These are some questions that I ask the Jehovah witnesses. I hope you find them useful
Disclaimer: These are questions I found on the iternet and from other sources of research. Only the first one is really mine.
1)
"If we stop actively supporting Jehovah's work, then we start following Satan. There is no middle ground." Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 p.18
So of course someone who is following Satan can not certainly make it to paradise
But on the website they state
Do You Feel That You Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.
So I don't understand what they believe. Do you have to be a Jehovah witness to be saved or not?
"But Jehovah's servants already belong to the ONLY organization that will survive the end of this wicked system of things." Watchtower 2007 Dec 15 p.14
So I don't understand what they believe. Do you have to be a Jehovah witness to be saved or not?
Or is this just a blatant contradiction?
2) If they are no longer a brother Therefore, could the counsel of vs 11 (quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.) be applied to him after his expulsion from the congregation? Is he not now part of the world? Would not then vs. 10 now apply to him? As he now is no longer an insider but an outsider Jesus counsel at Matt. 18:17 would apply – “If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Yes, he would be treated as anybody else that is not part of the congregation. Jesus ate meals and had dealings with many sinners and tax collectors.
So we see from these Watchtower cites that the disfellowshipped person is no longer a brother and therefore the counsel of brother not taking brother to court doesn’t apply. Is it not a double standard to then apply “quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man” to a disfellowshipped person when he is no longer a brother? How can one say in 1 Corinthians chap.5 the DFed person is a “brother”, but in 1 Corinthians chap. 6 he is not a brother?
3) In June 1991, the Watchtower denounced the Catholic Church for having 24 organizations represented at the United Nations. This was true. The Catholic Church had 24 NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) maintained by the Catholic Church for the UN. However, at the same time as this article was being released, the Watchtower was applying to be an NGO with the UN in 1991. They were granted association in 1992. They didn't remove themselves as an NGO until 2001! How can you not see the blatant hypocrisy here?
4) I'm sure you remember the situation in Malawi decades ago. Jehovah's Witnesses were not permitted to purchase an inexpensive political card due to their neutral stance. Nothing can justify the action the people took against the Witnesses. Many brothers and sisters were tortured and killed. They suffered greatly. The question we need to ask is, did they suffer needlessly?
At the same time that Witnesses were forbidden to hold a political card in Malawi, a comparable situation arose in Mexico. The Governing Body ruled in the complete opposite direction. In Mexico, military service was a requirement for young men. When they would complete their obligation they would receive a card, which was similar to the card in Malawi. The brothers who didn't go in for military service were persecuted and imprisoned. However, in complete contradiction of their position in Malawi, the Watchtower gave the Mexican brothers the option to bribe officials to obtain the card and thus be exempted from military service.
So the brothers in Mexico were permitted to illegally obtain a card to avoid persecution and continue in theocratic work while the brothers and sisters in Malawi were not permitted to legally obtain a card to avoid persecution and continue in theocratic work. How is this okay?
5) In Gen 28:13, Jehovah revealed himself to Jacob saying, "I am Jehovah the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac."
b. But in Ex 6:3, Jehovah said to Moses, "I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them."
Questions:
1) These verses completely contradict each other in the New World Translation. Which one of them is true?
2) Is it possible that the translators of the NWT were overzealous in wanting to include the name "Jehovah" and so they inserted it in Genesis without realizing the contradiction they were creating by doing so?
3) Did the translators make a mistake?
4) Because it only takes one error to be imperfect, how can the Watchtower claim that the NWT is God's pure and perfect word?
. God's word says in I Cor 11:26 that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
b. The Watchtower today teaches that Jesus returned in 1914 and that he will not physically return at a second coming. (Live Forever pages 147-149)
Questions:
1) If Jesus returned in 1914 and will not physically return to earth again, then why does the Watchtower teach Witnesses to continue remembering the Lord's death when Paul commanded us to remember it only until Jesus came back?
2) Does it make sense to continue having memorial services for someone who is already with us here and now?
3) How do we know from God's word alone that Jesus returned in 1914?
6) Obviously, the NKJV chose to translate this word as worship. The New World Translation (NWT), however, chose to translate this word as obeisance (honor, respect) in all the above verses. What becomes interesting about the NWT, is that whenever the same Greek word, proskuneo, is used in relation to the Father, the translators translated it as worship, even though they rendered it differently in relation to Jesus. (This can be verified by looking in the Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.) Is this a double standard? Is the NWT justified in translating this word 2 different ways; as obeisance to Jesus and as worship to the Father? Let’s look in the NWT at what Peter did when he was given obeisance.
Acts 10:24-26 “On the day after that he entered into Caes·a·re'a. Cornelius, of course, was expecting them and had called together his relatives and intimate friends. As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him. But Peter lifted him up, saying: “Rise; I myself am also a man.” (NWT)
Interestingly, Peter refused this act of obeisance. Why did Peter so strongly oppose this act if obeisance only means honor and respect? Because, according to Peter, this act is reserved for God only, not man. Note, however, that unlike Peter, Jesus never sought to correct His followers when they bowed down and gave him obeisance. Jesus considered this act perfectly appropriate." Is this a mistake?
7) W hat is the mystery of GOD and the father and the christ in colossians 2:2