JW's just came to my door

[jeff77]

Just a moment ago 2 Jehovah's witnesses left my house after a brief discussion about the afterlife and hell. They told me that the Bible really teaches that we cease to exist after dying and after the judgment. Well, its interesting cause this is a hot topic on the A&T forum. Before they left I offered them a Christian tract but they wouldn't accept it. Can someone tell me what the JW's main difference in doctrine is with Christianity?

 

[jasoncran]

Just a moment ago 2 Jehovah's witnesses left my house after a brief discussion about the afterlife and hell. They told me that the Bible really teaches that we cease to exist after dying and after the judgment. Well, its interesting cause this is a hot topic on the A&T forum. Before they left I offered them a Christian tract but they wouldn't accept it. Can someone tell me what the JW's main difference in doctrine is with Christianity?

1) jesus wasn't god but an angel, and non-Trinitarian
2) only the 144,000 are born again and only they go to heaven and act as god's mouth piece
3)legalism
4) all are to be baptized under the means by studying a blue book and then water immersed. until then you aren't a jw
5) premil
6) don't believe in hell and believe in soul sleep
7) communion is for only the 144,000
8) jesus came in 1914 but they don't teach that anymore but do mention a lot about it in texts. therefore they like the sda believe that he came spiritually

 

[farouk]

Just a moment ago 2 Jehovah's witnesses left my house after a brief discussion about the afterlife and hell. They told me that the Bible really teaches that we cease to exist after dying and after the judgment. Well, its interesting cause this is a hot topic on the A&T forum. Before they left I offered them a Christian tract but they wouldn't accept it. Can someone tell me what the JW's main difference in doctrine is with Christianity?

jeff77:

They don't believe that the Lord Jesus is God. Whereas there is overwhelming Biblical evidence that He is. The have added all sorts of things and taken away all sorts of things from the Bible; they even use a Bible version of their own called the New World, which strictly speaking is not even a translation in many places, because they have made changes in meaning, with no support from the originals for the changes.

We have every right not to receive them into our homes if they bring their unbiblical doctrine.

Blessings.

 

[jeff77]

jeff77:

They don't believe that the Lord Jesus is God. Whereas there is overwhelming Biblical evidence that He is. The have added all sorts of things and taken away all sorts of things from the Bible; they even use a Bible version of their own called the New World, which strictly speaking is not even a translation in many places, because they have made changes in meaning, with no support from the originals for the changes.

We have every right not to receive them into our homes if they bring their unbiblical doctrine.

Blessings.

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

 

[jasoncran]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

I wouldn't debate them unless its really of the lord to do so. they are like the athiests and will sucker you into their side if you aren't careful.me? that wont work.i know their arugments . I was in that cult for years

 

[farouk]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

I was thinking of 2 John 10.

Blessings.

 

[jeff77]

Thanks for the verse farouk. Jason you are right about them trying to sucker you into their side. They start off with talking about their similarities with you and say that they just want to have Bible study with you. They never mentioned that their Bible is different or any of that other stuff you mentioned. It seems like they have to lie a little bit to draw you in. I was hoping that they were just going to give me a tract because the last several times that's what they did and I had the idea to get a Christian tract called All Truth Is Narrow to give to them. It had been a couple of months since I got the tracts and they had not shown up until today but the guy said he could not take it because he would only throw it away and that would be disrespecting it or something like that.

 

[jasoncran]

they are very legalistic. I still remember the sayings and books I had to read.

 

[Deborah13]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

Here's an example of how their bible reads.
John 1:1 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was a god.'

Here's a link to what they believe but I agree with Jason. Unless you know the scriptures very well don't even try.
If you do decide to try to witness to them, start putting together your scriptures and don't let them lead the conversation.
You ask the questions that you know the answers to and that may stump them.
There are some really good questions and scriptures in the article in this link.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...ahs_Witnesses_Witnessing_to_the_Witnesses.htm

 

[hhh]

I didn't actually let them in my house this time but about a year or so ago I did. I am just trying to figure out how to witness to them. I think that they think Im expressing interest in the JW religion but I'm only trying to figure out how to explain to them that their doctrines are wrong. I have a hard time just closing the door on them so I just talk to them on the front porch.

They are trained to confuse you; when you make a good point, one of them will try to change the subject. When you notice them trying to change the subject say, The Bible says, Let all things be decently and in order: God is not the author of confusion, right? When they admit it, keep them in the word, "name." Jesus is a name above every name, even in their Bible. You can keep them in the word name, for hours! "Witness" is another good word to keep them in; everybody in their New Testament bears witness to Jesus! Nobody in their New Testament is a JW.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Deborah13 wrote:

“Here's an example of how their [JWs] bible reads.
“John 1:1 ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was a god.’”

It’s good to discuss the differences found in other sects and religions. It is especially so for those who believe the scriptures are the word of God. And if we are to use the scriptures we need to use translations which are honestly translated.

Do you not believe that it would be very dishonest to misquote what any given Bible actually says?

Well, the words and letters underlined in the above ‘quote’ are misquoted!

Here is what the JW Bible actually says at John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah13 wrote:

“Here's an example of how their [JWs] bible reads.
“John 1:1 ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was a god.’”

It’s good to discuss the differences found in other sects and religions. It is especially so for those who believe the scriptures are the word of God. And if we are to use the scriptures we need to use translations which are honestly translated.


Do you not believe that it would be very dishonest to misquote what any given Bible actually says?

Well, the words and letters underlined in the above ‘quote’ are misquoted!

Here is what the JW Bilbe actually says at John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

 

[turnorburn]

Say to them, i rejoice in knowing i have eternal life what possibly more would i need?

tob

 

[digging]

If you try to debate about those key topics like the trinity or hell you will not get anywhere because of how they have been trained, BUT maybe through you Christ can call to them. What I have learned but they don't directly talk about is that only their leaders,as Jason said the '144,000' are the 'brothers' of Christ. That's why none of them take communion. So ask them if they believe they are doing the will of God by going door to door like visiting you?

Then show them this scripture. Help them to see that no matter what kind of creeds they have about heaven & hell and all that, they are still invited to partake and become a brother or sister of Christ.

Point out clearly this word 'whoever'.
Matthew 12:50 NAS
"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Digging

 

[Blue-Lightning]

“Here's an example of how their [JWs] bible reads.
“John 1:1 ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was a god.’”

It’s good to discuss the differences found in other sects and religions. It is especially so for those who believe the scriptures are the word of God. And if we are to use the scriptures we need to use translations which are honestly translated.

Are you well-versed in Koine Greek so as to explain why it should be "God" and not "a god"? I'm certainly not a Jehovah's Witness, but it does strike me as odd that you would propose we use honestly translated scripture when I doubt you are capable of making that determination.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Are you well-versed in Koine Greek so as to explain why it should be "God" and not "a god"? I'm certainly not a Jehovah's Witness, but it does strike me as odd that you would propose we use honestly translated scripture when I doubt you are capable of making that determination.

I have spent many years studying John 1:1c alone. I would love to show you how I know that the most likely translation of it should be "And the Word was a god." However, I'm likely to be banned again for presenting my personal study on this subject.

 

[digging]

One of the biggest problems with Christianity today is the believe that to be a Christian you have to believe in the trinity.

Digging

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I have spent many years studying John 1:1c alone. I would love to show you how I know that the most likely translation of it should be "And the Word was a god." However, I'm likely to be banned again for presenting my personal study on this subject.

Please share - I doubt the moderators are not going to prevent your ability to speak just because you share your studied opinion on a translation.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Are you well-versed in Koine Greek so as to explain why it should be "God" and not "a god"? I'm certainly not a Jehovah's Witness, but it does strike me as odd that you would propose we use honestly translated scripture when I doubt you are capable of making that determination.

I have spent many years studying John 1:1c alone. I would love to show you how I know that the most likely translation of it should be "And the Word was a god." However, I'm likely to be banned again for presenting my personal study on this subject.

Please share - I doubt the moderators are not going to prevent your ability to speak just because you share your studied opinion on a translation.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the management's actions against some of my posts here. I know I am not allowed to give a link to my blog where most of my studies are online. It seemed to me that even some of my studies which I cut-and-paste from my own computer files are deemed unacceptable. Maybe I misunderstood.

So, as I attempt to give you my "seven lessons for John 1:1c" in the following posts here, don't be surprised if I disappear.

I intend to give you all seven "lessons" (which are merely a condensation of my 50+ page original study).

 

[teddy trueblood]

Seven Lessons for determining the correct translation of John 1:1c

(The first 5 lessons [A-E] concern the actual NT Greek grammar used by John)

A.

John 1:1 in NT Greek:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and theos en ho logos

There are three clauses (separated by καὶ or “and” in English). The first (John 1:1a) is literally translated: “In beginning was the word.” The second (John 1:1b) is translated “the word was with the god.” And the final one (John 1:1c) is literally translated “god was the word.”

I hope to examine John 1:1c to show that the very grammar used by John himself shows the actual meaning (whether ‘the Word was God,” or the “Word was a god”). Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.

First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters), a noun known to NT Greek scholars as a noun in the nominative case. Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no “prepositional” modifiers (usually genitive or dative case nouns) such as “theos of Israel, or “theos to me,” etc.

Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question does not use them either. Therefore, the very few “preposition-modified” nouns in John’s writings are not proper examples in this study which relies on the use of the definite article.

The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God” when writing theos (the form of the Greek word which ends in ς), he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it - ὁ.)

You can test this ho theos use means ‘God’ in John’s writings yourself with a good interlinear NT and concordance.

To Be Continued