my brief membership to the e-watchman's site was a sickening reminder of the brainwashing and hypocrisy of the wtbts.
through my sources, i have obtained a rare picture of the illusive e-watchman.
why does he look so familiar to me .
The gayest thing about the board is that while they all speak out against the organization, it's lies and deceptions, they encourage all to stay in the organization and keep quiet about what they know.
This reminds me of when I was in second grade and held firm in my belief of Santa Clause, even though I quietly dismissed my acceptance that reindeer could fly.
I studied this guy's website on exposing "Should you believe in the Trinity", extensively. Although I very much appreciate the volumes of key reference materials that he puts out there, and I also consider myself to be a Trinitarian, I think this guy is basically a "kook". His arrogant, childish, pouting attitude permeates his whole commentary and really detracts from the credibility of his whole site. The arrogance actually exceeds that which you encounter in the pages of the Watchtower. It's like some JWs made him cry and he's gonna show them, by golly.
I think that one of the best scripture-based references on the Trinity is "Reasoning from the Sriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ron Rhodes. This deals with the divinity of Christ, Trinity, personality of the Holy Spirit as separate topics but addresses most of the key Biblical arguments presented by the WTS in a pretty effective way.
As far as an expose goes, this website provides the most complete reference material I've seen. It's more extensive than Angel Arellano's book. The problem is you have to wade through all this guy's comments about the WTS being satanic and stuff but if you're willing to take the time to cut-and-paste alot of the relevant material in to a summary form (as I have), it is pretty amazing.
As for a history-based reference, this site is pretty good: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/trinity.htm
Also, Randy Watters' book, "The truth shall set you free" gives a really good historical and scripture based take on the doctrine.
the watchtower, june 15, 2004 issue, pages 14-24:.
" for the benefit of current readers, the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine.
19 near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: "does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential?
Do you think that the WTS is gearing up for some "new light" here? Did you notice how "pouring blood on the ground" was not re-emphasized in this latest (2004) article? Perhaps they are asserting their stand on what they will hold firm to--that is, what portions of blood they will not or might accept, while at the same time getting ready to ease restrictions regarding the storing of one's own blood? Perhaps this is just wishful thinking...
being only newly freed from the wts, there are many people who were my friends that i would like to be able to explain the truth about many of the points raised on this board.
so i have decided to compile a publication that i can mail to them with short succinct, hardhitting reasoning on areas where the wts is misleading them and also areas where they are saying one thing but practising another.
i would like to be able to limit the explanations to one topic per page with the hope that if there is not too much too read they may just bother to read it.
Some quick points about the cross:
While the Jews may have considered the cross a shameful thing, the Apostle Paul boasted of the cross of Christ. In Galatians 6:14 he says:"But may it never be that I would boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
i may have this wts doctrine all wrong, so correct me if that's the case.. .
my understanding of it is this: back in 1914 jesus returned to claim back an earthly kingdom which had since been destroyed since the state of isreal fell to babylon.
however, when he got down here jesus didn't quite immediately set up a new kingdom (or "organization", or "channel", or "theocracy", or "faithful discreet slave"), since he had to look over all the churches first to see which one was closest to being the "true" church.
I may have this WTS doctrine all wrong, so correct me if that's the case.
My understanding of it is this: back in 1914 Jesus returned to claim back an earthly kingdom which had since been destroyed since the state of Isreal fell to Babylon. However, when he got down here Jesus didn't quite immediately set up a new kingdom (or "organization", or "channel", or "theocracy", or "faithful discreet slave"), since he had to look over all the churches first to see which one was closest to being the "true" church. Finally after 5 years of much deliberation and examination, in 1919 he settled on the little sect formerly led by Pastor Russell and subsequently led by Judge Rutherford.
Did I get this right? If so, I have questions about this:
1. If this particular organization, the WTS, was the one registered corporation that was talked about so much in the prophecies of Revelation, Daniel, etc., wouldn't Jesus already have recognized this group from the start, already having been so familiar with "their work"?
2. If the "Bible Students" of the time were already composed wholly of the "Bride of Christ" (144,000), and the other churches were totally devoid of members of this elite class, why didn't Christ recognize those who already were his "bride" for 5 years?
3. How is it that the "Kingdom" is said to have been re-established in 1914 through the WTS, when it really wasn't until 1919?
Or, let me know just how badly I have jumbled it all up.
my husband's cousin just called to offer me a book on the trinity.
my husband had told her that i didn't believe in the trinity.. i'm having a really hard time being open to the trinity.
i have jehovah and jesus drilled in to my head as separate entities.
My biggest problem with the Trinity is the way people can use both God and Jesus in reference to the same thing.
Paul seemed to have a habit of doing this too, applying numerous OT Yahweh scriptures to Jesus.
i have a young man emailing me.
he is a mormon.
at first he emailed to me because he found my cousin's story on randy watter's website and my email addy is in the story.
If he still persists, ask him to walk you through each of the points made here:
i have a friend who is constantly getting bugged by a jw co-worker who keeps coming to his house to preach to him.
he's usually not home but she keeps disrupting the family.
she's caught him like 2-3 times as he was already on his way out, so he's never taken the time to really talk to her much.
I have a friend who is constantly getting bugged by a JW co-worker who keeps coming to his house to preach to him. He's usually not home but she keeps disrupting the family. She's caught him like 2-3 times as he was already on his way out, so he's never taken the time to really talk to her much. He wants to get her to stop coming around, and perhaps say something profound yet brief in the process. He's not really well versed in Biblical topics...what would be a good thing for him to say?
my husband's cousin just called to offer me a book on the trinity.
my husband had told her that i didn't believe in the trinity.. i'm having a really hard time being open to the trinity.
i have jehovah and jesus drilled in to my head as separate entities.
I agree with LittleToe. You're buying into the WTS "scholarship".
As quoted in "Should you believe in the Trinity",
Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed, "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it ."-Origin and Evolution of Religion.
But upon further examination of what Hopkins actually wrote,
The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c. 100). To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate, they say nothing about it. (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p. 336)
The early Church declared that Christ was the Logos and that the Logos was God. As such, though the earlier Gospels give no hint of this, Christ in John is represented as remembering his preexistence. Paul does not say that Christ is God, but he identifies Christ with the Holy Spirit and applies to him words of the Old Testament used of God: 'I am God and ... unto me every knee shall bow' (Isa 45:22-23; Phil 2:10 ). (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p. 336)
But the first Christian theology was given in the words 'I and my Father are one' and the plain faith of the early church members who were not doctrinaires was just this and nothing more. Jesus is God. So proclaimed the first hymns, sung by the early Church. (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p 338).
28i tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.
29but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.
these two verses make me quiver in my boots.
Honestly, I've been through the same range of emotions you're going through. I'm in the same boat. Quick advice: Work on yourself, then work on her. Get a hold of yourself, don't blame her for accepting such lunacy and try and get closer to her. Be more understanding and open. She is under sophisticated mind-controlling influences. Don't blow up. It's counter-productive. I would suggest reading all you can about Watchtower psychology under freeminds.org. That's where you should start, not getting into doctrinal arguments. I chased the doctrinal thing and even the 1914 fallacy, making historical charts and graphs, the whole 9 yards. I even got her to back down with NO answers or comebacks regarding the nature of the soul in light of various scriptures, etc. Logical argumentation generally doesn't do much good unless she's already on the fence.
I don't have time to get into many of the fine points, but buy "Releasing the Bonds" from Steven Hassan. Take detailed notes on what are the underlying influences behind her actions and learn them well. One principle I found that helped me understand things was "cognitive dissonance theory". Basically that one will strive to make their behaviors, thoughts and emotions ALL in harmony. If one of those mental aspects are manipulated to change, then the person will experience much discomfort or "dissonance" until the other two fall in line. The hook for many mind-controlling groups is the emotional factor. People think they've found all the answers for every question they've ever had, they've finally found a community of truly thoughtful, sincere, happy, united people, they've become part of an exclusive group that out of all the world is favored and chosen by God, etc., etc...This is a very powerful emotional trip...So to stay on this trip, they have to adjust their thoughts and behavior to comply...If you slam a thought of "reality" into their face, like 1914 is a complete joke, they treat you like the plague...not only did the WTS say you would oppose Jehovah's people, but it make's 'em feel horrible inside to be slapped with something that threatens to tear down the very foundation of all their security.
The trick is to gain her trust, then systematically begin to address the various 'hooks', such as fears, guilt, etc., which are keeping her immovable...
Hope this helps...
