Why do certain Christians have a problem with JWs? (paradise, church, beliefs)

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by BWW1962

I want to preface this post with the caviate that I am not suggesting antredd is the originator of lies, just an unwitting conveyor of false information.



As you say, JWs are just human and they are subject to human frailties such as arrogance. However, what is seen most often is that those who do not have accurate knowledge tend to attribute the confidence of those who do to arrogance.



We see again that those who are desirous of rationalizing their bigotry will present the most absurd and inaccurate statements. Go online, find a contemporary Watchtower or Awake magazine or book published by the WBTS. Almost EVERY paragraph presenting theological information specifically references THE BIBLE. You will not find even ONE reference to "the teachings of Charles Taze Russell", because there are none. This suggustion that there are Charles Taze Russell "teachings" that JWs follow is a complete and utter lie.

This attack strategy is an old tactic of liars: tell an egregious lie about your adversary, then attack them on all the implications of that lie while avoiding any conformation of the validity of the initial lie. This tactic to invent JW history and attack the character of a man who died almost 100 years ago is a common theme. I find this particular attack on a dead man to be almost humorous. It seems that this criticism of Charles Taze Russell is that he followed scriptural instruction (Acts 17:11) and received the blessings it offers. Contrary to the false accusations of their detractors, JWs do not glorify or aggrandize Russell. So, this tactic of putting him on a pedestal and knocking him off again is just to incite the uninformed and promote a false accusation that Charles Taze Russell is some kind of JW icon.



This prevarication has no merit whatsoever. Without even addressing the initial lie about Russell being part of a motivation, which is presented as if it is unquestionable and needs no substantiation , let's examine the subsequent bogus declaration about John 1:1.

This particular argument presented by antredd about John 1:1 is only viable for the influence of the uneducated or ignorant. The assertion that the NWT translators "added" the article "a" based on some theological bias or were motivated to support something Charles Taze Russell formulated is just inane.

Koine Greek, the language John used when he wrote his books of the Bible, has only definite articles; no indefinite articles like a or an. So, generally a definite noun in Koine Greek will have a form of the definite article (ho), which means "the" in English. An indefinite noun in Koine Greek will not have the definite article and therefore when properly translated into English will have the a or an included to read correctly. It is not "adding a word" to translate Koine Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as nouns with an indefinite article. That is a basic part of translation; you render the original language into English obeying the proper rules of English grammar. You would not translate "Garfield is cat" you would say "Garfield is a cat". So, we can see the “a” being added to an indefinite noun in the translation of Koine Greek to English is nothing more than proper translation protocol: conveying the original text into lexically and grammatically correct English.

This particular claim by Trinitarians about the translation of John 1:1 is particularly laughable because of the irony. It is the Trinitarian translators who were required to invent a grammatical excuse to insert the definite article “ho” where John had written it as an indefinite noun.

So we see again that the people who are trying to justify their prejudice have to do so by promoting exaggerated false claims. If they are just presenting the truth and expressing their disagreement on the basis of the facts, their bigotry is exposed and their inflammatory and exaggerated responses are grotesque. The must create grandiose deceptions to justify their grandiose prejudice. As in this example, the stated reasons for their disagreement are completely without merit, and any intelligent examination of their allegation exposes their fallacy.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

(GNT)
Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν αρχη ἦν ο Λόγος, καὶ ο Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ο Λόγος.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word.

I see here in the Greek that it says God was the Word...Not the Word was God...

In the NWT it says "and the Word was a god'...Which if this is true then it means that there are other gods before God...Which is in direct violation of the first commandment...In other parts of the bible it points out the roles a son could play and one is being sent with all authority of the father to conduct the father's business, IOW, the word of the son was indeed the word of his father just as if the father were present...The son had all the authority that the father had and obeying the son was in effect obeying the father...Yeshua was called the Messiah, but so were others in the OT...Anyway, why would Thomas refer to Him as 'My Lored and My God'?...There is Truth in the Scritptures without changing the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, it is just that people gloss over it and do not really go deep to ascertain it's true meaning...

[BWW1962]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Joh 1:1 ᾿ΕναρχηἦνοΛόγος, καὶ οΛόγοςἦνπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, καὶ ΘεὸςἦνοΛόγος.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word.
I see here in the Greek that it says God was the Word...Not the Word was God...
In the NWT it says "and the Word was a god'...Which if this is true then it means that there are other gods before God...Which is in direct violation of the first commandment...In other parts of the bible it points out the roles a son could play and one is being sent with all authority of the father to conduct the father's business, IOW, the word of the son was indeed the word of his father just as if the father were present...The son had all the authority that the father had and obeying the son was in effect obeying the father...Yeshua was called the Messiah, but so were others in the OT...Anyway, why would Thomas refer to Him as 'My Lored and My God'?...There is Truth in the Scritptures without changing the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, it is just that people gloss over it and do not really go deep to ascertain it's true meaning...

You are not seeing it accurately; you are just glossing over the Bible because are satisfied with your current belief. If you were genuinely digging deeper to ascertain it's true meaning you would not be so casual about dismissing the information that calls into question the assumptions you have made. You obviously know little about translation but wish to appear as though you do. What I glean is that you feel your INTEPRETATION of the English translation you accept as accurate, is enough to rationalize your beliefs.

You have copied and pasted the Greek in your post as if you really understood the translation of it. You have skipped over the layers of the translation process that reveals the meaning in the original Greek. You pretend that your Greek to English leap is an undisputable fact. You are not even identifying and articulating the academic translation points that are the nexus of the debate for the TRANSLATION of John 1:1. If this is the only level of academic review you are capable of, and it satisfies you thirst for accurate knowledge, then there is not much need in discussing it because you will not dig deeper to find the true knowledge to really get at the translation issue.

You also suggest a completely bogus interpretation of the accurate translation, and then say that is why the accurate translation could not be accurate. That is COMPLETELY fabricated and irrelevant. No one is suggesting that John is talking about polytheism; except those who need an excuse to dismiss the issue out of hand on a faux theological objection.

What is most amusing is that you are IRONICALLY doing exactly what you accuse the JWs of doing. You are skipping over the issues of accurate translation and are trying to justify your interpretation based on your theological bias. It is always intriguing to me to see how people never evaluate the merits of their own presentation against the criteria that they set for others.

[BWW1962]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

(GNT)
Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν αρχη ἦν ο Λόγος, καὶ ο Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ο Λόγος.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word.

I see here in the Greek that it says God was the Word...Not the Word was God...

In the NWT it says "and the Word was a god'...Which if this is true then it means that there are other gods before God...Which is in direct violation of the first commandment...In other parts of the bible it points out the roles a son could play and one is being sent with all authority of the father to conduct the father's business, IOW, the word of the son was indeed the word of his father just as if the father were present...The son had all the authority that the father had and obeying the son was in effect obeying the father...Yeshua was called the Messiah, but so were others in the OT...Anyway, why would Thomas refer to Him as 'My Lored and My God'?...There is Truth in the Scritptures without changing the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, it is just that people gloss over it and do not really go deep to ascertain it's true meaning...

What is Colwell's Rule? When and how was this grammatical rule created, and to what purpose? In what acedemic discipline is it credentialed?

What is the difference between "ho theos" (definate noun), and "theos" (indefinate noun) in Koine Greek? How are those two versions accurately represented in a lexical translation (interlinear), and in English translation?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by antredd

Especially when you look at a verse like John 1:1 where in the original Greek, the article "A" isn't there, yet the New World Translation puts the article there to support their view that Jesus isn't God.

In the original Greek, the article "a" couldn't have been there, since the original Greek has no article "a". Therefore, throughout any English version of the New Testament, some translator had to determine whether to insert an article or whether not to. I'm just curious as to what makes you so sure you are correct in knowing when an article belongs in the text and when it doesn't? For example, is God light, or is God a light? Is God spirit, or is God a spirit?

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by twin.spin
A:
You're not following the truth about Jesus.
JW's altered the Bible to fit their theology (i.e. John 1:1)
JW's is a works righteous religion
Salvation is not dependent on being an member of a organization

Originally Posted by BWW1962

This is a prime example of why they have an exagerated problem with JWs: because they really do not know or care what JWs really believe, and are even enthusiastic to perpetuate these prejudicial misrepresentations as factual.


- JWs follow the Biblical teachings about Jesus - they reject the man-made trinity doctrine.

- JWs do not accept the trinity interpretations in the Bible and use the most accurate Greek - English translation, The New World Translation (i.e. they reject the trinitarian application of faux grammar rules (Colwell's Rule) to John 1:1 and chose the accurate translation of what John actually wrote).

- JWs know that faith and works are inseparable. One without the other is meaningless. That old Catholic vs. Protestant debate, no matter what modern form it takes, has no merit to a JW. (Gal 2:16, Heb 11:6, Titus 2:14, Heb 10:24, James 1:22; 2:26)

- JWs know that our Salvation rests in our faith in Jesus, and not an organization. However, that faith needs to be founded in accurate knowledge and not the false doctrines of men (John 17:3). The importance of association with the right organization/people is a common message throughout the Bible Pr 13:20, 1Pe 2:17; 5:9, 2Th 3:6-15 and the perils of associating with those with false teachings is too Ro 16:17,18 2 Jo 10,11, 1 Cor 15:33, Rev 18:4.

As you see most of the prejudice towards JWs is founded in the deceptive speech of bigots. Many people are all too ready to accept those misrepresentations without any qualification and join into the hate mongering. Though these people make the self-proclamation of being Christian, there libelous behavior denotes otherwise.

founded in the deceptive speech of bigots, there libelous behavior denotes otherwise.
Yet...

Originally Posted by Miss Blue

The ones calling others names are the ones shouting the loudest because they think they have the truth..It is called Christian bullying. and they are not the majority, IMO.

comments like this just happen to go on ... and on ... and on ... and on.

I guess deceptive speech of bigots, libelous behavior isn't.

[elamigo]

A looooong time ago I was a practicing JW. To be more accurate I stopped being one back in '74 because I stopped having my question about the Bible itself being THE word of God. Now, I do believe in God but my journey keeps going as to find out more about the meaning of life and what God may be have in store for me, what he expects of me, etc.

However, I will say this. The more I read about religion in many ways I do believe that JW do make more sense by simple logic in different ways.

Is it logical that a loving God will keep me in hell for ETERNITY for let us say of life on this earth if that is how long I end up living 80 years for the simple fact that I did not believe in the Bible? Not to me.

Also, many of the Christian churches are ladden with doctrines (trinity, hell) that were common in ancient religions. Was Jesus born in December? No, it is well established that he did not. Why December then? Interesting how his birthdate matches pagan belief of the times when christianity started to expand.

To me they do practice the doctrine of living your neighborgh more closely that most christian religions. Do do not believe in going to war and killed another JW, Christians have no problem with this. JWs are recognized at the Holocaust Museum in DC as a group that was a willing concentration camp inmate if necessary for not willing to pick up a weapon. Books are written on them about their sacrifices and loving care even to the Germans despite they treated them. They really showed a Christian way of loving their not only their neighborgh but their enemies also. Is that not what Jesus did when he was falsely accused and executed?

No, I am not going to cite the Bible because the experts will try to show me how wrong I am and quote, selectively, what support their views to excuse why it is OK to kill another human being in war.

Do I agree with all they believe? No, not at all. It does not make logic to me how they literally follow the blood mandate and avoid blood transfusions even it that means to save a life.

I will say that Jesus did say that by their fruits they will be recognized. Well, JWs fruits of peace in history align more closely with how Jesus handled his enemies.

Lastly, it amazes me that people that claim love for God LOVE tearing each other up because they interpret what a book says differently. Example: The trinity. Who care whether it is 3 in 1 or only 1. The point is that there is a God and why not just look for the moral principals that God teaches in the Bible.

Was Jesus crucified or impalled as JWs claim? Who cares? The point is that he was sacrified for the sins of humanity!!!! Arguing about how he was killed?! Wow!

Is Gods name Jehovah or Yaweh or Lord or whatever? Did Jesus not say that sanctified be his name? He was talking about another individual to be worshiped, did he not? What did he mean by his Name? His father must have had a name which he came to praise, correct? What was it? Well, the NWT does make more sense when it shows it is YHWH according to the old language. So it may not be a correct translation to say Jehovah or Yaweh, the point is that he is addressed by a name.

People like to see at the little details so much that they forget the big picture and the big picture is to simply read what wise advice God may give in the Bible if they believe that to be his word.

Some of you may say if I do not believe in the Bible why comment in support of some Bible points. I am simply making an observation from unbiased interest in discussing a philosophical view. I have no interests to prove JWs right or wrong. I simply say that some of the things I know about them make more sense to me and make more logic, and have less pagan influence that most Christian churches. Take care.

[twin.spin]

Originally Posted by BWW1962

This is a prime example of why they have an exagerated problem with JWs: because they really do not know or care what JWs really believe, and are even enthusiastic to perpetuate these prejudicial misrepresentations as factual.


- JWs follow the Biblical teachings about Jesus - they reject the man-made trinity doctrine.

- JWs do not accept the trinity interpretations in the Bible and use the most accurate Greek - English translation, The New World Translation (i.e. they reject the trinitarian application of faux grammar rules (Colwell's Rule) to John 1:1 and chose the accurate translation of what John actually wrote).

- JWs know that faith and works are inseparable. One without the other is meaningless. That old Catholic vs. Protestant debate, no matter what modern form it takes, has no merit to a JW. (Gal 2:16, Heb 11:6, Titus 2:14, Heb 10:24, James 1:22; 2:26)

- JWs know that our Salvation rests in our faith in Jesus, and not an organization. However, that faith needs to be founded in accurate knowledge and not the false doctrines of men (John 17:3). The importance of association with the right organization/people is a common message throughout the Bible Pr 13:20, 1Pe 2:17; 5:9, 2Th 3:6-15 and the perils of associating with those with false teachings is too Ro 16:17,18 2 Jo 10,11, 1 Cor 15:33, Rev 18:4.

As you see most of the prejudice towards JWs is founded in the deceptive speech of bigots. Many people are all too ready to accept those misrepresentations without any qualification and join into the hate mongering. Though these people make the self-proclamation of being Christian, there libelous behavior denotes otherwise.

This eloquent reply is the creme of the la'creme of why people have a problem with the JW's.

JWs know that our Salvation rests in our faith in Jesus, and not an organization.....

then in the very next breath.....

The importance of association with the right organization/people is a common message throughout the Bible

What did Jesus say:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No organization in that one

1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

No organization mentioned in that one

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Not only no organization mentioned, but the message of the cross is key.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I'll try and say this softly and with flowers and certianly not shouting the loudest because we think we have the truth....

Ok BWW1962 ...... is the message of the cross

• foolish or the power of God that saves to you?

Matthew 1:23
this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: (Isaiah 7:14)“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” —which means, “God with us.”

Isaiah 9:6-8
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. ....
The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

was Isaiah a false prophet?
Did the LORD Amighty fail to accomplish this?

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by antredd

It seems as if no JW congregation has any scandal among their elders of members from talking to JWs in my family or in general. But these same JWs can tell me how members of other religions are known for this or that and how that somehow justifies how JWs are in the truth because nothing like that happens in their congregations. WEEEEELLLLL!!

There was an incident in my area where a JW elder was charged and disfellowshipped for raping a girl. One of my family members was totally shocked and asked me to show her where I read that newpaper article. After showing her the article, she was still in complete shock and disbelief and had to investigate it for herself. After finding out what I said was accurate and true, she said to me how it was unfortunate, and that some times they do have elders or members who get in trouble. But it's something that isn't allowed, and they would be disciplined or disfellowshipped for that type of behavior were found out. My point is this, we all sin, no one is perfect, and to think that because a person is one of the Jehovah's Witnesses makes them perfect or without any type of scandal is straight up bogus.

My wife is a former JW and she has told me a lot regarding those in her congregation and their hypocracy...Her sister was disfellowshipped for cheating on her husband, her father was disfellowshipped for cheating on her mother...Both have been reinstated though after a lengthy shunning process to asertain if they were truly repentent...Her eldest brother dosen't have anything to do with the congregation and his wife still attends to save-face, and both have lived a life of sexual debauchery, threesomes, video-taping the acts and their own sexual unions...Their oldest son accidentlly found pictures of these threesomes and had issues with them and won't have anything to do with them, on the other hand his father won't have anything to do with him because he married a black woman and had a child...He won't even talk about his son...Like he no longer exists to him...And my wifes cousin was disfellowshipped because she was leading a wild lifestyle going out drinking to excess smoking pot, etc...She has not been re-instated though...Yea, most of my wife's family are still JW so I get to see a lot of hypocracy going on and the fact is that her and her siblings were born and raised within the congregation...It is not just the other protestant or Catholic denominations that suffer from this...So do the JWs...

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by twin.spin

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. ....
The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

was Isaiah a false prophet?
Did the LORD Amighty fail to accomplish this?

Let us not forget that in the original Hebrew that Hebrew only has a definite article and no indefinite article, so if no definite article exists then you MUST automatically assume an indefinite article to the noun...So, He is A mighty god...Not mighty God...

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by Shell93

Why do certain Christians have a problem with Jehovah's Witness? Because their trying to help save others' lives? Jehovah's Witnesses do not think they're above others, they're just trying to follow Jesus, and let you guys know who Jesus's father is, but many don't want to believe it. Jehovah's Witnesses are humans just like everyone else, and they have feelings as well, so why pick on them, and call them names?

I like the JWs personally but dont agree with their doctrine or their Bible.