[From ws17/7 p. 17 – September 11-17]
“Praise Jah! . . . How pleasant and fitting it is to praise him!” – Ps 147:1
(Occurrences: Jehovah=53; Jesus=0)
This is a study that reviews the 147th Psalm and provides us with encouragement about how Jehovah supports and sustains his servants. One thing we should note from the start is that the 147th Psalm was written about the time when Jehovah restored the Israelites to Jerusalem, freeing them from exile in Babylon. As such, it is a message for ancient Jews. While the words of the Psalm that refer to Jehovah continue to be true today, the article comes up short by not keeping pace with Jehovah’s advancing purpose. Virtually every Scripture in the study is taken from the pre-Christian Scriptures. We have advanced past the Jews. We have the Christ. So why does the article ignore that? Why does it use Jehovah’s name 53 times, but never mention Jesus even once?
Why does the Governing Body commission an article that completely cuts our Lord Jesus out of the equation? Consider, for example, this excerpt:
Think about how you benefit from reading the Bible, examining the publications of “the faithful and discreet slave,” watching JW Broadcasting, visiting jw.org, talking with the elders, and associating with fellow Christians. – par. 16
There is no mention about benefiting from the teachings of Jesus. However, they do mention the publications of the Governing Body (AKA “the faithful and discreet slave”). They also mention JW broadcasting. Even a visit to the JW.org website benefits us. But Jesus is completely set aside.
Finally, paragraph 18 says “today, we are blessed to be the only ones on earth called by God’s name.” That implies that the calling is from God, but in reality, Witnesses have chosen to be called by God’s name. There are many churches that call themselves by Jesus’ name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, for instance. Taking upon yourself the name of another does not mean that person endorses you.
Jehovah told us to bear witness to his Son. He never told us to call ourselves by his name nor to bear witness about Him. (See Re 1:9; 12:17; 19:10) Would He be happy with someone who disregarded His direction and chose to bear witness about Him in lieu of his appointed King?
If you think we are making too much of this, try this little experiment the next time you’re out in the field service in a car group. Every time you would have used Jehovah’s name in conversation, use Jesus instead. How does it make you feel? How do those in the car group react? Let us know the results.
[…] the Governing Body faithful to the Christ. In last week’s study we saw that they emphasized Jehovah 53 times but failed to give praise to Jesus even once! Is […]
I found it interesting (and sad) that in this article about showing praise to Jehovah they did not mention a thing about his son. They have us all running in a loop in hopes we don’t really find out what’s going on. Our talk today was showing honor to Jesus Christ the head of the congregation. But then this was supplanted by giving us the thought that he installed the Faithful and Discreet slave to be our leaders. To follow their direction, the elder direction etc. when you get down to it, they just looped it all back to Jehovah’s… Read more »
Meliti, what was upsetting was not the fact that someone can be cut off for having a blood transfusion, but the deceptive way it appears to have been done in order to get past the situation in Bulgaria, whereby WT implied everyone could have a free choice in the matter, with no consequences, and then to have the nerve to call it a friendly settlement.
Please correct me if I have got this wrong.
You are quite right. This is just one more example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees taking place within the Organization.
Hi everyone. As I have not seen any reference to the “friendly settlement in Bulgaria” on this site, I thought I might throw this letter up for examination. Just google “Bulgaria Friendly Settlement JWs” for further information. Sorry it is not much to do with this week’s Watchtower Study. On July 4 2017 we discussed a number of cases in our God’s Kingdom Rules book, one of which, in paragraph 13 involved a friendly settlement involving Brother Stefanov in Bulgaria in 2001. Information found states the following :- To achieve this and to gain legal recognition in Bulgaria, Jehovah’s Witnesses… Read more »
It would appear that they are classifying blood transfusion as they do voting in national elections, joining a political party or the military. All such actions are not dealt with by judicial committee. Instead, the elders meet and determine what has transpired, did the individual really vote, or join the army, and then they read an announcement that he is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If called on the carpet by the authorities for this action, they can deny any action taken against the individual stating only that by his actions he chose another path apart for the organization… Read more »
Interesting suggestion. I believe I’ll give it a try. I’m at the midweek meeting right now, I also have closing prayer. I’m going to conclude the prayer with the words ” we offer this prayer in the Name of our Eternal Father, reigning King and Savior, Jesus Christ”.
Reckon I’ll end up in the infamous “backroom”?
Por favor cuéntanos como te fue, si creo que vas a estar en el “hellroom”?
I don’t understand Spanish.
Alright … Although I do not know English, I enjoy all your comments because I have to translate them into my language always …
Thaddeus. How did your conclusion to the prayer go? I wouldn’t think much of it if I heard it. Other than being different than the usual.
I was pleasantly surprised. No one said anything. Yes, it’s certainly different than the usual though I’d dare say most would quickly answer that Jehovah is our Father if asked although the official teaching is that He is not our Father. I honestly expected someone to say something. Maybe they weren’t listening? Perhaps I misjudged and all felt it was accurate?
I’ll try it more than once and see what happens.
Just a quick response to the John1:1 debate. Regardless of whether God be capitalized or not (and I see both sides of the argument), it’s nothing to do with translating as it is understanding what Jehovah gives to whom he chooses. As stated in Exodus 7:1, if Jehovah could make Moses God to Pharaoh of Egypt, then surely He could make Jesus God to the rest of the world, could He not?
Fair call SW
You don’t think that’s one of the ways that the trinity was constructed? Calling Jesus God?
Your thoughts please.
Well spoken Wild Olive. And I guess it’s how some are lead to believe when reading Jesus words in John 10:29, 30 or Matthew 28:18. Whether “I and the father are one” or “All authority has been given” entitles him to the title or not is an argument used by some, constructing something that does or doesn’t exist is really just opinion. Personally, I view Moses as the ‘typical’ initiator of the Abrahamic promise to be later fulfilled in the ‘antitypical’ coming of Jesus for the entire world. Whether the Godship of either is capitalized or not is of no… Read more »
Capitalization is a way of turning a noun into a name, or of using a noun to represent something specific beyond its generic use. It would be incorrect grammatically, or perhaps I should say, syntactically, to write, “The Word is a God.”, because capitalizing God in that sentence indicates you are speaking of the one true God, so the indefinite article is not called for. Therefore, if I am to use the indefinite article “a”, I must write it in lower case: “The Word was a god.” indicating someone with Godlike characteristics, but distinct from the one true God. I’m… Read more »
This is a matter where you need to understand the original language and its grammar. The rationale for asserting that a plural means “majesty” for a singular object (God, in this case) is that like many languages, Hebrew employs noun-verb agreement, where they are supposed to be either both singular or both plural. Like in English, “I am” but “we are”. In Hebrew, Elohim is a plural noun, but the verbs used with it are singular. If God were a trinity, the verbs would have to be conjugated as plural to be grammatical, but they’re not. I am the first… Read more »
SM, The original Greek did not use lower case letters, and did not even have spaces between words; those were later developments. Hebrew worked the same way. All capitalizations in present bibles are translator choices. Those choices are influenced by biases. Find some relatively long verse in ithe NT and go on Bible Hub to compare translations. You will see a wide variety of choices in capitalization. We must be careful in interpreting this difficult verse. The wording does not say that Jehovah “gave” anything or “made” the “word” into a “god”. The clearest statement the Bible makes on the… Read more »
I won’t argue your point Robert-6512 since you’ve already made up your mind. Just learn a little more ancient Hebrew since much is lost in translation by scholars who make their translation based on their own preexisting dogma and we believe because we were already convinced by their community to regard them as ‘experts,’ which makes their interpretations more accurate. If you question them you insult them as I hope I’m not insulting you.
???
I am not insulted, but I don’t understand what point you think I made up my mind about. Real translators do not use ‘dogma’ to guide the translation process. They use accepted rules of grammar and syntax. They are not supposed to make ‘interpretations’, either. An honest translator welcomes questions, since the process is a difficult one, and is not an exact science. Finally, you should not doubt yourself so much. While it’s true that I have indeed made up my mind about certain things, that is not true of every opinion I hold, and even ones I feel great… Read more »
I’m so very sorry for your loss, my brother. And please understand that I’m not being critical of you or translators since they must follow the stricter guidelines you describe. I just try to simplify what the spirit says for the sake of a more simple-minded lover of Christ. While some might see my personal opinions seem somewhat obtuse, I’m not about winning arguments except in my own mind where Ockham’s razor speaks louder.
In Christ
Hi SW,
I had to google Occam’s Razor. Is it possible that I’m even more simple-minded than you?LOL
WS
Hi Robert, Right out of the gate I want to acknowledge that you are the superior intellect to me. You have the ability to write what is on your mind very eloquently. When you say “real translators don’t use dogma but only accepted rules of grammar and syntax”, I think that might be just a bit naive to the reality of the current human condition. No matter how objective these scholars might try to be, pre-conceived ideas will come thru to at least a certain degree. I believe we have to read all the NT writings and then determine the… Read more »
WS (sorry for length of post here), I really would not call myself any great intellect, and to be honest, I am uneasy when such words are applied to me. I neither want nor deserve praise of this sort. Mainly, I have a reasonable grasp of English and can write. This in no way means I am especially smart or understand everything. That’s why I told the other poster than I didn’t understand the point they were making. Somehow, my words seem to be taken in a way I didn’t intend, and people seem to dislike them. It’s a situation… Read more »
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply. It sounds like you have basically come to the same conclusion as I have about the roles of Jehovah and Jesus. Psalm 133:1 comes to mind.
Christian love,
WS
Hi Brain,
I often wonder how many of the stories/experiences are true. They just seem so….
I’ve been wondering the same thing. Many of them simply don’t have the ring of truth.
Meleti, I have tried on several occasions your experiment. It is always meet with a dead silence a strange look and then a response. As I read each paragraph I thought surely they would make mention of Jesus. I saw so many opportunities to do so. Para 5, 7, 8,9,13,18 even if it was a sentence, the opportunity was there. I have listened to a couple of Minister outside of JW and the love they preach about Jesus is beautiful. All that is embodied in Jesus and they do not give him the glory he deserves, they miss the whole… Read more »
Dear Meliti,Eve,Menrov,Others here:My sentiments…exactly.As I was’waking up’since 3 years ago,in the last car field service groups;meetings, and when being visited I would also always back up my attentive focus on Christ..with a pause,smile…and a Scripture…or 2;3,even.Some would ‘protest/contest’!besides the discomforts described here.Related to this,I’ve studied the Freemasons(on the inside-basics,not deeply)—most disturbing,the parallels-to the Org.’s purposes and how this wt article/patterns in their other’teachings’ reveals it…Both in what they say,and in what they DON’T say.Thank You again for this review.
Hi Devora,
It could be because, as I understand, Russell was a Freemason.
Robert-6512 It is often difficult to read true intentions and emotions of the composer of a phone text message or short letter but I must admit in your case I do not find myself with that difficulty. I respectfully would like to offer my opinion on your post. I read all your comments as you do seem to have some solid scriptural knowledge,As well as Watchtower history, although you tend to move off topic most of the time which obscures the point you are trying to make. When reading your comments I always feel like I’m listening to an angry,… Read more »
Well said and seasoned with salt “Gogetter”.
One way to “restore” Jesus Christ to the meetings where he rightfully belongs is to mention him in our answers. Eg. – Even before the Internet we had the Bible (in book form) and the clear teachings of Jesus are always available in it. eg. Jesus Sermon on the Mount – thrilling discourse with 9 ‘happinesses’ • Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need / those mourn / mild-tempered / those hunger – thirst for righteousness/ merciful / pure in heart / peaceable / persecuted for righteousness’ sake/reproached and lyingly spoken against. “Rejoice and leap for joy,… Read more »
My view: It started with the desire to be different from mainstream Christian organisations. Second, in their view, the anointed ones are brothers of Christ. So, gb members are viewing themselves as equal to Christ but then on earth. They view Jesus as the agent used by His Father when on earth. Now they think they occupy that role. The do not need a mediator as they are now sons of the Father. Now, for the rank an file it is far more complicated as the WT teaches that Chris is only mediator for the anointed. Not for others. But… Read more »
Good point Menrov.
Judge Rutherford had to make the Org stand out from others. 1 Tim.2:5 seems so plain to understand- Jesus is our Mediator. But we have to remember, the Society’s publications are better than the bible…….
It is very difficult for a JW to understand Christ’s true role. This is mainly due to the number of times Jehovah’s name appears in the OT. It is the way Jehovah sometimes expresses himself. Such as “besides me there is no Savior”. Or the fact that he repeatedly mentions how he will make known his name. Such as “the nations shall know that I am Jehovah”. I know it was these things that blinded me. In fact I couldn’t comprehend Jesus role for almost two years after I left. I would talk to ones who did not believe in… Read more »
Hace poco meleti dijo algo que me gustó mucho. La organización en su presunción de querer separarse de la religión “falsa” ha ido en contra de la palabra de Dios. Cuando leemos que Jesucristo gobierna durante mil años y que después él entrega el reino a su padre sólo me hace pensar que para jehova es tan importante Lo que hizo Jesús que no le importa que él sea la persona mas importante para ser honrada y adorada durante los mil años… No es por doctrina, no ; es remuneración, es agradecimiento de jehova por lo que ha hecho su… Read more »
Because I am fading I am still able to speak to good friends, make some points and ask some questions without them being concerned. Regarding your “little experiment”, I was chatting to a sister, who I have known for 25 years, about world conditions etc. and I said to her at the end “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Re 22:20). She replied: “I don’t get that!” Me: “What don’t you get?” Her: “What you just said.” Me: “What?” Her: “Sounds christendommy!” Me: “Don’t you want Jesus Christ to come? Is Jesus Christ Lord or not?” Her: “Yes but the overuse of ‘Lord… Read more »
You made me laugh out loud. Thanks Speedy50. I needed that on a Monday morning. But isn’t is sad that this is the case. Witnesses have now been conditioned to associate the use of Jesus’ name with false religion, something to be avoided. What a great job the organization has done. How effective their campaign.
Obviously, such a program does not originate with God, so from where does it come?
My personal feeling is that this has happened unintentionally. I was impressed with the July 2017 JW Broadcast where Tony Morris stated/admitted that Jesus is the head of the world wide Congregation/Organization and that Jesus is guiding the Governing Body. Him saying that of course in itself doesn’t make it true, after all they are not infallible ? but that statement sure surprised me that they admitted it. Surely I’m not alone. What I can’t understand though is that in one breath they state Jesus is the head, Jesus is directing them yet in the very next breath they revert… Read more »
Awesome Speedy!
If you get a chance to speak with your friend again about this, you might ask her to read 1 Corinthians 12:3 and ask her what that implies.
“Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.” (1Co 12:3)
Good one!
Hi all, interesting comments regarding using Jesus name more often. Agreed. May I ask, can we talk to Jesus?
In a family, surely we can talk to our older brother.
Thank you Meleti. Nice, comforting answer. I’m still struggling to put everything together since I have been “in” a while. I appreciate your help and this website. I have been studying the Bible again with the points in this site in mind for a few months. I have spent many hours considering most of your articles from recent to years ago. Thanks again
Brother Nicodemus,
It seems you and I are at the same mile marker on this road.
I too appreciate this site and have been reading many of the past articles, especially the commentaries/reviews of WT articles. While I don’t accept all of the reasoning, I have found an abundance of insight that has me reevaluating what I’ve learned.
I’m reminded of John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father except Through me.”
Although I’m aware of the verse that shows that Stephen spoke directly to Christ, I don’t belive there’s any reference to Jesus being the “Hearer of prayer” or of anyone praying to Jesus.
I’d say no, we can not talk/pray to Jesus.
I understand Meleti’s comparison to talking to our big brother in a family situation, however what Scriptual reason is there to say yes, we can talk/pray to Jesus?
Sincere question.
I await your replies.
Some might say it’s a play on words, but to me there’s a difference between talking to someone and praying to them. I talk to many people, but I only pray to God. The distinction to me is that Jesus doesn’t become my father. He is my brother. Jehovah is my father and Jesus opened the way for that to happen. I respect and appreciate that and will not undo it by giving undue prominence to the Son. I know it’s a delicate line to walk, but we have to try each in our own way. Jehovah’s Witnesses err by… Read more »
Hello Thad, somedays I have, depending what I am doing, a day when I approach things with a “prayerful attitude”. That is, I approach whatever I am doing prayerfully. On those days I have caught myself talking to Jesus, running things by him, pondering his actions and even conscientiously talking to him about something. I am the oldest of 7 siblings and don’t have an older brother or sister so it’s great now I can actually quote a scripture where I can actually say I am Jesus brother. However, when I pray to “our Father” – my father, Jesus father-… Read more »
I resisted the idea for a long time due to JW indoctrination, but why shouldn’t we talk to our older brother?
Hi Nicodemus I think John 14:14 should answer your question it seems to me that Jesus was inviting us to converse with him he said ask me and I will do it .That sure sounds like prayer to me.
Just to add to what’s said already . As you said Stephen made a direct request to Jesus. Paul spoke directly to Jesus on the road to Damascus. John speaks directly to Jesus all through the Revelation. I believe you have clear scriptural reason to do so your self. If Jehovah was touchy about such conversation I would think that the previous examples would come with a disclaimer of some kind, I mean what’s the point of a mediator if you can’t talk to him ? If it comes with the understanding that all things happen ultimately for Jehovah’s glory,… Read more »
Hi Speedy, I haven’t tried the “little experiment” yet but many times I’ve refered to Jesus as leading the Organization, Directing the Governing Body or said “Jesus will take care of it.” Without fail, especially from brothers, I get counseled that since Jesus “always” gave credit to Jehovah then it’s appropriate that I should do the same. They’ve said this is Jehovah’s Organization not Jesus’ and that Jehovah leads and directs the Governing Body etc.. Even after the July Broadcast when Tony Morris said that Jesus directs and leads the Governing Body, they still insist that it’s Jehovah. Even when… Read more »
Hi Thaddeus
Hum the music of the Twilight Zone. 🙂
Hi again, Meleti, the experiment you suggest is a good reminder- I’m sure you mentioned it in another article sometime back. I have been doing that and when I first started it… well it felt awkward! And I got surprised looks duh! But it shouldn’t be like that and the more I did it the better it felt, but it made the person/persons I was talking to uncomfortable. I have realized that “Jehovah” is the most used word by JWs and it should not be as it is a code for the “Organization”. Proof? The mere fact that the mention… Read more »
Dajo, I think you are absolutely right.
And it’s an unfortunate reality.
Robert, you highlight the position well. It is not wrong to praise Jehovah but it is wrong to forget Jesus. It is much the same as when speaking to someone, we still make a big thing of Jehovah’s name, highlighting how it has been hidden for years. We highlight the big basics, and then add on a lot of things which we now realise are not well supported in scripture, but a person does not find out about these things until he has been well indoctrinated, by which time he is stuck (except at that point he probably does not… Read more »
I love these articles, devour them, and love checking for new comments. The encouragement and demeanour found here is superlative tomsay the least. I am still going through the uneasy process of “extracting” myself and have now very little in common woth my dear wife of many decades. Whenever we get anywhere like a spiritual discussion she always just makes a bold statement like “you know Jehovah has ALWAYS had an organization. …” and Quotes Acts 15:14 – that Jehovah would “.. take out of the NATION’S a people for his NAME..! When I used to go in the ministry… Read more »
One tactic is to start by getting her to define what it means to be a “people for God’s name”.
For example, could a people be considered a possession of God if they do not represent his name in an honorable way?
The “What does the Bible Really Teach?” book lists six things that qualify a people as God’s. All six have to be met for them to claim they belong to God. You might start with each one and work your way down to see if JWs meet their own criteria.
Actually, I just realized another flaw in her argument. Jehovah has not ALWAYS had an organization. For 2,500 years prior to the formation of Israel there was no “organization”. He has always had people, from Abel down to the Patriarchs, but any claim to an organization can only reasonably start with Moses.
It’s not a major point, but it undermines her key premise, ergo, we cannot serve God unless we belong to an organization.
Yes, I’ve just now reviewed those 6 points in the “Teach” book.- Chapter 15- It can be reasoned that the statements there could apply to many groups.
The narrow focus however of the JW mindset has the average publisher like my wife (who will only consider WT publications) being convinced that only “Jehovah’s People” do those things.
Your 2nd point is valid as well, thanks Meleti.
The UN membership violate the neutrality requirement. The child abuse scandal and the disassociation of victims violates the John 13:34, 35 requirement. And the 1914, 1919, overlapping generations, vow of dedication, and other sheep doctrines violate the adherence to Bible truth requirement. Of course, that will not convince your wife if she chooses not to see.
I agree Meleti. Dajo it is sad many choose not see because they have the “truth”. I was reading in the book of Acts. When the people thought Paul and Barnabas were gods because of the miracles being done, even though Paul and Barnabas THEMSELVES were trying to tell the people they were not gods, the people chose to believe otherwise. Acts 14:14-18 So that being said as the saying goes “A man forced against is will is of the same opinion still. Maybe in time she will wake up. Just gently keep nudging as we do when trying to… Read more »
Thanks eve04, that’s good advice. If you knew me you would realize why! I’ll take it to heart.
Dajo, I’m really beginning to think we are kin!
Well, I guess we are…you seem to have the same brother as me, and going by your comments we have the same father.
Dajo that last sentence in Meleti’s comment is the key.
If she is dug in and refuses to look at the facts, don’t push. It’ll end badly.
It is challenging from Adam to Moses. They were organised as large extended patriarchal families.
From Moses onward the bible teaches nationhood not ORGANISATION. Interestingly, the nation was divided into tribes, clans and families.
The Christian congregation is also referred to as a family.
All the above were organised just as the heavenly family is also organised.
If ORGANISATION was the key idea, why is it never mentioned in scripture? Why does it only start from the 1920s with Rutherford and crystallised in the late 1930s. None of the inspired writers ever seem to have understood this concept!
I ask (real story): Which name? The name Jehovah is just one option, same as Yahweh or El or other variations. Then I continue, who said in Greek books “you will be witnesses”. Then I ask, who were according to the scriptures called Christians? After which person is a Christian called a Christian? So, yes, scriptures are right, there is a people after his name: Christians ,around 2 billion I believe now
Thanks Menrov, Yes the scripture in Acts about those first CALLED Christians…. was in Antioch and didn’t come from some organizational governing body.
Now that is food for thought. It saddens me that one single occasion, taken totally out of context,is the sole basis for a “Governing Body” today.
Also, does anyone know WHY the literature capitalizes the GB in the “modern” Governing Body yet always write lower case gb when refering to the so called 1st century governing body?
Capitalizing turns the noun into a proper noun. Essentially, it becomes a name. By calling the first century group of apostles and older men in Jerusalem, the governing body (without caps) they acknowledge that it was not used then as a proper name. Ergo, they can describe them now as a governing body, but they cannot claim that they were known by that name or designation back then.
Makes sense.
Capitalized first letters(i.e.in specific names;as descriptive pronouns as being addressed to singled-out personages)become a TITLE…Jesus said in his warnings,”neither be called’leaders’ for your Leader is one,the Christ”.Mt.23:10 and Mt.10:24,25a.that means as-in a position of authority(ex:Mr.President;Rabbi so and so;our Judge Smith).I was already actively fading when I saw this too…the Elevations.This follows the course…But am meditating upon 2Corinthians 10:7-12.Much Love,D.
It seems like prior to 1972 the term governing body was an adjective. Post 1972 the term becomes Governing Body is capitalised and becomes a proper noun I.e a name. These can also be picked up on the WT library CD Rom.Two points of interest are as follows: 1. In the February 2017 Study WT they maintain the same distinctions pre and post 1972 in the “Who are leading God’s people today?” article. 2. In the ” Organized to Do Your Will” book in chapter 8, paragraph 28, they state that the Governing Body has a conscience. My question is… Read more »
In Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, he explains how the Governing Body as we know it today come into existence. Under Rutherford there was an executive committee and an editorial committee. He did away with both, though not all at once. Under Knorr there was presidential rule, with input from the de facto directors of the corporation. Fred Franz wanted to keep the presidential rule which explains his anti-governing body discourse at one of the Gilead Graduations, but he lost that fight, and the GB as we know it today was born.
Hi IOHAB Just a side point to what you stated. Around the time the org changed definitions of who the faithful and discreet slave is , the Bible Students of America proved in court that Charles Russell was not the originator of the JWs , that was when the judge became the FDS, because now by law the JWs can’t call Russell their founder.Of course the GB weren’t going to say anything about that because they have tied everything to 1914 and Russell is the 1914 prophet,cant touch that sacred cow. This was show to me by some Bible Students… Read more »
Was it the SDA or the Millerites?
Hi eve
It was the actual Bible students of America that took it to court and have won.
JW leadership can’t by law call Russell their founder anymore. It should be Jesus Christ anyway.
Thank you WO. Also a comment to your comment below. Sad thing is, many including myself did not know of a court battle over who the founder of JW was. (Maybe I did and was told Apostates) Of course any Jehovah’s Witness will say the founder was Jesus Christ (tehethe). Very interesting.
Hi again It’s not so much that the JWs don’t like Russell ,they have to hang on to him because 1914 is his creation,and if they came out and said Russell was wrong then the whole 1914 doctrine collapses, same for the Judge ,they have to paint him in a good light ,because he’s the one who came up with the moniker Jehovah’s witnesses,if they came out and said he was wrong ,then the foundation of the religion is shaky. So a connection has to be made somehow to both these false prophets to maintain the status quo, the problem… Read more »
What is that Web address?
Don’t know why this didn’t occur to me before, but you could ask her to name Jehovah’s first earthly organization. She’ll likely say Israel. Then ask her if that organization always enjoyed his favor? Obviously not. In fact, it was out of favor far more then it was in favor, right from the start. Then ask about Elijah. Was he obedient to the leadership of the organization? What about the 7,000 who had not bent the knee to Baal? (Romans 11:4) So the question is, when Jehovah’s organization is not being loyal to Jehovah, should we be loyal to the… Read more »
Yeah …! That’s the one I reckon is the clincher, the simplest.
My deceased dad used to say (never spoke to me when I became a JW) – “Simplicity is the essence of perfection”.
I think that reasoning will make her think, Meleti.
I hope that it helps you reason with your wife DJ. Another reason I like this web site- a free exchange of ideas and support for one another. Hats off to Meleti for providing this format!
Amen
Hi Meleti,
Wow, that line of reasoning sums up the matter perfectly. Until now, I had never thought about it like that in particular. It cuts right through to the heart of the matter very simply, but also very succinctly.
Hi Brain,
Basically a type/ antitype application. The Judge loved those!
Hi Robert Don’t know if phelps has covered my point but here goes. I believe that the reason the WT leadership over stresses Jehovah to the virtual ignoring of Jesus ,is to camouflage the fact that they don’t have a good response to what I regard as the number one false teaching,the trinity. The trinity is the center piece of just about every “Christian” religion today,and I have to say I took a good hard look at it because the churches that stress the born again experience all seem to have the trinity front and centre,and I was seeking that… Read more »
I agree with you, Wild Olive, but would go further. I agree that part of the reason for the emphasis on Jehovah is to counter the Trinity. However, by taking their position to the opposite extreme, they do a disservice to the true relationship between Father and Son which lies somewhere between these extremes, IMHO. However, there is another reason, I believe, for this overemphasis on God’s name. When we look at Korah, we see a man with followers who tried to replace Moses as God’s channel of communication. Today, the greater Moses is our Lord Jesus. He is God’s… Read more »
When someone shows God disrespect, subverts His word and purposes, and assumes for themselves a role in the divine purpose that they do not deserve, it is blasphemy. Think of Simon in Acts, trying to buy the gifts of the spirit. At least Simon repented when he was shown to be in the wrong. In contrast, when people trying to gain Herod’s favor said “a god’s voice and not a man’s, Herod was struck dead for not renouncing such undeserved glory. Yet today, WT goes around proclaiming that the FDS in the role of the GB is God’s sole channel… Read more »
So then the greater Korah would be the Governing Body. Now that is a good type/antitype!
Thanks Meleti for the added clarification,yes absolutely the insertion of the GB into the equation is also a factor . I suppose what I would add is that to successfully counter the trinity one has to do serious study, something that starts to unravel JW teachings. Also no real examination of the arguments and scriptures used to support the trinity have ever been undertaken in a meeting part or in assembly programs to my knowledge, the trinity brochure was the only specific effort,but it’s been withdrawn and is not on JWorg or in print,I believe because it has a number… Read more »
Yes Wild Olive, we’re not being fed meat. Haven’t been for quite some time now. Most of it is superficial at best while alternating with articles emphasizing the authority of and demand of loyalty to the Organization.
Don’t forget a ton of videos!
Yeah those videos. Best cure for insomnia . Just a bit more on the superficiality of the “meat” that’s been handed out,as Thaddeus said is always used to push the org in some shape or form, hardly anything is published that doesn’t in some way get back to the org,which makes it all sound the same. Something I believe this is teaching us is to seperate truth from the “politics” and “propaganda” of the org, and that’s happening for a different reason,this only an opinion, so take it or leave it. It seems to me that the great western democracy… Read more »
Wow!
I never considered that.
Interesting indeed.
I believe the biggest flaw with WT regarding the Trinity is that they had (and still have) no good answer for John 1:1. There is no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek anywhere that believes “the Word was a god” is the correct translation. They say with almost total agreement that it is properly rendered, “the word was God”. WT’s only recourse is to accuse scholars of being unqualiied, or religiously biased, or being influenced by other religions, or that they’re making a technical mistake in translation. They then throw out a jumble of hypothetical objections about the true nature… Read more »
An interesting theory Robert-6512, but can you prove it?
What aspect of this do you want proven? What would you accept as proof?
Hi Robert
Yes I feel the same John 1:1 is not talking about a person but about the word of god.
It’s interesting that in nearly all bibles the word at john1:1 is always caplitalised turning it into a proper noun,the inconsistency then comes in that then they don’t capitalise the word him in :3 because correct grammar would require it,if word with a capital is a proper noun then so should him at :3 also be. This has helped me distinguish the difference that neither trinitarians won’t accept or the translators of the NWT also won’t accept.
I would start by recommending a change in argument style to better get across your message. For example, you say: “There is no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek anywhere that believes “the Word was a god” is the correct translation.” This is an argument by authority. It is like saying “no reputable scientist anywhere rejects evolution, so it must be true.” It is better to prove why the Greek grammar cannot allow for “the Word was a God”. (You might want to check out this article.) The next three paragraphs are just an attack on the Watchtower and Fred… Read more »
Meleti, I asked you what you wanted proven, but most of your reply is what I would term “unresponsive”. Your primary issue seems to be that you disagree with my “style”. Changing my “style” to conform to what might be called a brand of ‘political correctness’ would not advance the discussion at hand, and is beside the point anyway. I said that no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek accepts the NWT wording of John 1:1. I stand by that statement. In like manner, no reputable historian believes the WT story that Jerusalem fell in 607 BC. These people are… Read more »
Jason BeDuhn’s Response: This is a theological, not a linguistic argument. *************************** Mr. Jehovah’s Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars, and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?! ===================== Jason BeDuhn’s (who is NOT one of Jehovah’s Witnesses) Response: I hope you can see that I do not “ignore” these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues with greater objectivity and desire… Read more »
Robert-6512, Based on the link I shared in my previous email, there are reputable scholars who do not share your view, so I would respectfully suggest your statement is incorrect. As for your reasoning for not providing proof, you start by stating: ” Can I “prove” it, in some rigorous mathematical-like sense of the word? No. I could make arguments and I could make a case for believing it is a good possibility, but I can’t prove it any more than I could prove God exists or prove Jesus was the product of a virgin birth. One can cite biblical… Read more »
Apologies in advance for the length of this post … Abut the issue of translation, that is easy enough to resolve. Show me a list of scholars of ancient Greek that agree with the WT translation of John 1:1. These scholars must be alive, have published works that are accessible, and have no association with WT. Johannes Greber does not count. If you find one out of a thousand, that would technically prove me wrong, but in practice it would not change the fact that WT translation is distained by persons who are experts in that language and who also… Read more »
I provided a link in my first response which I referred to in my second response. You have yet to address that. You now ask for a list of scholars. You are ignoring the evidence and returning to an argument by authority. You may not be aware that this site is part of a forum. Beroean Pickets does provide the category-based format you seek. Admittedly, this is a work in progress. If you are looking for a site where you can debate doctrine, I would recommend Discuss the Truth which I support and which will allow you to provide the… Read more »
I am one of those who goes back to the articles in 2011. LOVE THEM!!!!!
Me too!
I too have gone back to discussions from months and years past, even commenting on them.
I’m relatively new to the Beroean Pickets so naturally I’ve gone to read past articles and reviews.
Hi Thad,
Me too
Hi Robert. Regarding reputable scholars’ opinions on translating John 1:1c then the consensus seems to be more or less the following: – On purely grammatical basis, the translations “God”, “a god”, and “divine” are all correct. There is no consensus though, which translation should be preferred based on purely grammatical arguments. – To translate this verse, the grammatical arguments are not enough. The choice should be made, rather, based on other (for example, theological) arguments. – Translation of this verse is not critical to support or disprove the trinity doctrine. It seems that many koine Greek scholars are Christians and… Read more »
Pensar en esta posibilidad en la que Jesús es el agente principal de salvación es para los testigos de Jehová algo muy extraño. Sin embargo,pensar en cómo jehova es remunerador de su propio hijo al ver todo lo que su hijo hizo por Él es espectacular. Jesús se merece alabanza y honra y honores sin par( y sí, adoración, porque no) porque es jehova quien en su agradecimiento hacia su hijo nos ordena hacerlo…Así de simple. No podemos ir en contra de su propio mandato. Como dices tú meleti: lo hacíamos antes por ignorancia…eso se acabó
Meleti is there a translation tool on this site for those of us who do not speak Spanish?
I will look into a plugin that allows for translations to be made. Oh boy! One more thing to do. 🙂
Meleti could you ever imagined this site would blow up (sorry, slang for expanding) the way it has? It says to me, there are a lot of hungry Bro and Sis out here!!!
No, I never imagined it. But it gives me great joy and purpose.
Amen Eve
Should Jehovah be praised? Yes. Should Jehovah be ignored? No. It seems to me WT has forgotten something: ‘This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved, listen to HIM.’ Jesus said, You will be witnesses of ME – not my Father. If people praise Jehovah but ignore His commands, that praise is hollow and meaningless. Jesus said, Why do you call me “Lord, Lord” but not do what I say? He told Christians to bear witness to HIM. How do JWs resolve this? They don’t even bother calling Christ “Lord, Lord”. They ignore him, and give all praise… Read more »
Robert-6512,
There is no explanation for such deliberate disobedience. I don’t care how you slice and dice it, shake and bake it.
This is the result of over half a Century of blind acceptance and obedience. Anything else is considered disobedient and rebellious against God himself.
?
Only because we’ve been taught to just accept, and been discouraged of thinking critically.