WANTED ! JW Apologist

by wobble 389 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  besty :

  We have asked what made them unique in 1919 when Jesus chose them. Care to answer that in your own words?

  I thought you had accepted the point that oompa continually made that the insistence on accepting true teachings of the Bible that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses referred to 'present truth' and not any unique belief held in 1919. I firmly believe that the great majority of JWs accept their faith as the truth because they believe that it is more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation than other faiths. Many a Witness, including elders, have said to me that if there were another faith more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation they would change in an instant. This does not sound to me like people who are adhereing to a faith because something happened in 1919.

  OUTLAW :

  Please show me which of my posts,where I said Jehovah`s Witness`s are not a Relgion?..

  ..The WBT$ is supposed to be "Gods Sole Channel".....Not Jehovah`s Witness`s.....

  Whether or not you like what reniaa writes, the posting guidelines not to use insulting language still apply. I think your dog is quite ashamed of you. The Watchtower Society is not supposed to be "God's Sole Channel", even in the sense you mean it. The Watchtower Society is a publishing company, it is a legal entity to publish Bibles and Bible literature. If it was dissolved tomorrow that would not require God to choose another channel. The channel is the Faithful & Discreet Slave which is made up of those "anointed" who remain on the earth. In principle, as long as any of these "anointed" remain on the earth the Faithful & Discreet Slave remains. You may not accept that understanding of Jesus' parable but that is how JWs understand it.

  The WBT$ claims to be the mediator between God and man

  Why do you continue to repeat this when I have already addressed it ? If you really believe that then provide a reference where they do so.
• 

  BizzyBee

  Please note BizzyBee..The WBT$ and the Jehovah`s Witness`s are not interchangeable!!.......There is a hiearcy in place!!.....

  Outlaw,

  Of course there is a hierarchy, which I had just described, and I was not using the word "interchangeable" in that sense. In describing the religion or sect, all of those terms are used, depending on the context of the discussion. If you are talking about the JWs as individual members it is awkward to differentiate when you are talking about JWs in the sense of the name of the religion, especially in the same sentence. Catholics have the word Catholicism or RCC to differentiate between the individual members and the faith itself. Mormons have LDS. What do you call the religion of JWs? (rhetorical question)

  Did you insult me? Not sure............
• 

  BizzyBee

  Hey, Earnest,

  Are you playing Devil's Advocate or Apologist? Just curious........
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Earnest, you comment:

  besty :

  We have asked what made them unique in 1919 when Jesus chose them. Care to answer that in your own words?

  I thought you had accepted the point that oompa continually made that the insistence on accepting true teachings of the Bible that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses referred to 'present truth' and not any unique belief held in 1919. I firmly believe that the great majority of JWs accept their faith as the truth because they believe that it is more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation than other faiths. Many a Witness, including elders, have said to me that if there were another faith more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation they would change in an instant. This does not sound to me like people who are adhereing to a faith because something happened in 1919.

  I would just comment that JW's are nothing like the early Christian congregation. The early Christian congregation was not a rigidly structured organization with legalistic rules and regulations enforced on its adherents. The only thing required was an acceptance of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus and a few simple life principles. Many people were baptized immediately after this acceptance, ie: Cornelius, the eunuch by Philip and others taught by the Jesus, the apostles and other disciples. The majority of people in the early congregation were simple farmers, fisherman or tradesmen...not scholars who devoted their lives to a study of the scriptures. They were not expected to have a working knowledge of doctrine, dogma or tradition to be accepted as Christians. The message was simple yet impactful on the way they lived their lives.

  I would offer that many denominations of Christianity are more in line with that aspect of the early Christian congregation than are JW's. The reality is that JW's much more closely resemble the Pharisees of the First Century. That alone is enough to disqualify JW's as being the closest belief to the early Christian congregation if we are examining who was "true" to the concepts of the early Christian faith.
• 

  Earnest

  BizzyBee :

  Are you playing Devil's Advocate or Apologist? Just curious........

  I said earlier in the thread that "I lean more towards slimboyfat's theology of an Agnostic for Jehovah." When I see the beliefs of JWs misrepresented then I try to set the matter straight, not as a "Devil's Advocate" or an "Apologist" but as one still trying to sort some things out in his own mind and finding misrepresentation and ridicule particularly unhelpful.

  tenyearsafter :

  I would just comment that JW's are nothing like the early Christian congregation.

  Again I agree with most of what you say. The point I am making is how JWs see themselves. They believe they have the truth because they believe that it is more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation than other faiths, not because of something that may or may not have happened in 1919.
• 

  OUTLAW

  BizzyBee..No,I did not insult you..I appologise if I came off that way..Sometimes posts do not express things in the manner in which you intended..

  ...OUTLAW
• 

  Mary

  Earnest said: Many a Witness, including elders, have said to me that if there were another faith more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation they would change in an instant. This does not sound to me like people who are adhereing to a faith because something happened in 1919.

  What horeshit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not ALLOWED to even look at what other religions teach, other than through the pages of the Society's own literature. Try doing any independent studying on your own and you'll find yourself in deep trouble in the twinkling of an eye. I know, because it happened to me. Years ago when I was still in, I was at the local library doing some research on the Trinity. For the record, I don't believe in the Trinity but I just wanted to do some background checking to see exactly how it came about. Anyway, as I was sitting there reading a book called "The Church of the First Three Centuries", one of the elders came by and asked what I was reading. Since I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, I showed him and told him what I was researching.

  Before I even got home that night, he had called an 'emergency meeting' with two other goons to discuss my tragic sin: Reading religious books not endorsed by the WTS. I was shocked because the book actually supported some of what the WTS taught on the subject. Made no difference. The one idiot sneeringly told me that he 'didn't understand why I needed to go to the library to look up information like this, when there was so much information that the Society had put out on the subject.' In a nutshell, I told him to mind his own damn business and that I'd read what I wanted to read.

  So please don't try and give me that crap that Witnesses have thoroughly investigated other religions on their own and have somehow come to the conclusion on their own that the JW's are the best of the lot. You're not allowed to do any such thing. Everyone else from every other religion on planet earth is encouraged to investigate their own religion, ask their minister/rabbi/priest the hard questions, but not Jehovah's Witnesses. Noooo, you have to accept at face value, whatever the GB members tell you, no matter how insane it might be. Gee, not much of a double standard there eh?

  And if you don't think that the year 1919 doesn't play a vital role in the lives of JW's and 'isn't a big deal', then why don't you try telling one of your elders that you don't believe Jesus chose these guys as the "Faithful Slave Class" in this year? You'll find out exactly how important this year is in this religion.
• 

  isaacaustin

  or Ernest, please ask Mouthy what happens when you beleive wholeheartedly in the WT EXCEPT for jesus returnung invisibly in 1914. Ask mouthy- she will tell you.
• 

  leavingwt

  I'm now speaking of persons that defend Jehovah's Witnesses, but disagree with the official Watchtower dogma...

  By definition, these very persons are condemned to die at Armageddon for being disloyal and running ahead of the organization. (I realize that these defenders think that Jehovah loves them and will not harm them at Armageddon. The dogma, however, does not allow room for this possibility.)

  Are such defenders immobilized with fear and uncertainty, unable to act upon the logical conclusions that they have reached that are in conflict with the dogma?

  This class of apologist fascinates me. They are wholly unlike me, when I was a 100% Kool-Aid drinking JW.

  -LWT
• 

  Earnest

  Mary : Nothing of what you said above addressed the statement you quoted. I said :

  Many a Witness, including elders, have said to me that if there were another faith more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation they would change in an instant. This does not sound to me like people who are adhereing to a faith because something happened in 1919.

  I am telling you what people have said to me. I presume when you say "What horseshit" you are suggesting either I or they are lieing. Whether or not they have examined other faiths I cannot say but I assure you I am not lieing in relating this to you.

  Try doing any independent studying on your own and you'll find yourself in deep trouble in the twinkling of an eye.

  I have done independent study my whole adult life. That is how I was brought up. One of my earliest acquisitions was Adolf von Harnack's "The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries" which I think is probably the volume to which you refer. When I was at Bethel I had Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses in my bookcase for all to see. No problem. Now, I will not suggest that what you have said is "horseshit" as your experience has obviously been different to mine, but please (1) address the points I raise when you reply (2) give me the same benefit of the doubt as I give you.

  And if you don't think that the year 1919 doesn't play a vital role in the lives of JW's and 'isn't a big deal', then why don't you try telling one of your elders that you don't believe Jesus chose these guys as the "Faithful Slave Class" in this year?

  I maintained that JWs in the whole believe they have the truth because they believe that it is more in harmony with the Bible and the early Christian congregation than other faiths, not because of something that may or may not have happened in 1919. Your challenge above is quite irrelevant to this statement. Let me put it to you this way. If you ask your average JW why he believes he has the truth I suggest he will talk about love among the brothers, about the preaching work, about neutrality...various ways to identify the true religion. Whether this is true of JWs is not the point I am making, only that this is how JWs identify themselves as having the truth. He will not talk about 1919 and how Jesus chose these guys as the "Faihful Slave Class" that year.