Why exactly do Jehovah's Witnesses evangelize?

[savagewind]

Yes, you're right, the Scripture indicates a future time. My mistake. Jesus 'will shun' unrepentant ones.

But tell us how it is right that Jesus teach us to shun dead people. Opposers will be dead, according to the JWs.

 

[InChrist]

Well, since you've never been in an LDS temple, you'll have to either take InChrist's word for it that it's "scary and bizarre" or mine that it's not. As far as I'm concerned, InChrist and deeje must be twins separated at birth. They are definitely two of a kind. Although I have tried, I am completely unable to have a conversation with either of them that ends up being even remotely beneficial to anyone. I guess it's just that I'm not into trashing other people's beliefs and they both seem to thrive on doing so. I would never speak of either of their religions' teachings with the same disgust and revulsion they do of mine.

Was I really speaking with disgust and revulsion or trashing YOUR religious beliefs?
I thought I was expressing my feelings, my experiences, and specifically my own personal view concerning the scary and bizarre feelings I felt while going through the blood penalties. throat slitting motion, and other practices I saw and went through while in the temple. These were my real experiences and feelings.

I realize it is hard to separate yourself from the practices of the religion you belong to and that discussions of said religious practices often impact you personally. I have shared my perspectives concerning LDS practices and doctrine. I don't call that trashing and I've never felt disgust or revulsion. I believe there is a biblical injunction to test all spiritual claims and practices, but besides that, this entire religious forum is about expressing one's perspective on various religions and spiritual beliefs etc. Isn't it?

I know I have never trashed or disrespected you as a person. If you can show me where I have I will apologize. I'm sure I fail at times in expressing things properly. And if you just feel that I have, I am sorry anyway because I have no such ill intentions toward you as a person.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, I know they do. Trust me, I've been exposed to enough of them on this forum to have figured that out, and if there is one character trait that I absolutely detest, it's self-righteousness.

No, I don't, but I'm assuming they have some kind of rationale for believing it. I mean Catholics have some rationale for believing in transubstantiation, and even though I believe they've interpreted scripture incorrectly, if I make the effort, I can appreciate why they believe as they do. For the most part, that's what I try to do. Everybody has different ways of viewing the same scriptures. I can deal with the differences of interpretation. What I can't tolerate is the self-righteousness of certain people, and every denomination has their fair share of those people.

Dear Katzpur,
We certainly don't want to be "self-righteous"; I mean, what we teach others is nothing we have come up with on our own. God is the ultimate source of truth. We are just confident in what we have been taught. Enough so, to go from door-to-door and share it with others. What God's Kingdom will accomplish for humans on this Earth, definitely is "good news"! -- Matthew 24:14

Our confidence in the way we present our message, could be misconstrued as self-righteousness.

Best wishes to you.

 

[Katzpur]

Was I really speaking with disgust and revulsion or trashing YOUR religious beliefs?
I thought I was expressing my feelings, my experiences, and specifically my own personal view concerning the scary and bizarre feelings I felt while going through the blood penalties. throat slitting motion, and other practices I saw and went through while in the temple. These were my real experiences and feelings.

I realize it is hard to separate yourself from the practices of the religion you belong to and that discussions of said religious practices often impact you personally. I have shared my perspectives concerning LDS practices and doctrine. I don't call that trashing and I've never felt disgust or revulsion. I believe there is a biblical injunction to test all spiritual claims and practices, but besides that, this entire religious forum is about expressing one's perspective on various religions and spiritual beliefs etc. Isn't it?

I know I have never trashed or disrespected you as a person. If you can show me where I have I will apologize. I'm sure I fail at times in expressing things properly. And if you just feel that I have, I am sorry anyway because I have no such ill intentions toward you as a person.

I have nothing to say to you, InChrist.

 

[blue taylor]

Paul was personally chosen by Jesus to take his message to the nations. Saul was a proud Pharisee who humbled himself when Jesus stopped him on the road to Damascus. He was going to persecute more Christians. (Acts 9:1,2) What possible reason could Paul have for his conversion, other than a desire to do the will of his God? He suffered more as a Christian than most of the other apostles. Unlike them, he was well educated and a Roman citizen, which gave him more opportunities than a fisherman might have. His address to the men of Athens is masterful. (Acts 17:22-31) He also wrote more NT scripture than any of the other writers. Your rejecting his words does not invalidate them.

You have to quote Acts. Can you not quote to us where Jesus tells his other Apostles (the real ones) about Paul? Remember there was no "Paul" before Marcion,s Bible revealed him to the world.

 

[blue taylor]

The answer to the thread is: JW's evangelize because their church tells them to. It's just that simple. Nothing wrong with it. Every (most) churches expect their members to do certain things.

 

[Milton Platt]

If I am not mistaken, (and please correct me if I am wrong) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 elect Jehovah's Witnesses will go to heaven, while the rest are just sent to the grave along with the rest of us. So if that is the case, why evangelize? Chances are they are not going to heaven, and neither are you. Also, doesn't converting other people lessen YOUR chances of getting into heaven? Your thoughts?

Like all religions, they have to replace lost members due to deconversion, death, etc. A religion that does not proselytize will soon be a dead religion when the congregation gradually dies off. And of course, the money has to be kept flowing.

 

[Deeje]

You have to quote Acts. Can you not quote to us where Jesus tells his other Apostles (the real ones) about Paul? Remember there was no "Paul" before Marcion,s Bible revealed him to the world.

"Marcion is said by Tertullian to have “openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject matter.” “He has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion.” So I don't think we need to worry about him and his impact on the scriptures.

"In 1844, Konstantin von Tischendorf, in search of ancient copies of the Bible, entered the library of the monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. He discovered a large basket of book pages. A closer look revealed something that stunned him. These were pages from a copy of the Bible in Greek far older than any he had ever seen. When he inquired about these pages. His heart sank. They were used to start fires! Two heaps had already been burned! The monks gave him 43 pages, but they refused to cooperate further.

He made a second trip to the monastery, but with no success. A third trip, and again all appeared lost. He made arrangements to leave, considering it a hopeless search. Three days before departing, he was talking to the steward, or caretaker, of the monastery who invited him into his small room. The steward remarked that he had read an old copy of the Bible and abruptly pulled down a heap of loose leaves wrapped in a red cloth.
As he opened this bundle, here was what Tischendorf had been searching 15 years to find. This Bible manuscript, now called the Codex Sinaiticus, contained all the “New Testament.” Believed to have been written around 350 C.E., it was over six centuries older than authoritative manuscripts at the time." (Excepts '89 Awake magazine)

Paul's writings belong in the NT as part of "inspired scripture" and no one has a valid reason to discount them. It is God's word after all, merely written by many human secretaries.

 

[Deeje]

The answer to the thread is: JW's evangelize because their church tells them to. It's just that simple. Nothing wrong with it. Every (most) churches expect their members to do certain things.

JW's evangelize because the Bible tells us to. Both Jesus and his apostles urged others to preach.

Rom 10:13-15:
"For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

All Christians bear the responsibility to preach and teach about the good news of God's kingdom, right up until the end of the age. (Matt 24:14) This is clearly not just for the apostles, since they are long dead.

 

[Deeje]

Like all religions, they have to replace lost members due to deconversion, death, etc. A religion that does not proselytize will soon be a dead religion when the congregation gradually dies off. And of course, the money has to be kept flowing.

Are you speaking about Christendom? Seems to me like that sinking ship is having all those problems, whilst we keep increasing. Go figure

If money was our motive, then our elders would be paid...they aren't. Our literature would be worth the same as you find in "Christian" bookstores...but it's free.

You are getting your information from the wrong sources.....but hey, if you want to feed your prejudice, believe anything you like. It really makes no difference in the big scheme of things.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have to quote Acts. Can you not quote to us where Jesus tells his other Apostles (the real ones) about Paul? Remember there was no "Paul" before Marcion,s Bible revealed him to the world.

Acts was written by Luke the Gospel writer, not Paul.

 

[blue taylor]

Acts was written by Luke the Gospel writer, not Paul.

Luke-Acts was written by an unknown author as were all NT books. There are no NT books that were authored by known people.

 

[blue taylor]

"Marcion is said by Tertullian to have “openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject matter.” “He has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion.” So I don't think we need to worry about him and his impact on the scriptures.

"In 1844, Konstantin von Tischendorf, in search of ancient copies of the Bible, entered the library of the monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. He discovered a large basket of book pages. A closer look revealed something that stunned him. These were pages from a copy of the Bible in Greek far older than any he had ever seen. When he inquired about these pages. His heart sank. They were used to start fires! Two heaps had already been burned! The monks gave him 43 pages, but they refused to cooperate further.

He made a second trip to the monastery, but with no success. A third trip, and again all appeared lost. He made arrangements to leave, considering it a hopeless search. Three days before departing, he was talking to the steward, or caretaker, of the monastery who invited him into his small room. The steward remarked that he had read an old copy of the Bible and abruptly pulled down a heap of loose leaves wrapped in a red cloth.
As he opened this bundle, here was what Tischendorf had been searching 15 years to find. This Bible manuscript, now called the Codex Sinaiticus, contained all the “New Testament.” Believed to have been written around 350 C.E., it was over six centuries older than authoritative manuscripts at the time." (Excepts '89 Awake magazine)

Paul's writings belong in the NT as part of "inspired scripture" and no one has a valid reason to discount them. It is God's word after all, merely written by many human secretaries.

Depends on whether you believe Tertullian or Marcion. You take your pick, I'll take mine. The codex Sinaiticus is the perfect example of men changing the text of "sacred documents" to suit their own theology. Sound familiar? The Codex contains about 20,000 changes to it from the text it was copied from. They are described in the margins to the right. It also contained The Shepherd Of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas as a part of the canon. Men, not God made these changes to the text and to the canon. Whatever suited them. Who decided to take out Hermas and Barnabas? Men.

 

[Deeje]

Depends on whether you believe Tertullian or Marcion. You take your pick, I'll take mine. The codex Sinaiticus is the perfect example of men changing the text of "sacred documents" to suit their own theology. Sound familiar? The Codex contains about 20,000 changes to it from the text it was copied from. They are described in the margins to the right. It also contained The Shepherd Of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas as a part of the canon. Men, not God made these changes to the text and to the canon. Whatever suited them. Who decided to take out Hermas and Barnabas? Men.

I am always aware of the old saying bt...."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". No amount of proof is enough for a skeptic. You are free to believe whomever you wish.

 

[savagewind]

I am always aware of the old saying bt...."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". No amount of proof is enough for a skeptic. You are free to believe whomever you wish.

No amount of evidence can convince a person who puts their faith in a man/men.

 

[Deeje]

No amount of evidence can convince a person who puts their faith in a man/men.

So no one in the Bible ever put their trust in men? If you say so......

 

[savagewind]

So no one in the Bible ever put their trust in men? If you say so......

Matthew 6:24
trust: firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

Romans 3:10
Psalms 143:2
Job 4:17
Psalms 14:3
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Romans 3:23
1 Kings 8:46
2 Chronicles 6:36
Proverbs 20:9

 

[blue taylor]

I am always aware of the old saying bt...."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". No amount of proof is enough for a skeptic. You are free to believe whomever you wish.

I am always aware of the old saying bt...."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". No amount of proof is enough for a skeptic. You are free to believe whomever you wish.

I am always aware of the old saying bt...."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". No amount of proof is enough for a skeptic. You are free to believe whomever you wish.

Nothing about the Codex?

 

[savagewind]

So no one in the Bible ever put their trust in men? If you say so......

Right! No one righteous has ever put their trust in men.
Psalms 146:3
Jeremiah 17:5

Try this on. Every word of God's word was written without trust in men. True or false?

 

[savagewind]

Whenever anyone wrote any word of God, was it written with trust in the person's self, in anyone else or in GOD?
Now think about the transmitting of it from the written word to the teaching of it. Is every time it is copied, translated, explained and taught is it EVER transmitted along with faith in anything but God?
Did it ever come along with some little or a lot of faith in anything but in God?

I propose that the writing of it was accomplished by what the Bible calls 144,000. Where are they?

Where are the people who have distributed it?

Which one is Jesus for? The place it was written or the place it has been distributed to? 1 John 4:5