JW JWs and Christians - why the divide?

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

- Sheol vs. Eternal judgement. They have no concept of what Sheol actually is because they're stuck on Ecclesiastes too much. But the differentiation between Sheol vs. Eternal Judgement is required to understand scripture. A lot of Christians just say, "Hell" as if it were all 1 thing, but it's not.

If you would, please elaborate on what "stuck on Ecclesiastes" means.

- Jesus is God
- All Christians are the bride of Christ, the 144k are not the bride of Christ. (A lot of Christian denoms believe along with the JW that the 144k are the bride of Christ, because they say the 144k are symbolic, and they are wrong.)
- There is an immediate afterlife: Sheol & Heaven
- The resurrection is similar to the you who died. JW believe that man's soul is contained only in the body, and that the spirit is some other alien thing. They don't realize that spirit, soul, and body work in unison, and that when you die right now, aspects of your soul go into an afterlife. These aspects of the soul that remain, will be present at any resurrection of the dead.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Wonderful thing is if any JW are reading this and want to be convinced of these points, I am certainly available to do it from scripture. The key requirement to be convinced goes as follows:

1 - You care about truth above religion, and you care about what scripture says, above what opinions of men state.
2 - You can understand for yourself what truth is from scripture, meaning, if you can see a theme repeated several times in scripture, you will take that testimony above other commentaries which use less-sure footing on scripture. The truth is we can make scripture say anything if we string verses together a certain way and put an interpretation on it. I have done it myself even and then later repented. Arriving at the truth, though, requires we are willing to put that aside and ask ourselves what does it really say, independent of what all other men on Earth tell us. Accepting only what men say, when it is the surest interpretation according to what Holy Spirit and scriptures tell us.

Likely the most daunting issue for a JW is that Jesus is God. But I would say that I have a unique understanding of the trinity that is different from Christianity. I teach the trinity from scripture, going back to Genesis, and using other symbolism that God provides. And the reality of the trinity from scripture is not how the trinity is taught in most Christian circles.

I'm unlikely to be swayed, but I am open to reading what you would like to share.

 

[CodyFaith]

I've wondered, why don't JW accept that scripture says "I AM"? Every translation for centuries and centuries said "I AM" - and Jesus said his words would never be done away with, and his gospel would be spread.

The question is, then, why would Jesus himself spread a false gospel to all the nations for all those centuries? Why would the JW's be the first to correct it?

It's just not logical.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

It's the New World Translation (NWT). It's customarily bound in a green cover and you can find copies in a lot of Salvation Army or Goodwill Industries-type thrift stores. The main issue with the NWT is not that there are additions to scripture but that wording has been changed to fit with JW teachings, such as in John 1 where "the Word was God" is rendered as "the Word was a god."

Just to update you about something. The green bible was from my childhood, (I'm dating myself, lol), and they had red or black in my young adulthood. The current updated bible is a gray color, and was printed in 2013. I have a large print one for my aging eyeballs...

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

I've wondered, why don't JW accept that scripture says "I AM"? Every translation for centuries and centuries said "I AM" - and Jesus said his words would never be done away with, and his gospel would be spread.

The question is, then, why would Jesus himself spread a false gospel to all the nations for all those centuries? Why would the JW's be the first to correct it?

It's just not logical.

We understand that scripture in John to mean that he existed before Abraham, alluding to the fact that he had a pre-earthly existence in heaven. It doesn't really make sense to us in the framework of the sentence. Essentially he would be saying, "before Abraham was born, (my name is) I Am". It makes more sense for him to be saying "before Abraham was born, I was" or according to our translation "before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

 

[CodyFaith]

We understand that scripture in John to mean that he existed before Abraham, alluding to the fact that he had a pre-earthly existence in heaven. It doesn't really make sense to us in the framework of the sentence. Essentially he would be saying, "before Abraham was born, (my name is) I Am". It makes more sense for him to be saying "before Abraham was born, I was" or according to our translation "before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

He's doing both. He's saying I AM because he is God, the Almighty, who is, was, and always will be. That's what His name means, that he always IS.

By saying, Before Abraham was, I AM, he's answering what they were saying by showing that He always was there.

But you still never answered the question directly friend. It wasn't translated to "I was" until your guys's translation came along. Why did the gospel deceive so many people, then, in your eyes, and why was it not always translated as I was?

I am can only mean one thing. It claims divinity as God, because only God IS.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

He's doing both. He's saying I AM because he is God, the Almighty, who is, was, and always will be. That's what His name means, that he always IS.

By saying, Before Abraham was, I AM, he's answering what they were saying by showing that He always was there.

But you still never answered the question directly friend. It wasn't translated to "I was" until your guys's translation came along. Why did the gospel deceive so many people, then, in your eyes, and why was it not always translated as I was?

I am can only mean one thing. It claims divinity as God, because only God IS.

Please note that my quoted "I was" was only me trying to spell out our understanding of the scripture, not how we translated it. I did include exactly how we translated it after that.

The prior scriptures say that the Pharisees were maligning Jesus because he was "not yet 50 years old" and yet he was claiming to have seen Abraham. Again, it makes no sense in the context of the scripture to then throw out his name, as opposed to clarifying his true age.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

What I find more stranger in their beliefs is that when people are raised from the dead, they cease being who they were formerly. They essentially believe it's a different person that looks like you. Which that I find far more bizarre than their rejection of our spirits going to Sheol conscious.

Little confused about this one. Please clarify?

 

[Albion]

Just to update you about something. The green bible was from my childhood, (I'm dating myself, lol), and they had red or black in my young adulthood. The current updated bible is a gray color, and was printed in 2013. I have a large print one for my aging eyeballs...

That makes sense. As I said, it's common to find a copy of the green one in thrift stores, but of course these copies are likely to be ones that had been acquired some time before or were part of an estate.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No, it was done as a defensive measure.

Before the tags came up, those of us who the website considers to be "non-Christian" could talk freely and compare notes with each other. This allowed for us to present a unified pushback against the "defenders of the faith", many of whom ended up getting totally overwhelmed during debates because they never expected people to protect one another's right to believe.

The tags were created as a means to keep us from coordinating on the boards themselves. It was also for this reason that "non-Christians" were denied the right to start new threads here, as a few of us were skillful at going on the offense instead of simply playing defense and so things were getting awkward for the "defenders".

I hear what you are saying.

I don't believe however, that you can continue to post on a JW thread, but thanks for the info.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Well that's unfortunate to hear. Seems a little disingenuous to not reveal such restrictions during the registration process. I probably would have passed this site by if they had.

Trust, but verify.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We understand that scripture in John to mean that he existed before Abraham, alluding to the fact that he had a pre-earthly existence in heaven. It doesn't really make sense to us in the framework of the sentence. Essentially he would be saying, "before Abraham was born, (my name is) I Am". It makes more sense for him to be saying "before Abraham was born, I was" or according to our translation "before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

But isn't the phrase 'I AM' used in more than that case? I can see if it was used one time in scripture, but it's not.

Also, reading your translation wouldn't "I have been" be like dividing God into time and constricting God to time as it is on earth? Because time does not exist for God. He is Omnipresent. "Have been" is past tense.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Please note that my quoted "I was" was only me trying to spell out our understanding of the scripture, not how we translated it. I did include exactly how we translated it after that.

The prior scriptures say that the Pharisees were maligning Jesus because he was "not yet 50 years old" and yet he was claiming to have seen Abraham. Again, it makes no sense in the context of the scripture to then throw out his name, as opposed to clarifying his true age.

Would it not have been a mistruth for Jesus, who is God, to not say the truth? Jesus said He was God. I think to then go back to say or clarify His earthly age, which would be clarifying Himself, God as a human being would have then been very confusing. Like playing both sides in speech, saying He is God and clarifying human attributes intertwined.

Do you see what I am saying?

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

But isn't the phrase 'I AM' used in more than that case? I can see if it was used one time in scripture, but it's not.

In Exodus when God said "I am that I am" (or some translations say "I am who I am"), it was in direct response to Moses asking who he should say sent him, and what name should he should give the people if they ask who sent him. Keep in mind that the precluding and following scriptures are all related to God identifying himself to Moses. Most bibles choose to use "LORD" (instead of "Lord"), which is the tell-tale mark of where YHWH has been removed due to "tradition." Most bibles allude to that tradition in their Forward sections.

But in these scriptures, God identifies himself with both his personal name (YHWH), and his self-definition given the miracles he was about to perform for his people; (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh = "I am that I am", or in our translation "I Will Become What I Choose to Become").

The root of YHWH is HWH, which means "to become." And the Hebrew word Ehyeh derives from the word Hayah which means "existed." Wikipedia states: "The ancient Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 lacks a future tense as modern English does, yet a few translations render this name as "I Will Be What I Will Be", given the context of Yahweh promising to be with his people through their future troubles.[1] Both the literal present tense "I Am" and the future tense "I will be" have given rise to many attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, in particular the King James Version, the phrase is rendered as I am that I am.""

The link below goes into more detail about the divine name and its meaning.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/

Also, reading your translation wouldn't "I have been" be like dividing God into time and constricting God to time as it is on earth? Because time does not exist for God. He is Omnipresent. "Have been" is past tense.

But didn't Jesus use human examples of everything to instruct people and help them to better understand what he was telling them? The Pharisees were indeed limiting Jesus' scope of knowledge to only his (then) current time on earth, but using their own example (Abraham), he made it clear that he has existed far longer than the long past days of Abraham.

I actually don't think that "have been" is past tense. I think it is actually more of an ongoing event. I "have been living here for 10 years", "I have been married for 15 years", "I have been a vegetarian my whole life", etc.

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

Would it not have been a mistruth for Jesus, who is God, to not say the truth? Jesus said He was God. I think to then go back to say or clarify His earthly age, which would be clarifying Himself, God as a human being would have then been very confusing. Like playing both sides in speech, saying He is God and clarifying human attributes intertwined.

Do you see what I am saying?

I can appreciate your point of view on that. EDIT: I want to address this a little better. I don't read that Jesus was clarifying his earthly age, I read that he was correcting their assumption that he was limited to his earthly age. I don't agree that he was saying he was God, but I agree that he was certainly revealing that he was more than mere human.

 

[Albion]

It still is the case that, while a few of the "proofs" are open to another meaning, the number of times recorded in Scripture in which Jesus describes himself as God, others interpret his words as claiming to be God, or he acts as only God can, are many.

 

[LoyalJW]

There is no correct way to practice Christianity other than through the Jehovahs Witnesses, any other Christendom is an abomination and will be destroyed at Armageddon

 

[outlawState]

There is no correct way to practice Christianity other than through the Jehovahs Witnesses, any other Christendom is an abomination and will be destroyed at Armageddon

Well if that were so, one could expect a fidelity to the Greek NT that is sadly lacking in the New World Translation.

John 8;58 "Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been," New World Translation.

John 8;58 "Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" NASB

In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am) and not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been).

 

[ArmenianJohn]

There is no correct way to practice Christianity other than through the Jehovahs Witnesses, any other Christendom is an abomination and will be destroyed at Armageddon

It's easy to just make declarations, but it's harder to back them up with fact. Do you have any facts to back up what you're saying?

My experience with the JW org is that they don't like to talk to someone who has studied and searched God's Word but that they prefer to talk to only those who will just listen and believe what they say with no critical thought or response. They are very much like the mormons in this regard. I'm expecting that type of reaction here, also.

 

[The Gregorian]

Hey guys! So, I'm back!

Just wanted to pop in to point out the concept of troll accounts. Some people make accounts claiming to be a certain thing and post intentionally inflammatory things in order to passive-aggressively harm the group they pretend to represent.

As with any denomination, the JWs are a diverse bunch with different strengths and weaknesses. Some are excellent teachers... others may be a bit lacking in the tact department.

No, a JW who maintains a trinitarian viewpoint wouldn't fit well with the rest of the congregation. JWs do definitely believe in Jesus. He is still their Kurios, Lord, savior, messiah, and the Son of God... JWs simply view the context of scriptures to suggest that Jesus as an individual being. Someone who can be given great authority, but not "God."

 

[outlawState]

JWs simply view the context of scriptures to suggest that Jesus as an individual being. Someone who can be given great authority, but not "God."

Jesus, the individual being, never said he was "God" as he called the Father his God, but he did say that he was "from above," from eternity, pre-existing, the "I AM".

In other words, Jesus was God made flesh. JWs crudely pervert the scriptures to make out something else.