JW's week after week trying to convert me

by HBJ 79 Replies latest jw friends

  • HBJ

    @james_woods: Hi James: Yes, I am aware, as was my intented message to the witnesses that I referenced regarding the NWBTC inserting words into Scripture that were nowhere in the original Greek translations. As you said, that translates into ZERO coptic Greek anything. However, from what I've come to understand, the wtbts has stated exactly the opposite to many of the JWs of today.

    I asked the woman who originally came to my home with her male sidekick, (she was replaced by another male individual, as I stated in first post), about the continued changes to the NWT. She replied with, "the wtbts/nwbtc, is reaching new levels of enlightenment". I replied back to her saying her explanation was probably one of the most meaningless justifications I had ever heard. I suggested to her that she go back to the wt for a better answer. Needless to say, I never saw her again...

  • HBJ

    @Think About It: I'm smart enough, thank you.

    "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?"

    If you had read my previous posts, you might understand the essence, and what I'm getting out of it. If you're going to chime in with unapprised remarks, which accomplishes nothing, leap into my posts and look at the context. Then you might get it?

  • james_woods
    She replied with, "the wtbts/nwbtc, is reaching new levels of enlightenment".

    Unbelievable. Yeah - the get further enlightened every time one of their false prophecies blows up in their face.

  • MeanMrMustard

    @james_woods and @Ding:

    james_woods wrote:

    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.

    and Ding wrote:

    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 reason why I stated this is that I've seen several debates between JWs and non-JWs disintegrate into a Michael/Jesus debate. It didn't surprise me at all that HBJ has discussed this topic with his visiting JWs. I could be wrong, and maybe HBJ brought it up, but it is probable that a discussion started about the Trinity and one of the JWs brought up that Jesus is really an angel, an archangel. And if that is the case, then all this nonsense about Jesus having the nature of God should be thrown away.


    *** w58 9/15 p. 559 Who Is the Archangel Michael? ***

    Further, note his title “archangel.” This term occurs only twice in the Scriptures (AV), at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9. The prefix “arch” means “chief, principal, great.” Certainly both before his coming to earth as a man and since his return to heaven he is the chief or principal one of all God’s spirit creatures or angels. Trinitarians may consider this a downgrading of the “Second Person of the Trinity,” but if we accept the Scriptural testimony that Jesus was “the beginning of the creation by God,” and “the firstborn of all creation,” we will have no diffidence about applying to him the term archangel.—Rev. 3:19; Col. 1:15.

    *** w84 12/15 p. 29 ‘Michael the Great Prince’—Who Is He? ***

    Jesus an Angel?

    Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. For Trinitarians, of course, such an identification poses a problem since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. But even some who do not accept the Trinity doctrine feel that Jesus’ identity with an angel somehow detracts from his dignity

    Ding, I suppose the WTB&TS doesn't *have* to identify Jesus with Michael. Like you have been pointing out, its not like their entire theology would collapse. But in any argument/debate, both sides are trying to bring about defensive and offensive points. If I were a JW and just got hit with John 8:58, I would go on the defensive and say, "Well, it really says 'I have been', at least in my Bible." And then I would hit right back with something like, "But Jesus says he's not equal to the Father." or "Jesus is really Michael the archangel." It's just something else they can use to hammer away at the Trinity, as the above references show. That's what Bible ping-pong is all about anyway, right? :)

    Ding continued:

    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.

    You are, of course, correct. And I am not debating this. I would say its another place where their theology suffers because they don't take the time to truly nail down what they mean by "person" and "nature" and "life force", etc. The WTB&TS loves to swim in a sea of ambiguity, IMHO. They find the best refuge there. Once you start to really get into the details, well, that's when it all breaks down. I think that's what HBJ is trying to do, I suppose. (if they stick around much longer)

    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.

    LOL. I swear I've heard that illustration at a district convention before. Yes, that's how they see it. And I bet if this illustration was read at a DC, all the JWs would "ooooooo" and "ahhhhhhh" ... but try to nail anyone of them down on the specifics of what a "life force" really means or implies about personhood ....

    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.

    If you said this to a JW, his/her head might explode....

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

    *shrugs*, I don't think it matters. They want to smash the Trinity. It's totally illogical, but it doesn't matter. The ends justifies the means.


  • ziddina

    HBJ, your post #5 completely answered my comment in my post on page #2...

    I commented:

    "Yes. Several authorities on biblical translation have spoken out against the Watchtower Society's self-serving methods of "translating" the bible. The question is, upon what proof have you based your opinion? I'm certain that you've SEEN such proof; the crux of the matter would be, to bring such proof to the attention of these two Jehovah's Witnesses. ..."

    In reading your post #5, I think you brought such proof to their attention, ADMIRABLY!!

    I am speechless with awe!!

    Zid the She-Devil

  • Think About It
    Think About It

    @ HBJ - I did read your first post after seeing a thread title where someone is whinning about JW's coming to convert them every week.

    Here are your words. "I can't seem to rid myself of these individuals regardless of what I say."

    Naturally, I'm thinking. For a guy who thinks he's pretty smart......he's not smart enough to quit wasting his time and just say he's not interested and there is no need for the JW's to come back.

    Either you like them coming or you don't. Make up your mind.

    Think About It

  • JRK

  • HBJ

    "I can't seem to rid myself of these individuals regardless of what I say."

    @Think About IT: I'm starting to see that for some, mainly you, I'll have to be absolutely specific regarding every word I choose before posting. The question was more of a rhetorical one that I was asking myself. It was like thinking out loud. Sorry if that confused you. As I stated, this has been my first personal encounters with JWs. My research regarding JWs has been mainly reading and attending lectures that are applicable to cults, which included JWs, Mormans, LDS, etc. The JWs aren't the only cult I've researched.

    "Either you like them coming or you don't. Make up your mind."

    Naturally I'm thinking, you're either an angry person, naïve, or just simply arrogant. How about you NOT telling me what I should decide, yes? If you don't like my posts then don't read them! How simple is that?

  • moshe

    A computer virus finds a flaw/weakness in the program , inserts itself and takes control of the program. Christianity, is not a cohesive body of dogma, but rather one with many inconsistencies. The JWs exploit weaknesses in orthodox Christianity in their sometimes successful hunt for converts. You might come to grips with the unexplained paradoxes the JWs have presented you with and accept another alternative-

    A- the JWs are right

    B- you are right

    C- you are both wrong

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Lady Lee,

    Before admonishing me for my concerns, I agree with what you say. The difference I see here is that the academic field, advanced knowledge of Greek and rigorous analysis of all Bible translations, would create a sophistication. My field is political science so I can see someone supposedly slick with scripture confusing me. It is the convergence of academic field and Witness teachings that leads me to ask valid questions.

    I said I had concerns and questions, not the absolute truth. Others also asked for substantiation. My gut may be wrong but I refuse to ignore it the way I was taught by the Witnesses. If I can't raise concerns, this is just JW Advanced. I was not scathing.

    I wouldl do well on jeopardy but I have deep knowledge about very few things. The older I become and the more I read, the more I question and realize total sense and accurate knowledge probably do not exist anywhere.

    I have a mind and an education where hard questions were celebrated. Clearly, I no longer subscribe to JW orthdoxy but nonJW orthodoxy can be just as crippling. I stand by my statements. They were not an indictument. Simply concerns.

Share this