Are JW's embarrassed by faith in Jesus? (page 2)

FirstInLine

No they are not embarrassed of him. They despise him. To them he is an obstacle. He should be quickly acknowledged just enough to recap their position concerning him as a slaughtered lamb like in the OT when the priest made atonement and then relegated to the position of rule giver and angel of death when need be. And just remember, never under any circumstances eat the unfermented cakes or wine of his cup. That isnt for you. Trust us. You are too late for any of that business. In order to be a part of that you would have to have been one of the millions that weren't supposed to die or one of the millions that died from epidemics that could have been treated with a vaccine but knew better because it was satanic and such.

Farkel

Old Joe Rutherford realized he could not build any sort of religious Empire using a New Testament religion based upon Jesus Christ and what he said: everyone else in the Christian community was doing the same thing. He also realized that he could not build any sort of a religious Empire using only an Old Testament based religion: the Jews has the lock on that. So what he came up with was a "Jesus" religion based upon the Old Testament (with the New Testament used only in moderation). It worked.

Jesus was the prop for the religion, and the Old Testament was the law book for the religion.

I will assert this and I will prove this, if necessary: the religion of the WTS would fall flat on its face if it only could rely on the New Testament to prove it's own veracity.

This is a fact, and worse, this is spitting in the face of Jesus, who said ALL the laws of the OT were summed up in just two laws. The second of which, the WTS will never obey, and the first of which, they only pay lip service to: they want all love and worship for themselves.

Farkel

eyeslice

I had a recent visit from an elder (a good friend of mine, remember I have only not been attending a few months). I got the usual encouragement; meetings, study, field service.

Now interestingly, he didn't bring a Bible with him, but I had had mine and talked about 1 Cor 15:58 "always having plenty to do in the work of the Lord". I said "you know the Lord here is our Lord Jesus Christ, that's who Paul was referring to not Jehovah. So the question is; what work would Jesus be doing today?" I could tell he was totally thrown by this line of argument. So I got on talking about whether Jesus won't be involved in helping the thousands of brothers and sisters in Africa with AIDS as well as being an evangelizer.

I don't want to be disfellowshipped for apostasy, too many of my family still in, yet at the same time I don't want my leaving to be seen as an issue of my personal lack of integrity or spirituality. It is too easy for them to brush aside people like me as ?bad eggs? they are well shot of. I take the line that I am a very spiritual person who is struggling with a lot of what the Society teaches and does. I want to make it clear that my leaving has to do with the fact that there are fundamental principles that they should espouse, like Jesus is Lord, that aren?t practiced by the Society.

Narkissos

Eyeslice:

I don't want to be disfellowshipped for apostasy, too many of my family still in, yet at the same time I don't want my leaving to be seen as an issue of my personal lack of integrity or spirituality. It is too easy for them to brush aside people like me as ?bad eggs? they are well shot of. I take the line that I am a very spiritual person who is struggling with a lot of what the Society teaches and does. I want to make it clear that my leaving has to do with the fact that there are fundamental principles that they should espouse, like Jesus is Lord, that aren?t practiced by the Society.

The course you describe is (or at least was, 20 years ago) just the surest way to being "disfellowshipped for apostasy".

When they come to think your case is lost, you will find the nice, understanding elders coming back to you as a judicial committee with a preset list of questions for you to answer with yes or no. Then you're done.

pudd

I don?t think the witnesses are embarrassed about Jesus. I think it is all about the language used.

We can all tell a witness a mile away by the way they talk. When a witness starts to sound more like a born again it sends out warning signals.

Remember most ?born agains'? think Jesus is God, so when it sounds as though you are saying Jesus instead of Jehovah, they know something is wrong.

IT Support

Eyeslice,

I want to make it clear that my leaving has to do with the fact that there are fundamental principles that they should espouse, like Jesus is Lord, that aren?t practiced by the Society.

I totally agree with Narkissos: keep up this line of reasoning with them, and you'll be disfellowshipped before you know it. Seriously.

There is no way they can allow you to leave with honour, if you persist in highlighting WT errors. They cannot allow you the freedom to expose these to others, and the most effective way to silence you is to disfellowship you.

By the way, I liked your scripture (1Co 15:58), but I thought verse 57 says it even more explicitly.

And I hope all goes well when they come round next time...

Regards,

Ken

(Who's in an almost identical situation himself...)

Sirona

Narkissos

In my last congregation (1986), when I was first summoned by the elders they introduced the discussion saying: "We've noticed you're talking a lot about Jesus." In their minds "a lot" obviously meant "too much"; I asked how such a thing could be possible in a NT perspective. I can still remember their stare when I quoted 1 John 2:23 (NW):
Everyone that denies the Son does not have the Father either. He that confesses the Son has the Father also.

Wow. That is the basis of the matter IMO. How could they possibly put a limit on how much a christian talks about Christ???!! That is baloney!

It reminds me - when I was still a good dub, I had no end of trouble "getting my head around" the Greatest Man book. I simply told an elder that I didn't think it helped me be closer to Jesus, even though it goes through the stories of his life. The elder simply replied "well we don't all like all of the publications". - in other words, he offered no advice on "being close to Jesus" because that doesn't exist for the JWs.

Sirona

peacefulpete

Instead of suggesting that the WT is ashamed of Jesus, I explain the JW discomfort caused by the use of terms like "Lord Jesus" as resulting from the way each brand of Xtianity has near patented versions of Jesus. Brand recognition is accomplished thru use of these lables for Jesus. The charismatics prefer terms that are emotionally charged like "Lord and Savior Jesus" (usually with emphasis on the "L-or" in Lord). Their typically "Gangas-like" in love of adjectives. Catholics often say "Our" before any title for Jesus, carrying a sense of onwnership. (usually it's Jesus-Christ or Baby Jesus or The Son)

JWs like to say just "Jesus" or "Christ Jesus" which emphasize the ROLE he plays in Jehovah's master plan and his humanity.

JWs are not 'ashamed' of Jesus they simply have a different brand of Jesus. JWs are not the only group that uses cult-speak loaded language, they all do. When a JW uses a term or even shifts the pronounciation to that of a competing cult the audience picks up on it immediately and is suspicious of loyalties.

eyeslice

Thanks for some of the warnings. I am very careful how I phrase things. I have been in long enough to understand the tatics used against disenters.

peacefulpete

I understand exactly what you are saying and you are right.However, I did not say Witnesses were ashamed, I used the term embarrassed.

As I said, I have not become a 'born again' myself but reading the NT, I find the language used (the brand in your terms) is very "Jesus is Lord" focused. The point is that the Witnesses claim to follow the Bible completely but find it uncomfortable when confronted with many issues concerning Jesus as Lord and personal savior which is without doubt the way the NT portrays him.

eyeslice

LittleToe

Eyeslice:Thanks for the compliment, though I wouldn't generally brand myself as liberal
Incidentally, being "born again" has little to do with deep "knowledge". That's supposed to come afterwards.

I especially like 1Cor.2:1, 2 - which you never see from them:

"And so I, when I came to YOU, brothers, did not come with an extravagance of speech or of wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to YOU. For I decided not to know anything among YOU except Jesus Christ, and him impaled." NWT

Are JW's embarrassed by faith in Jesus?

Share this