Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses? (page 6)

the girl next door

Obtuse

If it wasn’t for the governing body, there would be no JW religion.

They have been found wanting,

weighed,

delivered.

They are not Christian,

they do not know Christ Jesus,

they are a figment of the imagination of a newspaper printer who latched onto religion to make a quicker dollar.

Don’t try to dignify JWs with any theological corner.

Accept their self proclaimed insufficiencies.

Don’t argue with people who understand the blueprints and how they were orchestrated.

If you must engage in apologetics, start with the Bible. It came well before Russell or Rutherford.

2+2=5

But they still attribute salvation to Christ. The issue here isn't their view of themselves as the one true religion, but it is to whom do they attribute salvation. In their theology that's Jesus, and only Jesus. The two issues are not the same

I still think you’re missing the mark slightly. Salvation according to the WT actually depends on works. Which means....

That too is not exactly what the WT teaches. They teach that salvation depends on obedience to Christ. That's 'truth' in a biblical sense. But then they miss-define to what me must be obedient. Some things we can describe as obedience are defined by Jesus and others by the apostles. Is it obedience to testify to Christ to our neighbors? Yes. Is it obedience to circulate specific literature and report our hours or minutes? That's not in the new testament at all. Is it obedience to be submissive to those 'taking the lead.' Yes, but that depends on where they are leading, doesn't it? Most here have experienced elders passing on as firmly established NT rules their personal opinions. The WT sees suspending our conscience to the GB's commands as being submissive to those leading. That's contrary to the New Testament.

You might note that you've left the main point. I understand that this is an issue too. But it's off the topic here. I know many Witnesses who would if discussing this with you say that there is a difference between obedience to Christ and salvation by works. The issue, I suppose, is what one sees as obedience and what the NT actually requires. Some witnesses unquestionably substitute obedience to Christ with obedience to the governing body. It's a matter of trust. They trust that the GB teaches God's word; I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them. And as a very small woman [4' 10" and 88 lbs] I can't trow them very far.

vienne

GND

Your comments are historically incorrect.Neither Russell nor Rutherford were newspaper publishers. The Watch Tower society in the Russell era operated at a financial loss consistently. Did either teach biblical truth? Not often. Even Jehovah's Witnesses will shrug off as 'old light' what they taught.

But yes, if we ARE Christian, the Bible is the basis for our belief. That said, ranting is not refutation. You want to do more than preach to others who hold your opinion, then present facts and not suppositions. I don't think you have even a basic understanding of Watch Tower history.

Other than my own books, which of course I recommend, you might benefit from Zoe Knox' most recent book and from George Chryssides' Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change.

the girl next door

Then what are you asking for? What is your issue? You have asked specific questions and received specific answers. Immediately from me. In detail with your requested sources from many others. What are you looking for? What is it exactly that you want?

You move the goal posts and act like fake news hit you in the face.

We are trying to help. We’ve been through this a hundred times.

the girl next door

You assert that I’m ranting because you are likely a misogynistic pig. Yet you are the hysterical bitch demanding proof texts after they have been delivered to you over and over.

Try again flyboy. Printing from day one, printing to this day.

I have forgotten half of what you will ever learn in your lifetime.

vienne

Your answers are not specific. They're your beliefs and suppositions, but you do not present solid evidence. You miss-define terms. Our arguments become ineffective when we do that. I understand you do not like the Watchtower. If you wish to express your distaste in effective terms then be exact with definitions and present some evidence, say in the form of a quotation from an original Watchtower source that says what you claim it does.

If you were one of my students, I'd return your work and suggest that you improve it. Do not make claims that cannot be sustained. You have complaints? Don't most of us here? yet to be effective we should be accurate, exacting in claims. And we should back up what we say with some sort of proof. Or we're just yelling up our sleeve. Our words come back to ridicule us. Don't do that.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I just expect a respect for language and a respect for proof.

vienne

Learn in my lifetime? I'm a long term educator a retired professor of history. I write Witness history, and have studied it at greater depth than you have. You've retreated to ad hominem because you're unable to address the facts of the case. What you have that I do not is a huge store of anger and an equally large feeling of inadequacy.

Don't call names. It dossn't suit you.

vienne

misogynistic pig? You missed the point that I'm a woman, didn't you. I'm not surprised. Your temper tantrum got the better of you. Requiring you to prove your point is not misogynistic. Proof is not mere assertion. It seems that assertion is all you have.

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

Share this