JW's week after week trying to convert me

by HBJ 79 Replies latest jw friends

  • MeanMrMustard


    Blondie, that is an excellent example of JW doctrine by whole cloth of imagination instead of anything scriptural. And like you say, what real difference does it make to their so-called "christian" doctrine? Would Jesus somehow not be the Christ (like the NT actually says he was) if he was not Michael the Archangel???

    An excellent, proveable point, that HBJ could use with his "JW bible instructors".

    Just as a side point to this - do you know how long the witnesses have taught this Michael = Jesus doctrine? Does it go all the way back to Russell, and did they copy it from somebody else like so much of the chronology and the "torture stake" notion?

    That is true. However, if the WTB&TS were to give up the Micheal = Jesus doctrine, then they would lose an important tool agaist the Trinity. They point to Jesus being an archangel and from there they can claim that his nature is not Theos.


  • HBJ

    Nice post Blondie - Also, in regard to angels, I shared some versus with these two men: Hebrews 1:14 says, "Are they not all spirits for public service?" Angels consistently refuse worship. ("Be careful! Do not do that! Worship God." Rev. 22: 8-9, NWT), but the Father's command concerning the Son is, "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb. 1:6). That is how the Watchtower's own New World Translation read for approximately 20 years until 1970, when the Society changed it to read "do obeisance to him" instead of "worship him." I tossed that info to the two gentlemen I've been speaking with. One reply was let's look at the big picture instead of the small details. I replied that the big picture is made up of nothing but small details. No comment was forthcoming by either JWs.

    I added to the conversation that The book of Revelations refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ" seven times, "Jesus" six times, "Christ" four times, "Lord Jesus" once, and "Lord Jesus Christ" once. Why would the author of the book of Revelations suddenly call Christ by the name Michael? They needed to get back to me on that one. Daniel 10:13 states that Michael is "one of the foremost princes", this is hardly a description for the exalted Son of God. Michael is one of a group in this verse. Being identified as one of a group, (even of princes), is not a description of Jesus. Such an interpretation would clearly contradict the remainder of the Bible, which refers to Jesus as a single, unique being - the Christ (Messiah), and only Son of God.

    The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is God. Hebrews 1:8 says, "But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever ...' I also noted Hebrews 1:1-6, regarding The Son - He is not an angel (v.5 & 13-14), but is worshiped by them (v6). No reply was given. At our last meeting a offered the following: John 8:57-58 He is called the "I Am". V57: Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" V58: Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, "before Abraham was, I AM". I thought that summed it up somewhat easily. They did try to jump to other versus, as some say they tend to do, which I do believe was to avoid directly answering V58.

  • wannabefree

    HBJ: Have you heard of the book "Truth in Translation" by Jason D. Beduhn?

    This scholar does a comparison of select controversial verses to check for accuracy, he actually selected the NWT published by Jehovah's Witnesses more accurate in most of the verses selected for comparison.

    You might find this an interesting read. He even suggested that the NWT was more accurate in their rendering of John 8:57-58.

    While the Watchtower Organization actually quoted from this book to tout secular approval of the accuracy in their bible translation, they don't actually recommend it as reading for the average JW. As you may have noticed on other threads, the Organization does the research and chooses what they feel are appropriate quotes from secular sources so the average JW doesn't have to.

    I do not recommend this book to say that JW's are correct in how they put it all together, but for me, wanting to hold on to my faith as a Witness was my motivation in reading it.

    While many will disagree with Beduhn's analysis of the NWT, reading the book and accepting his explanations in their entirety actually was a key part of releasing the Watchtower's hold on my mind.

  • james_woods


    That is true. However, if the WTB&TS were to give up the Micheal = Jesus doctrine, then they would lose an important tool agaist the Trinity. They point to Jesus being an archangel and from there they can claim that his nature is not Theos.

    You know, the clarity of that point had never even occurred to me before. I always thought that the Michael = Jesus notion was just a religious quirk of the JWs - never that it might have been deliberately generated to help them deny the deity of christ.

    But I think it is clear that you are absolutely right about this.

  • Ding

    HBJ, with regard to John 8:58, didn't they tell you the NWT reads "I have been," not "I am"?

    MeanMrMustard, I've never understood why they feel they have to equate Jesus and Michael. Why couldn't they just claim that Jesus is unique as the first and greatest creation of Jehovah and that Michael is a separate being who is subject to him?

    The WT really doesn't believe that Jesus and Michael are the same person anyway. In WT theology, all they shared was the same impersonal life force. They don't believe Jesus was an archangel incarnate as a man. They believe Jesus was a perfect man like Adam, no more and no less. And they don't believe the man Jesus rose as Michael. They believe the human being died and stayed dead and that he had no separate soul or personality that survived physical death.

    Let's use an analogy for the Jesus -- Michael impersonal life force teaching.

    Let's say you (Jehovah) have a flashlight (Michael) powered by batteries (impersonal active force). At some point, you take the batteries out of the flashlight and use them to power a transistor radio (deactiviting Michael and giving life to the man Jesus). Then someone breaks the radio (Jesus is killed), so you take the batteries and put them back into the flashlight (empowering Michael again). That's how the WT views what happened with Michael and Jesus.

    Now, in that analogy, would you say that the flashlight (Michael) became the radio (Jesus) and went back to being the flashlight (Michael) again? Not at all! There's no continuity of identity between the flashlight and the radio (Michael and Jesus). In WT teaching, they were two totally separate entities who happened to share the same impersonal power source.

    So in what sense does the WT really teach that Jesus = Michael?

  • skeeter1

    For what it's worth, even if they realize that they will never convert you, you are helping out both of them tremendousl Becuase they benefit from talking to you, they will continue to come back.

    First, by spending time with you, they get to count their time with you in their individual reporting to the Watch Tower Society. You are helping prove to the Watch Tower Society that they are worth individuals before Jehovah.

    Second, if they were not with you...they'd have to be out going door-to-door finding new recruits. Most people, JWs included, loathe cold calling. Instead, you provide a friendly, air-conditioned place for them to park their rear ends and chat. They are not wasting gas money, which is a big deal to most JWs!

    Third, they get to gloat to others in the Kingdom Hall about you as a study. It's a big deal to even have a study.

    Fourth, you provide them with mental stimulation. It's not often a JW can find someone to ponder Bible-stuff with. The dumbed down Watchtower magazines and routine gets very boring for many.

    Fifth, you provide them with validation. They, especially the elder, is super-indoctrinated. He sees you as a poor sap, illiterate in the Bible and tricked by Satan's false religions. He only sees what the WTS teaches.


    If you don't want to talk to them, the best suggestion is to tell them to put you on a "Do Not Call List." They will respect that.

    Second, if you don't want to talk to them....ask them to pay a few of your bills. Tell them that you're having trouble paying your electric bill, water bill, phone bill, and/or grocery bill. They will run away and never call back (unless you get a rare one who wants the study so bad that he'll pay out of his own pocket...even then, if you ask a few times...he'll run away too). The JWs are not the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Their Organization is for GETTING people and their money and time. It's not for GIVING to people as Christ did. That's the real distinction of a True Christian group. In fact, JWs abhore the Red Cross and, especially, the Salvation Army. If I'm not mistaken, they have an unwritten rule against giving either group money..and written rules against ever joining (even for gym membership).

    JWs and the WTS does rarely give - when needed. The WTS will donate surgery equipment to a hospital, rarely, to benefit patients seeking non-blood treatment (i.e other JWs). The WTS will donate a fire-truck, rarely, or other money to a county government where its headquarters are as a measure of goodwill due to non-payment of property taxes. The JWs will rarely take up a collection to help another JW who is in need due to an emergency. But, I know of one case where the WTS would not allow the money to go to someone who is merely studying. Even when Hurricane's hit, the brothers will help out other brothers - but then demand repayment of insurance monies. When earthquakes and floods happen, the mother organization - the WTS - will ask for donation to help the brothers in need...but will then request that the donations be given in general to the WTS (i.e. not earmarked). In otherwords, the WTS can keep all the money....


  • HBJ

    @Ding: HBJ, with regard to John 8:58, didn't they tell you the NWT reads "I have been," not "I am"?

    Yes they did, but I informed them that it was an incorrect translation, as the NWBTC continues to break the laws of Greek grammer to support their theology. Here was another example I offered: Research reveals that everywhere appearing in the Holy Bible where Christ is mentioned as being "in you", the watchtower had added the word ‘union', once again breaking the laws of Greek grammar in order to substantiate a flawed doctrine. The word ‘union' does not appear in the original Greek.

    I also said the following to both of them yesterday. I stated that The New World Translation is defined by the Jehovah's Followers' parent organization (The Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Greek into modern day English, by a committee of anointed followers of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the "New World Bible Translation Committee." Jehovah's Followers claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. This has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors, and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials. One of the two asked me if I had any additional information to offer on the subject. I said yes, and stated the following.

    I informed them that the most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word "theon" occurs without a definite article. NWT renders none of these as "a god." Just 3 verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of "theos" without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

    The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation-only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation.
    Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the exact same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy to those ignorant of the facts.

    I gave them the following example: The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah's Followers do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words "sheol," "hades," "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell" because Jehovah's Followers do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of "coming" for the Greek word "parousia" because JWs believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900's. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word "other" despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that "all other things" were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, "all things were created by Christ." This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

    According to the 1961 New World Translation (NWT) used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, Hebrews 1:6 agrees that all God's angels should worship Jesus. However, the more recent editions have been altered to read, "And let all God's angels ‘do obeisance' to him." This sudden alteration by the Watchtower Society was clearly an attempt to conceal that Jesus is to be worshipped. Since only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), and they deny Jesus' Deity, this change became necessary to support their theology.

    Research reveals that everywhere appearing in the Holy Bible where Christ is mentioned as being "in you"; the watchtower had added the word ‘union', breaking the laws of Greek grammar. The word ‘union' does not appear in the original Greek. Their reply was, "doesn't union and being in you mean the same thing?" I told them that was not the issue. The issue is the word ‘union' does not appear in the original Greek. The wt is altering Biblical text, a BIG no no, as to support what they want YOU to believe.

    They proceeded to change the subject to talk about their works in doing their works, i.e., door-to-door ministry to substantiate the WT's purpose. So I went right along with their sidetrack attempt, and pulled out some old wt literature, which said - "Jehovah witnesses have responded to Jesus' command to preach the Kingdom good news from house to house." (Watchtower 1960 11/1 p. 648) I said that The watchtower is teaching that door-to-door preaching is the identifier of the true religion. This is not a Bible teaching. The Bible does not specify how disciples are to preach. For the watchtower to say that Jesus commanded us to preach door-to-door, is a lie. Jesus is sending out his disciples to preach, and he's giving them very specific instructions, he says to them, "Do not be transferring from house to house." Luke: Chapter 10:7.

    Ding, sorry for the long post, but I thought you would be interested in light of our recent PM's.


  • james_woods

    HBJ - you were aware that it has been pretty well established that the Watchtower society actually had exactly ZERO Coptic Greek Scholars on board when the NWT was done in the 1950s?

    The reality is that it was not translated from original Greek - it was faked by using the reference of an existing interlinear translation.

  • Ding
    They proceeded to change the subject to talk about their works in doing their works, i.e., door-to-door ministry to substantiate the WT's purpose. So I went right along with their sidetrack attempt...

    Sometimes it can be effective to let them switch subjects at will and take them on regarding every topic they choose to bring up, but please be aware that hopscotching topics is a standard WT technique for avoiding any real thought when the going gets rough.

    Because of this, I think it's better to tell them you'll be glad to talk about the new topic but only after you see the current subject through to the end and get it settled. This approach seems to me to correspond well with your statement to them that the only way to properly interpret the Bible is to read things in CONTEXT rather than quoting isolated and unrelated proof-texts from all over the scriptures.

  • Think About It
    Think About It

    Seems neither side is smart enough to figure out that the other is not going to be converted. The JW's are getting to 'count time'. What are you getting out of it?

    Think About It

Share this