About the Bible being the source of truth and our unique role sas God's chosen people
Countries where Jehovah's Witnesses' activities are banned
Being banned doesn't stop them at all. They are still actively preaching and congregating in these countries where freedom of religion doesn't exist, albeit discreetly
Featured in the following article (from a liberal Lebanese news outlet) is an interview from a brave JW woman in Jordan, where the work in banned:
Salvation is possible only through Christ's ransom sacrifice and individuals cannot be saved until they repent of their sins and call on the name of Jehovah.
Right, so when you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated.
Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (John 4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Matthew 7:16. Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.
Well if you do not wnat to back up your claims, you do you
[...]
[...]
There is a big difference between misguided and immature exegesis of prophecy or scripture and outright false prophecy. The later is an attempt to deceive by contradicting true prophecy and scripture.
God provided a means of identifying false prophets, and what to do with them. These instructions are found at Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22.
Here the false prophet gives “signs or portents,” adding to God’s word, and advocates worship of false gods. Even if his “signs or portents” come true, he must be executed for his false teaching of advocating false gods.
“‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’”
So the false prophet adds to God’s word by making new predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods. He must be executed.
In both descriptions, there is nothing about misinterpreting scripture, but only adding to scripture, as well as adding a new, false, god to worship.
The Athanasian Creed contradicts whta the Bible teaches:
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. *
“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.
As for the holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.
Back in 1879, Bible scholar Charles L. Ives aptly illustrated God’s ability to exercise his power from a fixed location. He wrote: “For example, we say, ‘Open the shutters, and let the sun come into the room.’ We mean, not the real, bodily sun, but the solar ray, that which proceeds from the sun.”
They are members of the Bethel family; this means that they literally live at their work place, they have their meals at a canteen or cafeteria, they sleep in a shared room (shared with their wives if they are married) and they receive a modest payment each month.
So, they don’t have an opulent lifestyle. Certainly, they don’t live in a palace with golden taps. You won’t see them having a holiday in a private island, or rubbing shoulders with the jet set at places like Saint-Tropez, or getting a tan on board of their private yatchs.
But even if one would, one would need to know the circumstances before throwing accusations. For example, I know a member of a European branch office who comes from a wealthy family; if one of our detractors saw him driving his own yatch would certainly jump to wrong conclussions. Just like those who see a blue and gold watch and jump to the Internet looking for the most expensive watches in those colours, and that’s enough for them to defame a person publicly.
[...]
Your point is moot because bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion.
Recent studies prove that blood transfusions can increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates.
Thus, patients who do not receive blood products during hospitalization often recover more quickly, experience fewer complications, and are able to be discharged home more quickly:
Conspiracy theorists argue that the cross and crown symbol that was used by Bible Students was a Masonic symbol. But Masonic use of the cross and crown symbolism derives from Christian usage. The symbolism became popular en the 17th Century at least in Christian phraseology. In 1621, Francis Quarles wrote the poem Hadassa: The History of Queeene Ester. It contains this couplet:
"The way to bliss lies not on beds of down,
And he that has no cross deserves no crown."
William Penn took the title of his famous essay No Cross, No Crown from Quarles’ poem.
[...]
Even though we cannot know the exact day and hour, Jesus did provide a composite “sign,” or group of events, that would identify the time period leading up to the end of the world. (Matthew 24:3, 7-14) The Bible refers to this period as “the time of the end,” “the end times,” and “the last days.”:
That's not what we do though. Jehovah’s Witnesses practice a religion that benefits themselves and others in the community. For example, our ministry has helped many people to overcome harmful addictions, such as the abuse of drugs and alcohol. In addition, we conduct literacy classes around the world, helping thousands learn to read and write. And we are actively involved in disaster relief. We work hard to have a positive impact on others, just as Jesus commanded his followers to do.—Matthew 5:13-16.
JWs are closer to israelites than Christians.
What an odd thing to say.
We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
The Boy Scouts, founded by Robert Baden-Powell, was and remains a patriotic organisation. New recruits in the UK are required to take an oath to the Queen (https://www.3rdcb.org.uk/scouts/scout-promise-and-laws/#%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20Scout%20Promise%2C-On%20my%20honour%26text%3DI%20promise%20that%20I%20will%2Cto%20keep%20the%20Scout%20Law.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a politically neutral religion. We are citizens of God’s Kingdom. It would not be appropriate to swear an oath to “do our duty to the Queen”, since part of that “duty” could involve fighting in wars or other activities that contravene Bible principles. Certain branches of the Scout movement are little more than recruitment centers for the armed forces.
Interestingly, Gerrit Loesch, a member of the Governing Body, was a Scout in his youth: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20140715/earthly-father-heavenly-father/
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You know what people who call those who don't help their nation in a time of serious national emergency? A backstabber. Hundreds of thousands of my kind, Italian Catholics, enlisted (including my great uncle), showing loyalty to their nation over the idea of "noooo we need to be frends with italia!!!! :("
I looked for information, did JWs at least participate as a conscientious objector during times of national crisis, like World War II? All I can find is the Nazi's reaction to JWs.
On the other hand, Vietnam wasn't a national emergency so who cares what you guys did during that.
Well if you do not wnat to back up your claims, you do you
Were they right about Armageddon coming in the 20th century? Last time I checked we are living in the 21st century and Armageddon never came. False prophets, they can be rejected.
Are JW's right to call themselves God's Prophet, when all they do is make false prophecies?
>Deuteronomy 18:22 >When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
There is a big difference between misguided and immature exegesis of prophecy or scripture and outright false prophecy. The later is an attempt to deceive by contradicting true prophecy and scripture.
God provided a means of identifying false prophets, and what to do with them. These instructions are found at Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22.
Here the false prophet gives “signs or portents,” adding to God’s word, and advocates worship of false gods. Even if his “signs or portents” come true, he must be executed for his false teaching of advocating false gods.
“‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’”
So the false prophet adds to God’s word by making new predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods. He must be executed.
In both descriptions, there is nothing about misinterpreting scripture, but only adding to scripture, as well as adding a new, false, god to worship.
>Jehovah's Witnesses are right about everything.
Jesus claimed divinity and the apostles/apostolic fathers believed it. You need to believe in massive conspiracy theory to try and debunk it.
The grammar of John 8:58 requires that it be rendered as a state that started in the past and continues to the present. This is sometimes called a “Present of Past Action.” It cannot be properly rendered with a simple present tense.
Besides that, numerous Trinitarian authorities even have to admit that "I am" in Exodus 3:14 is not even correct and should be rendered more like "I will Be" (the meaning of God's name rather than God's personal name itself, Jehovah)
God is the creator and sustainer of the universe who lives eternally.
Jehovah is a perfect, singular, immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient God, completely infinite in all of his attributes.
>Who is Jesus Christ?
Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, and his life began in heaven. He is described as God's first creation and the "exact representation of God".
Jesus is said to have been used by God in the creation of all other things.
>Is the Bible correct?
Of course.
>They don't do this because their arguments* are easily disproved; so they make a habit of criticizing Biblical Christianity.
By all means, if you think I am wrong about something then you are free to prove it.
how is he not God?
Does he not inherit the nature of his Father?
>Is the Bible correct? >Of course.
then, surely these verses would justify the belief that Jesus is God >Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: >But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: >And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(how is one both in the form of God and equal with God? an exact representation is neither truly the form of nor equal to the thing which is represents, or else it's no longer a representation)
>But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
(If the Father calls the Son "God"... what error has been committed that mere humans call the Son "God"?)
>There is none good but, and that is, God
(Here Jesus' riddle reveals that one cannot be good without being God; and certainly Jesus was good, yes?)
But out of these three quotations; I am sure you will simply claim either: >1. Bad translation
or >2. It doesn't mean that (and not address the logical arguments attached)
>how is he not God? >Does he not inherit the nature of his Father?
We do believe that Jesus is divine in nature just like hos Father. But when you have a Son, he is not as strong as you. He doesn't know as much as you. He will never be as old as you.
The Son is the closest person there is to God, but God the Father is still greater than the Son in all things.
That is what we believe.
>(how is one both in the form of God and equal with God? an exact representation is neither truly the form of nor equal to the thing which is represents, or else it's no longer a representation)
You posted from the KJV, but that more accurate translations do not say that Jesus is equal to God. On the contrary:
English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Berean Standard Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Berean Literal Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
Jesus, who considered God to be superior, never ‘grasped for equality with God.’ Instead, he “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” (Philippians 2:8)
Jesus’ view was not like that of the Devil, who urged Eve to make herself like God, to be equal to Him. (Genesis 3:5)
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
>But when you have a Son, he is not as strong as you. He doesn't know as much as you
I mean; we can observe in objective human reality sons who are as strong or as wise as their fathers.
Are you just, unobservant?
Also >You posted from the KJV, but that more accurate translations
lol. lmao
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I mean; we can observe in objective human reality sons who are as strong or as wise as their fathers.
You're right, but is it the case when one is an infant? Of course not.
God is from everlasting to everlasting. And only he is identified as being Almighty.
Do you agree that in comparison to him, all of his creatures are infants?
It is the same with Jesus and his Father.
>lol. lmao
I posted three different translations. What makes you think that the KJV is superior?
>(If the Father calls the Son "God"... what error has been committed that mere humans call the Son "God"?)
Jesus is a god, there is no question about that. In fact, in the Bible the basic meaning of the word 'god' is “Mighty One; Strong One” and are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and even humans. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34)
The Word is the one through whom God created all other things, so he certainly could be described as a mighty one. (John 1:3) Describing the Word as “a god” is in line with the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6, which foretold that God’s chosen one, the Messiah or Christ, would be called “Mighty God” (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ), but not “God Almighty” (ʼEl Shad·daiʹ, as in Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3; Ezekiel 10:5).
>(Here Jesus' riddle reveals that one cannot be good without being God; and certainly Jesus was good, yes?)
What was meant here was "good" in the superlative or perfect sense, as the original mold; all else could only be an imitation, which the Bible does refer to Jesus as merely a "reflection" and a "representation". (Hebrews 1:3) He is in no way the same as the one projecting the image. So Jesus here meant, "why do you call me 'Good Teacher'", not simply "good". That is, Jehovah is the source of all truth, the original mold, and therefore is the only "Good Teacher".
>But out of these three quotations; I am sure you will simply claim either: >1. Bad translation or >2. It doesn't mean that (and not address the logical arguments attached)
I believe I have defended my points with clear logical reasoning and adressed all of your arguments. If you think I am wrong then you are free to prove it.
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
And so; why is the Branch of David called Jehovah? >Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. >In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Jesus IS Jehovah.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well for starters, the original text has the Divine Name in the text.
“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will reignh and show insight and uphold justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will reside in security. And this is the name by which he will be called: Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.”
And secondly, the name given to Jesus at Jeremiah 23:6 is not "Jehovah", but "Jehovah is Our Righteousness".
In fact, the exact same name is given to a city at Jeremiah 33:16, so does that make that city Jehovah? Obviously not.
This name was explained earlier at Isaiah 54:17, saying, "’No weapon formed against you will have any success, and you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from me,’ declares Jehovah."
So "Jehovah is Our Righteousness" merely signifies that the righteousness of his servants, even Jesus, comes from Jehovah.
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
>the original text >muh translations
lol
So, basically I am presenting “solid arguments”
Therefore, you have to undermine the basis, not the premise, of said arguments
Lmao
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I feel like you didn't respond to what I have said.
Look closely at the first words of Jeremiah 23:5: "'Look! The days are coming,' declares Jehovah, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout.'"
He did not say, "I will come", but said, "I will raise up ... a righteous sprout."
Does that sound like he could be talking about himself at all? (Compare verse 4)
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
Jesus =/= the Father
Both are Jehovah
We’ve been over this.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Revelation 14:1 >Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.
Notice how Revelation says talks about the Jesus' Father name. If Jesus and the Father shared the same name, it would have said "the Lamb's name".
The Scriptures are very clear that Jehovah is the Father while Jesus submits to him and worships him. So Jesus is not Jehovah.
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
We’ve been over this
Jesus’ name = “Jesus”
The Fathers name = “The Father”
Both share the name “Jehovah”
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The Fathers name = “The Father”
The Father is not a name.
>Both share the name “Jehovah”
You keep saying this. Where in the OT is it ever said that Jehovah has a Father? We know that Jesus has a Father, so if Jesus is Jehovah then it should be states somewhere that Jehovah has a Father. But it is not the case.
Now consider these two verses:
“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.
So there is nobody that is greater than Jehovah, do you agree?
Now look at what Jesus says:
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28
Jesus has a person above himself.
From these we can conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit are all YHWH, and Jesus is subordinate to the Father in humanity, as the Athanasian Creed says >He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Athanasian Creed contradicts whta the Bible teaches:
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. *
“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.
As for the holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.
Back in 1879, Bible scholar Charles L. Ives aptly illustrated God’s ability to exercise his power from a fixed location. He wrote: “For example, we say, ‘Open the shutters, and let the sun come into the room.’ We mean, not the real, bodily sun, but the solar ray, that which proceeds from the sun.”
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yea none of that contradicts the Trinity with the incarnation, and that part of the creed comes from places like Heb 2:9 and Phil 2:6-11
Its an insane weirdo hick cult from what I can tell. Protestants love to harp on Catholics for letting the Pope be like this dictator of their religion, but things like Jehova Witnesses have the same shit but worse because they have some old grumpy homosexual thats telling these families how to live their lives in a much more direct and real way than ANY catholic would be with the pope.
Apparently, the JW have their own media production stuff, making cornball flavorless christian movies, music, books ect. and you are only allowed to consume this shit and if your child does stuff like listen to a new album or plays pokemon its some grave sin and parents and siblings along with the whole community are ordered to ignore the child as some cruel form of punishment.
I cant imagine the sort of weak spinless person that would freely submit to such bizarre and arbitrary rules regarding their own family all to bow down to some like 100iq small town hick retard who wants to LARP as some great biblical scholar.
That is really not how JWs operates and I am sorry that you have been fed stereotypes.
First of all, it is not true at all that JWs are only allowed ro consume JW productions. Not a single JW alive believes this. JWs listen to music and play Pokémon just like any other child. I can testify to this as someone who was raised a JW and who has JW childhood friends.
Yes, there are some limitations, and those limitations are based on bible principles. If you want some examples I can give you some.
There are no "ctuel punishment" among JWs. Treating a child with kindness and love is an obligation. Some JW parents can go overboard, sure, but that is their psychological trait and has nothing to do with their religion.
If you really want to know what Jehivah's Witnesses are like, you are welcome to attend one of their meetings and see for yourself how they are. It will be better than to base your judgment on clichés you see on the internet.
1914 is part our major beliefs since the beginning so I don't know what you mean by "retconning the doctrine".
We base our beliefs about the significance of 1914 on biblical chronology, which tells us that the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity both occurred in 607 BCE.
Daniel chapter 4 prophesied a period of 2,520 years starting with 607 BCE and ending at 1914 CE.
We equate this period with the "Gentile Times" or "the appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24). When the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, the line of kings descended from David was interrupted, and that God's throne was "trampled on" from then until Jesus began ruling in October 1914.
This is confirmed by world events since 1914, including wars, famine, earthquakes and increasing lawlessness, which are a fulfillment of the "sign" of Christ's presence as you have just read in Luke 21. Our preaching is also part of that sign (Matthew 24:14).
The real problem is their view of Jesus as something created. A creature is finite, while God is infinite. By definition, there is no common meaure between the finite and the infinite. Thus, a creature can only be saved by God directly because even the holiest creature is exaclty nohting in face of God. Jesus's sacrifice would the be worthless, because he is unable to save.
I understand your comment, but I think it is misguided my friend.
See, it is extremely important to realize that God did not send some angel to rescue mankind. He made the supreme sacrifice of sending his only-begotten Son, “the one he was specially fond of.”—Proverbs 8:30; John 3:16.
This is true because Only Jehovah’s firstborn Son could measure up to the special needs of the situation involving sinful mankind.
He is such an image of his heavenly Father in showing affection for members of the divinely produced family that he is without equal among the sons of God. Since all other intelligent creatures were brought into existence by means of him, his affection for them would certainly be abundant.
It was on a mission of salvation that Jehovah lovingly sent his only-begotten Son. God did not send his Son here in order to judge the world. If God’s Son had been sent on such a judicial mission, the outlook for all mankind would have been hopeless.
The sentence of adverse judgment that would have been pronounced by Jesus Christ upon the human family would have been condemnation to death. (Romans 5:12) Thus, by this unique expression of divine love, God counterbalanced the death sentence that sheer justice would have required.
Were they right about Armageddon coming in the 20th century? Last time I checked we are living in the 21st century and Armageddon never came. False prophets, they can be rejected.
>Deuteronomy 18:22 >When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Why do your Governing Body members wear $20,000 Rolexes and get free housing, while their members work at Taco Bell and live in poverty? Didn't Jesus say it will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God and to give away all your possessions?
They are members of the Bethel family; this means that they literally live at their work place, they have their meals at a canteen or cafeteria, they sleep in a shared room (shared with their wives if they are married) and they receive a modest payment each month.
So, they don’t have an opulent lifestyle. Certainly, they don’t live in a palace with golden taps. You won’t see them having a holiday in a private island, or rubbing shoulders with the jet set at places like Saint-Tropez, or getting a tan on board of their private yatchs.
But even if one would, one would need to know the circumstances before throwing accusations. For example, I know a member of a European branch office who comes from a wealthy family; if one of our detractors saw him driving his own yatch would certainly jump to wrong conclussions. Just like those who see a blue and gold watch and jump to the Internet looking for the most expensive watches in those colours, and that’s enough for them to defame a person publicly.
Are JW's right to blood sacrifice their children to Moloch?
Your point is moot because bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion.
Recent studies prove that blood transfusions can increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates.
Thus, patients who do not receive blood products during hospitalization often recover more quickly, experience fewer complications, and are able to be discharged home more quickly:
Conspiracy theorists argue that the cross and crown symbol that was used by Bible Students was a Masonic symbol. But Masonic use of the cross and crown symbolism derives from Christian usage. The symbolism became popular en the 17th Century at least in Christian phraseology. In 1621, Francis Quarles wrote the poem Hadassa: The History of Queeene Ester. It contains this couplet:
"The way to bliss lies not on beds of down,
And he that has no cross deserves no crown."
William Penn took the title of his famous essay No Cross, No Crown from Quarles’ poem.
>"Armageddon is comin', 2 more weeks..." - JWanon
Even though we cannot know the exact day and hour, Jesus did provide a composite “sign,” or group of events, that would identify the time period leading up to the end of the world. (Matthew 24:3, 7-14) The Bible refers to this period as “the time of the end,” “the end times,” and “the last days.”:
I’ve got a beard right now, and have had for twenty plus years.
Three of the appointed men in my congregation have beards, myself included, and there are several publishers with them also. Not one person has been asked to shave their beard off, and I certainly have never been.
The issue is not so much the beard but local customs. In some communities wearing a beard is perfectly acceptable, in others, it would raise eyebrows, or may be associated with certain lifestyles or political positions. An analogy might be tattoos: largely respectable in the western world, every man and his dog has them. But go to Japan and you’ll find that they are very frowned upon, if not outright taboo. Why? Because they are associated with the Japanese criminal underworld, the Yakuza, who have complex and intricate tattoos to show their affiliation to their crime families. As such, places like baths and swimming pools will forbid those with tattoos entry.
Yea none of that contradicts the Trinity with the incarnation, and that part of the creed comes from places like Heb 2:9 and Phil 2:6-11
Yeah no, it does.
Mark 13:32: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?
Right about fucking what?
About the Bible being the source of truth and our unique role sas God's chosen people
Being banned doesn't stop them at all. They are still actively preaching and congregating in these countries where freedom of religion doesn't exist, albeit discreetly
Featured in the following article (from a liberal Lebanese news outlet) is an interview from a brave JW woman in Jordan, where the work in banned:
https://raseef22.net/english/article/1090585-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-secretive-world-of-jehovahs-witnesses-in-jordan
JWs still continue strong despite the persecution and misconceptions
>the source of truth
Which truth? The truth on what?
>our unique role
Unique relative to what? Black people? Fish? Rocks?
Salvation is possible only through Christ's ransom sacrifice and individuals cannot be saved until they repent of their sins and call on the name of Jehovah.
PEnis is only possible by inserting my cock in your asss homosexual
Now bend forward and accept my cum
>About the Bible being the source of truth and our unique role sas God's chosen people
But that's what every denomination says though?
Right, so when you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated.
Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (John 4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Matthew 7:16. Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.
Here are some examples:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/good-news-from-god/recognize-true-worshippers/
Acts 10:34, 35 states: “God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
For this reason, nobody can rightly consider one race to be superior to another.
lmao, look at this wall of cope and seethe.
No one is buying your excuses.
>a brave JW woman in Jordan, where the work in banned
Damn, just what Lebanon needs, someone sowing even more sectarian hatred and strife!
That's not what we do though. Jehovah’s Witnesses practice a religion that benefits themselves and others in the community. For example, our ministry has helped many people to overcome harmful addictions, such as the abuse of drugs and alcohol. In addition, we conduct literacy classes around the world, helping thousands learn to read and write. And we are actively involved in disaster relief. We work hard to have a positive impact on others, just as Jesus commanded his followers to do.—Matthew 5:13-16.
What an odd thing to say.
We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
Bro you won't even let kids be Boy Scouts
The Boy Scouts, founded by Robert Baden-Powell, was and remains a patriotic organisation. New recruits in the UK are required to take an oath to the Queen (https://www.3rdcb.org.uk/scouts/scout-promise-and-laws/#%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20Scout%20Promise%2C-On%20my%20honour%26text%3DI%20promise%20that%20I%20will%2Cto%20keep%20the%20Scout%20Law.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a politically neutral religion. We are citizens of God’s Kingdom. It would not be appropriate to swear an oath to “do our duty to the Queen”, since part of that “duty” could involve fighting in wars or other activities that contravene Bible principles. Certain branches of the Scout movement are little more than recruitment centers for the armed forces.
Interestingly, Gerrit Loesch, a member of the Governing Body, was a Scout in his youth: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20140715/earthly-father-heavenly-father/
You know what people who call those who don't help their nation in a time of serious national emergency? A backstabber. Hundreds of thousands of my kind, Italian Catholics, enlisted (including my great uncle), showing loyalty to their nation over the idea of "noooo we need to be frends with italia!!!! :("
I looked for information, did JWs at least participate as a conscientious objector during times of national crisis, like World War II? All I can find is the Nazi's reaction to JWs.
On the other hand, Vietnam wasn't a national emergency so who cares what you guys did during that.
Everything.
Yes,
Bait thread, do not reply
If I am wrong then shouldn't it be easy for you to prove it?
>p-please reply to my low effort bait or you're dumb
here you go, (You).
Well if you do not wnat to back up your claims, you do you
There is a big difference between misguided and immature exegesis of prophecy or scripture and outright false prophecy. The later is an attempt to deceive by contradicting true prophecy and scripture.
God provided a means of identifying false prophets, and what to do with them. These instructions are found at Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22.
Here the false prophet gives “signs or portents,” adding to God’s word, and advocates worship of false gods. Even if his “signs or portents” come true, he must be executed for his false teaching of advocating false gods.
“‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’”
So the false prophet adds to God’s word by making new predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods. He must be executed.
In both descriptions, there is nothing about misinterpreting scripture, but only adding to scripture, as well as adding a new, false, god to worship.
Countries where Jehovah's Witnesses' activities are banned
so roughly an half of the world is damned by jehovah the creator as evil
yum yum cock. all elders love to suck elder cock!
>Jehovah's Witnesses are right about everything.
Jesus claimed divinity and the apostles/apostolic fathers believed it. You need to believe in massive conspiracy theory to try and debunk it.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the divinity of Jesus.
But we simply believe that the Father alone is Almighty God.
>Before Abraham was, I AM
The translation “I Am” is verbal nonsense
The grammar of John 8:58 requires that it be rendered as a state that started in the past and continues to the present. This is sometimes called a “Present of Past Action.” It cannot be properly rendered with a simple present tense.
Besides that, numerous Trinitarian authorities even have to admit that "I am" in Exodus 3:14 is not even correct and should be rendered more like "I will Be" (the meaning of God's name rather than God's personal name itself, Jehovah)
Challenge to a JW:
PUT FORTH your arguments.
Who is God?
Who is Jesus Christ?
Is the Bible correct?
They don't do this because their arguments* are easily disproved; so they make a habit of criticizing Biblical Christianity.
>Who is God?
God is the creator and sustainer of the universe who lives eternally.
Jehovah is a perfect, singular, immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient God, completely infinite in all of his attributes.
>Who is Jesus Christ?
Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, and his life began in heaven. He is described as God's first creation and the "exact representation of God".
Jesus is said to have been used by God in the creation of all other things.
>Is the Bible correct?
Of course.
>They don't do this because their arguments* are easily disproved; so they make a habit of criticizing Biblical Christianity.
By all means, if you think I am wrong about something then you are free to prove it.
If Jesus is
>God's only-begotten Son
how is he not God?
Does he not inherit the nature of his Father?
>Is the Bible correct?
>Of course.
then, surely these verses would justify the belief that Jesus is God
>Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
>But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
>And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(how is one both in the form of God and equal with God? an exact representation is neither truly the form of nor equal to the thing which is represents, or else it's no longer a representation)
>But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
(If the Father calls the Son "God"... what error has been committed that mere humans call the Son "God"?)
>There is none good but, and that is, God
(Here Jesus' riddle reveals that one cannot be good without being God; and certainly Jesus was good, yes?)
But out of these three quotations; I am sure you will simply claim either:
>1. Bad translation
or
>2. It doesn't mean that (and not address the logical arguments attached)
>how is he not God?
>Does he not inherit the nature of his Father?
We do believe that Jesus is divine in nature just like hos Father. But when you have a Son, he is not as strong as you. He doesn't know as much as you. He will never be as old as you.
The Son is the closest person there is to God, but God the Father is still greater than the Son in all things.
That is what we believe.
>(how is one both in the form of God and equal with God? an exact representation is neither truly the form of nor equal to the thing which is represents, or else it's no longer a representation)
You posted from the KJV, but that more accurate translations do not say that Jesus is equal to God. On the contrary:
English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Berean Standard Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Berean Literal Bible
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
Jesus, who considered God to be superior, never ‘grasped for equality with God.’ Instead, he “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” (Philippians 2:8)
Jesus’ view was not like that of the Devil, who urged Eve to make herself like God, to be equal to Him. (Genesis 3:5)
>But when you have a Son, he is not as strong as you. He doesn't know as much as you
I mean; we can observe in objective human reality sons who are as strong or as wise as their fathers.
Are you just, unobservant?
Also
>You posted from the KJV, but that more accurate translations
lol. lmao
>I mean; we can observe in objective human reality sons who are as strong or as wise as their fathers.
You're right, but is it the case when one is an infant? Of course not.
God is from everlasting to everlasting. And only he is identified as being Almighty.
Do you agree that in comparison to him, all of his creatures are infants?
It is the same with Jesus and his Father.
>lol. lmao
I posted three different translations. What makes you think that the KJV is superior?
>(If the Father calls the Son "God"... what error has been committed that mere humans call the Son "God"?)
Jesus is a god, there is no question about that. In fact, in the Bible the basic meaning of the word 'god' is “Mighty One; Strong One” and are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and even humans. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34)
The Word is the one through whom God created all other things, so he certainly could be described as a mighty one. (John 1:3) Describing the Word as “a god” is in line with the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6, which foretold that God’s chosen one, the Messiah or Christ, would be called “Mighty God” (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ), but not “God Almighty” (ʼEl Shad·daiʹ, as in Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3; Ezekiel 10:5).
>(Here Jesus' riddle reveals that one cannot be good without being God; and certainly Jesus was good, yes?)
What was meant here was "good" in the superlative or perfect sense, as the original mold; all else could only be an imitation, which the Bible does refer to Jesus as merely a "reflection" and a "representation". (Hebrews 1:3) He is in no way the same as the one projecting the image. So Jesus here meant, "why do you call me 'Good Teacher'", not simply "good". That is, Jehovah is the source of all truth, the original mold, and therefore is the only "Good Teacher".
>But out of these three quotations; I am sure you will simply claim either:
>1. Bad translation or
>2. It doesn't mean that (and not address the logical arguments attached)
I believe I have defended my points with clear logical reasoning and adressed all of your arguments. If you think I am wrong then you are free to prove it.
And so; why is the Branch of David called Jehovah?
>Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
>In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
Jesus IS Jehovah.
Well for starters, the original text has the Divine Name in the text.
“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will reignh and show insight and uphold justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will reside in security. And this is the name by which he will be called: Jehovah Is Our Righteousness.”
And secondly, the name given to Jesus at Jeremiah 23:6 is not "Jehovah", but "Jehovah is Our Righteousness".
In fact, the exact same name is given to a city at Jeremiah 33:16, so does that make that city Jehovah? Obviously not.
This name was explained earlier at Isaiah 54:17, saying, "’No weapon formed against you will have any success, and you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from me,’ declares Jehovah."
So "Jehovah is Our Righteousness" merely signifies that the righteousness of his servants, even Jesus, comes from Jehovah.
>the original text
>muh translations
lol
So, basically I am presenting “solid arguments”
Therefore, you have to undermine the basis, not the premise, of said arguments
Lmao
I feel like you didn't respond to what I have said.
Look closely at the first words of Jeremiah 23:5: "'Look! The days are coming,' declares Jehovah, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout.'"
He did not say, "I will come", but said, "I will raise up ... a righteous sprout."
Does that sound like he could be talking about himself at all? (Compare verse 4)
Jesus =/= the Father
Both are Jehovah
We’ve been over this.
>Revelation 14:1
>Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.
Notice how Revelation says talks about the Jesus' Father name. If Jesus and the Father shared the same name, it would have said "the Lamb's name".
The Scriptures are very clear that Jehovah is the Father while Jesus submits to him and worships him. So Jesus is not Jehovah.
We’ve been over this
Jesus’ name = “Jesus”
The Fathers name = “The Father”
Both share the name “Jehovah”
>The Fathers name = “The Father”
The Father is not a name.
>Both share the name “Jehovah”
You keep saying this. Where in the OT is it ever said that Jehovah has a Father? We know that Jesus has a Father, so if Jesus is Jehovah then it should be states somewhere that Jehovah has a Father. But it is not the case.
Now consider these two verses:
“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.
So there is nobody that is greater than Jehovah, do you agree?
Now look at what Jesus says:
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28
Jesus has a person above himself.
From these we can conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah.
The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit are all YHWH, and Jesus is subordinate to the Father in humanity, as the Athanasian Creed says
>He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
The Athanasian Creed contradicts whta the Bible teaches:
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. *
“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.
As for the holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.
Back in 1879, Bible scholar Charles L. Ives aptly illustrated God’s ability to exercise his power from a fixed location. He wrote: “For example, we say, ‘Open the shutters, and let the sun come into the room.’ We mean, not the real, bodily sun, but the solar ray, that which proceeds from the sun.”
Yea none of that contradicts the Trinity with the incarnation, and that part of the creed comes from places like Heb 2:9 and Phil 2:6-11
Its an insane weirdo hick cult from what I can tell. Protestants love to harp on Catholics for letting the Pope be like this dictator of their religion, but things like Jehova Witnesses have the same shit but worse because they have some old grumpy homosexual thats telling these families how to live their lives in a much more direct and real way than ANY catholic would be with the pope.
Apparently, the JW have their own media production stuff, making cornball flavorless christian movies, music, books ect. and you are only allowed to consume this shit and if your child does stuff like listen to a new album or plays pokemon its some grave sin and parents and siblings along with the whole community are ordered to ignore the child as some cruel form of punishment.
I cant imagine the sort of weak spinless person that would freely submit to such bizarre and arbitrary rules regarding their own family all to bow down to some like 100iq small town hick retard who wants to LARP as some great biblical scholar.
That is really not how JWs operates and I am sorry that you have been fed stereotypes.
First of all, it is not true at all that JWs are only allowed ro consume JW productions. Not a single JW alive believes this. JWs listen to music and play Pokémon just like any other child. I can testify to this as someone who was raised a JW and who has JW childhood friends.
Yes, there are some limitations, and those limitations are based on bible principles. If you want some examples I can give you some.
There are no "ctuel punishment" among JWs. Treating a child with kindness and love is an obligation. Some JW parents can go overboard, sure, but that is their psychological trait and has nothing to do with their religion.
If you really want to know what Jehivah's Witnesses are like, you are welcome to attend one of their meetings and see for yourself how they are. It will be better than to base your judgment on clichés you see on the internet.
That's Arianism, Patrick.
We do share some similar beliefs to Arians but there are also fundamental differences.
Anyways, we don't name our doctrines after a man's, because the source of our faith is not Arius, but Jehovah.
Hence the name Jehovah's Witnesses, not Arius' Witnesses.
That you keep retconning the 1914 doctrine lmao.
1914 is part our major beliefs since the beginning so I don't know what you mean by "retconning the doctrine".
We base our beliefs about the significance of 1914 on biblical chronology, which tells us that the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity both occurred in 607 BCE.
Daniel chapter 4 prophesied a period of 2,520 years starting with 607 BCE and ending at 1914 CE.
We equate this period with the "Gentile Times" or "the appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24). When the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, the line of kings descended from David was interrupted, and that God's throne was "trampled on" from then until Jesus began ruling in October 1914.
This is confirmed by world events since 1914, including wars, famine, earthquakes and increasing lawlessness, which are a fulfillment of the "sign" of Christ's presence as you have just read in Luke 21. Our preaching is also part of that sign (Matthew 24:14).
There's no god and jesus didn't exist.
What makes you say that?
The natural friction between hyperboreans and alpines. No way these two people were created equal.
The real problem is their view of Jesus as something created. A creature is finite, while God is infinite. By definition, there is no common meaure between the finite and the infinite. Thus, a creature can only be saved by God directly because even the holiest creature is exaclty nohting in face of God. Jesus's sacrifice would the be worthless, because he is unable to save.
I understand your comment, but I think it is misguided my friend.
See, it is extremely important to realize that God did not send some angel to rescue mankind. He made the supreme sacrifice of sending his only-begotten Son, “the one he was specially fond of.”—Proverbs 8:30; John 3:16.
This is true because Only Jehovah’s firstborn Son could measure up to the special needs of the situation involving sinful mankind.
He is such an image of his heavenly Father in showing affection for members of the divinely produced family that he is without equal among the sons of God. Since all other intelligent creatures were brought into existence by means of him, his affection for them would certainly be abundant.
It was on a mission of salvation that Jehovah lovingly sent his only-begotten Son. God did not send his Son here in order to judge the world. If God’s Son had been sent on such a judicial mission, the outlook for all mankind would have been hopeless.
The sentence of adverse judgment that would have been pronounced by Jesus Christ upon the human family would have been condemnation to death. (Romans 5:12) Thus, by this unique expression of divine love, God counterbalanced the death sentence that sheer justice would have required.
Were they right about Armageddon coming in the 20th century? Last time I checked we are living in the 21st century and Armageddon never came. False prophets, they can be rejected.
Are JW's right to call themselves God's Prophet, when all they do is make false prophecies?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_Watch_Tower_Society_predictions
>Deuteronomy 18:22
>When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Why do your Governing Body members wear $20,000 Rolexes and get free housing, while their members work at Taco Bell and live in poverty? Didn't Jesus say it will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God and to give away all your possessions?
They are members of the Bethel family; this means that they literally live at their work place, they have their meals at a canteen or cafeteria, they sleep in a shared room (shared with their wives if they are married) and they receive a modest payment each month.
So, they don’t have an opulent lifestyle. Certainly, they don’t live in a palace with golden taps. You won’t see them having a holiday in a private island, or rubbing shoulders with the jet set at places like Saint-Tropez, or getting a tan on board of their private yatchs.
But even if one would, one would need to know the circumstances before throwing accusations. For example, I know a member of a European branch office who comes from a wealthy family; if one of our detractors saw him driving his own yatch would certainly jump to wrong conclussions. Just like those who see a blue and gold watch and jump to the Internet looking for the most expensive watches in those colours, and that’s enough for them to defame a person publicly.
Your point is moot because bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion.
Recent studies prove that blood transfusions can increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates.
Thus, patients who do not receive blood products during hospitalization often recover more quickly, experience fewer complications, and are able to be discharged home more quickly:
Are JW's right to blood sacrifice their children to Moloch?
Why is early JW literature covered with occult symbols?
Conspiracy theorists argue that the cross and crown symbol that was used by Bible Students was a Masonic symbol. But Masonic use of the cross and crown symbolism derives from Christian usage. The symbolism became popular en the 17th Century at least in Christian phraseology. In 1621, Francis Quarles wrote the poem Hadassa: The History of Queeene Ester. It contains this couplet:
"The way to bliss lies not on beds of down,
And he that has no cross deserves no crown."
William Penn took the title of his famous essay No Cross, No Crown from Quarles’ poem.
Even though we cannot know the exact day and hour, Jesus did provide a composite “sign,” or group of events, that would identify the time period leading up to the end of the world. (Matthew 24:3, 7-14) The Bible refers to this period as “the time of the end,” “the end times,” and “the last days.”:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/last-days-sign-end-times-prophecies/
>"Armageddon is comin', 2 more weeks..." - JWanon
You nasty fucking Jehovah demon worshiper cultist. Fuck you.
Stupid bitch
JWs are closer to israelites than Christians.
JW's are pathetic cucks who's men are not even allowed to grow beards.
I’ve got a beard right now, and have had for twenty plus years.
Three of the appointed men in my congregation have beards, myself included, and there are several publishers with them also. Not one person has been asked to shave their beard off, and I certainly have never been.
The issue is not so much the beard but local customs. In some communities wearing a beard is perfectly acceptable, in others, it would raise eyebrows, or may be associated with certain lifestyles or political positions. An analogy might be tattoos: largely respectable in the western world, every man and his dog has them. But go to Japan and you’ll find that they are very frowned upon, if not outright taboo. Why? Because they are associated with the Japanese criminal underworld, the Yakuza, who have complex and intricate tattoos to show their affiliation to their crime families. As such, places like baths and swimming pools will forbid those with tattoos entry.
Yeah no, it does.
Mark 13:32: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?
>tattoos: largely respectable in the western world
Kek