I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[Mohrb]

Just so you feel reassured, I always greet whoever comes to my door , as a friend. But I am an up front kind of person. Which means, that when a JW makes it clear that they are here going door to door. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but also make it clear to them, that I am knowledgeable of the scriptures.

I am sure that less than 10 % of those whom they knock on doors, have much biblical knowledge. They have their church denominational values, but for the most part, that is it. They hold to tradition instead of biblical knowledge.

And I'm sure that less than 10% of the general population has much general knowledge to begin with. Even less has any common sense.

then why did they go out of the way to change the words from charis when translated to undeserved kindness in the nwt. You must be born again, if you arent then salvation has not occured and i did a thread on this. jw's dont accept nor see the born again as a commandment or as a need. that makes the concept of salvation of null effect. Ye must need to be born again. to see the kingdom of heaven.

Because "Underserved Kindness" precisely means what people interpret "grace" to mean. However, "grace" can also have other meanings. It's generally understood... but "undeserved kindness" is more specific. It's not that God simply has good posture... it's that he shows forgiveness and kindness to people who haven't earned it and can not earn it. That's what's understood by "grace."

And yes, JWs do believe in being born again. That's what baptism signifies. You go under the water to put an end and bury your sins and sinful nature. When you rise out of the water, it's to illustrate being born again into a life dedicated to God. All baptized JWs are born again (or have at least claimed to be by being baptized).

How do you decide when a person is "born again?" Does it take place as part of baptism, or does someone just say "Lord, Lord" per Matthew 7:21?

1) you dont accept the the dwelling of the lord inside the person
2) the ability to heal via prayer.(miracles)
3) you deny the trinity
4) it is works based as one can be disfellowshipped and loose your place in the earthly kingdom
5) you must perform in order to be in the above mentioned kingdom

1: No, we don't believe a literal ghost lives physically inside our bodies. We do believe that God's spirit guides/protects people.
2: We definitely believe in prayer and will pray for God to help someone heal! We don't think that the power of prayer originates with -people- though, but with God. Moses didn't part the red sea... God did.
3: So does Jesus.
4: ? huh?
5: Absolutely false. We follow God's laws to the best of our ability simply because it's the right thing to do. It's not to "avoid hell" or "earn heaven" ... just because God asks us to, so we do. Separate from that, God offers salvation, and we accept it. Speaking of salvation through works, you seem to be a "Born Again Christian" ... don't you teach that until someone says a specific magical sentence, that no matter what their faith is, they're damned to hell? But once they say a little magical sentence about "accepting Jesus as my personal savior" that this earns them salvation regardless of any other aspect of their life?

 

[jasoncran]

you dont disfellowship people anymore
for not following the doctrines of the jw.?

so you are able all on your own to overcome sin. ie without any supernatural assistance to stop sin habits
ie drugs, homosexuality, or any other addictive habits?

so the bible doenst say that the i abide IN you according to the nwt.

you see when you made the statement(fallacious) that we christians live anyway we want and have no regard to holiness. that was rather false.

you see i know of two that are jw's that sin all the time.
one is a government employee that gossips and cusss and listens to all manner of heathenistic music.

things that i strive not to do, though i fail from time to time.

i also know one that is a guard and does the same. one of a few that i know that are like this.

but i know that there are some that dont do these things.

legalism, gotta love it. i came out from that stuff.

you all cant do this

ad nausem list:
christmas(which i dont need to celebrate but do)
thanksgiving

halloween( i dont)

easter( i dont do the eggs things, but i done have kids

birthdays
valentines


we can you do? not much.

my sister despite all that preaching

 

[jasoncran]

jesus deny the trinity, really . the three in one, means seperate but one, a mystery

nature has things like this

we are blessed daily by that now. its called light, a particle, a wave and energy all at different times.

with the baptism thing you use the green book still? my sister did that (almost) it takes three yrs to get there. hmm show me where to get to heaven and or the 'earthly' kingdom that the disciple read a green book then got baptized. none of them did

they believed when they followed then got water immersed. they did baptize some in the same day.

i dont read a book to tell me what the bible says though at times i might need to(word origins)
how does one just know that you are one of the 144,000? just because what the lord told you?

hmm does the lord speak to you directly or is that still look down upon.

 

[westtexas]

The NWT wasn't translated for the sake of simplicity. It was translated because the KJV was in old english. All the "thee"s and "thou shalt"s were awkward to read, and are not a part of proper, modern english (plus, they wanted to restore God's name to the bible). JWs were FAR from the only ones that wanted a modern translation. The "New King James Version" and the "NIV" were both translated within a few years after the NWT for the same reason, as well as many more translations in the following decades. That's the reason the NWT was translated when we already had the KJV.

The reason we specifically use the NWT as opposed to other modern translations is for the sake of simplicity.

John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God--(Greek Interlinear Bible)
John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god--(NWT)

you have already talked about this verse and from my understanding of your thought you seem to think it is no big deal to go from God to--a god


Col. 1:16&17---for all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and all things consist in him. (Greek Interlinear Bible)

Col. 1:16&17---because by means of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones, or lordships, or governments, or authorities. All OTHER things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all OTHER things and by means of him all OTHER things were made to exist. (NWT--Capitalization of OTHER by me)


The translation of the NWT was not made to simplify the Thee's and Thou's. It has changed the intent of the original Greek by adding words and thought processes and attempted to take away the deity of Jesus Christ. The original Greek and every other translation that I have seen except the NWT says THE WORD WAS GOD and ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM

Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

:crazy wanna know something there westtexas the nwt has been revised several times by the tract society. when i was in that stuff, it was in the late 70s and early 80's as a kid.

the nwt first edition was no longer allowed after the second edition.

adding a article to john 1 changes the whole meaning and does adding all OTHER things.

then again whats a word.

 

[Mike]

5: Absolutely false. We follow God's laws to the best of our ability simply because it's the right thing to do.

Mohrb, somewhere along the line you went from "they" to "we". I'm wondering what the reason for this was.

I have enjoyed our sharing of beliefs and I hope to continue to do so, but the first post I saw from you was where you accused someone of being "intellectually dishonest". It would appear that you were decisively trying to appear to be a neutral third party, and your JW belief was kept private. I don't mind discussions with other faiths. In fact, I appreciate them, especially when the other person is open and honest from the beginning.

I don't want to cause a rift here by asking the question, but I'm wondering why you didn't come right out and say, "I'm a Jehovah Witness, and here's why I believe what I believe." In your introduction on the New Member forum, you only said something to the effect that you had unique beliefs and were hoping to get involved in something that would make you :crazy " I understand if you were concerned that going on a Christian forum, you would be barraged with ill will. But, as they say, honesty is the best policy. In fact, I think God said that much more distinctly.

One of the first posts I made to this thread was that Mormons and JW's seem to cloak themselves as Christians when the situation is deemed beneficial. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

If there's another explanation, I would care to know what it is.

Maybe you can just make the statement, and we can move forward. Look, I find myself taking the wrong approach sometimes. As I go through the course of debate, I start out with the intention to avoid saying "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. I'm right, I'm right, I'm right." I'd like to take the posture of "This is what I believe with all my heart. I understand you have different beliefs, but I'd like to invite you into the water (Christianity) and experience what I have experienced. But with all the the threads going on and posts being made, I fall into the trap I was trying to avoid.

It would be better for both of us to say, "This is how I understand the nature of God. Let me understand why you believe what you do." I believe that would be a more productive and substantial discussion. If we are to engage in a 1-on-1 debate, it would be great to operate in that spirit. The hindrance I can see is that you are going to be pulling from 1 book worded to support the JW theology, and I will be using another. If we don't have a common book to use in comparing our interpretations, I wonder if it's possible.

Westtexas offered probably the most glaring example this complexity.

John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God--(Greek Interlinear Bible)
John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god--(NWT)

you have already talked about this verse and from my understanding of your thought you seem to think it is no big deal to go from God to--a god

Right there you would say the Bible refers to Jesus as "a god", when Christians are reading that He IS God. That is VERY important. It is a shining example, from my understanding, of the editing processes that took place to support your belief system. If JW's hadn't have made their own reworded book, we wouldn't have this stumbling block.

I would like to have continued dialogue. Help me understand how we can do that.

 

[Mohrb]

you dont disfellowship people anymore
for not following the doctrines of the jw.?

To what extent? You brought up homosexuality, which JWs believe is biblically unacceptable. If a person simply has homosexual urges... it's between him and God. Elders should give counsel if requested... otherwise it's no one's business. If a person starts to slip up and accidentally engages in homosexual activity, counsel may be necessary, but a person wouldn't automatically be disfellowshipped. If a person decides he doesn't care what anyone thinks, and he's going to be gay regardless of what the bible teaches, and intentionally and actively persues homosexual situations... then the elders may sit this person down and tell them that they've being a bad influence on the rest of the congregation and if the person simply doesn't care about the rest of the congregation, they may be asked to leave. (this isn't just to "discriminate against the gay community" ... the same would go for anyone who actively sought out sexual relationships outside of marriage. And, of course, there's a difference between a couple dating, seriously considering marriage who act inappropriately... vs. someone going out to bars looking for one night stands.)

you see when you made the statement(fallacious) that we christians live anyway we want and have no regard to holiness. that was rather false.

Not suggesting that YOU do... but there are definitely some born again groups that teach "once saved, always saved." ... that all you have to do is say a specific prayer accepting Jesus. Until you say it, you can not be saved by any means, regardless of your faith or lack thereof... and after you say it, you are always saved, regardless of your faith, or lack thereof.

 

[Mohrb]

we are blessed daily by that now. its called light, a particle, a wave and energy all at different times.

Oh come on! You name me one "wave" that isn't energy. It's a particle in the state of a wave... not a "particle and wave yet neither particle nor wave" as the trinity is described as "Three, yet one, yet neither three nor one." At best, you could call light a duality... but counting "energy" as a third form is just inaccurate. (Don't get me started on the physics of light... that's a messy conversation. I'm VERY opposed to special relativity. That's a completely different debate.)

i dont read a book to tell me what the bible says though at times i might need to(word origins)
how does one just know that you are one of the 144,000?

That's something between the person and God. No one really "knows" who is and isn't. Some people have a very strong feeling that they're one or the other... and they may be or may not be. That's probably the biggest thing I disagree with JWs about is that some people are too sure of something that may very well be a misunderstanding.

hmm does the lord speak to you directly or is that still look down upon.

Audibly? I don't think he works that way. But, if you ask for guidance, you'll often find it. God isn't a magical button you can push whenever you feel like it... it's not YOU that has whatever gifts he gives you. I believe God is very active... but -VERY- subtle.

 

[Mohrb]

John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God--(Greek Interlinear Bible)
John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god--(NWT)

It is a big deal. Note, that ho logos was with "Ton theon" (with a definite article, in the accusitive)... and notice that "theos" (no definite article, nominative predicate) was ho logos.

Do some research on the qualitative aspects of anarthrous nominative predicate nouns. It's significant.

Also, to support "a god" as opposed to "qualitatively divine", you may also want to research the coptic manuscripts from the first few centuries. Unlike Greek, Coptic has a specific word for the indefinite article, and in John 1:1, the Coptic manuscripts specifically use this indefinite article stating that the word was "a" god.

The original Greek and every other translation that I have seen except the NWT says THE WORD WAS GOD and ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM

here's a few:
1808 "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864 "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.†La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935 "and the Word was divine" - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.†Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1958: “and the Word was a God.†The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.†Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

... I've got a list of over 50 somewhere. But here's a starter list. Also, you should really do some research on the coptic translations available. You can see the coptic for yourself in this video:
[youtube:mazpm7cz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEUco[/youtube:mazpm7cz]

 

[Mohrb]

Mohrb, somewhere along the line you went from "they" to "we". I'm wondering what the reason for this was.

I didn't intend to write "they" ... For the first few days I was trying to be careful about saying "JWs" instead of "we" because I wasn't entirely sure if it was acceptable for JWs to post. I've been in forums where non-JWs were welcome to post opinions of JWs, but if you reveal yourself to be one: Instant ban.

I've switched to "we" because I haven't gotten banned yet, so I don't expect to be. Rarely, I'll use "they" referring to JWs because I -am- an individual, and there are a few points where I differ from the standard viewpoint. For example, JWs officially teach that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and that was always the intent. While, personally, I've had my share of problems dealing with ONE woman, and have no interest in attempting a polygamist relationship, I don't think it's inherently contrary to the bible... I just think it's not smart. A "more significant" topic would be the 144,000. I believe that most people are destined to live in a state of restored perfection on earth, and that there will be a small flock of 144,000 that will be brought to heaven for some purpose... however, I'm skeptical about people who claim to "KNOW that they're of that heavenly class" ... they certainly may be. How they'll be used in the future isn't any of my business right now. However, I think it's POSSIBLE that all 144k may have already been selected. Or, perhaps none have, and they'll all be selected at Armageddon. I just disagree with the concept of claiming to KNOW something that isn't crystal clear from the bible. These people are welcome to have their opinions, and they MAY be right. But, they MAY not be.

I have enjoyed our sharing of beliefs and I hope to continue to do so, but the first post I saw from you was where you accused someone of being "intellectually dishonest". It would appear that you were decisively trying to appear to be a neutral third party, and your JW belief was kept private.

I tried to be careful never to deny being a JW. But, I was intentionally unspecific to test the waters of the forum to see how many hornets I would be stirring up before I jumped all the way into a conversation.

I don't want to cause a rift here by asking the question, but I'm wondering why you didn't come right out and say, "I'm a Jehovah Witness, and here's why I believe what I believe." In your introduction on the New Member forum, you only said something to the effect that you had unique beliefs and were hoping to get involved in something that would make you :crazy " I understand if you were concerned that going on a Christian forum, you would be barraged with ill will. But, as they say, honesty is the best policy. In fact, I think God said that much more distinctly.

It's not the ill-will from the posters I'm concerned about. The main reason I found this forum is because I got banned (again) from the .com version. (got banned the first time for responding to someone who was trolling... got back, and reported the guy who was still trolling 3 months later... I get banned for another three months for reporting the person. . Some forums are moderated... strangely.)

f we are to engage in a 1-on-1 debate, it would be great to operate in that spirit.

Me too! Not to underestimate anyone else here, but I really anticipate that you and I can have a very good conversation! We'll likely disagree on 80% of things, but I think it'll still be spiritually beneficial to both of us.

For the record: I have been a JW for almost 25 years. I agree on all of the core doctrines taught, but I'm human and I do have my disagreements on minor issues. I'm aware that the WBTS, like every group of men that's organized a denomination are fallible, and, while I respect their opinions and appreciate their viewpoints, the bible is my guide. Luckily, I believe that this is exactly what the WBTS teaches. (which is why I may mention in passing a WBTS article making an interesting point... however any time I present something as "Proof" ... it'll be from the bible.)

Right there you would say the Bible refers to Jesus as "a god", when Christians are reading that He IS God. That is VERY important. It is a shining example, from my understanding, of the editing processes that took place to support your belief system. If JW's hadn't have made their own reworded book, we wouldn't have this stumbling block.

I would like to have continued dialogue. Help me understand how we can do that.

Indeed, there is definitely a disagreement as to how John 1:1 should be translated, and -someone- has done some "imaginative editing." But the KJV is -not- the "original" bible. we have greek and coptic manuscripts from the first few centuries, before the council of Nicaea. I addressed the points you pointed to briefly above, and would be glad to go into more detail with you, if you want. I just don't want to post the same thing too many times in a row.

 

[Nick]

To those that say JW's are Christians, ponder this set of the JW beliefs:

This is taken from "World' Religions & Cults 101" (Bruce Bickel, Stan Jantz, 2002. Page 119):

God: His personal name is Jehovah. He alone is God. There is no Trinity (which is a lie originated by Satan). There is a Holy Spirit, but it is just another name for God's active force.

Humanity: Humans are God's creation. Those who are faithful Jehovah's Wittnesses have an eternal spirit. Non-Wittnesses have no eternal nature after death (you just return to non-existance).

Sin: Sin is falling short of God's perfection. Adam and Eve sinned, and all humans inherit sin from them.

Salvation and the Afterlife: Adam deliberately forfeited the perfect life he was originally given. This was offset by Christ forfeiting HIs own perfect life. Christ's death didn't pay the penalty for sin, but it brought back the possibility for perfection in the human life. The 144,000 faithful followers of Jehovah will be rewarded with heaven; the rest of the faithful Wittnesses willl have everlasting life on a peaceful earth.

Morals: There is little subjectivity in this regard. Morality is for the most part defined by the prohibitions and requirements set forth in specific teachings.

Worship: True worship takes the form of adherence to certain requirements, particularly door-todoor evangelistic efforts. Reverence and alliegence to Jehovah prhibits participation in birthday parties and similar celebrations, displays of patriotism, and military service.

Jesus: He was God's first creation. His prehuman existance was in Michael the archangel. He was born of the virgin Mary. He died on a stake (not a cross) and was raised as an immortal spirit by God.

Basically, they deny the trinity, Jesus did not pay the penalty for sins and you have to work for salvaiton - it is not given as a gift by God.

Jehovah's Wittnesses, like Mormons, are not Christian. Yes, they do take a great deal from Christianity, but they are not Christian.

 

[Nick]

Oh, also a quick note, this is from the ToS:

Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation is not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other scripture, documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.

 

[Mike]

Mohrb, I sent you a PM about a potential debate. If you didn't know it was there, I wanted to let you know.

I understand when you came on, you didn't know what to expect from the mods or the members. I probably wouldn't find myself on a JW discussion board, but if I did, I would either introduce myself as a Christian right out of the gate and really lay the foundation for my membership, or I would lay low and ask around like you did until I felt comfortable.

You've been very amicable with the responses, even when I was in more "attack mode" than I want myself to be. Sometimes I get going and get in a mindset that I don't want to be in.

My desire in life is to take in God's love and to respond to it in my life. I took my faith for granted for the first 25 years of my life before I came to a rather sudden change 20 years ago. I want people who have not accepted Jesus' love to feel what I feel, know what I know. I have pictures in my wallet of my kids and think they're beautiful. I show them to people, hoping they will enjoy their beauty that I see. I don't show them the picture and say "These kids are beautiful! You have to admit it! Admit they're beautiful!!!"

And I shouldn't do that with Jesus, but too often I do. I need to invite you to experience the fullness of His Love in the fullness of Jesus.

Here's a BIG for doing that with you!

With all of my heart, I believe they JW's are not Christians, because Jesus the Christ is central to our belief. I believe lowering His status to anything less than equality with God the Father separates any church including the JW one.

 

[jasoncran]

of course i know that the lord isnt a magic button. duh. he says no to me on alot of things

i brought up homosexuality as that is so strong that one cant just change with the lord's intervention. you cant just not be gay with just denying the act. the desire to do it is there. i was bi, i looked at men from time to time. i eventually acted on that but it was many yrs later after the first glance. i no longer have the desire to do that or look, though satan will tempt me to look, i can choose not to. and if i do i repent and its gone.

you dont seem to accept the power of the lord to change. am i correct. if you wish to debate what light is then i suggest you ask mr.barbarian or the physicist. they will gladly answer you. and they would be correct on what they say. for light is a particle that has energy and and a wavelength. if it didn't how does the the light create electrcity in solar cells? the wavelengths can be maniuplated to form lasers and masers(microwave beam.) interesting.

but i have seen where you arent going to change and we will clash eventually on some things though it has been amicable. i will ask from time to time.

i edited this at 0632 hrs est.

 

[Rick W]

Do the Jehovah Witnesses worship Christ?
And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship.

 

[happyjoy]

Do the Jehovah Witnesses worship Christ?
And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship.

I think when you make such a bold statement as, "And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship". I think you need to define what you mean by worship.

 

[Nick]

Do the Jehovah Witnesses worship Christ?
And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship.

I think when you make such a bold statement as, "And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship". I think you need to define what you mean by worship.

I don't think what Rick said is that ambiguous. It is simple - do JW's worship Christ? The way general Christianity does?

---

Also, I would like to clarify my above post about the use of the NWT. It can be used in this specific forum, but is not considered a Christian translation.

 

[Mohrb]

To those that say JW's are Christians, ponder this set of the JW beliefs:
This is taken from "World' Religions & Cults 101"

Does it surprise you that the opinions in a book with this sort of title may be at all biased? Do you really think you're getting a fair representation of the JW faith by reading such gross oversimplifications and "loose" (to put it mildly) interpretations of the faith of others?

Whatever denomination you are... if you picked up a book titled "The lies of (Your denomination)" ... and it contained a section talking about how "(Your denomination) is a group of misguided heathens who believe that Jesus is his own father." ... would you consider this a credible source?

Anyone can misrepresent another person's faith. All that proves is that the person doing the misrepresentation knows that they lack the ability to provide legitimate arguments.

Basically, they deny the trinity,

So did Jesus. Read John 14:28 and 17:3 for a couple absolutely crystal clear examples.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for sins and you have to work for salvaiton - it is not given as a gift by God.

Not even close to what JWs believe at all.

Jehovah's Wittnesses, like Mormons, are not Christian. Yes, they do take a great deal from Christianity, but they are not Christian.

Thank you for insulting the faith of millions of people without the slightest bit of understanding of what we actually believe.

 

[Nick]

Does it surprise you that the opinions in a book with this sort of title may be at all biased? Do you really think you're getting a fair representation of the JW faith by reading such gross oversimplifications and "loose" (to put it mildly) interpretations of the faith of others?

Whatever denomination you are... if you picked up a book titled "The lies of (Your denomination)" ... and it contained a section talking about how "(Your denomination) is a group of misguided heathens who believe that Jesus is his own father." ... would you consider this a credible source?

Perhaps you should read the book first. Yes, it is written by two Christians, who openly admit in the foreward that they would be a little biased (of course) but they did consult with many professionals. But realise this: everyone is biased. If a JW wrote that book, then I'm sure you wouldn't be jumping up and down like you are now. The title does not suggest anything - just that the book is a short summary of the beliefs and practices of many religons and cults. This book went under heavy review by many others to ensure it's credibilty and accuracy. Yes it is broad, I understand that.

Whatever denomination I am doesn't matter, as it wouldn't matter if I was talking to a Muslim. You're either on one side or another - there's no fence sitting, if you know what I mean.

Basically, they deny the trinity,

So did Jesus. Read John 14:28 and 17:3 for a couple absolutely crystal clear examples.

John 17:3 I don't see fits into a trinity argument.

When talking about John 14:28, don't forget versus 10 and 11:
Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Also don't forget John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is Jesus. And btw, as shown later in John 1, Jesus (aka the Word) was never created, indeed He was with the Father - and He was the father - all along, but He became flesh.

BTW, I don't really wanting this to turn into a trinity debate. That is both for another thread and for another forum - apologetics & theology.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for sins and you have to work for salvaiton - it is not given as a gift by God.

Not even close to what JWs believe at all.

Well then please explain what the JW's believe on this point.

Jehovah's Wittnesses, like Mormons, are not Christian. Yes, they do take a great deal from Christianity, but they are not Christian.

Thank you for insulting the faith of millions of people without the slightest bit of understanding of what we actually believe.

It was not meant as an insult - it was a statement of conclusion that I and many others have come to after examining the JW beliefs. If I said that Muslims are not Christians or Mormons are not Christians does that mean that I am insulting them? I am simply comparing their beliefs to that which are set forth in the Bible and making a conclusion.

 

[jasoncran]

mohrb is the term "the TRUTH" still used? i know that it is. i spoke to a jw a while ago and he still calls his faith that. i did when i was one.