Jehovah's Witnesses

[The Gregorian]

Back in the day, there was an entire subsection for discussing JW beliefs/interpretations/viewpoints. With that assimilated into UT, I haven't seen much conversation to jump in on.

SO... from a real life, actual reasonable JW... does anyone have any civil questions about what we actually believe and/or why?

Keep in mind "I HERD YOU KILL BABIES AND DON'T BELIEEV IN JESUS!" ... is not a question. If it sounds completely dastardly and unreasonable... it's probably not based on reality and therefore isn't a rumor that should be perpetuated.

(Btw, the goal isn't to "proselytize" or "convert" anyone. Only to reduce the hatred out there and get people thinking for themselves rather than buying into propaganda.)

 

[msmorality]

Back in the day, there was an entire subsection for discussing JW beliefs/interpretations/viewpoints. With that assimilated into UT, I haven't seen much conversation to jump in on.

SO... from a real life, actual reasonable JW... does anyone have any civil questions about what we actually believe and/or why?

Keep in mind "I HERD YOU KILL BABIES AND DON'T BELIEEV IN JESUS!" ... is not a question. If it sounds completely dastardly and unreasonable... it's probably not based on reality and therefore isn't a rumor that should be perpetuated.

(Btw, the goal isn't to "proselytize" or "convert" anyone. Only to reduce the hatred out there and get people thinking for themselves rather than buying into propaganda.)

A few years ago, a conversation on a religious forum changed my faith.

What changed ?

My bad attitude when it came to JW. I was one of those in the heresy hunter groups who felt it my ' duty ' to led people out of ' cults' . I had even volunteered for a local ' counter cult ' ministry. I truly believed in my heart that anyone who didn't believe exactly like I did , was doomed , unless I showed up to show them the ' way ' ..

So, did a JW convert me ? No. but the love and kindness shown to me caused me to examine my ' ugliness' and it lead me out of a very dark corrupt mindset My faith ended up being transformed in ways I could have never imagined or forced. It was all a total miracle in my opinion.

I have a new gratitude for God, all people, and God used a JW to show me the 'way'....

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have assumed that there never were a large number of Jehovah's Witnesses that took part in the previous section.

I do have a question which, hopefully, you might ask. This past year a pair of ladies came to my home and I invited them in. After some discussion they said they needed to leave because others in their party were waiting in the car for them. i asked them if I could have a verse-by-verse Bible study with them in the Gospel of John and they said their husband(s) would set it up. I never heard back from them. Am I correct in thinking that they really did not want such a study and merely told me an untruth to avoid embarrassment?

 

[The Gregorian]

A few years ago, a conversation on a religious forum changed my faith.

What changed ?

My bad attitude when it came to JW. I was one of those in the heresy hunter groups who felt it my ' duty ' to led people out of ' cults' . I had even volunteered for a local ' counter cult ' ministry. I truly believed in my heart that anyone who didn't believe exactly like I did , was doomed , unless I showed up to show them the ' way ' ..

So, did a JW convert me ? No. but the love and kindness shown to me caused me to examine my ' ugliness' and it lead me out of a very dark corrupt mindset My faith ended up being transformed in ways I could have never imagined or forced. It was all a total miracle in my opinion.

I have a new gratitude for God, all people, and God used a JW to show me the 'way'....

Absolutely fantastic! Exactly what I hope to accomplish. Regardless of what translation you use... check out Galations 5:20. No one looks at the bible and says "I know this says one thing, but I'm going to believe something else because I'm a bad person!" I wouldn't say "all roads lead to Rome" when it comes to faith, and I do believe that it's our duty to research and believe as accurately as possible... but I would much rather see someone HAVE faith in God and get some details wrong than to tear down their faith because I personally disagree. I encourage people to think critically and question themselves to make sure what they believe is truly biblical... but the Christian congregation would be much better off if we could start -bolstering- the truth rather than condemning anyone with an interpretation we assume to be less accurate than our own.

 

[The Gregorian]

I have assumed that there never were a large number of Jehovah's Witnesses that took part in the previous section.

Understand the anonymity of the internet allows for people to be much more rude than normal. It's not the most rewarding of places to preach, so most JWs don't bother. Personally I find that people are more open to listen when -they- come to a place to talk about religion than when I knock on their door cold-call style.

I do have a question which, hopefully, you might ask. This past year a pair of ladies came to my home and I invited them in. After some discussion they said they needed to leave because others in their party were waiting in the car for them. i asked them if I could have a verse-by-verse Bible study with them in the Gospel of John and they said their husband(s) would set it up. I never heard back from them. Am I correct in thinking that they really did not want such a study and merely told me an untruth to avoid embarrassment?

Again, it's a weakness in the system. Back in the day, we'd pick a street and just start knockin' on doors from one end to the other. However, people complained about not hearing from us for a long time, then getting a bunch of knocks in a short period of time. So, we tried to organize things better with more defined "territories" so that houses wouldn't be duplicated unnecessarily. However, at this point (at least in my group) it's gotten ridiculous... We'll have one door one one street, three doors somewhere else... we spend more time traveling to the next house than actually talking to people sometimes. So now, car groups are the norm. So yes, it's very probable that there were actually people waiting in their car group.

They were probably just trying to be polite to the group... but if you were asking questions... that's -exactly- what we're looking for... I'd much rather wait in the car longer knowing a good conversation's taking place than move on to knocking on doors again hoping to find the sort of person interested enough to ask questions! Counterproductive, if you ask me.

The more legitimate thing I see is that you're male and you said it was a pair of ladies who said they'd have their husbands call back on you. If you're actually interested in a study, the congregation -suggests- that one studies with someone of their own gender. The idea is that men don't want to be caught alone with someone else's wife and be accused of anything. Also, women don't want men just studying with them because of their gender (not all JWs are old). Plus some JW women are still stuck in the idea that they don't want to offend a man by being taught by a woman... they don't want to appear to be in a position of authority over a man. Personally, I think that's a misinterpretation, but it's not uncommon.

It also may have been a bad sign that you jumped straight for "verse by verse comparison of the Gospel of John" ... that language -usually- indicates that the person is less interested in a two-sided "study" and more interested in arguing over John 1:1... specifically calling it the "Gospel of John" is usually a sign that the person reads the KJV, which usually is from the crowd that considers that translation to be infallible, so pointing out WHY we translate John 1:1 differently is pointless when the other person has no interest in the reasoning behind translation.

Of course, this may not have been fair to you, and if you'd like to have the same discussion, I'm more than willing. It's an unfortunate snap judgement... but is, more often than not, correct.

 

[DamianWarS]

sure I'll bite..... Lets talk about the characteristics of God. I will admit that I just went to wikipedia and looked up Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

It says in there:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is the creator and supreme being. Witnesses reject the Trinity doctrine, which they consider unscriptural. They view God as the Father, an invisible spirit "person" separate from the Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is described as God's "active force", rather than the third person of the Trinity. They believe he is "infinite, but approachable"; he is not omnipresent, but has a location in heaven; it is possible to have a personal relationship with him as a friend; he is kind and merciful, and would not eternally "torture" wicked people. Being respectful of the principle of free will, he does not force his sovereignty on people, choosing to save only those who want to serve him, even though the course of mankind in general may lead them to harm.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's "only begotten" son, and that his life began in heaven. He is described as God's first creation and the "exact representation of God", but is believed to be a separate entity and not part of a Trinity. Jesus is said to have been used by God in the creation of all other things

Now assuming you agree with all of this then you believe God is eternally existent as 1 person. God is "infinite, but approachable" and we can have a personal relationship with him and Jesus is not God and Jesus had a beginning. For the purposes of clarity I will call this perspective of God "Jehovah" which I think you would be comfortable with as well.

So before everything "was" there was Jehovah eternally existent as 1 person. Now Jehovah is approachable and we can have a relationship with him but the problem I see with this is relationship is not inherently a part of Jehovah. The thing with relationship is that it demands at least 2 in order for it to work. Relationship can't exist with 1 so within Jehovah relationship is a learnt behavior developed after his creation. Jehovah is dependent upon his creation to have relationship because without his creation there is no relationship. So by nature of these qualities of relationship like emotion such as love also did not pre-exist within Jehovah. How can you love when there is no one to love? Love also is a learnt and developed emotion after his creation. Jehovah needs his creation in order for Love to exist and without creation there is no love, no emotion and no relationship.

These are the inheritable characteristically of a Unitarianism God. Islam believes in the same characteristics but they instead acknowledge that because God exists as one unit he is not relational and we cannot have a personal relationship with him. This is very consistent for Islam to say this but of course it exposes the a vast void for a deep need of salvation and human condition that a God who cannot love cannot provide. It is a works only salvation where God throws one lot into hell and throws the other into heaven and in the same breath says "I care not". This is what a God without relationship is.

So my question really is how does relationship pre-exist within God as an inheritable trait eternally existent within him without the ability to express the relationship until his creation?

 

[Evergreen48]

Back in the day, there was an entire subsection for discussing JW beliefs/interpretations/viewpoints. With that assimilated into UT, I haven't seen much conversation to jump in on.

SO... from a real life, actual reasonable JW... does anyone have any civil questions about what we actually believe and/or why?

Keep in mind "I HERD YOU KILL BABIES AND DON'T BELIEEV IN JESUS!" ... is not a question. If it sounds completely dastardly and unreasonable... it's probably not based on reality and therefore isn't a rumor that should be perpetuated.

(Btw, the goal isn't to "proselytize" or "convert" anyone. Only to reduce the hatred out there and get people thinking for themselves rather than buying into propaganda.)

I am acquainted with some very fine JWs. We even agree on one or two doctrinal points. I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are as much Christian as anyone else that I know. My prayer for them is the same as for anyone else that I feel does not have the correct doctrinal views.

 

[The Gregorian]

More than willing to respond to every detail, but to prevent this from being a wall-o-text, I'll try to focus on what I believe to be your main points. If this doesn't satisfactorily address the issues, please feel free to let me know.

Now assuming you agree with all of this then you believe God is eternally existent as 1 person. God is "infinite, but approachable" and we can have a personal relationship with him and Jesus is not God and Jesus had a beginning. For the purposes of clarity I will call this perspective of God "Jehovah" which I think you would be comfortable with as well.

Indeed... since the creation, God's been reaching out to us. It stands to reason he does so because he wants us to reach back. The fact that throughout the hebrew scriptures, he used such personal terms as calling king David his "Friend" shows his approachability. And throughout Jesus' time on earth he encouraged us to pray to our heavenly father. John 17 is by far my favorite chapter in the bible... I'm a very difficult person to impress, but how Jesus prays there nearly brings me to tears.

So before everything "was" there was Jehovah eternally existent as 1 person. Now Jehovah is approachable and we can have a relationship with him but the problem I see with this is relationship is not inherently a part of Jehovah. The thing with relationship is that it demands at least 2 in order for it to work. Relationship can't exist with 1 so within Jehovah relationship is a learnt behavior developed after his creation. Jehovah is dependent upon his creation to have relationship because without his creation there is no relationship. So by nature of these qualities of relationship like emotion such as love also did not pre-exist within Jehovah. How can you love when there is no one to love? Love also is a learnt and developed emotion after his creation. Jehovah needs his creation in order for Love to exist and without creation there is no love, no emotion and no relationship.

An interesting thing to consider, for sure... What did he do and how did he feel before the creation began? I'd love to ask him, but I assume the answer would be quite complicated. The point seems to be "How could God love before his creation?" However, have you considered this question from a trinitarian viewpoint as well? If the Father and Son were a single co-eternal being... there's still only one being there. You run into the same problem of "who could God love?" True, a trinitarian could back up and say that "while being one being, there were multiple persons" ... but then you still run into the problem: Is God a three-headed chimera? Or does he have multiple personalities? Can one personality of a being experience legitimate love for another personality of the same being?

Either way, there was only God before he created things, so you run into the same problem. Whether you believe God had only one mind/spirit or if you believe two/three minds/spirits inhabited the same being. The idea of only one God and his Son simply being "his only-begotten son, firstborn of creation" doesn't change the question of how God spent eternity before creation began.

These are the inheritable characteristically of a Unitarianism God. Islam believes in the same characteristics but they instead acknowledge that because God exists as one unit he is not relational and we cannot have a personal relationship with him. This is very consistent for Islam to say this but of course it exposes the a vast void for a deep need of salvation and human condition that a God who cannot love cannot provide. It is a works only salvation where God throws one lot into hell and throws the other into heaven and in the same breath says "I care not". This is what a God without relationship is.

I hadn't known that about islam. However, the bible clearly states that "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son..." To think otherwise is anti-biblical.

So my question really is how does relationship pre-exist within God as an inheritable trait eternally existent within him without the ability to express the relationship until his creation?

Another proof for my faith in God. This is a fantastic question I couldn't have answered until 8 days ago. That's when I found out that my wife was going to have our first baby. Never seen him/her before, doesn't even have a heart to beat yet, but I still love it with everything I have.

I'd imagine God put quite a bit of thought into this infinite universe... if he can understand or even write the laws of physics before he creates the universe... what's to say he couldn't have anticipated how much he would love his intelligent creation as well?

Does this make sense?

 

[The Gregorian]

I am acquainted with some very fine JWs. We even agree on one or two doctrinal points. I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are as much Christian as anyone else that I know. My prayer for them is the same as for anyone else that I feel does not have the correct doctrinal views.

Thank you.

We should all pray for better understanding. No one can possibly be "close enough" to God. You and I may disagree on quite significant points... but if we can understand that we're still brothers and sisters doing our best to serve our creator... we'll be much less judgemental of each other.

I'm very happy with how this thread's going.

Edit to add: May I ask what you tend to agree with? Finding common ground is much more useful than finding where we disagree.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Understand the anonymity of the internet allows for people to be much more rude than normal. It's not the most rewarding of places to preach, so most JWs don't bother. Personally I find that people are more open to listen when -they- come to a place to talk about religion than when I knock on their door cold-call style.



Again, it's a weakness in the system. Back in the day, we'd pick a street and just start knockin' on doors from one end to the other. However, people complained about not hearing from us for a long time, then getting a bunch of knocks in a short period of time. So, we tried to organize things better with more defined "territories" so that houses wouldn't be duplicated unnecessarily. However, at this point (at least in my group) it's gotten ridiculous... We'll have one door one one street, three doors somewhere else... we spend more time traveling to the next house than actually talking to people sometimes. So now, car groups are the norm. So yes, it's very probable that there were actually people waiting in their car group.

They were probably just trying to be polite to the group... but if you were asking questions... that's -exactly- what we're looking for... I'd much rather wait in the car longer knowing a good conversation's taking place than move on to knocking on doors again hoping to find the sort of person interested enough to ask questions! Counterproductive, if you ask me.

The more legitimate thing I see is that you're male and you said it was a pair of ladies who said they'd have their husbands call back on you. If you're actually interested in a study, the congregation -suggests- that one studies with someone of their own gender. The idea is that men don't want to be caught alone with someone else's wife and be accused of anything. Also, women don't want men just studying with them because of their gender (not all JWs are old). Plus some JW women are still stuck in the idea that they don't want to offend a man by being taught by a woman... they don't want to appear to be in a position of authority over a man. Personally, I think that's a misinterpretation, but it's not uncommon.

It also may have been a bad sign that you jumped straight for "verse by verse comparison of the Gospel of John" ... that language -usually- indicates that the person is less interested in a two-sided "study" and more interested in arguing over John 1:1... specifically calling it the "Gospel of John" is usually a sign that the person reads the KJV, which usually is from the crowd that considers that translation to be infallible, so pointing out WHY we translate John 1:1 differently is pointless when the other person has no interest in the reasoning behind translation.

Of course, this may not have been fair to you, and if you'd like to have the same discussion, I'm more than willing. It's an unfortunate snap judgement... but is, more often than not, correct.

Actually, I wanted to get beyond John 1:1 in the study because that verse has been chewed to death by both sides of the discussion. I wanted to know how you folks work through a whole book in its entirety. In my discussions in my home I usually get a handful of verses tossed out at me which seem to be taken out of context.

I assuredly understand the reason for having a study with a person of the same gender and I now undertstand better the methodology behind sharing the same car.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[The Gregorian]

Very good. Like I said, if you'd like a discussion like that, bbbbb, I'm more than happy to have it with you. Or, if you'd like to have it in person, I'm sure I can get you the number to a brother in your area.


To be fair, keep in mind, they're people just like you. We prepare as best as we can, but there definitely are people that are newer than others. Most are prepared for an organized study we've prepared ahead of time, but a lot aren't confident enough to let you go lead the flow of the study. If you ask a question on a topic they haven't specifically prepared for ahead of time, it's embarrassing (but necessary) to do research and get back with the answer. Of course this isn't the sign of the most experienced teachers out there, because not everyone's interested in going from one chapter to the next in a particular study book. People like you and I already have specific questions that need answered and want to get directly to the point. People like us are -not- the easiest to teach. But the most fun (IMHO).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Very good. Like I said, if you'd like a discussion like that, bbbbb, I'm more than happy to have it with you. Or, if you'd like to have it in person, I'm sure I can get you the number to a brother in your area.


To be fair, keep in mind, they're people just like you. We prepare as best as we can, but there definitely are people that are newer than others. Most are prepared for an organized study we've prepared ahead of time, but a lot aren't confident enough to let you go lead the flow of the study. If you ask a question on a topic they haven't specifically prepared for ahead of time, it's embarrassing (but necessary) to do research and get back with the answer. Of course this isn't the sign of the most experienced teachers out there, because not everyone's interested in going from one chapter to the next in a particular study book. People like you and I already have specific questions that need answered and want to get directly to the point. People like us are -not- the easiest to teach. But the most fun (IMHO).

I agree that we are not the easiest to teach, but definitely the most fun.

 

[pelz86]

Hello, I have three questions for you. But first of all, I'd like to say that I commend JWs for having the conviction and the heart to witness door-to-door and for all the other things you do to reach out to people. I realize that JWs may view most other Christian denominations as "apostate" (correct me if I'm wrong), but I think more Christians should be following the JWs example in their efforts to witness. Too many people are content to stay in their comfort zones and couldn't care less about what ultimately happens to their neighbors who don't know Christ.

OK here is my first question: Do JWs really believe that the man Jesus Christ himself was never bodily resurrected ? I know if I ask a JW "do you believe Christ was resurrected?" the answer will be "yes", but my question is,

A). Was Christ bodily resurrected as HIMSELF, as the man Jesus and nothing more, or
B). Was Christ actually the archangel Michael, who assumed the form of the man Jesus from his conception in Mary's womb until his death and beyond, or
C). Was Christ simply the man Jesus until his death and three days afterward, at which point the archangel Michael then assumed the form of the resurrected Christ?

My second question is: How do you know that the Watchtower is truly God's organization on earth? What evidence has it given to back up this claim?

My third question is: Are you aware of the numerous failed prophecies that the Watchtower has made, most notably in 1914 and 1975? If most JWs are aware of these failed prophecies, how are they explained away by the Watchtower so as not to weaken trust in its authority?

 

[The Gregorian]

Thank you very much. Hopefully everyone will learn from what each other does right. Admitting one's own weaknesses and the strengths of others is the only way to really improve one's self.

Your questions are fair, but I'll respond in reverse order to keep the shorter answers on top... more readable that way.


3- Both of these dates are well known and admittedly not handled properly... however, calling them "False prophecies" isn't exactly fair. The 1914 thing was a prophecy in the book of daniel. Obviously, JWs of that time hoped it meant more than it did and we were wrong about the interpretation. But it wasn't a prophecy that "JWs made" only one we misunderstood. To be fair, it is a date the bible seems to point to, and it was a very significant year on earth (The beginning of the largest war in history, with resulting wars still being waged today). We were arrogant in our insistence of the interpretation we hoped for, however it was a bible prophecy, not ours. 1975 was clearly not a prophecy either. It was specifically an observance of the end of 6,000 years of human history. One made by many churches, and specifically declared a "holy day" by the catholic pope of that time. There was a similar "oh no, this is a round number, the world may end!" scare just as most of the world feared at Y2K... but that's the human fear of round numbers... not a prophecy. You can download the 2010 Watchtower Library online and go through all the watchtower articles published. Run a search for yourself of the word "1975" ... there are quite a few references that 1975 may be "very significant" ... but there is never a claim that "God told us that 1975 will be the end of the world!"

For example:

1975 will, no doubt, go down in history as a year of very significant and interesting events, among them being the four-day “Divine Sovereignty” District Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Especially will this assembly be long remembered by those able to attend.

Quotes like this one (talking about how they have a nice convention planned this year) are usually taken out of context to insinuate that the "very significant event" is the end of the world.


2- The watchtower isn't supposed to be "God's word on earth" ... It's one publication from the "Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society" (WBTS), and like all other publications are intended to be a study guide or pre-written, interactive sermon. Messages are given as with any sermon and should be considered as with any sermon, however, is written by fallible men like any sermon. They spend a lot of time researching, site scriptural references constantly and generally word things very carefully... however not all articles are as good as others, just like not all sermons are as good as others.

I believe the point of this question was why we assume we're "the true religion" and all others are not. Simply because we assume our interpretation to be correct. We consider ourselves to be true because we teach the truth. It's not that "we" are special, but because the bible is special and we assume our interpretation of it is the most accurate. If someone else were as accurate, they would be equally true. (Of course, anyone who believes something believes that what they believe is true).

Good starting point is Jeremiah 16:21:

“Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my name is Jehovah.”

We consider it quite disrespectful for people to change that last word when God himself states that by his hand and mightiness, we will know that last word. Transliterating it as "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or otherwise attempting to pronounce the tetragrammeton, or even saying "HaShem" to acknowledge "the name" would be fine... but substituting it with an unrelated title goes too far, in our opinion

Point 1 warrants it's own post.

 

[The Gregorian]

lastly, your first question:

OK here is my first question: Do JWs really believe that the man Jesus Christ himself was never bodily resurrected ? I know if I ask a JW "do you believe Christ was resurrected?" the answer will be "yes", but my question is,

A). Was Christ bodily resurrected as HIMSELF, as the man Jesus and nothing more, or
B). Was Christ actually the archangel Michael, who assumed the form of the man Jesus from his conception in Mary's womb until his death and beyond, or
C). Was Christ simply the man Jesus until his death and three days afterward, at which point the archangel Michael then assumed the form of the resurrected Christ?

I'll go into more detail when I get back from a couple errands... but while I'm gone, I'd like you to actually answer the following:

Who taught us more about the Father than Jesus (not counting the Father himself)? If someone were to be the Father's "Chief messenger" ... who would fit the bill better than Jesus?

 

[pelz86]

No one but Jesus could be the Father's "chief messenger", and certainly no one taught us more about the Father than he.

I see I was not specific enough when I mentioned the Watchtower in my previous post. I was not referring to the magazine; I was referring to the organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I assumed you would know what I meant.

What I want to know is, what evidence has the WBTS given, that proves it is truly God's organization on earth? What gives it the authority to interpret the Bible as it sees fit? The Roman Catholic Church claims it has this authority also, and the papacy claims to be God's organization on earth as well. The Catholic Church has one man, the pope, as its head; so does the WBTS. How do you know that the WBTS has the truth? Because you blindly believe its interpretation of the scriptures? Let God be true, and every man a liar. No one has a monopoly on truth, not you, not I, not the WBTS, not any church or denomination. The truth is in the scriptures, which can only be understood through the help of God's holy spirit, not by man's interpretation.

Obviously I cannot tell you that your beliefs are wrong; to be honest, I hold some of the same beliefs that JWs hold, such as the oneness of God. To most christians, this makes me a heretic. However, to stubbornly assume that all other interpretations and ideas are wrong, is not assurance of truth, but willful blindness and ignorance. Of course there are doctrines that are true and doctrines that are false, but it is not up to a centralized authority to choose for you which doctrines you should believe. It is up to you, and you alone. There is no reason for a man-made organization such as the WBTS to be standing between you and God. Read the scriptures for yourself, without any pre-conceived notions of what you or others think they really mean. Let God's holy spirit lead you and guide you into all understanding.

 

[The Gregorian]

Things are going to be a bit tangled up

What I want to know is, what evidence has the WBTS given, that proves it is truly God's organization on earth? What gives it the authority to interpret the Bible as it sees fit? The Roman Catholic Church claims it has this authority also, and the papacy claims to be God's organization on earth as well.

Best answer: It doesn't. No one should "interpret the bible as they see fit" because that implies that they feel the authority to add to, ignore, or alter the message in the bible. We believe the WBTS to teach the truth because we're taught to question and examine everything for ourselves and given very specific reasons for why we believe differently, any time our views disagree with the mainstream.

I.e. A pope may declare that "I am the pope, and this is my decree!" With the WBTS, it doesn't and shouldn't fly that way. We will only disagree if we're given specific -REASON- to do so. i.e. "We believe this interpretation is more accurate because upon careful inspection of the original hebrew verbage...." We don't "not celebrate Christmas" Because "The WBTS says we shouldn't, and they have authority." ... rather, we don't celebrate it because upon further investigation, Jesus was likely born nowhere near december, santa doesn't have anything to do with Jesus, the star isn't something that should be venerated because it was leading people sent to betray Jesus directly to him, etc."

They have no special authority by being "Them." We only believe they speak the truth IF they can logically/biblically back up whatever they say. There are a few viewpoints the WBTS have suggested that I disagree with.

Because you blindly believe its interpretation of the scriptures? Let God be true, and every man a liar. No one has a monopoly on truth, not you, not I, not the WBTS, not any church or denomination. The truth is in the scriptures, which can only be understood through the help of God's holy spirit, not by man's interpretation.

Indeed. I don't care if the WBTS says something, the pope says it, or mentally handicapped hobo begging for meth-money on the street says it. If it agrees with the bible, it's true. If it disagrees with the bible, it's faulty. The major difference between the pope and the WBTS is that the WBTS is actively seeking the truth in spite of itself. If it's proven wrong, it announces "HEY, We misunderstood something, and here's what we were missing!"

It is not up to a centralized authority to choose for you which doctrines you should believe. It is up to you, and you alone. There is no reason for a man-made organization such as the WBTS to be standing between you and God. Read the scriptures for yourself, without any pre-conceived notions of what you or others think they really mean. Let God's holy spirit lead you and guide you into all understanding.

I absolutely agree assuming one exception that I believe you'd agree with:

There is one centralized authority which should govern our beliefs... and it's not man-made. It's prayerful bible study. This is the very basis of the formation of the JWs... a group of bible students were thinking for themselves and said "You know what... why is God's name removed from this book? And this trinity thing makes no sense... is it actually biblical?" The foundation of this group is to read and pray for yourself. The WBTS is only here to suggest things for you to consider for common questions people ask.

 

[The Gregorian]

No one but Jesus could be the Father's "chief messenger", and certainly no one taught us more about the Father than he.

I agree. Consider this: "Angel" isn't a "race" or "species." Cherubim and seraphim are specific kinds of celestial being. Both are "angels" but they aren't the same thing. "Angel" simply means "Messenger." Archangel literally translates to "Chief Messenger." The bible only speaks of one angel being God's "chief messenger" or "archangel"... Read hebrews 1:9- "That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners."

This is specifically speaking of the Son... and considering "[Jesus'] God" exulted him "More than [his] partners/peers" this -seems- to indicate that Jesus (Being God's only-begotten Son, most faithful servant, and chief messenger) is being given a title above any other angelic being: Archangel.

(The bible only speaks of one. Catholics believe Gabriel to be "another archangel" because he's named, and that there's another one named Raphael based off the book of Enoch even though they reject the book itself... Then invented a "4th Archangel" just because they wanted a round number so they can have one archangel for each of the cardinal directions. Were "other archangels" to exist, it would not stand to reason that Jesus would just be one of a group of equal angels. However, assuming that there's only one Archangel in the bible itself. it would stand to reason that this would simply be one of the Son's many titles along with Christ, Prince of Peace, the Word, the Lamb, etc.)

... of course, I emphasize the word "seems" on a regular basis because the bible never -specifically- equates Jesus to Michael, therefore it very well could be wrong and there COULD be an alternative explanation. Whether you chose to agree or not, do you understand why many JWs think it likely that Jesus is God's "Chief messenger" or "Archangel?"

 

[The Gregorian]

Hopefully with the above explanation, I can finally try to detangle your first question:

A). Was Christ bodily resurrected as HIMSELF, as the man Jesus and nothing more, or
B). Was Christ actually the archangel Michael, who assumed the form of the man Jesus from his conception in Mary's womb until his death and beyond, or
C). Was Christ simply the man Jesus until his death and three days afterward, at which point the archangel Michael then assumed the form of the resurrected Christ?

We believe that the Son was the firstborn of creation... i.e. the first thing created, therefore pre-existing his time on earth in a human form. Before his time on earth, he was already greater than any other created being in heaven or earth as God's only-begotten son. We believe he was chosen to be reborn in human form to live a life without inherent sin from Adam, but within a sinful world so that he could die as a sacrifice to make up for the original sin and all resulting sin (therefore all sin) as a "second adam." The greek language is very vivid in the account of Jesus' death... at the point of death, it shows him not only dying bodily... but it specifies that he "forfeited his spirit." (Some translations say "gave up the ghost" which is misleading or "breathed his last breath" which doesn't deliver the same message). Therefore, we believe that when Jesus died in human form... he was completely dead. He didn't instantly go to heaven or hell or anywhere else. He was not a ghost. He was dead, powerless and conscious of nothing. This is the ultimate display of trust.

We believe that after three days of being 100% dead... his Father restored that life and obviously restored him to a form beyond human because he was walking around just fine with wounds that had previously killed his mortal form... therefore he was unquestioningly raised in a body that did not suffer human limitations. We believe this means that when he was restored to life, he was also granted the same form he had before his humanity, when he helped God create the universe. Same life, same person... but no, we don't believe that his human corpse was transported to heaven because it doesn't seem that heaven is a place human bodies can physically "travel to."


Make sense? I'm cautious of this specific question because it questions so many doctrines people hold... that Jesus' body died, but he stayed alive and powerful enough to resurrect himself to bring his human body to heaven. For some reason the idea that "He just plain completely died, then was resurrected to a spiritual form by God" doesn't make sense when people believe that all dead people naturally have a spiritual form, therefore in order for a resurrection to happen, he must have been restored to mortal human form, then re-granted immortality... err something. IMO, people like to overly-complicate things.

 

[The Gregorian]

That seem to cover it?