nPeace
Veteran Member
Do they follow it?
For about a century, Jehovah's Witnesses were known as Bible students.
It was not a name they gave themselves, but as they were keen students of the Bible, the name was stuck on them. Though they called themselves Christians.
Over time, they accepted that they could be appropriately called Bible Students (students of the Bible).
A little over two decades after, in 1935, they came to be called Jehovah's Witnesses.
There were not only changes in name, but there were also many changes in what they taught. Even today, though the changes are very few in number, changes still occur.
Do changes however, disqualify Jehovah's Witnesses from being an instrument of God to declare his word / truth?
That will be the focus of this thread, as I seek to consider the question(s), of (1) whether or not changes in understanding disqualifies one as a servant of God. (2) Whether the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses have become more in line with the Bible, or have deviated away, and comparatively (3) Are the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses more in line, or less in line with scripture than other ['Christian'] religions?
This thread was influenced by a conversation @Brian2 and I are having, where he describes how he sees the Governing Body of Jehovah's witnesses.
I want to see the scriptural reasons for these and other assertions.
It is one thing to give an opinion on how we feel about something, but if our opinions do not have a scriptural basis... what of it.
For example, if I were to say, I don't think I should do xyz, but the scriptures say God's servants must do xyz, then I have no scriptural basis for why I should not do xyz, I am simply giving my opinion, and should declare happily that I do not fit the description of God's servant, nor qualify to be such. Isn't that true?
This thread was not opened to have people state their opinions, but it's a Bible based discussion on the aforementioned questions. Scriptural use is appreciated, when making assertions.
However, anyone is free to give their opinion, and base that opinion on scripture.
For about a century, Jehovah's Witnesses were known as Bible students.
It was not a name they gave themselves, but as they were keen students of the Bible, the name was stuck on them. Though they called themselves Christians.
Over time, they accepted that they could be appropriately called Bible Students (students of the Bible).
A little over two decades after, in 1935, they came to be called Jehovah's Witnesses.
There were not only changes in name, but there were also many changes in what they taught. Even today, though the changes are very few in number, changes still occur.
Do changes however, disqualify Jehovah's Witnesses from being an instrument of God to declare his word / truth?
That will be the focus of this thread, as I seek to consider the question(s), of (1) whether or not changes in understanding disqualifies one as a servant of God. (2) Whether the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses have become more in line with the Bible, or have deviated away, and comparatively (3) Are the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses more in line, or less in line with scripture than other ['Christian'] religions?
This thread was influenced by a conversation @Brian2 and I are having, where he describes how he sees the Governing Body of Jehovah's witnesses.
The problem I have is if you are dancing to the tune of the Lord or a bunch of men.
I am against the bunch of men who run the organisation.
It is not the Spirit of God at work but a group of men with a whip.
Be united in what WE say, obey what WE tell you to, go out from door to door, etc etc or you are out and you only have salvation in us, nowhere else, and when you are out you will lose family and friends as much as we can make that happen. But we do it because we love you.
No personal attack on any JW but I do dislike the Governing Body and the laws they wield as if they are commands from God.
Obey me or else.
I want to see the scriptural reasons for these and other assertions.
It is one thing to give an opinion on how we feel about something, but if our opinions do not have a scriptural basis... what of it.
For example, if I were to say, I don't think I should do xyz, but the scriptures say God's servants must do xyz, then I have no scriptural basis for why I should not do xyz, I am simply giving my opinion, and should declare happily that I do not fit the description of God's servant, nor qualify to be such. Isn't that true?
This thread was not opened to have people state their opinions, but it's a Bible based discussion on the aforementioned questions. Scriptural use is appreciated, when making assertions.
However, anyone is free to give their opinion, and base that opinion on scripture.
Last edited: