventing a lie about some scattered Jews, it's a lie invented because they do not want to claim the Jews came from Egypt. But obviously Jeremiah and Baruch didn't get killed, and they were down in Egypt.

    So if you want, you can print this out and say you have proof the WTS are 'BIG LIARS!!" and are dishonest and do not represent what the Bible says, so you have no need to be in a lying religion. (smile)

    Hope these two examples will turn out for you. These are the two easiests and simple contradictions I know of where you don't need so much discussion and detail.

    JCanon

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    Excellent points you make. Sadly most dubs dont know that according to the society jesus only redeemed the great 144.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit