Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

[RedhorseWoman]

It is up to you to believe what you wish to believe, however people like me have been tainted by your cult's unpleasantness, and therefore have no wish to be polluted by anymore of its garbage.

Oh, but wouldn't you find it fascinating to watch Deeje or HockeyCowboy or any other JW try to disprove any of those statements? We lived it...we know that all of those things are true...perhaps with some slight exaggeration on a couple of statements, but definitely not lies or "half truths." I wonder what "whole truths" the JWs could invent to counter those points.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That sounds so sinister...

It is...but it works, so the organization continues to do it.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

People want to belong.. Shunning must be an awful thing if even your friends and family have to ignore you.

And what makes it even worse is that JWs are taught that they should avoid worldly friends and associations at all costs. So, if a JW leaves the organization, or if they are "thrown out" they are set adrift in a world where they have been taught abounds with people they have been taught to avoid, as well as being shunned by JW family and friends.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@JJ50 and @sooda (since I noticed you "liked" JJ50's post), I am curious as to why you believe Mormonism to be a cult, since they do not meet any of the qualifications of a cult, specifically: (1) They do not endorse shunning in any way, shape or form, (2) They do not attempt to keep their members from reading about or learning about other religions or perspectives, (3) They strongly encourage a higher education, (4) They encourage their members to interact socially with people outside of the religion and not just stick to themselves, and (5) They are active participants in inter-faith activities and service projects.

I have to disagree with you on this one. From my experience with my nephew, who was raised as a JW and then became a Mormon for a time (poor kid) the Mormons were pretty odd. As an example, my nephew was living with a Mormon foster family when his grandfather died. They actively tried to prevent him from attending his grandfather's memorial service because his grandfather was not of the "right religion."

They also tried to prevent him from visiting us even though we lived only a short distance away because we were not Mormons.

Granted, when my nephew decided to leave the Mormons, they did not shun him, but that's about the best I can say for them.

Also, a number of years ago when I was posting on a JW forum, several ex-Mormons came over to the forum, and we all began comparing notes, as it were. There were more similarities between the two groups than there were differences.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Continued.....





You do understand what that political party card symbolized though, don't you? It meant compromise.....it meant joining forces with an extremely corrupt government that was forcing our brothers to sacrifice their Christian neutrality.
What they suffered was acceptable to God because it furnished proof that the devil could not overreach them through fear. (1 Peter 2:20) It was a Job-like trial...and one that they endured with faith. Jehovah will reward such ones like he did Job. (Job 42:10-17)

And yet, in a similar situation that occurred in Mexico, JWs were allowed to bribe officials in order to get a similar card. The difference is that the WTS would have suffered consequences in Mexico, but in Malawi only the JW rank and file suffered.

Mexico
At the same time that Witnesses were forbidden to hold a card in Malawi a comparable situation arose in Mexico, with the Governing Body ruling in the opposite direction for Mexican brothers. In Mexico, military service was compulsory for young men. On completion of service young men would receive a “Cartilla” card, which similar to the card in Malawi, was required for a transactions such as obtaining a passport and drivers license. Young Witness brothers experienced persecution and imprisonment for refusing their obligation to attend military service.


Mexico Cartilla card cover


Cartilla card insert

In order to relieve this suffering, the Governing Body ruled that it was acceptable for Mexican brothers to bribe officials to obtain a government Cartilla card that exempted them from military service. This is discussed in the following letter to Mexico Branch Committee dated June 2, 1960.

“As to those who are relieved of military training by a money transaction with the officials who are involved therewith, this is on par with what is done in other Latin American countries where brothers have paid for their relief through some military official in order to retain their freedom for theocratic activities. If members of the military establishment are willing to accept such an arrangement upon the payment of a fee then that is the responsibility of these representatives of the national organisation. In such a case the money paid does not go to the military establishment, but is appropriated by the individual who undertakes the arrangement. If the consciences of certain brothers allow them to enter into such an arrangement for their continued freedom we have no objection. Of course, if they would get into any difficulties over their course of action then they would have to shoulder such difficulties themselves, and we could not offer them any assistance. But if the arrangement is current down there and is recognized by the inspectors who do not make any inquiries into the veracity of the matter then the matter can be passed by for the accruing advantages. Should a military emergency arise and confront these brothers with their marching card it would oblige them to make a decision by which they could not extricate themselves by a money payment and their mettle would be tested and they would have to demonstrate outright where they stand and prove that they are in favor of Christian neutrality in a determined test.

Faithfully yours in the Kingdom ministry,

Watchtower B.&T. Society
of Pensylvania
It is interesting that for Mexico it could be justified that holding a governmental card through bribery is acceptable, since it allowed the brothers to continue in “theocratic activities”, yet obtaining a political card legally in Malawi was not acceptable even though it would have allowed the same freedoms.

In 1969, a second letter was sent from Mexico to the Brooklyn Bethel for further clarification, noting this time that not only was bribery required but that the brothers holding a cartilla card were then recognised to be in the first reserve of the Mexican military, a situation that would normally result in disassociation. Brooklyn confirmed that it was still acceptable to obtain and hold the Cartilla card.

During this period in the 1970’s, the Watchtower forbade non-military service as a substitute, even when governments allowed this compromise.

"An examination of the historical facts shows that not only have Jehovah's Witnesses refused to put on military uniforms and take up arms but, during the past half century and more, they have also declined to do noncombatant service or to accept other work assignments as a substitute for military service. … Many of Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned because they would not violate their Christian neutrality." United in Worship of the Only True God p.167
Tens of thousands of young Witness men in the prime of their lives have spent years in jails for refusing civilian service. Others such as some in Mexico chose dishonesty and bribery as a way around this rule. After all the suffering the Watchtower imposed on these brothers, in 1996 the Governing Body decided non-military service was not unchristian and became an acceptable matter of choice.

"What, though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national service under a civilian administration? … That is his decision before Jehovah. Watchtower 1996 May 1 p.20

1960 letter from Mexican Branch to Bethel


1960 response from Watchtower Society


1969 letter from Mexican Branch to Bethel


1969 response from Watchtower Society

https://www.jwfacts.com/images/bethel-mexico-1969.jpg

That is rubbish. The pedophile problem is small in our organization compared to so many others, but we have dealt with it as responsibly as we can these days.
We can no more keep those predators out of our ranks than can any other organization where there are children. We are naturally trusting because that is what we are taught to be amongst our brethren. Pedophiles know this and are very good con artists but we have taken all the necessary steps to eliminate them from our ranks as much as we are able. This crime is reported to the police.

Your comment is what is rubbish. The JWs have a major problem with pedophiles, and the majority of pedophiles in the past were NOT eliminated from the JW ranks, but remained as JWs in good standing. Many of their victims, however, were eliminated. The crime is also not reported to the police unless the law specifically requires it. If there is no law mandating that they report the crime, it is generally kept within the congregation...and the victims and their parents, while no longer being discouraged from reporting or being threatened with disfellowshipping if they reported the crime to the police, are also not encouraged to report.

"Shunning" seems to get people's hackles up, but it is entirely scriptural. It is a form of discipline that is meant to bring a person to their senses and appreciate what they had, but threw away. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Matthew 18:15-17; 2 John 10; Hebrews 13:17) No one is shunned who hasn't committed a grave error unrepentantly. They want to blame everyone else but its their own fault.
If you commit the crime in full knowledge of the penalty, why bother complaining about it?

Shunning as practiced by JWs is anything BUT scriptural. Nothing about the JW process is remotely set out in scripture...nothing.

It works much like the account of the Prodigal Son. Only the humble return and are welcomed "home".

The prodigal son was not relegated to the barn for months while his family members refused to speak to him or associate with him in any way. JWs are NOT "welcomed home" until they suffer through months of additional shunning until the elders deem them to be sufficiently repentant in order to be "welcomed home." Again...JWs do not follow the scriptural example.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know, maybe it should be asked: "Did the 1st-cent. Christians, the contemporaries of the Apostles....for that matter, the Apostles themselves.... Did they worship Jesus?"

If you read their prayer recorded at Acts of the Apostles 4, in vs.24, they begin, "Oh Sovereign Lord...." You might say, 'That's Jesus!' You would be mistaken, for in vs.27, those Christians refer to Jesus , as the Sovereign Lord's "Holy Servant". In fact, the King James calls Jesus, God's "Holy Child" (not even 'Son'), an endearing term, but not a term that commands respect as one to be worshipped. The phrase "Holy Servant" (or "Child", depending on translation) is reiterated in vs. 30, again applying it to Jesus.

Too bad, those who make Jesus into God, can't twist the wording in them Scriptures!

 

[Desert Snake]

The Trinity doctrine did not exist when the NT was written and was not invented till the 4th century CE. I really doubt you understand the influence it has nonetheless had on the word choices of even the most careful translators.

If you want to write 'God' in koine Greek, you write ὁ θεὸς.

If you want to write 'a god' in koine Greek, you write θεὸς.

And 'a god', translation refutes your own argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I didn't say that. Paul and Jesus said that eg

1 Corinthians 8:6 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

John 20:17 ... I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

And of course as well as saying through Paul and in all four gospels that he wasn't God, Jesus never once says, I am God ─ meaning that were he indeed God then his entire ministry was one long deceit.

Incidentally, my interest is historical, and it's of zero concern to me whether Paul or any of the gospel writers thinks Trinitarian or not. I simply point out that none of the Jesuses they portray is a Trinitarian, not least because the doctrine doesn't exist before the 4th century CE. The Jesus of Paul pre-existed in heaven and created the material world (as the Gnostic demiurge does), hence is called Lord, and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven 'before Abraham' and on a number of occasions points out his lack of personal power and his subordination to the Father. By contrast, the Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew until God adopts him at his baptism on the model of Psalm 2:7, and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the son of God by the divine insemination of their mother, but none of them has pre-existed. That's simply to observe the obvious, that the NT offers five or more Christologies, not one. But none of them is Trinitarian.

John 1:1
John 1:10
In other words, if you argue, that the Word was a g-d, yet not the Tetratrammaton, then Jesus would be 'another g-d'.

Which doesn't make sense, because clearly Jesus is associated with 'the Lord', the Tetragrammaton, thusly if Jesus is a god, He is the Tetragrammaton. That is why Jesus is called Lord, it parallels the Tetragrammaton, not some other 'god'.

Biblically, the god that you are saying Jesus worships, is actually who they are associating Jesus with, the Jewish Yahweh, as you say.



Because then the Tetragrammaton isn't the higher god, the 'other god' is.

 

[blü 2]

In other words, if you argue, that the Word was a g-d, yet not the Tetratrammaton, then Jesus would be 'another g-d'.

No problem with that.

As you know because you've studied the early history of the Christian church, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist when the NT books were written. The idea that Jesus has always been a heavenly being subordinate to the one Jewish god is found in Paul and John (but not in Mark, Matthew or Luke). After the first century, as Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to an independent religion, popular pressure mounted to promote Jesus to God status, and various ideas of this kind were considered eg that there was one God and that Jesus and the Ghost were two of the manifestations of that god (just as in Judaism the ruach is a manifestation of God), or that there were three gods (Father, Jesus, Ghost); but these didn't become orthodoxy. Not till the fourth century do we get the present formulation of the Trinity doctrine ─ which is, as you'll have noticed, theologically acknowledged to be 'a mystery in the strict sense', meaning that it 'can neither be discovered by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed' (their words, not mine). In other words the Trinity doctrine is acknowledged to be incoherent.

 

[Desert Snake]

No problem with that.

As you know because you've studied the early history of the Christian church, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist when the NT books were written. The idea that Jesus has always been a heavenly being subordinate to the one Jewish god is found in Paul and John (but not in Mark, Matthew or Luke). After the first century, as Christianity moved from being a Jewish sect to an independent religion, popular pressure mounted to promote Jesus to God status, and various ideas of this kind were considered eg that there was one God and that Jesus and the Ghost were two of the manifestations of that god (just as in Judaism the ruach is a manifestation of God), or that there were three gods (Father, Jesus, Ghost); but these didn't become orthodoxy. Not till the fourth century do we get the present formulation of the Trinity doctrine ─ which is, as you'll have noticed, theologically acknowledged to be 'a mystery in the strict sense', meaning that it 'can neither be discovered by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed' (their words, not mine). In other words the Trinity doctrine is acknowledged to be incoherent.

John 1:18
John 1:23

Jesus is correlated to the Lord of the Old Testament, not another god, in other words, in the Book of John.
That, John 1:18, is an example where, much of Christianity takes a verse out of context, and thereby infers that the Book of Johann is either
• saying that the christian god is the , (a), formless entity of the trinity, yet has a throne, so forth,
• separates the Lord correlation between Jesus and the Tetragrammaton, thereby making the "distinct" persons claims in a trinity configuration, or trinity theory.

Now of course this can be argued in context, however note that Johanan does correlate Jesus to the Tetragrammaton , regardless of other arguments, like what is the person or nature of God, in the Book of John, so forth.

 

[blü 2]

John 1:18
John 1:23

Jesus is correlated to the Lord of the Old Testament, not another god, in other words, in the Book of John.

Yes, the NT Jesus is a circumcised Jew who worships the monogod of the Jews, and in John calls him 'the only true God', and 'my god'. John's theology has parallels with Paul's gnostic-flavored Jesus ─ that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God and came to earth from there as God's envoy.

This, of course, is wholly untrue of Mark's Jesus, who's an ordinary Jew until God adopts him at his baptism, and also untrue but not quite so distant with the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, who don't pre-exist, but are each the genetic son of God.
\

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, the NT Jesus is a circumcised Jew who worships the monogod of the Jews, and in John calls him 'the only true God', and 'my god'. John's theology has parallels with Paul's gnostic-flavored Jesus ─ that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God and came to earth from there as God's envoy.

This, of course, is wholly untrue of Mark's Jesus, who's an ordinary Jew until God adopts him at his baptism, and also untrue but not quite so distant with the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, who don't pre-exist, but are each the genetic son of God.
\

However, you are interpreting 'angel of the Lord', to be a reference of the god of the Jews, a normal interpretation, and that's great. The thing is, since we are discussing 'translations', that word used, for Lord, is the same name Title used for Jesus. Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24, so forth,; Again, wonderful, except an argument contextually used to separate Jesus from who you are calling Yahweh, is that the name title there, isn't specifically the Tetragrammaton, or such, therefore generally, and in other verses, that name title does not actually mean the Tetragrammaton , or is completely subjective in interpretation.

Going by your statements, it seems that you are reading those verses, as a direct inference to the Tetragrammaton , which makes sense, of course; note that Jesus is called Lord, using that same name title; thusly perhaps you mean, this is interpretive.
Again consider verses such as John 1:23 for comparison. Does the book of Matthew really disagree with the book of John, or are they just calling Jesus a manifested form of God?

 

[blü 2]

However, you are interpreting 'angel of the Lord', to be a reference of the god of the Jews, a normal interpretation, and that's great. The thing is, since we are discussing 'translations', that word used, for Lord, is the same name Title used for Jesus. Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24, so forth,; Again, wonderful, except an argument contextually used to separate Jesus from who you are calling Yahweh, is that the name title there, isn't specifically the Tetragrammaton, or such, therefore generally, and in other verses, that name title does not actually mean the Tetragrammaton , or is completely subjective in interpretation.

In the translated Tanakh the Jewish god is called 'the Lord' and addressed as 'Lord'.

In the NT, Paul says the Father is 'God' and Jesus is 'Lord' eg

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

and we also have Paul's gnostic view of the ultimate arrangement:

1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him [God], then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.​

Through Paul and in each gospel, Jesus makes it plain by words attributed to him in direct speech that he is not God, and that he is the envoy of God. He never once claims to be God. (The 'before Abraham was, I am' in John refers to his status as a heavenly being before he came to earth; the idea that his identity is that of God is expressly denied.

 

[tigger2]

In the translated Tanakh the Jewish god is called 'the Lord' and addressed as 'Lord'.

In the NT, Paul says the Father is 'God' and Jesus is 'Lord' eg

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

and we also have Paul's gnostic view of the ultimate arrangement:

1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him [God], then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.​

Through Paul and in each gospel, Jesus makes it plain by words attributed to him in direct speech that he is not God, and that he is the envoy of God. He never once claims to be God. (The 'before Abraham was, I am' in John refers to his status as a heavenly being before he came to earth; the idea that his identity is that of God is expressly denied.

Blu 2, please examine my study of 'I Am'

Examining the Trinity: "I AM" - Part 1

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I didn't say that. Paul and Jesus said that eg

1 Corinthians 8:6 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

John 20:17 ... I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

And of course as well as saying through Paul and in all four gospels that he wasn't God, Jesus never once says, I am God ─ meaning that were he indeed God then his entire ministry was one long deceit.

Incidentally, my interest is historical, and it's of zero concern to me whether Paul or any of the gospel writers thinks Trinitarian or not. I simply point out that none of the Jesuses they portray is a Trinitarian, not least because the doctrine doesn't exist before the 4th century CE. The Jesus of Paul pre-existed in heaven and created the material world (as the Gnostic demiurge does), hence is called Lord,

Hence is called Lord? Genesis 1:26 for example has God creating, and the name is God.
So, why would Jesus 'hence be called Lord', which is actually the name title correlate to who you are calling Yahweh, and is known as the Tetragrammaton, if Jesus is 'another god'. Going by your general interpretation, Jesus wouldn't be called Lord. Now, in a trinity configuration which separates God from Lord, then, who you are saying the Scripture says Jesus is, here, ie another God , not the Lord, then although you might have two gods, it doesn't match at all what you're saying, and doesn't make sense according to your interpretation at all.

and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven 'before Abraham' and on a number of occasions points out his lack of personal power and his subordination to the Father. By contrast, the Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew until God adopts him at his baptism on the model of Psalm 2:7, and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the son of God by the divine insemination of their mother, but none of them has pre-existed. That's simply to observe the obvious, that the NT offers five or more Christologies, not one. But none of them is Trinitarian.

A pre-existing creator Jesus, of Genesis, would have to be some sort of trinity, or binitarian as I call this sometimes, if you are reading the Bible in any sort of traditional manner.

If you are reading the Bible in a non traditional manner, meaning non jewish or non christian manner, or leaving out texts, books, so forth, it's necessary to know that, for the discussion.

Anyways, I'm going to leave it there,

Evening

 

[blü 2]

If you are reading the Bible in a non traditional manner, meaning non jewish or non christian manner, or leaving out texts, books, so forth, it's necessary to know that, for the discussion.

I read it as two sets of historical documents. I have no wish for any of the documents to say any particular thing, any more than I want Euripides' Bacchae or Caesar's Gallic Wars or the Egyptian Book of the Dead to say any particular thing ─ the interest is in what each author intended to convey, writing in his or their particular cultural and historical setting.

Neither history, by method, nor I, after due consideration, are supernaturalists.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

That was true for the Dispensation of Jesus, Jesus was the Only Way, because in every religious dispensation the Messenger of God who appears is the Way, and He is the Only Way in the sense that He is the Way God wants us to choose.

The Dispensation of Jesus Christ ended when Muhammad came. Muhammad was then "the Way" to come to the Father. People can still come to the Father by way of Jesus, but Jesus is not the Only Way.

Do you think that nobody could get to God before Jesus appeared? What about the Jews? They had Moses, and the Hindus and other religions also had other ways to God.

That is absolutely true. Nobody should add to any holy book after it has been completed. But the Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not additions to the New Testament, they are new revelations from God.

The Old Testament also says that nothing can be added,

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

However, the New Testament is a separate revelation from God, so it is not an addition.

Just because there were and are other religions does not mean God is with them. Some of the Canaanites worshiped Baal and threw live babies into fire pits.
I don't wish to be disrespectful but in my opinion Muhammad was a man who was thoroughly deceived. Also if I understand it correctly Muslims don't even believe Jesus was put to death but got someone to die in his place. Bit of a paradox here don't you think, on one hand Jesus is a 'prophet' of God and on the other is a liar and a trickster, he can't be both.
Not sure what you mean by get to God, if you mean got to heaven then no they didn't.

So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Job 14: 12-14
Job wanted to die but didn't expect to go straight to heaven because the covenant with Jesus hadn't began, this doesn't mean he will not be resurrected as he himself obviously believed.

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Jehovah is calling you, it seems! He sees something "desirable" in you (Haggai 2:7). That should give you a wonderful feeling, that you are being found by the Angels in different places! Jehovah is actually noticing you...in a good way!
Just come to a meeting, there's no obligation!
Don't expect to find perfect people, but do expect to learn some wonderful teachings!

There is somebody else on here, who studied for a while, then moved way out in the country. But he prayed to Jehovah, and he said the next day, JW's were knocking at his door!

I wish you the best, and hope I can call you, my sister, one day.

That is weird because the same thing happened to me. I had been studying the scriptures on my own but Revelations thwarted me. From what I could understand it appeared only 144,000 people were going to heaven and that didn't seem to make sense. I kind of prayed to God and said I didn't understand, I would never understand so I was going to give up trying. The next morning Jehovah's Witnesses knocked my door so I thought I would give them a chance to explain what it meant not thinking they would give me a sensible and believable answer. Makes perfect sense that we would be 'ruled' over by those who would completely understand our human failings.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just because there were and are other religions does not mean God is with them. Some of the Canaanites worshiped Baal and threw live babies into fire pits.

Of course not all so-called religions have God behind them. Only the true religions were revealed by God. Any other so-called religions are false.

I don't wish to be disrespectful but in my opinion Muhammad was a man who was thoroughly deceived. Also if I understand it correctly Muslims don't even believe Jesus was put to death but got someone to die in his place. Bit of a paradox here don't you think, on one hand Jesus is a 'prophet' of God and on the other is a liar and a trickster, he can't be both.

It does not matter what Muslims believe, it only matters what Muhammad revealed in the Qur'an. It was a mistake Muslims made in interpreting the Qur'an that led them to believe that Jesus was not crucified.

Not sure what you mean by get to God, if you mean got to heaven then no they didn't

By 'get to God' I meant that people could know God before Jesus came to earth. People could also go to heaven before Jesus came to earth. There were other Messengers of God such as Moses before Jesus appeared and people got to God and went to heaven if they followed those Messengers.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is weird because the same thing happened to me. I had been studying the scriptures on my own but Revelations thwarted me. From what I could understand it appeared only 144,000 people were going to heaven and that didn't seem to make sense. I kind of prayed to God and said I didn't understand, I would never understand so I was going to give up trying. The next morning Jehovah's Witnesses knocked my door so I thought I would give them a chance to explain what it meant not thinking they would give me a sensible and believable answer. Makes perfect sense that we would be 'ruled' over by those who would completely understand our human failings.

Wow! Interesting!

When you consider how much the Bible talks about future conditions on this Earth, you'd think that it would play a bigger part in Christendom's theology....but it doesn't! Before I became a JW, all I heard was about going to heaven! 2 Peter 3 was quoted about the Earth being burned up, and I used that when talking to the Witnesses for the first time, and they turned to the Scripture, and I read it; it said the Heavens were going to be "burned up", too! They asked me if that made sense. I had to say "no".

Then the sister (who later became very dear to me), showed me Genesis 11:1, where the Earth meant people (society). She turned to Revelation 20:13-14 where death is cast into the L of F, and asked me if death can be burned....and I immediately got it! I found out that, in the Bible, sometimes fire can be symbolic for meaning something tossed in it will be completely gone, forever!

No more hell, either!

Talk about enlightening! I'll never forget that encounter, so many years ago!

I kept wanting to learn more from them!