JW apologetics websites.

by Steel 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TTWSYF

  JWs come to your door with bibles in hand under the guise of teaching the bible. They all consider themselves as bible students. They will tell you how many books are in it and things like that.

  Ask 'where did the bible come from? How did we get it?' And the reply will be 'men got together and made it'

  The real answer is that Catholic bishops put it together centuries after Jesus commissioned the apostles to build HIS church and to do all that HE commanded them to do. Never hear that from the WTS bible students.

  The bible is a Catholic book written by Catholics for Catholics AND the world. It is their book, so how could anyone come 1600, 1700 or 1800 years later and expect to teach people better than the people who made the book in the first place. Make no sense what so ever.

  The Truth Will Set You Free
• 

  Village Idiot

  A. Is there anything to these websites ? Or are they just bloody nonsense.
  

  They are as nonsensical as the scriptures that spawned them.
  

  B. When you were in , did you think or ever think you understood the bamboozle.
  

  I did understand JW doctrine but that was in a time when doctrines mattered.
• 

  steve2

  My two cents is that so many half truths and untruths have come from the writers of the watchtower, that whatever they say about the trinity is either a half truth or untruthful.
  

  Well, that's an admittedly justified view. However, rejection of the Trinity is not unique to JWs; Unitarians and Christadelphians also reject the doctrine.

  I personally could give a tinker's cuss whether the God of the Bible is one, two or three in one. The pages therein show whatever number he comprises, he's a monster of near unimaginable proportions.
  
• 

  smiddy

  Christendoms religions including JW`s cant even decide on how many books comprise the Bible so how could they ever agree on what is contained theirein ? The numbers vary widely.

  Their are also books mentioned in the Bible that do not appear in those lists such as The Book of Enoch , The Book of Jubilees The Testament of Noah and The Book of Jasher to name a few.

  It all comes down to each different sects interpretation of what said scriptures mean , not what the scriptures actually say but what the sect says it means.

  And no GOD of the Hebrews (OT) or of the Christians (NT ) has ever came to HIS defence to set matters straight as to what is HIS TRUE WRITTEN WORD

  His silence is deafening .

  It always puzzled me why the JW`s adopted the Protestant number of authentic books of the Bible.where they could have settled for a couple more just to be different from christendom and it still would have been considered a christian religion.

  Bottom line is : It all depends on interpretation of what the scriptures mean by the interpretator and not what the scripture actually says .

  Thats why we have over 40,000 different Christian sects nowadays and GOD is still silent ?

  Is he a GOD of order or disorder ?
• 

  Rainbow_Troll

  Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

  You be the judge. I especially recommend his 'Apostates are mentally diseased' post.

  Another pro-jw site is thirdwitness.com, its "exposé" of the myths of JW child molestation - accompanied by bizarrely malapropos images from classic movies - is well worth the read.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  B. When you were in , did you think or ever think you understood the bamboozle.

  There actually was a time when I reckoned that I did fully understand the whole piece about the trinity:

  - but that was when I had only heard the WTS's version of things.

  At that stage, I had read everything I could get my hands on that the WTS had written about this matter (heavily laced, as it was, with selected quotations from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons). Little did I then realise that the concept of the trinity was something fiercely disputed over a period of several centuries during the early Christian era - and definitely not something to be fully comprehended from an eight second TV sound bite (or similar)!

  These days, I identify with the sentiment expressed by Steve2

  I personally could give a tinker's cuss whether the God of the Bible is one, two or three in one.

  Bloody good one!

  
  
• 

  Steel

  The point I was trying to make , wherever there is a verse in the bible concerning the diety of Christ, there are entire websites dedicated to deconstructing each verse. It's either not what the author meant or a corrupt rendering of the verse.

  Now the fun part is trying to read some of these explanations. They are insanity twisted andr ridiculously complex. All about the same level of the societies explanation of how long a generation is.

  Has anyone looked at any of these explanations or am I just stupid?
• 

  Giordano

  https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=When+did+Jesus+become+divine&*&spf=1
  

  When and why did Jesus' followers start saying "Jesus as God" and what did they mean by that? Bart Ehrman's new book is called How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.

  During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...
  You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...
  I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
  Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context.
  When Constantine, the emperor, then converted to Christianity, it changed everything because now rather than the emperor being God, the emperor was the worshiper of the God, Jesus. That was quite a forceful change, and one could argue that it changed the understanding of religion and politics for all time.
• 

  Steel

  Any attempt to have a theological discussion here just turns into atheist agnostic mush.

  Depressing
• 

  Joe Grundy

  OP: "why first Christians believed Jesus was god in the flesh."

  I think you'll find when you research this in depth - and IMO Ehrman is a good starting point - that there never was a consistent and common belief amongst the earliest followers. There were many competing views, and there's good reason to think that even during his lifetime followers in different geographical locations had different understandings and emphases regarding his teachings.

  The 'unanimity of beliefs' of the 'first christians' seems to me to be a myth, although so many groups claim to know it and follow it.

  This is to do with history, not theology.