JW Stumper Questions!!!

by Brutus 26 Replies latest jw friends

Brutus

If the organization did not actually prophesy the end in 1925 and 1975, then how come so many Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? ("They lost roughly three-quarters of the movement between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end didn't come as they had implied over and over again," said Jim Penton, an ex-Witness who writes entries on Jehovah's Witnesses for the Encyclopedia Americana.)
If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them "inspired" yet the Watchtower organization does call themselves "God's Spirit-directed Prophet" what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an "uninspired prophet"? See Organization claims inspiration
Has the Society ever taught anything scripturally incorrect?
Might the Society be teaching anything scripturally incorrect now?
Since the Organization has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their view on this, does this mean that all the former Jehovah's witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted into fellowship again? Were these Ex-Jw's in fact disfellowshipped for truth and knew things that the governing body did not? See Jw's were disfellowshipped for rejecting generation doctrine
Can Jehovah's Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other Jehovah's Witnesses opinions that differ from orthodox Watch Tower doctrine?
Can individuals read & understand the Bible alone, or do they need an organization and it's publications to do so? Click here find the answer!
How do you prove from the Bible that 1935 was the year for the selection to heaven stopped due to being filled? What is the difference between a Catholic appealing to "what the organization tells him" about December 25 being the date of Jesus’ birthday and a Jw’ appealing to "what the organization tells him" about the date 1935? Is it not hypocritical when you chide the "poor deluded Catholic" that his faith cannot find a Bible passage to support it, when the same goes for you and 1935?
How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any records from the first century?
Why are you called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "Christians"? Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to Isa 43:12; 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" then what was the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? Can't be "Jehovah's Witnesses", for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be "Christian" after our savior "Christ"?
Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians" since Acts 11:26 says, "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name "Jehovah's Witness" found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's divine name for His people under the new covenant? Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name "Jehovah's Witness". Does this mean that first century Christians were not known as Jehovah's Witnesses"?
If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the name of God, "YHWH" when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower organization as unreliable?
If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name [v10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH"?
What is the correct spelling of God's proper name "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it "Jehovah"? If the name of God is so important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too? Is not spelling more important than pronunciation?
Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "Judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916 - 1942, how can we be sure that in 25 more years, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton G. Henschel (1992 - present), as they did Russell and Rutherford?
What kind of confidence can anyone have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two presidents for the first 63 years of its existence? This represents about 53% of the time they have existed!
Since the Watchtower organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that "passed the torch of God's Spirit" to C. T. Russel when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual?
In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?
The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text?
Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?
To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18- 19? See Jn 2:21.
If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, why does he directly speak and refer to himself as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2?
The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
MrMoe

Excellent points
Brutus

In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end ...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?
Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself" created the heavens and the earth and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were created. How can this be since if Jesus was created by God, then he would have been with God when everything else was created?
Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "... All [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM". If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone ... for my OWN glory...".
The Watchtower Society teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If chapter 7 of Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the Bible say that the 144,000 will come from? (See Rev 7:5- 8).
If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28?
The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?
Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us ... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God ..."). Jehovah is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?
If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, why does Jn 20:25 say "...Unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS ...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands?
Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you, ..." over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word "today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it appears (see concordance), and the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read?
The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?
In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?
funkyderek

In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end ...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?

If you look at this in the NWT, you'll find the passage is tortuously surrounded by several levels of quotation marks, making it appear if you really concentrate that someone else is speaking. The translation is technically possible but utterly unjustifiable. And it has to be deliberate. There's no possibility of it being an honest mistake. It's too complicated. Reading it in the NWT and trying to figure out who's supposed to be saying what is almost impossible.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
Brutus

I guess you have a point funky. It is very complicated and confusing.
MadApostate

Brutus:
First, Russell was not the WTS President in 1879. Try 1884.
Second, maybe you could tell us how to properly spell the name of God in English. (This should be interesting, since noone knows how to spell it in Hebrew.)
Third, please show us where the modern WTS "rejects" Rutherford, or Russell for that matter.
Fourth, could you please post the "apostolic succession" record of whatever fundy group you belong to, along with irrefutable proof for each transference.
Fifth, "Uncle Miltie" will first have to do or say something recorded as noteworthy before he could ever be "rejected" later in history.
Sixth, just how long did you spend lurking here before you decided to bedazzle us with your brilliance?
borgfree

Brutus,
Very good points, most of those were shown to me a long time ago and are the reason I lost all confidence in the WT. Then found better answers than the WT offered me. borgfree
barry

Liked your presentation anyone who says they are right should examine their beliefs and see if in fact changed them and if they have could they be mistaken now. In fact most christians if they are informed can find that christmas is from pagan origineand was christianised. Roman catholics know this if you reed their books.
thewiz

Here's one of 3 or 4 questions I came up with for newly appointed elders. It's a joke but some didn't take it that way.
If Siamese twins are preached to and one decides to study, turn their life around and get baptized, but the other one smokes, can the one who doesn't smoke still get baptised?
Sorry guys but I can never accept the trinity. Jesus was clearly created (the first born of all creation, the beginning of God's creative works), and the creation can never be equal to the created.
Cygnus

Your cut-and-paste questions are easy to answer.
Revelation 21:6,7 says that conquerors will be "sons" of the Alpha and Omega. Jesus never called his faithful followers his "sons" but rather his "brothers." Jesus was first and last by means of his resurrection, which the context clearly indicates. So while Jesus can share titles with his Father, they are not the same person, just as Jesus is called an "apostle" in Revelation, whereas there are many apostles, since apostle is a title.
Isaiah 44:24 was God declaring that all other deities which people claim to be gods are not gods at all. The issue of Christ's prehuman existence is not being discussed. Jesus is a mighty god by the power of Almighty God Jehovah.
Colossians 1:16 is talking about Jesus' role and function in God's Kingdom purposes. Jesus also fills the role and function of Michael, as many commentators in Christendom also acknowledge. We need not take such designations of office hyperliterally. Jesus is more than a mere angel, he is the most powerful personage in existence outside of Jehovah God.
144,000 is a literal number because it is mentioned twice in Revelation and is in contrast with the unlimited number of the great crowd. Paul said that the spiritual temple is made of up spiritual Jews, that Jews as a race are no longer favored by God.
The soul is not merely the body. One's soul represents his life force, and life prospects. It is what animates the body and is what is restored by God at the time of resurrection.
Jesus is a god in the sense that he is a powerful entity. Other persons besides Jesus in positions of responsibility and power are called "God" or gods in scripture (Moses, angels, human judges). Deuteronomy is not discussing Jesus or angels. It is discussing false gods of other nations.
Nebuchadnezzar is called "king of kings" in Daniel. How can that be since Jesus is also called "king of kings?" Does that make them the same person?
Jesus might have had two nails through his hands. We don't know exactly what sort of instrument Jesus died on, or what exact method was used. We do know that venerating the cross as an icon is wrong.
Luke 23:43 is rendered "truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise" in the NWT because there is no grounds for believing that the man Jesus spoke to would go to heaven immediately, or that very day. He was to wait for the resurrection during Judgement Day, which is still yet future.
Moffatt's translation says, "means my body" and "means my blood." LeFerve's says "represents." At Matthew 26:29 Jesus clearly says that what he is drinking is "the fruit of the vine." Jesus called himself "the light of the world" and "the true vine," but that didn't mean he was literallys such things nor did he imply a miraculous transformation of some kind. Paul paraphrased Jesus at 1 Cor 11:25 as saying "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." The wine represents Jesus' shed blood.
Three verses after John 20:28 John says that what he wrote was to show that Jesus was the SON of God. That would have been a perfect place to affirm that Jesus was GOD but John did not do that. Therefore we must conclude that Thomas' expression was of another nature than to be referring to Jesus as the God of Israel.
If Witnesses leave the organization because expectations of Jehovah's new system did not materialize, it shows that they served for a date and not for Jehovah. The Watchtower has apologized for such error and recognizes that this old system has gone on longer than expected. But it is Jehovah's will, and nobody or nothing is more important than that. Regardless of what humans perceive, Jehovah's day is coming right on schedule.
The Watchtower has never claimed to be inspired in the same sense that the Bible writers were. They claim to be led by God's spirit collectively as appointed ambassadors of God's kingdom in that they preach and teach God's message and good news of the Kingdom as understood by means of the holy scriptures.
Yes, the Society has taught scripturally incorrect things in the past, and may make further adjustments as the world scene changes. The fundamental truths never change.
What JWs were DF'd before 1995 based on their divergent opinion on the generation teaching?
If a person tells another JW that he rejects the ransom, or prays to the Holy Spirit, then such a person needs spiritual readjustment. Minor details on certain issues such as speculations about the thousand-year reign are not matters which would get anyone into trouble, unless a person makes a habit of spreading his personal viewpoint as if it were the rock-solid truth. Every organization of persons, religious or otherwise, has certain statements of faith, conduct, or standards and codes by which the members are expected to follow.
1935 was when the great crowd was recognized. Obviously, since Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones preparing a people in an organized fashion to survive the great tribulation, the great crowd would be associated with them. 1935 is not a biblical date, but it makes sense that the heavenly calling would cease than, based on the numbers of the anointed remnant and the great increase that would soon follow.
JWs count Memorial partakers. It is not an exact science.
JWs are called Jehovah's Witnesses because they witness for Jehovah. Rather simple. JWs call themselves Christians as an identity, but their purpose is to witness for Jehovah.
It is only rational and reasonable to believe that the original manuscripts would contain the Tetragrammaton when quoting from the Hebrew Scritures.
Jesus Christ is God's agent of salvation. Acts 2:21 says that the name we should call upon is Jehovah's (quoting from Joel). We are ransomed by Jesus' death and sacrifice, but it is Jehovah's will and plan.
JWs use "Jehovah" because of its tradition and its common usage. JWs also say "Jehoshaphat" and "Jeremiah." Noone criticizes them for that.
The presidency of the Watchtower has changed significantly over the years. There are now committees which are in charge of doctrine and policy. The primary and principle doctrines of Russell and Rutherford have not changed dramatically. Milton Henschel is not a Bible scholar and does not make JW policies or come up with JW doctrines by himself.
Christendom has rejected Jehovah's pure worship by its use of images, saints, pagan celebrations, wars, and immoral conduct. JWs have made minor adjustments in teachings over the years primarily those of an eschatological nature, which is to be expected especially since first century Christianity also went through growing pains and increased knowledge of the way.
JWs believe that a class of anointed Christians has always existed on earth since Pentecost, 33 CE. It is not very important to worry about who made up the "slave" during those years. Brother Russell mentioned many men who he gratefully credited with helping him understand certain Bible doctrines, such as the ransom. What is important is the focus on the truth and one's ministry today.
Jesus is not God so he is not worshipped as is God. Obeisence is perfectly legitimate. Human rulers also properly received obeisence in the Bible -- the word does not always have to mean worship.
In the Foreword to the Kingdom Interlinear, it says clearly that Jehovah is used when Kyrios appears because it is either a direct quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures where "Jehovah" occurs, or it agrees with Hebrew translations of the Greek Scriptures which restore the name where the text calls for such.
Jehovah is a proper name, not a title. Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 all use "Lord" as a title for Jesus Christ. Rendering Kyrios as "Jehovah" in these texts would make them grammatically clumsy and would be inappropriate.
The "temple" is Jesus' soul. The soul "of" his body. Jesus' life, in other words.
The Bible uses personification all the time. If the Holy Spirit were an actual person, why doesn't the Holy Spirit talk more often?
ego eimi is translated "I have been" because it has scholarly support for such a rendering. "I am" is clumsy, and besides, the discussion was centered around Jesus' age and authority, not his identity.
Cygnus, hardly stumped at all

JW Stumper Questions!!!

Share this