Since when are the Watchtower’s implications on certain passages to be automatically considered accurate & true when the same technique is used by the Catholics?

by I_love_Jeff 3 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  I_love_Jeff

  I have two example:

  1) The so-called perfect creation of Adam & Eve:

  Since when is "very good" equivalent to the word "perfect"?
  "There was no defect at all, just as there is no defect in anything that God does. Man's start was perfect."
  Since "very good" is merely implied as that of being perfect? Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Adam & Eve were perfect but it does not state that anywhere in the Bible. They go by common sense stating that since God is perfect, he made His first creation, Adam and Eve, perfect. With that in mind, there are many common sense statements throughout the Bible strongly implying some truth to the Catholic doctrine called "The Trinity".

  Leading into my second example: should we not give the Catholics the benefit of the doubt regarding their strong arguments/implications for the Trinity doctrine?

  2) Another example is the Witlesses' understanding of Jesus being that of Michael the Archangel. They always say that since the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, it should not be a teaching. Hummm. Same applies to their teachings on Jesus equaling Michael the Archangel, there is not one passage stating Jesus is Michael. It is merely based on weak implications when compared to the overwhelming findings of the Trinity doctrine within the Bible.

  Watchtower 2/1/2010 page 22 "Neither the word "Trinity" nor the concept is found in God's Word."

  Keeping this in mind, what gives the JWs the right to say they have the truth when in fact they have certain weak teachings based on mere speculation? What gives them the right to point fingers and judge other religions correlating them to that of "the Beast" in the Book of Revelation and using the word "Christiandom" as a negative connotation associated with the figure of Satan?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  God's Word is Truth DC

  The Governing Bodies definition of " The Truth " as channeled via CO.

  1) Truth= God's Word

  2) " The Truth " = The truthful understanding of God's Word.

  3) Truth = verifiable facts that are free of assumptions and probabilities

  4) Truth does not change.

  Is there anything that they teach that meets their own critieria for " truth?"
• 

  humbled

  If we could even see the rough early texts of the oldest stories of the bible, if we could view the lack of punctuation and capital letters and the problem of sorting out past, present, future verb use and the problem of pronouns and grammar, then we would REALLY ask how dare anyone declare they know the "truth" about any of the old writings that launch the Hebrew Scriptures.

  It is outrageous that the WT told us the stuff they did. They slicked up their pictures of the Patriarchs and acted like the text was indisputably clear if you were Anointed.

  Rotten stuff, theology.
• 

  Ding

  Notice how often WT literature uses words like "evidently" and "reasonably."

  First, something is "evident" to the GB.

  The next time, it is only "reasonable."

  After that, it's "old light."

  Meanwhile, how many millions of people are betting their eternal destiny on the ever-changing conclusions proclaimed by those men?