Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses agree with certain beliefs and not others especially coming from someone they quote most often?

by I_love_Jeff 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  I_love_Jeff

  Of course I am talking about Tertullian. I presented this topic to Jehovah's Witnesses one time and they were not able to clearly explain why. Tertullian held certain beliefs contrary to the JWs BUT there are some things the JWs do agree with and often quote them in their articles. Does this kind of thinking pertain to the old light and new light theory? It's okay to accept certain beliefs from a Christian apologist but scrape the others that do not jive with their own man-made doctrine? eisegetical apporach, perhaps? If a Jehovah's Witnesses says to an Elder: "There are certains JW beliefs I do not agree with but other points I do accept". What do you think that sounds like? Is that not grounds for a potential disfellowshipping (of the ring-just had to include that for kicks)?.

  Anyway, on a serious note-would that not be hypocritical to accept certain beliefs from someone they quote most often and scrape the rest? I am talking about religious beliefs (the heart of one's religion). For example, I enjoy reading biblical archeaology and astronomy. There was an article I read online yesterday about the star of bethlehem, it discussed the planetary positions right around the birth of the Christ child. He may have been born around late May according to these astronomers/astrologers (authors of the article). Some may agree and others may not. My point is that it is something I may just agree with because of the partial scientific approach on that particular subject matter. Within my sect (let's say I'm Catholic), would I not be deemed a hypocrite if I do not believe the traditional date given by religious leaders? Let me give a better example pertaining to the Jehovah's Witnesses: Let's say Brother Tom read several pages from Tertullian's Apology and noticed several quotes that do not agree with his own beliefs. So brother Tom discusses this with another Elder who enjoys reading Tertullian and agrees with most of his writings. What would the Elder say to Brother Tom about his disagreements? Old Light vs. New Light?

  When Jehovah's Witnesses quote from a religious apologist, should they not agree with his entire beliefs instead of picking and choosing which is what they do best?
• 

  problemaddict

  Hey Jeff,

  I have a couple thoughts on this. The first is that lets be honest, there aren't many Christian scholars they can point to, in order to back up their viewpoints on certain matters. Modern day for sure. The scholarly community is very close knit, and in many ways like the medical community. You have to accept certain things to even be at the table to be taken seriously. I am not saying its right or wrong, just that it is true.

  Next, I see what you are saying with the old light new light thing. At the heart of your question, am I understanding you are asking if it is ethical to accept the writings of someone to support your viewpoint on doctrine, even if that person at their core didn't believe int he doctrine you did?

  I honestly don't have aproblem with that. The ECF's changed their minds all the time. I suppose much more interesting would be WHY they felt one way or another, not just that they said it.

  Now that being said, if the intent with the quote is to DECEIVE someone into thinking Tertullian didn't know what he believed, then that would certainly be wrong no matter what. Didn't Tertullian coin the term Trinity?
• 

  Ding

  Rank and file JWs agree with whatever the GB tells them to agree with.

  The GB quotes anyone they think will make the current WT doctrine seem to be in accord with what early Christians taught and believed.

  In order to do this, they have to be VERY selective in what they quote.

  If you look up the original, what the WT DOESN'T quote is often far more revealing and informative than what they DO quote.
• 

  blondie

  That's what I was thinking, ding. When I was leaving I started checking online the context of the WTS quotes from non-jw sources and the belief system of the person. The WTS evidently subscribes to the smorgasbord system of research, pick and choose.

  http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-watchtower-distorts-writings-of_15.html
• 

  I_love_Jeff

  Problematic-

  "At the heart of your question, am I understanding you are asking if it is ethical to accept the writings of someone to support your viewpoint on doctrine, even if that person at their core didn't believe int he doctrine you did?"

  Exactly
• 

  wokeup

  This hypocritical practice is one of the main points I brought out to the elders many years ago when I stepped aside.

  Quoting from theologians and secular sources to support and give weight to watchtower arguements was wrong

  if the sources are concurrently taught as being wordly or under satanic inspiration. This fact is undeniable. (and remains so).

  I told them I could not in good conscience teach anymore as long as this was practiced.

  I felt this was the safest explanation since it did not call into question doctrinal teachings

  specifically. My request to step aside was granted. A special needs talk followed shortly after about questioning Jehovahs

  'appointed channel' and 'independant thinking'. Imagine that.
• 

  prologos

  why? because they crave approval from the very ones they condemn. They are also of course unwittingly include these good sources in the process of providing "spiritual food". Extending the Daniel 12 "roving about" way beyond NY state.
• 

  Satanus

  'on a serious note-would that not be hypocritical to accept certain beliefs from someone they quote most often and scrape the rest?'

  Can you see a god like the one portrayed in yhwh appealing to other sources, besides himself for support or authority? If you are always right and have all of the power and all knowledge, you don't need to get support form lower authorities.

  It shows how weak the stands of the wt are. They lack confidence, and so look for support from any quarter. If they really represented a god that is as super as they say he is, they would have no need of anything from 'puny humans'.

  S
• 

  kurtbethel

  This is exactly the situation you would expect from someone who develops doctrine in a backward manner, which is to formulate doctrine first and then cherry pick sources to support the doctrine.

  During my study I brought this up a few times. A point of doctrine would be brought up and some early church personality would be quoted. Then I would take some other doctrine that the person supported that is not okay by WT standards, and point out that their supporter also supported a doctrine that is held by "Babylon the Great". Uncomfortable squirming would occur. No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.
• 

  Darth Eowyn

  If the Watchtower wanted to be intellectually honest, they should inform their readers of an apologists' positions on doctrinal matters, and then present whatever it was the apologist said. That would be fair. But there is an outright effort on the part of the Watchtower to deceive their readers into believing that they are a) scholarly b) correct and c) that whomever they sourced from has been 'hiding' this critical information all along. In many cases, this ends up being the Catholic Church. Of all of Christendom, the Watchtower hates Catholics most of all and lie or build straw man arguments against the Church at every opportunity.