Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

cardero · Nov 20, 2004

It has come to my understanding that Jehovahs Witnesses receive the appropriate spiritual food at the appropriate time from Jehovah. I also realize that the Jehovahs Witnesses are very organized and that is important that the congregation receives this information in a thorough and efficient manner. What are some new insights that the Jehovahs Witnesses have acquired recently and how does this new understanding effect previous publications? For example do you release one publication about these decisions or does this new material get updated in subsequent printings in their appropriate books.

Also-

When things calm down on this thread will you participating in the other features that Religious Forums have to offer?

cardero · Nov 20, 2004

WitnessOfJah there is a thread circulating among the Biblical Debate thread concerning the 144.000. Since there is scriptural evidence to support this I understand that this is part of the Jehovahs Witnesses belief system. My question is, since the JWs have been observing the remainder of the 144,000 left to ascend into heaven when did this census actually begin? Was it when the JWs organization originated or are people like Moses and Ezekiel or the apostles considered part of the 144,000? Is this an accurate number the JWs are considering or is this a generalization? Also how does one know that they are part of the 144,000? Can females be considered part of the 144,000?

Also

I live about 15 miles from Pine Bush, NY which has not only been deemed one of the UFO "hot spots" of the US but is also home and headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Farms.
I do not K(NOW) where you reside but have you been able to visit this particular facility of Jehovah's Witnesses?

HelpMe · Nov 20, 2004

although i believe in the bible, i would respect someone if they found 'god' on their own in their own way and carried themselves respectably as you do.often times i don't use the bible because of christians, which i suppose is wrong but when i relate with 'god' in those times, i feel no less fulfilled.

a female may be part of the 144k, my friends grandma claims to be one of them.

SoulTYPE · Nov 20, 2004

HelpMe said:
often times i don't use the bible because of christians.

Same here, more for THEIR translation of it.

robtex · Nov 20, 2004

First thanks for answering all these questions. It is not easy to get answers about the religion. I wanted to ask you, if you could indulge me, what in your expierence is easier to convert to a JWitness:

1) an non religious person
2) a christian of a different denomination
3) an agonistic or athiest?

cross referenced by
1) someone secure in their present faith
2) someone apathetic to their present faith
3) someone insecure of their present faith but searching
4) someone insecure in their present faith but not searching

Do you have a general gameplan for recruitment and if so does it factor in varying strategies for these groups?

I ask you this because I have been in sales for a while, which doesn't seem so different from promoting ones religion, and most of my gigs in sales varied from time to time based on the situation of the prospect. I am wondering if that is true for your work too?

WitnessofJah · Nov 20, 2004

Guy's, I won't be able to answer your questions until at least tomorrow , because I'm short on time and have many things to do, however, please be patient and I will try my best to be back on here ASAP.

Scott1 · Nov 21, 2004

HelpMe said:
i seriously believe the to verses you quoted are indicating that we should only follow scriptural traditions

One problem..... at the time there was only the Old Testament.... my opinion is that we can only surely know what Christ wanted for us by following the example of the Apostles who he called to carry on his message. The writing of epistles was only one of the ways that they did this... in fact many verses explicitly mention that the writer would speak more about the Gospel when they met in person.
The Apostles tought people... and they tought people.... and that became what we now know as the Catholic Church.

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+4:4&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en

Mt 4:4:But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Click to expand...

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+4:4&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=enhttp://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+4:4&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=enhttp://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+4:4&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en
Every word. Not just the words that were written down. Remember John 14:12?

Peace to you HelpMe.
Scott

chuck010342 · Nov 21, 2004

WitnessofJah said:
Satan was not alway the wicked person he is now, and Satan was not always his name. Jesus in John 8:44 says: "That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him." Jesus here shows that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it.

no it doesn't. that verse shows that Satan was and always will never have any truth in him.

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

carrdero said:
There is a question of Universal Sovereignty that I have just discovered about the Jehovahs Witnesses. If I am CORRECT this concept implies that as a society we are conflicted between GODs loving kindness and our exclusive worship for Him as opposed to GODs arch-nemesis, the cunning and seductive Satan. According to this "legend," if truly left by our own accord, humankind would surely pursue the pleasures of their fleshly existence rather than to the spiritual endeavors GOD has to offer. This conflict supposedly made itself evident for the first time in the Garden of Eden, and has continued through Job and Jesus and many civilizations to this day.

Does this theory encourage the belief that GOD has conflicts or doubts not only about Himself but about us?

Not at all.

To understand the answer to this question, you first have of to first understand most of the scenario in what happened originally. Here is what happened:

"Until about six thousand years ago Jehovahs sovereignty had never been questioned. Then one day one of Gods spirit creatures dared to do so because of selfish ambition. This he did by inducing the first human pair, Adam and Eve, by means of appeals to selfishness, to become disloyal to Jehovahs sovereignty. At the same time he besmirched Gods fair name by claiming that God had lied to Adam and Eve. Because of thus challenging Jehovahs sovereignty and besmirching His fair name this one came to be known as Satan or adversary, Devil or slanderer, Serpent or deceiver, and Dragon or devourer.Rev. 12:9

Faced for the first time with a challenge to his sovereignty as the rightful Universal Sovereign, what would Jehovah God do? Would he at once assert that sovereignty by destroying the three rebels? This he could easily have done, so settling then and there not only the question of his sovereignty but also that of his telling the truth regarding the penalty for the violation of his law. But because of certain compelling factors Jehovah did not do so. What were these?

By turning away the first pair Satan impugned Jehovahs creatorship and justice in demanding obedience as a condition for life and yet seemingly not creating man able to remain loyal to Jehovahs sovereignty. Also, by Satans success in turning away the first human pair he put in question the loyalty or integrity of all Gods creatures toward Gods sovereignty. And as later became evident in the case of Job, whom Jehovah had pointed out as being without a peer as to loyalty to Jehovahs sovereignty, Satan took the position that he could turn all men away from God.Job, chaps. 1 and 2.

To give Satan ample opportunity to prove his boast, and to give other creatures the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to Gods sovereignty, Jehovah delayed or postponed asserting his sovereignty. This would allow Satan to build up a powerful criminal government or organization by means of violence, deceit and murder, the destruction of which by Jehovah in his own due time would be an even greater proof of his sovereignty. God was so certain as to the outcome of it all that he foretold it in the garden of Eden, at the very time of the rebellion.

Once this question of mans integrity or loyalty to Gods sovereignty has been fully settled God will assert his sovereignty. This he will do by destroying Satan and all others who have proved disloyal to Jehovahs sovereignty, at the battle of Armageddon, thereafter bringing in a new world in which righteousness is to dwell.

TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE, LONG STORY SHORT: Satan challenged Gods rulership and said that people, if given the choice, would not worship him. Did God destroy Satan on sight for blaspheming his name? No. Instead, he has given Satan ample time (up until this very moment so far) to prove his claim and to show to Satan and the rest of the universe that people will follow him (God) and obey his commandments out of their own free will. Once he has proved Satan wrong and proved himself right regarding this, therefore, establishing his universal sovereignty then the end will come and Satan and his demons, along with this system of things, will get destroyed.

Does this theory of Universal Sovereignty mean that GOD has to intervene into societys affairs?

If GOD has to intervene into our affairs is GOD acquiring the TRUE answers about
our devoted LOVE and worship for Him?

No. Its up to the people themselves to prove God right. If God was to intervene, he would not be proving himself right, would he?

Does GOD necessarily need our LOVE and devotion to exist?

Not in the slightest. In fact, the only reason why we exist is because of Gods love, not the other way round. God could easily have destroyed this earth an infinite amount of times over if he wanted to, but because he loves us, he has given us the chance to worship him and love him.

Do we need GODs LOVE and devotion to exist?/

Yes. Jehovah God genuinely cares for the welfare of everybody on this planet, whether they worship him or not. If God allowed Satan and his demons to do anything they desired on this planet, Satan would probably have killed the human race by now. God will only allow Satan to influence the world to give him the fair opportunity to prove himself right no more. Would we exist without God? Simply put, no.

Does an All-K(NOW)ing GOD already K(NOW) our hearts TRUE desires and which side (GOD or Satans) we will choose or can we still surprise GOD?

Destiny doesnt exist. Its entirely our own decision if we want to serve him or not.

Am I properly understanding the concept of Universal Sovereignty?

You have a good very good idea. However, what you need to understand is that Almighty God is not in subjection to anybody in the universe, be it angelic or human, and it is only because of his love that we exist in the first place. God also does not have to prove anything to anybody, but because Satan questioned his universal sovereignty, he has allowed it to go on to prove himself right.

I apologize for all the inquiries but when I found this topic on site it intrigued me and the questions kept pouring forth.

Actually, it was a very good question.

If you want me to elaborate on this a little further, just ask.

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

SOGFPP said:
Nope... that's called circular logic and my athiest friends on this forum will shoot this false theory down in a heartbeat.

They will shoot it down anyway - they're atheists!

Again, you are under the mistaken assumption that the Bible was intended as a stand alone "rule book" for an individual reader to interpret. God promised not to leave us a orphans and he didn't.... that's why Christ founded a Church that has remained to this day. The pillar and bullwark of the truth.

I did'nt say that. I did say however, that external biblical traditions are not even close to being as important as the word of God itself. As an organization, Jehovah's Witnesses try and interpret the Bible as best as we can, therefore, seeing the truth. However, we don't believe that a "tradition" should overule the Bible even though the Bible does not support it - especially in favour of the Trinity!

The "Bible alone" doctrine is new.... a product of the Reformation...... a tradition of man that nullifies the word of God that remained unchanged for 1500 years.

So what you're saying is that the "traditions" of earthly, sinful men, is just as important or even more important than the word of God? Colossians 2:8 clearly says: "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."

The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form. (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2)

The use of the "Tradition" at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 shows that there is a valid tradition by the apostles, which tradition was committed to writing under inspiration. This, of course, differs from uninspired tradition, tradition that invalidates Gods Word, i.e. the Trinity.

Nice try, but quite untrue. Those quotes given are from the theological leaders of their day. If they were not widely accepted they would have been tossed out of the Church as heretics. Calling Jesus "my God"..... you think that's something they would have just let slide? I think not.

Whether you agree with this or not does not validate the case of the Trinity. Lets take a look at a few things:

The belief in a "Triad" existed in Babylon = Archaeological fact
The triad merged with the Platonic theory about God = Archaeological fact
The Trinity theory origin did not start in Christianity = Archaelogical fact

With that said, by look at the evidence and by looking particularly at what the Bible says, there is only one conclusion to draw.

P.S. I don't mean any offense with my comments.

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

carrdero said:
It has come to my understanding that Jehovahs Witnesses receive the appropriate spiritual food at the appropriate time from Jehovah. I also realize that the Jehovahs Witnesses are very organized and that is important that the congregation receives this information in a thorough and efficient manner. What are some new insights that the Jehovahs Witnesses have acquired recently and how does this new understanding effect previous publications? For example do you release one publication about these decisions or does this new material get updated in subsequent printings in their appropriate books.

When we say that Jehovah gives us "the appropriate spiritual food at the appropriate time", it means that we get a particular type of spiritual guidance according to what we are going through at the time. Example: We believe that we are in the last days, so we get "spiritual food" to urge us to stay viligent and be aware and ready for what lies ahead. We also get family guidance to stay united, guidance to become better preachers etc.

As far as "new insights" go, we don't really get them anymore, however, viewing certain matters from a distance in time and with only a little light on the subject often we have had an incomplete, and even an inaccurate, view of things. In such situations we may well have been influenced by previously held views. But as the light gets brighter and we draw much closer to events, then our understanding of the outworking of Gods purposes becomes clearer. In otherword, we try our best to be as accurate as possible with our Bible teachings, however, it a new concept comes to light, we are more than happy to inculcate it into our teachings if it is the truth.

Also-

When things calm down on this thread will you participating in the other features that Religious Forums have to offer?

Yes! I have not had a chance to really post on other topics because the questions in this thread have been coming thick and fast. I have done a few posts outside of this thread, but once this thread dies down, I will do much more in other threads.

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

carrdero said:
WitnessOfJah there is a thread circulating among the Biblical Debate thread concerning the 144.000. Since there is scriptural evidence to support this I understand that this is part of the Jehovahs Witnesses belief system. My question is, since the JWs have been observing the remainder of the 144,000 left to ascend into heaven when did this census actually begin? Was it when the JWs organization originated or are people like Moses and Ezekiel or the apostles considered part of the 144,000? Is this an accurate number the JWs are considering or is this a generalization? Also how does one know that they are part of the 144,000? Can females be considered part of the 144,000?

Revelation 14:1: "And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads."

When did the census of the 144,000 begin? Before Jesus died as a man, the only hope open to those having divine approval was that of life in an earthly paradise. (Luke 23:43) After Pentecost 33 C.E., however, Jehovah gave a heavenly hope to a "little flock." (Luke 12:32)

So the 144,000 has been distributed since Jesus time, which is of a period of around 2000 years.

The 144,000 is a precise figure (see the verse) and not a generalization. And yes, of course females can be part of the 144,000.

How do people know if they are part of the remnant? Well, these people are neither appointed or selected by humans - they are chosen by the heavens above. It's not a question of "Am I or am I not?", these people KNOW that they are chosen ones. As far as how, God has his ways and means of doing so in different ways to tell them.

Also

I live about 15 miles from Pine Bush, NY which has not only been deemed one of the UFO "hot spots" of the US but is also home and headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Farms.
I do not K(NOW) where you reside but have you been able to visit this particular facility of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I have never been to the New York Brooklyn HQ of Jehovah's Witnesses or the farm - but I intend to.

I have been to several other branches of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world though. When the time permits, I will definitely go.

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

robtex said:
First thanks for answering all these questions. It is not easy to get answers about the religion. I wanted to ask you, if you could indulge me, what in your expierence is easier to convert to a JWitness:

1) an non religious person
2) a christian of a different denomination
3) an agonistic or athiest?

cross referenced by
1) someone secure in their present faith
2) someone apathetic to their present faith
3) someone insecure of their present faith but searching
4) someone insecure in their present faith but not searching

People have become Jehovah's Witnesses from ALL walks of life, it does'nt really come down to a particular sector.

I personally know people who have been proffessional diamond thiefs, rastafarians, soldiers, concentration camp survivors, singers, hell's angels, atheists, religious, highly immoral, moral, millionaires, former inmates and also people from every ethnic backgound: Black, white, Chinese, Asian, and just about every other nationality and culture. In otherwords, A VERY diverse membership.

Do you have a general gameplan for recruitment and if so does it factor in varying strategies for these groups?

I think that "recruitment" is the wrong word. We don't just want people to join for the sake of joining just to create more numbers. We want people to join because we have touched their hearts and showed them the hopes, truth, and reward of knowing about God and what he promises. We are are also adhering to God's command of preaching to the nations which is told to us in Matthew 24:14.

As far as a "game plan", we do try our best to be concise and try to deliver the good message efficiently and effectively as possible. We also try and be compatible with the times and events that surround us. However, we are not trying to sell you a product or trying to give you pamphlets/a magazine at all costs. If you don't want to read it, we are not interested in giving it. If they reject our message, they are rejecting the Bible's word, and ultimately, God.

I ask you this because I have been in sales for a while, which doesn't seem so different from promoting ones religion, and most of my gigs in sales varied from time to time based on the situation of the prospect. I am wondering if that is true for your work too?

We are a non-profit organization and we don't have any magazine or tract placements to meet every month.

Also, we are not trying to promote our religion but more importantly, trying to promote our message. We are commanded by Jesus to preach the word (Matthew 24:14) and that is why we do it, and also because we love people. Can you compare commercial sales to our religion? Not really - our ultimate goals are as different as night and day

Scott1 · Nov 21, 2004

WitnessofJah said:
They will shoot it down anyway - they're atheists!

So will anyone with any common sense.... circular logic proves nothing.

I did'nt say that. I did say however, that external biblical traditions are not even close to being as important as the word of God itself. As an organization, Jehovah's Witnesses try and interpret the Bible as best as we can, therefore, seeing the truth.

Your organization can try and interpret the Bible.... just tell me where you're Bible came from.... did it fall from heaven complete? How do you know the right books are included? How do you know that some divine writing was not excluded? You organization (and those like it) seems to forget that Christ was not a mere figure in a book... the Apostles carried on the message of the Gospel and CONTINUED to teach before, during, and after the writing of Scripture.
What makes you think that your organization started by a man.... not chosen by Christ as an Apostle..... some 2,000 or so years later is better suited to interpret the Bible than those 1st and 2nd century Christians.... many of whom were taught by the APOSTLES themselves?

However, we don't believe that a "tradition" should overule the Bible even though the Bible does not support it - especially in favour of the Trinity!

Again, as soon as you can explain to me where your Bible came from.... the Bible itself is a product of tradition.

Whether you agree with this or not does not validate the case of the Trinity. Lets take a look at a few things:
The belief in a "Triad" existed in Babylon = Archaeological fact
The triad merged with the Platonic theory about God = Archaeological fact
The Trinity theory origin did not start in Christianity = Archaelogical fact

What's your point?
Several Biblical stories were pre-dated by other cultures... the garden of eden, the flood, the messiah....
I guess that means most of the Bible is invalid and the Bible itself as incorrect as the Trinity.

I don't think that was the point you were trying to make, was it?

P.S. I don't mean any offense with my comments.

Nor do I.

Peace be with us both as we search for truth.
Scott

WitnessofJah · Nov 21, 2004

chuck010342 said:
no it doesn't. that verse shows that Satan was and always will never have any truth in him.

You are incorrect in your assumption. John 8:44 says: "That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him."

Therefore, he was once in the truth (i.e.righteous at one point) but took it for granted.

If what you said was true, several questions would be raised:

Did God create evil?
Did Satan have a beggining or not?
Does that mean Satan will always persecute us to time indefinite?

"Satan" was once a perfect sinless, powerful angel who could do no wrong - until he turned to evil and was jealous of God himself. Satan means "resistor", which was given to him when he tried to undermine God's sovereignty and successfully made Adam and Eve sin. Since then, Satan who corrupted the world with wickedness - but not for long. Satan's days are numbered and God will destroy him and bring this world back into peaceful conditions - the way he intended.

HelpMe · Nov 21, 2004

i've never even heard of a supposed christian argue so vehemently against the canon.if as you apparently have one were to convince themselves against then canon, then said individual could actually believe anything they want.

if you don't believe in the canonization of certain scriptures, then i would like to ask how you determine what is sacred, inspired, or even just right.oh, and why the rcc uses the 'bible'.if you're going to tell me it's whatever the rcc says, i'll find it easy to judge the argument invalid as they were at one point very comparible to hitler's organization.(inquisition)and because through research i personally deem their claims of being the original church completely false.

love

Scott1 · Nov 21, 2004

HelpMe said:
i've never even heard of a supposed christian argue so vehemently against the canon.

I am not against the canon one bit.... I am against those that choose to deny 2,000 years of Christian thought and think they are the first people to read the Bible. We've been there-done that with the Trinity a thousand years or so ago......

if as you apparently have one were to convince themselves against then canon, then said individual could actually believe anything they want.

This is gibberish.... I can't figure out what you are asking.

if you don't believe in the canonization of certain scriptures, then i would like to ask how you determine what is sacred, inspired, or even just right.

Again you seem to be lost.... what I believe is not relevant..... I am showing you two what has been the truth for two millenia. The Canon of Scripture is just as valid a concept as the Church defining the Trinity.
Deny one, and it is only logical to deny the other..... otherwise you're a fool.

oh, and why the rcc uses the 'bible'.if you're going to tell me it's whatever the rcc says, i'll find it easy to judge the argument invalid as they were at one point very comparible to hitler's organization.(inquisition)and because through research i personally deem their claims of being the original church completely false.

Find it invalid all you like.... that's been my point from the start: You choose your own intelligence over 2,000 years of clear evidence to the contrary. Suit yourself.

Peace,
Scott

HelpMe · Nov 22, 2004

SOGFPP said:
This is gibberish.... I can't figure out what you are asking.

you shouldn't approach everything i say as a question.my point was that if you're going to believe in what a man says over what the scriptures say, then you're also going to choose to believe whichever man suits your desires the best.

SOGFPP said:
The Canon of Scripture is just as valid a concept as the Church defining the Trinity.
Deny one, and it is only logical to deny the other..... otherwise you're a fool.

that's quite a lie.i responded to your early(pre 3rd century) church quotes with exactly why they were not evidence of a common belief in the trinity.

calling names doesn't prove a point except that you're childish and perhaps don't belong discussing mature matters, neither did extinguishing/silencing those whom believe otherwise.

SOGFPP said:
You choose your own intelligence over 2,000 years of clear evidence to the contrary.

?since before yeshua was 4yrs old, your church has been believing in the trinity?and if there were actually clear evidence to prove your point, then there wouldn't of been almost 2000 years of dispute over the matter.i seriously doubt that the side that felt they had to kill the other had clear evidence to lay their claims.and as i said before, i do not believe that the rcc was rooted as the original appointed church.

shawn

Scott1 · Nov 22, 2004

HelpMe said:
that's quite a lie.i responded to your early(pre 3rd century) church quotes with exactly why they were not evidence of a common belief in the trinity.

Whether or not you believe or don't believe those quotes are evidence is not the point:

The RCC defined the Dogma of the Trinity
The RCC defined the Canon of Scripture

I was not calling you a fool, sorry if you took it that way, but rather making an observation that you deny one RCC definition (Trinity) and embrace another (Canon)... and then use the latter as evidence to condemn the former. Foolish? In my opinion, you betcha.

You can't use Scripture as evidence unless you can explain to me why you recognize the RCC Canon as authoritative..... but at the same time deny the authority of the Church to define anything.

Unless you expect me to believe by some divine accident the RCC got the Canon right, your whole position topples like a house of cards.

Scott

HelpMe · Nov 22, 2004

SOGFPP said:
Unless you expect me to believe by some divine accident the RCC got the Canon right, your whole position topples like a house of cards.

cute analogy. but if you don't believe in the divine inspiration activities of unholy people, then i suppose you can only have yeshua, but then again, he isn't the one that recorded his life.since i believe in the canon, i quite obviously believe it was divinely inspired, and to call such a belief 'accident' is absurd.

to say i or anyone are not allowed to accept one thing without accepting another is simply straying from the topic.now i never said everything the rcc ever did is false, but you ran with it didn't you?a divine organization wouldn't need a reformation would it?

SOGFPP said:
1The RCC defined the Dogma of the Trinity
2The RCC defined the Canon of Scripture

to say believing one makes the other one true is also to say that the inquisition amongst many other rcc activities was right.

we've strayed quite abit away from an evidence vs evidence argument, shall we return?

Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

Citizen Mod

Citizen Mod

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·

Well-Known Member

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·

Well-Known Member

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·