The Heresy Jehovah’s Witnesses

[Trump Gurl]

Right off the top: Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. They preach a false Christ.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

• They Deny the Divinity of Christ.
• They Deny Hell and its Eternity
• No Clergy
• Corrupted Bible (New World Translation)
• Jesus is an Angel
• The 144,000 Elect alone have Immortal Souls

Then there are other beliefs that are just weird, like no Blood Transfusions and insisting that God's name is Jehovah..


First, a backdrop: The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect founded in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell, a Pittsburgh draper. Russell was born in 1852 of Scottish and Irish descent. He became an earnest worker in the Congregational Church.

Russell was not a Scripture scholar, learned in the Greek language. Under oath in court at Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1913 he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek. Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet. Neither did he know Latin or Hebrew. He wrote on the Bible, but every acknowledged Scripture scholar in the universities of the world today will agree that Russell’s explanations are for the most part quite contrary to the obvious meaning of the words of the Bible.

After Russell’s death he was succeeded as head of the sect by a man named Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who called himself “Judge” although he had never held an official appointment as such. On May 8, 1918, together with other “Russellites,” he was arrested under the Espionage Act and later sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for spreading insubordination and disloyalty in the American Navy and Army.

Rutherford was succeeded as head of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Nathan Homer Knorr. He had been on the board of directors since 1934. Knorr began a face-lifting and public relations program which paid dividends in converts. Door-to-door evangelists no longer carried portable gramophones and collections of Rutherford’s records. They were given a thorough training in speech, apologetics, and salesmanship which enabled them to deliver their own Bible talks.

Witnesses are not Christians, for they deny that Christ is God. The Witnesses have no time for the Christian churches. Russell said that in 1879 God had rejected all existing Churches and made the Russellites the only spokesmen thenceforward.

As for civil authority, they say they owe their only loyalty to a “Theocratic Kingdom” and refuse the duties of earthly citizenship. There are two groups in the world, the “Theocratic Kingdom” and “Satan’s Organization.” This latter includes all churches and governments. Just as among the churches the papacy is the “Beast” par excellence, so among the nations are America and Britain.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs

• They Deny the Divinity of Christ.

Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Sooner or later, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are going to knock on your door. This tract gives the low-down on their beleifs, and how to respond to them.

www.catholic.com

Is Christ God?

1. “Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him.” Given in support of this position are these verses: “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (Matt. 3:17). “I proceeded and came forth from God” (John 8:42). “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one” (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Or, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Or, “The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Or, “[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last four, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

Was Christ Created?

1. “Christ was the first of God’s creations.” Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15). “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” (Rev. 3:14).

In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that “first-born” implies succession and inferiority. But the title “first-born” refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as “the first-born over all creation,” as in the New International Version of the Bible.

Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine.

The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him.

More to come

 

[Trump Gurl]

Trent Horn - Why do Jehovah's Witnesses deny Christ's divinity?​

 

[Trump Gurl]

• They Deny Hell and its Eternity

Hell No, We Won’t Go?​

1. “Wicked will be eternally destroyed” (that is, no hell, just annihilation). Verses given in support: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:41, 46). (The NWT renders Matthew 25:46 as “And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” This is one example of many where the NWT distorts the text to suit the Witnesses’ beliefs.) “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:9).

You can see for yourself that these verses actually prove the opposite of what the Witnesses teach; that is, they prove the existence of hell. This is compounded when Revelation says of the damned: “And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name” (Rev. 14:11).

Hell? Yes! (Part I)

Many preachers today are silent on the topic of hell. What does the Catholic Church teach about this it? Click here for a thorugh explanation.

www.catholic.com

Hell? Yes! (Part I)

Many preachers today are silent on the topic of hell. What does the Catholic Church teach about this it? Click here for a thorugh explanation.

www.catholic.com

 

[Trump Gurl]

• No Clergy

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This nontechnical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term “minister” is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or nonordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

The early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of bishops, priests, and deacons: LINK

What the Early Church Believed: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons. Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations a...

www.catholic.com

 

[NWL]

Right off the top: Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. They preach a false Christ.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

• They Deny the Divinity of Christ.
• They Deny Hell and its Eternity
• No Clergy
• Corrupted Bible (New World Translation)
• Jesus is an Angel
• The 144,000 Elect alone have Immortal Souls

Then there are other beliefs that are just weird, like no Blood Transfusions and insisting that God's name is Jehovah..


First, a backdrop: The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect founded in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell, a Pittsburgh draper. Russell was born in 1852 of Scottish and Irish descent. He became an earnest worker in the Congregational Church.

Russell was not a Scripture scholar, learned in the Greek language. Under oath in court at Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1913 he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek. Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet. Neither did he know Latin or Hebrew. He wrote on the Bible, but every acknowledged Scripture scholar in the universities of the world today will agree that Russell’s explanations are for the most part quite contrary to the obvious meaning of the words of the Bible.

After Russell’s death he was succeeded as head of the sect by a man named Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who called himself “Judge” although he had never held an official appointment as such. On May 8, 1918, together with other “Russellites,” he was arrested under the Espionage Act and later sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for spreading insubordination and disloyalty in the American Navy and Army.

Rutherford was succeeded as head of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Nathan Homer Knorr. He had been on the board of directors since 1934. Knorr began a face-lifting and public relations program which paid dividends in converts. Door-to-door evangelists no longer carried portable gramophones and collections of Rutherford’s records. They were given a thorough training in speech, apologetics, and salesmanship which enabled them to deliver their own Bible talks.

Witnesses are not Christians, for they deny that Christ is God. The Witnesses have no time for the Christian churches. Russell said that in 1879 God had rejected all existing Churches and made the Russellites the only spokesmen thenceforward.

As for civil authority, they say they owe their only loyalty to a “Theocratic Kingdom” and refuse the duties of earthly citizenship. There are two groups in the world, the “Theocratic Kingdom” and “Satan’s Organization.” This latter includes all churches and governments. Just as among the churches the papacy is the “Beast” par excellence, so among the nations are America and Britain.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs

• They Deny the Divinity of Christ.

Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Sooner or later, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are going to knock on your door. This tract gives the low-down on their beleifs, and how to respond to them.

www.catholic.com

Is Christ God?

1. “Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him.” Given in support of this position are these verses: “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (Matt. 3:17). “I proceeded and came forth from God” (John 8:42). “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one” (1 Cor. 15:28).

At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Or, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Or, “The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Or, “[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last four, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

Was Christ Created?

1. “Christ was the first of God’s creations.” Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15). “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” (Rev. 3:14).

In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that “first-born” implies succession and inferiority. But the title “first-born” refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as “the first-born over all creation,” as in the New International Version of the Bible.

Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine.

The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him.

More to come

As you and others are probably aware I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. Your copy and pasted article attempts to express many scriptual issues with JW theology compared to the bible, I'm more than happy to enter into dialogue with you regading these apparent issues, if your up to the challenge.

Based on your previous conversations I don't believe you are someone who is able to articulate and hold your own arguemnts, so I won't be suprised if you dont reply back to this or express your contempt in a relpy.

 

[Trump Gurl]

As you and others are probably aware I am one kf Jehovah's witnesses. Your copy and pasted article attempts to express many scriptual issues with JW theology compared to the bible, I'm more than happy to enter into dialogue with you regading these apparent issues, if your up to the challenge.

Based on your previous conversations I don't believe you are someone who is able to articulate and hold your own arguemnts, so I won't be suprised if you dont reply baxk to this or express your contempt in a relpy.

The first thing YOU would have to do is use a real Bible and not the distorted corrupted New World Translation. You also have to admit that you are not a Christian. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. If you cannot deal with that reality then you cannot have a real conversation with anybody.

 

[NWL]

The first thing YOU would have to do is use a real Bible and not the distorted corrupted New World Translation. You also have to admit that you are not a Christian. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. If you cannot deal with that reality then you cannot have a real conversation with anybody.

The defintion of the word christian is someone who is a "follower of christ", this fact is irrefutable. I can say for a fact I'm not a christian according to your understanding of who Christ is; I am NOT a follower of your christ.

Although I don't agree with you stating the NWT is corrupted, I'm fine with using a different bible other than the NWT; you should know that I rarely use the NWT on these forums when debating theology, so it's not an issue.

Are you now prepared to engage with an unemotional conversation about the issues you copy and pasted about JW's? If you are, what issue from among the ones you posted would you like me to address and question?

 

[Lonster]

The defintion of the word christian is someone who is a "follower of christ", this fact is irrefutable. I can say for a fact I'm not a christian according to your understanding of who Christ is; I am NOT a follower of your christ.

Two points: 1) Acts 11:26 - your first 'fact' isn't then irrefutable. You are making odd, wild, and roughly insignificant statements. Are you sure you are a NW leader capable of being a JW spokesman? Do you even want to be? What if you are wrong and I can show you problems? Are you willing to change? As it stands, she has a thread dedicated to likely warn the bulwark of Christianity, and give them tools for discussions on TOL when engaging Unitarians (because they, being few, cannot help but frequent Trinitarian websites with bickering and fighting). Point 2: why do you want a 1) "irrefutable fact" (which isn't really irrefutable) if you aren't one anyway?

Although I don't agree with you stating the NWT is corrupted,

It is, regardless and I can present the argument, in clarity, why that any but a JW would believe. That a JW won't be convinced? Delusion, no? Why is ONLY a JW the only one that accepts the NWT? Ever wonder? (the answer is obvious for any who have ears to hear and can think without being duped).

I'm fine with using a different bible other than the NWT;

Let's try it: "In the beginning, Jesus was called the Word. He was with God, and at the same time was God." Let's see if you are fine with this.

you should know that I rarely use the NWT on these forums when debating theology, so it's not an issue.

It is an affront to any that actually know what the Bible says. Good job.

Are you now prepared to engage with an unemotional conversation

Emotion is fine. Let's rather engage with clarity in given biblical expression rather than 'assuming' deductive reasoning. It doesn't matter if you are angry, happy, sad, etc. It matters rather if it is true or not. You can go ahead and be emotional about it. Such rarely conveys through the screen and isn't really important.

about the issues you copy and pasted about JW's?

I'm not sure if she wanted conversation about it. Start with 'did Russel say he could read Greek?' (yes). Was he able? (no)
What did you want to talk to her about?
Is there a genuine problem with leaders of Unitarians lying under oath? Going to prison?
Yes. Such doesn't necessarily mean 'wrong' but it does indeed lead to 'suspect the veracity.'
My wife and I were out to dinner and witnessed the ungodly behavior of one of the Watchtower conventions chief speakers hit on a married women while her husband (a nonJW) was not there. The whole JW crowd laughed. My wife and I lost our appetite at the incredible ungodliness of it. JW's just didn't seem 'regenerate' newCreations in Christ. You want to debate what a "Christian" is, I can at least say "not that!"

TG has a good start. I have huge problems with the NW T(not a translation, a paraphrase of some verses with NO translation effort and a knock-off of KJV). It is foundationally dishonest. Its sole (only) reason for existence is for the lone purpose of shoring up a belief about the bible BEFORE reading the Bible. The Watchtower itself said that if ANY of its students read the Bible, without the watchtower, they'd wander from the truth! THAT, dear NW, is extraordinary! It writes ITSELF as adversarial! Do you realize that? I have a friend that used to be JW. He was one up and until he discovered truth because of preconceived notions and commitments. I posit EVERY JW and Unitarian is one SOLELY because of preconceptions and commitments. There is no biblical reason to rewrite a different version, word for word other than to change what isn't liked, nor to be one otherwise. Literally.

If you are, what issue from among the ones you posted would you like me to address and question?

Last

Good question. She may just use that opening as an opportunity to ignore you, if 'question' isn't the intent of the thread. It allows her to move along without engaging you.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Lonster,

I was interested in this thread, not because I support JWs and their teaching, but I do have some beliefs that are closer to the JWs than the Catholic Church teachings. I was also interested in what Trump Gurl would present. Could you please tell me what translation you are quoting, as I made a quick check on many translations, but could not find this one. Especially, on what basis do they add the words "Jesus " and "called" into John 1:1 as these do not seem to be in the Greek?

Let's try it: "In the beginning, Jesus was called the Word. He was with God, and at the same time was God." Let's see if you are fine with this.

In another thread you seem to base your understanding of John 1:1 upon this addition. Possibly it is a "Lonster" translation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[armorbearer]

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

 

[Lonster]

Greetings Lonster,

I was interested in this thread, not because I support JWs and their teaching, but I do have some beliefs that are closer to the JWs than the Catholic Church teachings. I was also interested in what Trump Gurl would present. Could you please tell me what translation you are quoting, as I made a quick check on many translations, but could not find this one. Especially, on what basis do they add the words "Jesus " and "called" into John 1:1 as these do not seem to be in the Greek?

First of all, do you read Greek? Second Jesus is mentioned by name, associated with whom John was talking about the whole time, not until verse 36. Jesus, by name is mentioned by John the baptist in verse 17. Point? That there is NO point to mentioning "Word" without acknowledging by point of fact and grammatical necessity, that John the Apostle is introducing His lord, savior, and God, not waxing poetic or talking randomly. The ONLY purpose of introduction is declaring the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus "Jesus" is indeed the ONLY acceptable translation understanding.

In another thread you seem to base your understanding of John 1:1 upon this addition. Possibly it is a "Lonster" translation.

The point was New World Teacher said any translation was fine. Probably not... Right now? I'm not inclined to return vitriol and attack, Trevor. I'm increasingly not liking talking to you, mostly due to your shallowness and posturing naive arrogance and unteachable presence on TOL. Try not to attack and accuse all in one lump. YOU are on a Triune board ( I have a very large thread on God's Triune nature). I'm not on your Unitarian board. YOU are the interloper for it, not me. Arrogance and poor manners show themselves plainly on TOL. Try to be a better 'guest' in someone else's house.

Kind regards
Trevor

Was it actually given in kind regards, Trevor? I believe you need to work on your poor manners, rather. You have a nasty habit of insulting and disdaining your hosts. This is unapologetically (because we believe it AND have the wherewithall) a Triune website. Try to behave in another's house without ill manners. -Lon

 

[Trump Gurl]

. . . . Are you now prepared to engage with an unemotional conversation. . . . .

I am never emotional. I am prepared to engage with you as long as you cease and desist those sorts of cheap shots that are meant to minimalize my posts.

First off then: You said, "I'm fine with using a different bible other than the NWT"

Good. I will actually reiterate Lonster's question regarding John 1:1,14

• "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
• "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

The Word was God, God became flash and dwelt among us. God became flesh and dwelt among us.

How can you deny Christ's divinity when the Bible plainly says God became flesh and dwelt among us.

NOTE: Since we have a lengthy thread on that topic already let's not drag this out to long because there are many other points to get to.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lonster,

Thus "Jesus" is indeed the ONLY acceptable translation understanding.

What you are saying then, is that your supposed “translation” is really your commentary and that you have added your own understanding of John 1:1 to the Word of God. My understanding of "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification, and yes this is also different to the JW view.

The point was New World Teacher said any translation was fine.

But you did not supply a translation, but your commentary. In actual fact I reject the NWT of John 1:1, "a god", and my guess is that this all started when one of their “scholars” misunderstood the “Diaglott” which they published, and having committed to this error they persevere and use all manner of claims to substantiate their error. I have also encountered the same perseverance when they try to substantiate other errors, for example “cautious” in Genesis 3:1 instead of "crafty" in most translations or "subtil" KJV. They lock in their error by claiming that it was done by Satan as a ventriloquist.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Trump Gurl]

. . . . Are you sure you are a NW leader capable of being a JW spokesman? Do you even want to be? . . .

She says she is a JW

. . . I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . . .

 

[Trump Gurl]

Greetings Lonster,

I was interested in this thread, not because I support JWs and their teaching, but I do have some beliefs that are closer to the JWs than the Catholic Church teachings. I was also interested in what Trump Gurl would present. Could you please tell me what translation you are quoting, as I made a quick check on many translations, but could not find this one. Especially, on what basis do they add the words "Jesus " and "called" into John 1:1 as these do not seem to be in the Greek?

In another thread you seem to base your understanding of John 1:1 upon this addition. Possibly it is a "Lonster" translation.

Kind regards
Trevor

Bible scholars I trust say that the RSV is the best. Not to be confused with the NRSV.

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[a] 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, [ b] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness,[ c] and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. 15 (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son,[d] who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

Footnotes​

1. 1.1 John begins by giving his Gospel a theological background. By speaking at once of “the Word” he implies that his readers are familiar with the term. To Gentiles it indicated some form of divine revelation or self-expression. Jews would equate it with the divine Wisdom described in Proverbs, which already appears as something more than a divine quality and has some relationship with the visible world. In Sirach and Wisdom the idea is further developed. In the last-named book, Wisdom appears as a pre-existing person, taking part in the creation of the world and having a mission to reveal God to his creatures; cf. Wis 7.22–8.1.
2. John 1:4 Or was not anything made. That which has been made was life in him
3. 1.5 light . . . darkness: One of the familiar themes of the Gospel.
4. John 1:18 Other ancient authorities read God

 

[Trump Gurl]

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

That is Christian doctrine PERIOD, whether one is Catholic, EO, or protestant.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Trump Gurl,

Bible scholars I trust say that the RSV is the best.

I have heard, but not studied, that the RSV in the Psalms, and possibly elsewhere, have sometimes given a translation based on altering the Hebrew, without even mentioning this in the margin. I was reading a commentary, and he gave a good explanation of a partly difficult verse, and then added the comment the the RSV attempt was wrong and unnecessary. Otherwise the RSV has made many improvements, but I prefer to compare a number of translations. I agree with the RSV of John 1:18 and consider many modern translations of this verse incorrect.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Trump Gurl]

Bible scholars I trust say that the RSV is the best.

Greetings Trump Gurl,

I have heard, but not studied, that the RSV in the Psalms, and possibly elsewhere, have sometimes given a translation based on altering the Hebrew, without even mentioning this in the margin. I was reading a commentary, and he gave a good explanation of a partly difficult verse, and then added the comment the the RSV attempt was wrong and unnecessary. Otherwise the RSV has made many improvements, but I prefer to compare a number of translations. I agree with the RSV of John 1:18 and consider many modern translations of this verse incorrect.
Kind regards Trevor

Well I don't read Hebrew or Greek and I am not a Bible scholar and neither is anyone else here. We can only go with who we trust right? I have listened to James Akin and he is pretty brilliant and I trust his call.

Choosing a Bible Translation by James Akin

Choosing a Bible Translation – Jimmy Akin

 

[NWL]

Two points: 1) Acts 11:26 - your first 'fact' isn't then irrefutable.

It kinda is irrefutable. Acts 11:26, which you produced shows it when it states "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch". A disciple is someone who is a student, pupil, or follower of someone, the "disciples" of Christ were called "Christians", as Acts 11:26 states. If people dedicate themselves to Christ and his teachings they are his disciples, therefore, they are chrisitans; being a disciple of Christ is synonymous with being a Christian, as Acts 11:26 shows. If someone does not follow Christ they are not a Christian, if someone does follow Christ then they are a Christian, it's that simple and irrefutable. Nowhere in the scripture are we told that to be called a Christian we must adopt the teaching of the trinity doctrine, which was not taught by Jesus or the apostles. Please do not respond to this matter unless you bring scriptural references that defines a Christian further than what I've expressed.

You are making odd, wild, and roughly insignificant statements. Are you sure you are a NW leader capable of being a JW spokesman? Do you even want to be? What if you are wrong and I can show you problems? Are you willing to change? As it stands, she has a thread dedicated to likely warn the bulwark of Christianity, and give them tools for discussions on TOL when engaging Unitarians (because they, being few, cannot help but frequent Trinitarian websites with bickering and fighting). Point 2: why do you want a 1) "irrefutable fact" (which isn't really irrefutable) if you aren't one anyway?

You ask a lot of questions for someone who refuses to answer my own questions.

I've nowhere offered to be a spokesperson for all JW's, rather, I, as a JW, have offered to speak to her regarding the issue she has posted about. If I did not want to speak as a JW why would I offer??

What if you are wrong and I can show you problems? Are you willing to change?

Lon, you struggle to answer my basic question, what makes you think you can show me issues. Once you first answer my question on the other thread I'll be willing to speak about other issues; what point is there in conversing with someone who refuses to answer questions and cherry-picks the scriptures they want to speak about and the scriptures they conveniently want to ignore.

I believe in Gods word the bible, if the bible teaches it I'll believe it. So to answer your question, if someone was able to show me a truth and teaching from the bible I'll accept it; I'm loyal to God and his word above all other things.

That a JW won't be convinced? Delusion, no? Why is ONLY a JW the only one that accepts the NWT? Ever wonder?

I do not believe the NWT is perfect, it no doubt has errors, and there are certain things I do not personally like about it, but to say it is wholly inaccurate though is silly. The NWT has far fewer translation errors than most of the popular bibles in use today.

Jason Beduhn has previously said, "the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and also "I have found that the NWT is one of the most accurate translations currently available". Deduhn has made mention that he himself uses the Kingdom Intelner Translation (interlinear of Greek NT) of JW's when teaching in the university he works in.

Trinitarians are less inclined to accept the NWT as it does not contain the biases that are needed for understanding the trinity.

Let's try it: "In the beginning, Jesus was called the Word. He was with God, and at the same time was God." Let's see if you are fine with this.

Let's not jump the gun! Firstly, my offer was to Trump girl, not you. Once you show me your capable of engaging decently, not refusing to answer questions and point as you have previously done, I might consider engaging with you once more. There is no point in speaking to someone who picks and chooses what and what not to answer when it's convenient for them, even when the matter is pressed.

What's crazy is I've previously tried to speak to you about John 1:1 and you've chosen to ignore my key arguments about it, here you are trying to speak about it again.

Emotion is fine. Let's rather engage with clarity in given biblical expression rather than 'assuming' deductive reasoning. It doesn't matter if you are angry, happy, sad, etc. It matters rather if it is true or not. You can go ahead and be emotional about it. Such rarely conveys through the screen and isn't really important.

Emotion is fine when it's controlled, in Trump girl's case it appears to be uncontrolled, so no, it's not fine.

I use scripture to interpret scripture, I don't assume anything.

I'm not sure if she wanted conversation about it. Start with 'did Russel say he could read Greek?' (yes). Was he able? (no)
What did you want to talk to her about?
Is there a genuine problem with leaders of Unitarians lying under oath? Going to prison?
Yes. Such doesn't necessarily mean 'wrong' but it does indeed lead to 'suspect the veracity.'
My wife and I were out to dinner and witnessed the ungodly behavior of one of the Watchtower conventions chief speakers hit on a married women while her husband (a nonJW) was not there. The whole JW crowd laughed. My wife and I lost our appetite at the incredible ungodliness of it. JW's just didn't seem 'regenerate' newCreations in Christ. You want to debate what a "Christian" is, I can at least say "not that!"

The above arguments are character attacks, not theology attacks; as I said, I'm not here to speak for all JW's, but rather, I offered to explain the issues regarding JW theology, stay on track.

TG has a good start. I have huge problems with the NW T(not a translation, a paraphrase of some verses with NO translation effort and a knock-off of KJV). It is foundationally dishonest. Its sole (only) reason for existence is for the lone purpose of shoring up a belief about the bible BEFORE reading the Bible. The Watchtower itself said that if ANY of its students read the Bible, without the watchtower, they'd wander from the truth! THAT, dear NW, is extraordinary! It writes ITSELF as adversarial! Do you realize that? I have a friend that used to be JW. He was one up and until he discovered truth because of preconceived notions and commitments. I posit EVERY JW and Unitarian is one SOLELY because of preconceptions and commitments. There is no biblical reason to rewrite a different version, word for word other than to change what isn't liked, nor to be one otherwise. Literally.

You keep calling me "NW", this means nothing to me; the expression "NWL" is an abbreviation of my surname.

I'd be more than happy to speak to you about your issue if you want, 'after' you demonstrate you don't just run from conversations when they get too troublesome for you. I worry that I might start engaging with you and you stop after I raise a single issue about your reasoning or ask you a single question.

Good question. She may just use that opening as an opportunity to ignore you, if 'question' isn't the intent of the thread. It allows her to move along without engaging you.

I may be wrong, but I have a strong feeling you don't want her to engage with me, hence why you keep expressing such things in the hope she'll read what you say and decide not to.

 

[NWL]

She says she is a JW

I'm a he, not a she.

I assuming you are unwilling to engage with me despite me stating I am not a Christian according to your understanding of who christ is, and that I will not be using the NWT?