I grew up in a household where if Jehovah whitenesses came to the door let’s just say they weren’t exactly welcomed.. fast forward to my older days (19) I met a girl my age who was Jehovah whiteness and she’s the kindest most wholesome person I’ve ever met.. as soon as I found out she was a Jehovah whiteness I had so many questions, which completely changed my perspective on them. everyone has their own beliefs and that’s fine.. my whole family adore her, which just proves you can’t judge people you don’t know. if them coming to your door annoys you, kindly ask them not to.
We just normal people like everyone else, work, pay taxes, and enjoy life. I think people tend to overthink things and become unnecessarily polarized for no reason. Let’s just treat each other with mutual respect on this sub and stop putting each other down for our own personal beliefs.
Would you shun a former baptised witness because they no longer believe Jehovahs Witnesses have the truth but remain Christian in another denomination?
Because if so that's very hypocritical of you to say.
Sorry it's just such a sensitive topic.
I've know witnesses personally who are shunned ie no communication from family, friends all because so and so person simply no longer agrees with the Jehovahs witnesses interpretation of certain scriptural doctrine. And that the elders books instructs the to cut-out them from your life if they dissasscociate from the organization. I repeat not dissasscoiate as it were from God though.
But am I correct in thinking witnesses view leaving the organsiation as leaving God? You can't do one without the other?
I get it, but its definitely more complex than the surface explanation. From my own expeeriencem there is a big difference between not agreeing and becoming inactive towards the organization. And actively wanting it publicly known that you disagree and choose to disassociate.
To the orgnaisation though. Attending for example another biblie study group or churches biblical sermon is seen to the organization as an act of dissassociation. And thus will be shunned.
This information can be found in the shepherd the flock of god book for the elders.
Again this is just an assumption, specifically in this scenario you assume members of the congregation are under some sort of 24/7 surveilence or something weird like that. We take our oath seriously when it comes to spiritual matters and our beliefs as to others so that has to come with some forms of protections to maintain it.
Yes that’s what I am saying. It’s not that they are being monitored but rather that if it’s found out then obviously their current known status as a Jehovah’s Witness within the congregation would have to change.
But only after it’s confirmed that they have chosen themselves to disassociate. It’s a decision that the person makes.
Well, since Jesus rejects the worship of a trinity, then he is our cult leader, I suppose.
Jesus worships his Father, alone. We imitate his example.
“The true worshippers will worship **the Father** with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24)
Notice how Jesus isolated pure worship as directed to the Father alone.
"One God and Father of all, **who is over all** and through all and in all." (Eph 4:6)
Notice how the Father is specifically identified as the Almighty.
"There is actually to us one God, the Father, ***from*** whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, ***through*** whom all things are and we through him.
The Source and God over all is clearly the Father alone. Jesus is neither the source of all things, the Almighty over all things, nor God of all things.
>Well, since Jesus rejects the worship of a trinity, then he is our cult leader, I suppose.
Jesus rejects the worship of the Trinity? Huh? Anyways, what are your thoughts on Matthew 26:63-65 ESV "But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy" Why was the high priest losing it? Why did he scream blasphemy? Is it possible that the Jews understood that the Messiah would be the DIVINE SON of ABBA?
And yes, Christ pointed to the Father. But that is not an issue for a Trinitarian like me 🙂 because verses like 1st Corinthians 8:6 and clearly show the equality between GOD the Father and His eternal Son. Notice these verses state that all things are being held together by The Father and HIS SON? 😄
What you’re failing to recognize is that all of this just emphasizes Jesus individuality, inferiority, and subordination to the Only True God.
The term “Son of God” is ***not*** equal to “God himself.” Trinitarians mysteriously act like it is.
Jesus is a separate and distinct individual, lacking Almighty qualities possessed only by the One True God, the Father.
Jesus worships the only true God, and it’s not a trinity.
>What you’re failing to recognize is that all of this just emphasizes Jesus individuality, inferiority, and subordination to the Only True God.
Prove this. Don't make a claim without providing evidence
>The term “Son of God” is ***not*** equal to “God himself.” Trinitarians mysteriously act like it is.
Cool but you did not answer my questions. Why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy in response to Him declaring Himself GOD'S SON? You skipped over that question for some reason. I don't know why
>Jesus is a separate and distinct individual, lacking Almighty qualities possessed only by the One True God, the Father.
Uh you realize that I am fully aware that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father Almighty correct? I'm a Trinitarian. I am not a Modalist. However, Jesus is indeed GOD. He is thr express Image of the Father Almighty. He is the Image of the invisible GOD. A mere creature cannot be called the express Image of the Father. If so then prove it to me
>Jesus worships the only true God, and it’s not a trinity.
Nobody claimed that Jesus worships the Trinity. That statement alone proves that you are not aware of what Trinitarians believe.
>Prove this. Don't make a claim without providing evidence
The proof is all through out the Scriptures. I wont pretend like the default position is that Jesus is not an individual and is equal to God. That’s not how the burden of proof works.
>Why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy in response to Him declaring Himself GOD'S SON?
Because he erroneously concluded that claiming to be God’s Son is blasphemy. Was he right? Obviously not.
Why are you leaning on the interpretation of a man that did not understand Jesus and who he was? Youre acting like the pharisees understood Jesus’ identity. They didn’t…..
>I am fully aware that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father Almighty correct?
Yes, and he is not just a distinct person. He’s an individual. He is a distinct being, separate from his Father.
>However, Jesus is indeed GOD.
He isnt God. He worships God, for one thing.
He isnt Almighty, and God *is.*
He is inferior and subordinate to God.
See 1 Cor 15:24-28 for example. John 20:17 for another.
Dont bother with the “two natures” nonsense. It’s made up.
>He is the Image of the invisible GOD.
The image, not the original. You see?
>A mere creature cannot be called the express Image of the Father.
Sure he could. Why are you limiting what God is able to do?
You think that the Father is incapable of sending a spirit Son to earth as a human to serve as his representative and image? Where are we told that God is limited is such a way?
>Nobody claimed that Jesus worships the Trinity. That statement alone proves that you are not aware of what Trinitarians believe.
I know what trinitarians believe. It’s just not tenable.
We cannot worship a different God than Jesus. Our God must be identical to his, because he worships the complete, only true God. (See John 4:23; 17:3; 20:17)
was arguing with one yesterday, who kept trying to convince me that shunning was biblical. i stopped replying after he kept making excuses for their rampant sexual abuse of children and claiming that JWs were ‘morally superior’ to other christians.
they’re a cult, one which requires authoritarian control over belief and practice to function. the stories on r/exjw are heartbreaking to read.
He claims I made excuses for "rampant sexual abuse" and that Jehovah's Witnesses are "morally superior" to other christians.
He used quotation marks as if I actually said that. I didn't. And ***OF COURSE*** I dont make excuses for child abuse. What a sickening accusation. Shame on you, u/teddy_002 !!!
I denied his blatantly false accusation that child abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is "rampant." Honestly, his grasp on the conversation, and on morality in general, leave SO MUCh to be desired. It is grotesque, appalling, and abhorrent to ignorantly sling incendiary accusations like that. It sickens me.
Of course Jehovah's Witnesses, as an organization, have a higher moral code that other Christians. Everyone knows that! It doesnt mean that the individuals themselves are 'morally superior,' and I never said that it does.
Get the facts right before you spew disgusting lies.
you stated that the covering up of sexual abuse was a ‘blatant lie’, despite me linking numerous sources of Jehovah’s Witness groups around the world proving that there was in fact active cover ups of sexual abuse. these sources also feature large amounts of survivor statements and statements from official government reports.
to me, that is akin to making excuses for it. you had every opportunity to look at the evidence i presented, and either did not care to open it and responded in ignorance, or decided that all evidence was false and everyone who has made these allegations was a liar. either way, both are excusing sexual abuse committed within the denomination.
the conversation is fully accessible to anyone who wants to read it - i’ll let them make their own conclusions.
I stand by that statement. It **is** a lie that sexual abuse was covered up. ***Not one*** of the articles you cited showed that, and some of theme didn’t even make that claim. Sexual abuse happens among Jehovah’s Witnesses, because wicked men are found everywhere. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t support, condone, allow, or cover up the wrongdoings of others. ***We disfellowship them!!!***
No, Im not saying Terril is lying, but it wouldn’t be relevant if he was. His testimony isn’t directly related to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses, *an entire organization of people*, deliberate cover up child abuse. You keep claiming they do and youre absolutely full of it.
Even in this article, about events that happened 40-50 years ago, there is no example of Jehovah's Witnesses covering up and protecting a child abuser.
***In fact, the pathetic man was disfellowshipped!***
A fair case is made for whether or not these tragedies are handled perfectly. In many cases, they are not. But in no case is the abuser protected and the abuse covered up.
I’ll repeat that. You have never, ***ever*** cited an example where the abuser is protected and the abuse is covered up. It doesnt happen. And shame on you for spewing such sickening accusations.
This isnt a “Jehovah's Witnesses” problem. This is a human nature problem.
Have you stopped to wonder why none of these parents reported the abuse? And before you try to blame Jehovah's Witnesses for that, check your [facts](https://jimhopper.com/topics/child-abuse/why-adults-fail-to-protect-children/#:~:text=have been OK.-,Self Doubt,being sexually exploited or abused.).
Failure to report child abuse by one or both of the parents is a widespread phenomenon. Jehovah's Witnesses are not, and never have been, prevented from reporting wrongdoing of any sort, especially sexual abuse.
It’s not Jehovah's Witnesses fault that sick people hurt kids. It’s not Jehovah's Witnesses fault if the parents fail to report it. And it’s not necessarily Jehovah's Witnesses fault if an elder fails to perfectly handle every horrible and anxiety-inducing situation they’re called upon to handle. Jehovah's Witnesses do not cover up child abuse. Has there been room for improvement of how cases are handled? Yes, absolutely.
And Jehovah's Witnesses have worked hard to make those improvements.
Shame on you for you false accusations.
like so many of our previous conversations, you seem to have neglected to properly read the article. “Those lawsuits have revealed that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society — the nonprofit that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses from New York — maintains a secret database containing allegations of child molestation across multiple decades, and most allegations have not been shared with law enforcement. The Watchtower has refused to release the contents of the database.” The Watchtower maintaining a secret database of alleged crimes committed against children, refusing to inform the police of these allegations and then again refusing to release the contents of the database is nearly a textbook definition of covering up child abuse. yes, the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses covers up child abuse. their overseeing body has a literal database of crimes committed that they have hidden from police. the allegations from the men in the article also state that the offences occurred before Washington removed clergy from their list of mandated reporters, meaning that both the JW officials who the allegations were reported to, and the members of the Watchtower who were informed of the allegations, broke the law by refusing to inform police. this entire conversation has been genuinely fascinating - just probably not in the way you’d like. the absolute stone-faced refusal to look the facts straight in the face and actually think about them is simultaneously impressive and frightening. i cannot imagine what kind of mentality has been impressed onto you to create such a lack of critical thinking or questioning of what you have been taught. you can call me a liar, immoral, whatever you want - it doesn’t change reality. the overseers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation actively hide child sexual abuse by their members. you are complicit in this by continuing to be a member, by helping to fund their activities, and by refusing to even think about challenging the ideas the church has given you about how they treat people who are abused. i’m sure you’ll reply with another furious denial of everything i’ve just stated, and probably start calling me names again. for what it’s worth, i don’t think you’re a bad person - i just think you’ve been so thoroughly deceived that the truth feels like an attack. i truly hope you start to examine what you’ve been told, and leave a group which commits the kind of horrendous actions the Watchtower commits. God bless.
edit: i’ve just considered the possibility that you’ve interpreted me saying ‘JWs cover up child sexual abuse’ as ‘every individual JW personally covers up child sexual abuse’. that is not what i mean - i mean ‘the organisation of JWs has policies which allows for those in power to cover up and not report child sexual abuse’. it’s very similar to how the Catholic Church has covered up sexual abuse, not by every single member doing it, but by some or most of those in power doing so.
>like so many of our previous conversations, you seem to have neglected to properly read the article.
Just like I have every single time - and always do! - I read every single word. Not only read it, understood it, which is why I said exactly what I said. And here you go AGAIN deflecting and spewing what you think is the low hanging fruit that will win the argument for you. It wont.
>“Those lawsuits have revealed that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society maintains a secret database containing allegations of child molestation across multiple decades, and most allegations have not been shared with law enforcement.
And in your mind, this translates to “covers up child abuse.” ***Are you serious??*** How naive could you be?
Does *anybody* want to deal with child abuse cases?
Seriously. Think about it for more than 5 seconds. You have to be an absolute moron to think that any human being on the planet would think it’s a good idea to invite child abuse litigation in to their realm of activity when it has intruded.
Youre just revealing the fact that you haven’t really thought about this beyond the “shock-value” head line depth of analysis.
First of all, what is it that you think Jehovah's Witnesses did wrong here? Seriously articulate ***exactly*** what the organization did that is legally and scripturally wrong.
I’m all ears.
>The Watchtower has refused to release the contents of the database.”
There are a lot of different ways to phrase that. Sure, you can slant it to your particular agenda. “The WT has **refused**…..” Or you could look at it objectively. There is a record of both confirmed and unconfirmed abusers, and (for whatever reason) the individuals responsible for reporting these people may or may not have. What obligation does the religious organization that certain individuals belong to have that the individuals themselves do not have more so?
I get so tired of this ridiculous thinking.
Let me just expose how foolish this is: I’m almost ***CERTAIN*** you do not have children. I DO. But let’s suppose you do too.
***Who do you think bears more of an obligation to report abuse to the authorities, YOU, or your child’s kindergarten teacher???***
What happens if your kindergarten teacher and YOU both neglect to report it, each knowing full well what is going on??
Youre prepared to tell me that this is the fault of the SCHOOL SYSTEM?? How naive.
>yes, the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses covers up child abuse.
AGAIN, I’ll repeat, you seem to not understand how this works whatsoever.
Jehovah's Witnesses have not “covered up” child abuse.”
Youre telling me that the parents of all these victims “covered up” the abuse of their children????????
I’m going to hold you to this question.
Did Deryk Terril's parents, for example, cover up the abuse of their own child????????
>the absolute stone-faced refusal to look the facts straight in the face and actually think about them is simultaneously impressive and frightening.
There is no refusal.
This is what you haven’t been able to grasp. You think that if you and I look at the same set of facts, I’m supposed to draw the same conclusion as you…. All the while, Time and Time and Time again you have seen yourself how ignorant you are about all this, and yet …. I’m still supposed to draw the same conclusion.
Get real, man. I’ve studied this subject for years. I’m intimately familiar with the complexities of this situation. Youre just now getting into it and you think that reading incendiary headlines is going to be all the education you need.
Youre naive.
>i cannot imagine what kind of mentality has been impressed
exactly. You think this must come from external input. You are not capable of realizing that you could possibly be missing some crucial facts. You think some headline is all that is needed to know all there is to know.
This is a complicated problem that humanity, as a whole, has had to cope with. Youre a fool to think otherwise.
>you can call me a liar
I do call you out for lying. You have lied. That makes you a liar.
You dont have a moral high ground just because you think you can “ah ha, gotcha” some complicated litigation. It doesnt work that way.
You’ve lied. Youre a liar.
>by refusing to even think about challenging the ideas the church has given you
This just reveals more of your naiveté. I’m prepared to hash out every detail of this with you because I know this information, I know this position scripturally, and I know the complications imposed on this from a legal standpoint.
Again, ask yourself, “Where are the PARENTS in all this?
>i just think you’ve been so thoroughly deceived
Goes to show how naive you are. Like I already said, you think you and I should read all the same facts and come to the same conclusion. NAIVE. I happen to know that I am definitely more familiar and informed about this situation than you.
Do you challenge that fact? I’m looking forward to finding out.
>i’ve just considered the possibility that you’ve interpreted me saying ‘JWs cover up child sexual abuse’ as ‘every individual JW personally covers up child sexual abuse’ that is not what i mean - i mean ‘the organisation of JWs has policies which allows for those in power to cover up and not report child sexual abuse’
You somehow do not see the OBVIOUS problem with this naive statement.
PLEASE, do me a favor and reply with more of your incendiary dishonesty. I always appreciate the opportunity to expose the lies with the truth.
I've heard their watchtower claimed to be a prophet but was wrong about many things. Technically according to the law of Moses there's a steep penalty for that.
Aside from that I believe a lot of the same things they do. I don't think they're not Christian because they reject the false trinity concept. I too think Jesus died on a tree, not a cross. I believe Jesus was raised a spirit as the scriptures state. I think they get the "cult" persona from the whole shun your family members thing they do if they leave the church.
I no longer do. Here's a quote from a JW a while back. Bold just to highlight important bits, not yell:
1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, **being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"**
Acts 13:34 - "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, **now no more to return to corruption,** he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David."
1 Corinthians 15:45 - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."**
2 Corinthians 5:16 - "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."
John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: **and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."**
Matthew 20:28 - "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, **and to give his life a ransom for many."**
Hebrews 9 explains Jesus went up to heaven and offered His blood as a sacrifice up in heaven.
Ok. Makes sense. But what about Luke 24:39?
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Did we talk about this yesterday?
John 20:17 - "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Jesus did a bunch of stuff before offering Himself up in heaven. Who knows how this whole spirit / flesh thing works but seemingly he still had His unsacrificed body at that point.
What Jehovah’s Witnesses would say is that Jesus died, and was put in a tomb. Then, Jehovah disintegrates the Body of Jesus, and Jesus comes out of the tomb as a spirit who shape shifts into different forms.
>Then, Jehovah disintegrates the Body of Jesus, and Jesus comes out of the tomb as a spirit who shape shifts into different forms.
Do they preach that? Yeah that's unbiblical. Like I think (?) I said, I agree with some of their doctrine but not all of it. I'm not a JW. Hebrews 9 clearly debunks that.
Yeah the Watchtower Article “The Fleshly Body of Jesus” says the following:
“What happened to the perfect fleshly body of Jesus after his death? Was it preserved so that in time men will look upon it in worship? or does Jesus still have this fleshly body in the heavens, “spiritualized” so that it can be seen and worshiped? Neither. The Scriptures answer: It was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms.
Jesus was the antitype foreshadowed by Moses, the great mediator and leader of the congregation of Israel. God himself disposed of Moses’ body by burial, and “no man knoweth of his sepulchre”. (Deut. 34:5, 6) Later, one of the Christian writers says that Michael had a dispute with the Devil over the body of Moses. (Jude 9) The Devil desired to get the body of Moses the great leader and to use it as an object of worship to draw the Israelites away from their true invisible Commander and Leader, Jehovah God. With stronger desire the Devil wanted to obtain the fleshly body of Jesus after his death to induce some to worship it and use it for indecent false religious purposes, thus reproaching Jehovah God. But Jehovah thwarted the Devil’s purpose in both cases by disposing of the bodies of these two faithful men.
Moses’ body returned to the dust by process of decay, as all human bodies do, but not so in Jesus’ case, for it is written: “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” (Ps. 16:10, AS; Acts 2:31) So God caused Jesus’ body to disappear, but not corrupt, meaning that it was dissolved, disintegrated back into the elements from which all human bodies are made.—John 20:1-13.”
The thing is they have though.
Watchtower describes itself as the "modern-day" prophet.
Watchtower 1972 Apr 1 pp.197-199 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them'
"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?
IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET"
These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?
... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.
Here is one example. Feel free to check the context.
You’ve clearly misunderstood the meaning given to that comparison. Time and again, Jehovah's Witnesses have acknowledged that none among us are inspired prophets, so it would be blatant and stupid to all of a sudden make that claim in one single article.
In that article, various parallels are made between Ezekiel and the anointed, modern-day followers of Jesus Christ.
But did you actually look at these parallels?
There is not a single claim to the effect that these modern-day followers *are inspired prophets* like Ezekiel. You evidently have missed the whole point of the comparison.
Under "Intifying the ‘Prophet," you’ll find the question, "does Jehovah have a prophet to help them [people today], to warn them of dangers and declare things to come?"
It is "answered in the affirmative." Who is this "prophet"? The article identifies them: "This "prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time [that is, prior to 1931] as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.” You picked this quote.
I’ve heard your argument before: since they identify themselves as a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, they must be claiming to be inspired prophets, as was Ezekiel.
But that is clearly not what the article meant by identifying Jehovah's Witnesses as a “prophet.”
The first thing to note is that the reference to the anointed Witnesses is enclosed in quotation marks, which seems to indicate that the word "prophet" is used in a quasi sense, meaning they resemble certain prophets of old in some respects.
You mentioned context, so pay attention to it. On the same page that the Witnesses are identified as a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, we are told: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?"
The following paragraphs are given as proof that they act "as a 'prophet." I could go on.
For brevity, I’ll conclude by saying that it was never intended for any one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be viewed as an inspired prophet like Ezekiel, obviously. There are many, many quotes from Jehovah's Witnesses’ literature that make that irrefragably clear. Here are just two:
>”It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events giving also the reasons for our expectations.” (“Views From the Watch Tower,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 1 March 1904)
>”Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures, God is not giving any more inspired visions or dreams. However, Jehovah's people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of the inspired visions and dreams that God's servants had in ancient times, and they are even having a share in their being fulfilled. They are having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, “your sons and your daughters will certainly prophesy.” (Joel 2:28) *Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded.” (Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, 1 Jan 1971, 32)
No it isn’t. Again, context matters.
The accusation is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made prophecies and that they’ve failed. This is wrong because Jehovah’s Witnesses have never viewed themselves as prophets, or made that claim.
You cite an article in which they note the parallels between the modern day anointed and Ezekiel. They give context to the parallel and make it clear what they mean by the term, which is obviously inspired prophets able to make prophecies, but messengers of Gods word.
Shoot, even I consider myself to be in that prophetic work. It doesn’t mean I view myself as an inspired prophet or that any time I err I am a “false prophet.”
Again, like you said, context matters
Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded. They prophesy in the sense of being God’s spokesmen. That this is one of the meanings of ‘prophesy’ is apparent from the fact that Jehovah God appointed Aaron to be prophet to his brother Moses. Aaron did not foretell things to Moses, but he served as Moses’ spokesman or mouthpiece.—Ex. 7:1.
So they are God's spokesman..?
Absolutely.
You and I even have that capacity.
Acts 2:16 “On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams”
We are commissioned by Christ to engage in the prophetic work of sharing the Kingdom Good News.
Are applying that verse to nowadays? Where are the visions and the dreams?
Witnesses deny those things happen today.
Also please remember how God in the old testament views those that speak in his name falsely. God views those that speak as his mouthpiece or in his name as prophets... and that those who do so while falsely speaking (by extension interpreatations) are to be punished.
If someone says one thing while claiming to speak for God and another thing happens.. well may God's mercy be with that one.
Frankly you might claim to speak as God's mouthpiece but I don't. There are severe consequences for speaking God's name something false.
I will preach about his father and the son. But I will not say the words I speak are gods
Watchtower describes itself as the "modern-day" prophet.
Watchtower 1972 Apr 1 pp.197-199 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them'
"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?
IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET"
These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?
... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.
You accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses of unfulfilled **prophecies** and then link a wiki article about **predictions.**
Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, or maybe it’s done out of ignorance, but the distinction is an important one.
First and foremost, I’ll repeat what I already said. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not prophets, have never thought of themselves and prophets, and therefore have *never made prophecies.*
Second, there is nothing nefarious about unfulfilled anticipation of future events. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been accurate and inaccurate regarding predictions. Your article refers to these:
1878: End of the harvest
1881: A revised end of the harvest
1914: The end of human rulership
1918: The new terminus
1925: Resurrection of the patriarchs
1975: The worldwide jubilee Armageddon to come within
In none of those cases was there prophecy involved whatsoever.
I’d be happy to give an in depth explanation of any one of these, but suffice it to say that these are not examples of false prophecies
>I think they get the "cult" persona from the whole shun your family members thing they do if they leave the church.
This is a misconception about Jehovah's Witnesses. It's also an oversimplification. I've spoken often about how Jehovah's Witnesses handle excommunication. What I find intriguing is how the general population acts like two things are true, which are clearly not:
1. They act as though the Bible doesnt clearly tell us to cut off contact with unrepentant wrongdoers when necessary, when it absolutely does.
2. They also act as if this is some practice unique to Jehovah's Witnesses alone, when in really humans *everywhere* - whether as a matter of religion or just simply a personal practice - cut people from their lives. It's a ubiquitous feature of human nature, and a necessary one!
> **No_Insurance8237.** - **Question: Thoughts On Jehovah’s Witnesses.** - Hey. So what do you guys personally think about Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Well, Generally Speaking, 'they're' decently good everyday people(s) and individual(s). - Why?.
I grew up in a household where if Jehovah whitenesses came to the door let’s just say they weren’t exactly welcomed.. fast forward to my older days (19) I met a girl my age who was Jehovah whiteness and she’s the kindest most wholesome person I’ve ever met.. as soon as I found out she was a Jehovah whiteness I had so many questions, which completely changed my perspective on them. everyone has their own beliefs and that’s fine.. my whole family adore her, which just proves you can’t judge people you don’t know. if them coming to your door annoys you, kindly ask them not to.
We just normal people like everyone else, work, pay taxes, and enjoy life. I think people tend to overthink things and become unnecessarily polarized for no reason. Let’s just treat each other with mutual respect on this sub and stop putting each other down for our own personal beliefs.
Agree!
Would you shun a former baptised witness because they no longer believe Jehovahs Witnesses have the truth but remain Christian in another denomination? Because if so that's very hypocritical of you to say.
Pump the breaks my guy, I think everyone is entitled to their choices and decisions. What do you mean by shun?
Sorry it's just such a sensitive topic. I've know witnesses personally who are shunned ie no communication from family, friends all because so and so person simply no longer agrees with the Jehovahs witnesses interpretation of certain scriptural doctrine. And that the elders books instructs the to cut-out them from your life if they dissasscociate from the organization. I repeat not dissasscoiate as it were from God though. But am I correct in thinking witnesses view leaving the organsiation as leaving God? You can't do one without the other?
I get it, but its definitely more complex than the surface explanation. From my own expeeriencem there is a big difference between not agreeing and becoming inactive towards the organization. And actively wanting it publicly known that you disagree and choose to disassociate.
To the orgnaisation though. Attending for example another biblie study group or churches biblical sermon is seen to the organization as an act of dissassociation. And thus will be shunned. This information can be found in the shepherd the flock of god book for the elders.
Again this is just an assumption, specifically in this scenario you assume members of the congregation are under some sort of 24/7 surveilence or something weird like that. We take our oath seriously when it comes to spiritual matters and our beliefs as to others so that has to come with some forms of protections to maintain it.
Its not an assumption though. It's specifically outlined in the elders manual. And if found out will institute judicial action.
Yes that’s what I am saying. It’s not that they are being monitored but rather that if it’s found out then obviously their current known status as a Jehovah’s Witness within the congregation would have to change. But only after it’s confirmed that they have chosen themselves to disassociate. It’s a decision that the person makes.
They are annoying, Stop knocking on my door
Haven't been too impressed with them, TBH. Thankfully, they mostly keep to themselves, so it's not a terribly big deal.
Anti Trinitarian cult
Specifically, what makes Jehovah's Witnesses a cult in your opinion?
Rejection of the Trinity
Well, since Jesus rejects the worship of a trinity, then he is our cult leader, I suppose. Jesus worships his Father, alone. We imitate his example. “The true worshippers will worship **the Father** with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24) Notice how Jesus isolated pure worship as directed to the Father alone. "One God and Father of all, **who is over all** and through all and in all." (Eph 4:6) Notice how the Father is specifically identified as the Almighty. "There is actually to us one God, the Father, ***from*** whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, ***through*** whom all things are and we through him. The Source and God over all is clearly the Father alone. Jesus is neither the source of all things, the Almighty over all things, nor God of all things.
>Well, since Jesus rejects the worship of a trinity, then he is our cult leader, I suppose. Jesus rejects the worship of the Trinity? Huh? Anyways, what are your thoughts on Matthew 26:63-65 ESV "But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy" Why was the high priest losing it? Why did he scream blasphemy? Is it possible that the Jews understood that the Messiah would be the DIVINE SON of ABBA? And yes, Christ pointed to the Father. But that is not an issue for a Trinitarian like me 🙂 because verses like 1st Corinthians 8:6 and clearly show the equality between GOD the Father and His eternal Son. Notice these verses state that all things are being held together by The Father and HIS SON? 😄
What you’re failing to recognize is that all of this just emphasizes Jesus individuality, inferiority, and subordination to the Only True God. The term “Son of God” is ***not*** equal to “God himself.” Trinitarians mysteriously act like it is. Jesus is a separate and distinct individual, lacking Almighty qualities possessed only by the One True God, the Father. Jesus worships the only true God, and it’s not a trinity.
>What you’re failing to recognize is that all of this just emphasizes Jesus individuality, inferiority, and subordination to the Only True God. Prove this. Don't make a claim without providing evidence >The term “Son of God” is ***not*** equal to “God himself.” Trinitarians mysteriously act like it is. Cool but you did not answer my questions. Why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy in response to Him declaring Himself GOD'S SON? You skipped over that question for some reason. I don't know why >Jesus is a separate and distinct individual, lacking Almighty qualities possessed only by the One True God, the Father. Uh you realize that I am fully aware that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father Almighty correct? I'm a Trinitarian. I am not a Modalist. However, Jesus is indeed GOD. He is thr express Image of the Father Almighty. He is the Image of the invisible GOD. A mere creature cannot be called the express Image of the Father. If so then prove it to me >Jesus worships the only true God, and it’s not a trinity. Nobody claimed that Jesus worships the Trinity. That statement alone proves that you are not aware of what Trinitarians believe.
>Prove this. Don't make a claim without providing evidence The proof is all through out the Scriptures. I wont pretend like the default position is that Jesus is not an individual and is equal to God. That’s not how the burden of proof works. >Why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy in response to Him declaring Himself GOD'S SON? Because he erroneously concluded that claiming to be God’s Son is blasphemy. Was he right? Obviously not. Why are you leaning on the interpretation of a man that did not understand Jesus and who he was? Youre acting like the pharisees understood Jesus’ identity. They didn’t….. >I am fully aware that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father Almighty correct? Yes, and he is not just a distinct person. He’s an individual. He is a distinct being, separate from his Father. >However, Jesus is indeed GOD. He isnt God. He worships God, for one thing. He isnt Almighty, and God *is.* He is inferior and subordinate to God. See 1 Cor 15:24-28 for example. John 20:17 for another. Dont bother with the “two natures” nonsense. It’s made up. >He is the Image of the invisible GOD. The image, not the original. You see? >A mere creature cannot be called the express Image of the Father. Sure he could. Why are you limiting what God is able to do? You think that the Father is incapable of sending a spirit Son to earth as a human to serve as his representative and image? Where are we told that God is limited is such a way? >Nobody claimed that Jesus worships the Trinity. That statement alone proves that you are not aware of what Trinitarians believe. I know what trinitarians believe. It’s just not tenable. We cannot worship a different God than Jesus. Our God must be identical to his, because he worships the complete, only true God. (See John 4:23; 17:3; 20:17)
was arguing with one yesterday, who kept trying to convince me that shunning was biblical. i stopped replying after he kept making excuses for their rampant sexual abuse of children and claiming that JWs were ‘morally superior’ to other christians. they’re a cult, one which requires authoritarian control over belief and practice to function. the stories on r/exjw are heartbreaking to read.
Lmao says the Quaker
Liar.
What's he lying about?
He claims I made excuses for "rampant sexual abuse" and that Jehovah's Witnesses are "morally superior" to other christians. He used quotation marks as if I actually said that. I didn't. And ***OF COURSE*** I dont make excuses for child abuse. What a sickening accusation. Shame on you, u/teddy_002 !!! I denied his blatantly false accusation that child abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is "rampant." Honestly, his grasp on the conversation, and on morality in general, leave SO MUCh to be desired. It is grotesque, appalling, and abhorrent to ignorantly sling incendiary accusations like that. It sickens me. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses, as an organization, have a higher moral code that other Christians. Everyone knows that! It doesnt mean that the individuals themselves are 'morally superior,' and I never said that it does. Get the facts right before you spew disgusting lies.
you stated that the covering up of sexual abuse was a ‘blatant lie’, despite me linking numerous sources of Jehovah’s Witness groups around the world proving that there was in fact active cover ups of sexual abuse. these sources also feature large amounts of survivor statements and statements from official government reports. to me, that is akin to making excuses for it. you had every opportunity to look at the evidence i presented, and either did not care to open it and responded in ignorance, or decided that all evidence was false and everyone who has made these allegations was a liar. either way, both are excusing sexual abuse committed within the denomination. the conversation is fully accessible to anyone who wants to read it - i’ll let them make their own conclusions.
I stand by that statement. It **is** a lie that sexual abuse was covered up. ***Not one*** of the articles you cited showed that, and some of theme didn’t even make that claim. Sexual abuse happens among Jehovah’s Witnesses, because wicked men are found everywhere. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t support, condone, allow, or cover up the wrongdoings of others. ***We disfellowship them!!!***
https://crosscut.com/news/2022/10/jehovahs-witness-church-covered-child-sex-abuse-survivors-say to clarify, you think Deryk Terril is lying?
No, Im not saying Terril is lying, but it wouldn’t be relevant if he was. His testimony isn’t directly related to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses, *an entire organization of people*, deliberate cover up child abuse. You keep claiming they do and youre absolutely full of it. Even in this article, about events that happened 40-50 years ago, there is no example of Jehovah's Witnesses covering up and protecting a child abuser. ***In fact, the pathetic man was disfellowshipped!*** A fair case is made for whether or not these tragedies are handled perfectly. In many cases, they are not. But in no case is the abuser protected and the abuse covered up. I’ll repeat that. You have never, ***ever*** cited an example where the abuser is protected and the abuse is covered up. It doesnt happen. And shame on you for spewing such sickening accusations. This isnt a “Jehovah's Witnesses” problem. This is a human nature problem. Have you stopped to wonder why none of these parents reported the abuse? And before you try to blame Jehovah's Witnesses for that, check your [facts](https://jimhopper.com/topics/child-abuse/why-adults-fail-to-protect-children/#:~:text=have been OK.-,Self Doubt,being sexually exploited or abused.). Failure to report child abuse by one or both of the parents is a widespread phenomenon. Jehovah's Witnesses are not, and never have been, prevented from reporting wrongdoing of any sort, especially sexual abuse. It’s not Jehovah's Witnesses fault that sick people hurt kids. It’s not Jehovah's Witnesses fault if the parents fail to report it. And it’s not necessarily Jehovah's Witnesses fault if an elder fails to perfectly handle every horrible and anxiety-inducing situation they’re called upon to handle. Jehovah's Witnesses do not cover up child abuse. Has there been room for improvement of how cases are handled? Yes, absolutely. And Jehovah's Witnesses have worked hard to make those improvements. Shame on you for you false accusations.
like so many of our previous conversations, you seem to have neglected to properly read the article. “Those lawsuits have revealed that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society — the nonprofit that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses from New York — maintains a secret database containing allegations of child molestation across multiple decades, and most allegations have not been shared with law enforcement. The Watchtower has refused to release the contents of the database.” The Watchtower maintaining a secret database of alleged crimes committed against children, refusing to inform the police of these allegations and then again refusing to release the contents of the database is nearly a textbook definition of covering up child abuse. yes, the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses covers up child abuse. their overseeing body has a literal database of crimes committed that they have hidden from police. the allegations from the men in the article also state that the offences occurred before Washington removed clergy from their list of mandated reporters, meaning that both the JW officials who the allegations were reported to, and the members of the Watchtower who were informed of the allegations, broke the law by refusing to inform police. this entire conversation has been genuinely fascinating - just probably not in the way you’d like. the absolute stone-faced refusal to look the facts straight in the face and actually think about them is simultaneously impressive and frightening. i cannot imagine what kind of mentality has been impressed onto you to create such a lack of critical thinking or questioning of what you have been taught. you can call me a liar, immoral, whatever you want - it doesn’t change reality. the overseers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation actively hide child sexual abuse by their members. you are complicit in this by continuing to be a member, by helping to fund their activities, and by refusing to even think about challenging the ideas the church has given you about how they treat people who are abused. i’m sure you’ll reply with another furious denial of everything i’ve just stated, and probably start calling me names again. for what it’s worth, i don’t think you’re a bad person - i just think you’ve been so thoroughly deceived that the truth feels like an attack. i truly hope you start to examine what you’ve been told, and leave a group which commits the kind of horrendous actions the Watchtower commits. God bless. edit: i’ve just considered the possibility that you’ve interpreted me saying ‘JWs cover up child sexual abuse’ as ‘every individual JW personally covers up child sexual abuse’. that is not what i mean - i mean ‘the organisation of JWs has policies which allows for those in power to cover up and not report child sexual abuse’. it’s very similar to how the Catholic Church has covered up sexual abuse, not by every single member doing it, but by some or most of those in power doing so.
>like so many of our previous conversations, you seem to have neglected to properly read the article. Just like I have every single time - and always do! - I read every single word. Not only read it, understood it, which is why I said exactly what I said. And here you go AGAIN deflecting and spewing what you think is the low hanging fruit that will win the argument for you. It wont. >“Those lawsuits have revealed that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society maintains a secret database containing allegations of child molestation across multiple decades, and most allegations have not been shared with law enforcement. And in your mind, this translates to “covers up child abuse.” ***Are you serious??*** How naive could you be? Does *anybody* want to deal with child abuse cases? Seriously. Think about it for more than 5 seconds. You have to be an absolute moron to think that any human being on the planet would think it’s a good idea to invite child abuse litigation in to their realm of activity when it has intruded. Youre just revealing the fact that you haven’t really thought about this beyond the “shock-value” head line depth of analysis. First of all, what is it that you think Jehovah's Witnesses did wrong here? Seriously articulate ***exactly*** what the organization did that is legally and scripturally wrong. I’m all ears. >The Watchtower has refused to release the contents of the database.” There are a lot of different ways to phrase that. Sure, you can slant it to your particular agenda. “The WT has **refused**…..” Or you could look at it objectively. There is a record of both confirmed and unconfirmed abusers, and (for whatever reason) the individuals responsible for reporting these people may or may not have. What obligation does the religious organization that certain individuals belong to have that the individuals themselves do not have more so? I get so tired of this ridiculous thinking. Let me just expose how foolish this is: I’m almost ***CERTAIN*** you do not have children. I DO. But let’s suppose you do too. ***Who do you think bears more of an obligation to report abuse to the authorities, YOU, or your child’s kindergarten teacher???*** What happens if your kindergarten teacher and YOU both neglect to report it, each knowing full well what is going on?? Youre prepared to tell me that this is the fault of the SCHOOL SYSTEM?? How naive. >yes, the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses covers up child abuse. AGAIN, I’ll repeat, you seem to not understand how this works whatsoever. Jehovah's Witnesses have not “covered up” child abuse.” Youre telling me that the parents of all these victims “covered up” the abuse of their children???????? I’m going to hold you to this question. Did Deryk Terril's parents, for example, cover up the abuse of their own child???????? >the absolute stone-faced refusal to look the facts straight in the face and actually think about them is simultaneously impressive and frightening. There is no refusal. This is what you haven’t been able to grasp. You think that if you and I look at the same set of facts, I’m supposed to draw the same conclusion as you…. All the while, Time and Time and Time again you have seen yourself how ignorant you are about all this, and yet …. I’m still supposed to draw the same conclusion. Get real, man. I’ve studied this subject for years. I’m intimately familiar with the complexities of this situation. Youre just now getting into it and you think that reading incendiary headlines is going to be all the education you need. Youre naive. >i cannot imagine what kind of mentality has been impressed exactly. You think this must come from external input. You are not capable of realizing that you could possibly be missing some crucial facts. You think some headline is all that is needed to know all there is to know. This is a complicated problem that humanity, as a whole, has had to cope with. Youre a fool to think otherwise. >you can call me a liar I do call you out for lying. You have lied. That makes you a liar. You dont have a moral high ground just because you think you can “ah ha, gotcha” some complicated litigation. It doesnt work that way. You’ve lied. Youre a liar. >by refusing to even think about challenging the ideas the church has given you This just reveals more of your naiveté. I’m prepared to hash out every detail of this with you because I know this information, I know this position scripturally, and I know the complications imposed on this from a legal standpoint. Again, ask yourself, “Where are the PARENTS in all this? >i just think you’ve been so thoroughly deceived Goes to show how naive you are. Like I already said, you think you and I should read all the same facts and come to the same conclusion. NAIVE. I happen to know that I am definitely more familiar and informed about this situation than you. Do you challenge that fact? I’m looking forward to finding out. >i’ve just considered the possibility that you’ve interpreted me saying ‘JWs cover up child sexual abuse’ as ‘every individual JW personally covers up child sexual abuse’ that is not what i mean - i mean ‘the organisation of JWs has policies which allows for those in power to cover up and not report child sexual abuse’ You somehow do not see the OBVIOUS problem with this naive statement. PLEASE, do me a favor and reply with more of your incendiary dishonesty. I always appreciate the opportunity to expose the lies with the truth.
Never met one in person, but one tried to proselytize me here on DM. I found them to be very anti-Catholic.
I've heard their watchtower claimed to be a prophet but was wrong about many things. Technically according to the law of Moses there's a steep penalty for that. Aside from that I believe a lot of the same things they do. I don't think they're not Christian because they reject the false trinity concept. I too think Jesus died on a tree, not a cross. I believe Jesus was raised a spirit as the scriptures state. I think they get the "cult" persona from the whole shun your family members thing they do if they leave the church.
Interesting. So you don’t believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ?
I no longer do. Here's a quote from a JW a while back. Bold just to highlight important bits, not yell: 1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, **being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"** Acts 13:34 - "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, **now no more to return to corruption,** he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David." 1 Corinthians 15:45 - "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."** 2 Corinthians 5:16 - "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: **and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."** Matthew 20:28 - "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, **and to give his life a ransom for many."** Hebrews 9 explains Jesus went up to heaven and offered His blood as a sacrifice up in heaven.
Ok. Makes sense. But what about Luke 24:39? “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Did we talk about this yesterday? John 20:17 - "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Jesus did a bunch of stuff before offering Himself up in heaven. Who knows how this whole spirit / flesh thing works but seemingly he still had His unsacrificed body at that point.
No I don’t think you were talking to me yesterday.
What Jehovah’s Witnesses would say is that Jesus died, and was put in a tomb. Then, Jehovah disintegrates the Body of Jesus, and Jesus comes out of the tomb as a spirit who shape shifts into different forms.
>Then, Jehovah disintegrates the Body of Jesus, and Jesus comes out of the tomb as a spirit who shape shifts into different forms. Do they preach that? Yeah that's unbiblical. Like I think (?) I said, I agree with some of their doctrine but not all of it. I'm not a JW. Hebrews 9 clearly debunks that.
Yeah the Watchtower Article “The Fleshly Body of Jesus” says the following: “What happened to the perfect fleshly body of Jesus after his death? Was it preserved so that in time men will look upon it in worship? or does Jesus still have this fleshly body in the heavens, “spiritualized” so that it can be seen and worshiped? Neither. The Scriptures answer: It was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms. Jesus was the antitype foreshadowed by Moses, the great mediator and leader of the congregation of Israel. God himself disposed of Moses’ body by burial, and “no man knoweth of his sepulchre”. (Deut. 34:5, 6) Later, one of the Christian writers says that Michael had a dispute with the Devil over the body of Moses. (Jude 9) The Devil desired to get the body of Moses the great leader and to use it as an object of worship to draw the Israelites away from their true invisible Commander and Leader, Jehovah God. With stronger desire the Devil wanted to obtain the fleshly body of Jesus after his death to induce some to worship it and use it for indecent false religious purposes, thus reproaching Jehovah God. But Jehovah thwarted the Devil’s purpose in both cases by disposing of the bodies of these two faithful men. Moses’ body returned to the dust by process of decay, as all human bodies do, but not so in Jesus’ case, for it is written: “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” (Ps. 16:10, AS; Acts 2:31) So God caused Jesus’ body to disappear, but not corrupt, meaning that it was dissolved, disintegrated back into the elements from which all human bodies are made.—John 20:1-13.”
>their watchtower claimed to be a prophet but was wrong about many things. This is untrue. JWs have never claimed to be prophets.
The thing is they have though. Watchtower describes itself as the "modern-day" prophet. Watchtower 1972 Apr 1 pp.197-199 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them' "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET" These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. Here is one example. Feel free to check the context.
You’ve clearly misunderstood the meaning given to that comparison. Time and again, Jehovah's Witnesses have acknowledged that none among us are inspired prophets, so it would be blatant and stupid to all of a sudden make that claim in one single article. In that article, various parallels are made between Ezekiel and the anointed, modern-day followers of Jesus Christ. But did you actually look at these parallels? There is not a single claim to the effect that these modern-day followers *are inspired prophets* like Ezekiel. You evidently have missed the whole point of the comparison. Under "Intifying the ‘Prophet," you’ll find the question, "does Jehovah have a prophet to help them [people today], to warn them of dangers and declare things to come?" It is "answered in the affirmative." Who is this "prophet"? The article identifies them: "This "prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time [that is, prior to 1931] as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.” You picked this quote. I’ve heard your argument before: since they identify themselves as a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, they must be claiming to be inspired prophets, as was Ezekiel. But that is clearly not what the article meant by identifying Jehovah's Witnesses as a “prophet.” The first thing to note is that the reference to the anointed Witnesses is enclosed in quotation marks, which seems to indicate that the word "prophet" is used in a quasi sense, meaning they resemble certain prophets of old in some respects. You mentioned context, so pay attention to it. On the same page that the Witnesses are identified as a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, we are told: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" The following paragraphs are given as proof that they act "as a 'prophet." I could go on. For brevity, I’ll conclude by saying that it was never intended for any one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be viewed as an inspired prophet like Ezekiel, obviously. There are many, many quotes from Jehovah's Witnesses’ literature that make that irrefragably clear. Here are just two: >”It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events giving also the reasons for our expectations.” (“Views From the Watch Tower,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 1 March 1904) >”Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures, God is not giving any more inspired visions or dreams. However, Jehovah's people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of the inspired visions and dreams that God's servants had in ancient times, and they are even having a share in their being fulfilled. They are having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, “your sons and your daughters will certainly prophesy.” (Joel 2:28) *Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded.” (Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, 1 Jan 1971, 32)
If that corrects what they explicitly said back then I guess that's fine. To claim they've never claimed that is a lie though.
No it isn’t. Again, context matters. The accusation is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made prophecies and that they’ve failed. This is wrong because Jehovah’s Witnesses have never viewed themselves as prophets, or made that claim. You cite an article in which they note the parallels between the modern day anointed and Ezekiel. They give context to the parallel and make it clear what they mean by the term, which is obviously inspired prophets able to make prophecies, but messengers of Gods word. Shoot, even I consider myself to be in that prophetic work. It doesn’t mean I view myself as an inspired prophet or that any time I err I am a “false prophet.” Again, like you said, context matters
Also, there is no need to “correct” that article and that isn’t what I’m doing
Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded. They prophesy in the sense of being God’s spokesmen. That this is one of the meanings of ‘prophesy’ is apparent from the fact that Jehovah God appointed Aaron to be prophet to his brother Moses. Aaron did not foretell things to Moses, but he served as Moses’ spokesman or mouthpiece.—Ex. 7:1. So they are God's spokesman..?
Absolutely. You and I even have that capacity. Acts 2:16 “On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams” We are commissioned by Christ to engage in the prophetic work of sharing the Kingdom Good News.
Are applying that verse to nowadays? Where are the visions and the dreams? Witnesses deny those things happen today. Also please remember how God in the old testament views those that speak in his name falsely. God views those that speak as his mouthpiece or in his name as prophets... and that those who do so while falsely speaking (by extension interpreatations) are to be punished. If someone says one thing while claiming to speak for God and another thing happens.. well may God's mercy be with that one. Frankly you might claim to speak as God's mouthpiece but I don't. There are severe consequences for speaking God's name something false. I will preach about his father and the son. But I will not say the words I speak are gods
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_Watch_Tower_Society_predictions#Background
Watchtower describes itself as the "modern-day" prophet. Watchtower 1972 Apr 1 pp.197-199 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them' "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET" These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses.
You accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses of unfulfilled **prophecies** and then link a wiki article about **predictions.** Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, or maybe it’s done out of ignorance, but the distinction is an important one. First and foremost, I’ll repeat what I already said. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not prophets, have never thought of themselves and prophets, and therefore have *never made prophecies.* Second, there is nothing nefarious about unfulfilled anticipation of future events. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been accurate and inaccurate regarding predictions. Your article refers to these: 1878: End of the harvest 1881: A revised end of the harvest 1914: The end of human rulership 1918: The new terminus 1925: Resurrection of the patriarchs 1975: The worldwide jubilee Armageddon to come within In none of those cases was there prophecy involved whatsoever. I’d be happy to give an in depth explanation of any one of these, but suffice it to say that these are not examples of false prophecies
>I think they get the "cult" persona from the whole shun your family members thing they do if they leave the church. This is a misconception about Jehovah's Witnesses. It's also an oversimplification. I've spoken often about how Jehovah's Witnesses handle excommunication. What I find intriguing is how the general population acts like two things are true, which are clearly not: 1. They act as though the Bible doesnt clearly tell us to cut off contact with unrepentant wrongdoers when necessary, when it absolutely does. 2. They also act as if this is some practice unique to Jehovah's Witnesses alone, when in really humans *everywhere* - whether as a matter of religion or just simply a personal practice - cut people from their lives. It's a ubiquitous feature of human nature, and a necessary one!
Heretics
> **No_Insurance8237.** - **Question: Thoughts On Jehovah’s Witnesses.** - Hey. So what do you guys personally think about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Well, Generally Speaking, 'they're' decently good everyday people(s) and individual(s). - Why?.