Christians worship Christ; JW's do not!

[truthjourney]

Attrocious, isn't it.
They go to any lengths to hide their errors and deception.

Speaking of which .......

Here is an instance where they are deceptive about their translation of John 1:1



Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly translate John 1:1 as follows:

"Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"
- New World Translation, 1960 edition
(emphasis mine)

​

In their Appendix they have an article explaining why they translate it this way and they quote from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey to justify their translation.

Mantey, upon learning that he had been quoted, wrote a two page article showing that it is not proper to translate this verse as the Jehovah Witnesses had done. He entitled his article A Grossly Misleading Translation.
Mantey skillfully explains the grammar of this verse and the significance of the absence of the Greek article in the last phrase of verse 1.
Dr. Manley's article is reproduced below in full:

A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION John 1: 1 which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under !he auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement. The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams' translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek, For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) docs in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as !hey have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have. If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they were distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely, divine. Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit" (not 'a' spirit; 1 John 4:16, "God is love" (not 'a' love); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e., they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristic of the subject, whether as to nature or type. The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1: 18 he explained that Christ has been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature. Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19 for instance: "That all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word" (Williams' translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ who we believe is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity? - Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Th.D., Ph.D., D.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Northern Baptist Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois

I was trying to reply to you and all of a sudden I got this adware or something suddenly pop up on my screen and I had to shut down my computer and call McAfee for help. It was very upsetting. I just need some time to calm down and get my heart rate back to normal. And try again later to reply. I'm still very upset.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I just wonder why you deny so much of what is written, while holding so tightly onto that which you think denies Jesus is God come in the flesh. What you claim is not new, ....let's use that verse as an example. "God ....sent his Son..."

Jesus says He "came out from God". Sounds like He was "with God and was God" to me. John 1:1

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.​

The Bible states that the children of Israel "came out from Egypt", but that does not make them Egypt.

Looks like He became flesh and dwelt among us to me. John 1:14

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?​

You seem to have chosen to ignore the clear statement Jesus made.

John 6:38 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.​

So, toss out those verses you don't agree with

You are the one that just did that.

and try to stand on Christ's humanity. It's no wonder you are blinded to the Gospel of Salvation. Salvation by grace through faith. Your faith is not in God, but in someone you can't identify as being God....from what I can tell.

According to scripture, God is the being that raised Jesus up from the dead and gave Jesus glory.

1 Peter 1:21 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.​

"Let us make man in our image..."

The "US" consists of Father, Word (Son), and Holy Spirit. The Son was sent, so He came out from God, came down from heaven, and dwelt among us a the Lord Jesus Christ. So clear.

You mention three, but nowhere in the Bible does it state that these three are all the same being.
The Bible makes sure that these are identified as separate beings over and over and over, through many repetitions, so it is a wonder that anyone would come to the odd conclusion that the three beings are all the same being.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hmmm....were any of those "saviours" called the "Saviour of the world".

Did any of them claim to have come OUT FROM GOD, and come DOWN FROM HEAVEN? :chuckle:

Did any of them claim to be the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON and claim GOD is His FATHER?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, I believe that organisation started with Constantine who also invented the trinity. Paul followed Jesus as Jesus taught. Paul travelled and preached the gospel as Jesus did, he denied himself and bore his cross and he partook in the sufferings of Christ and he was a true apostle, being led by the Spirit and moved where he was led, he was strong in God and full of spiritual understanding. Man had built denominations and organisations to suit man Jesus is the way, not an organisation or denomination, we can't organise the Spirit, and we are not to change the way of Jesus to suit man.

The only thing Constantine had to do with the Trinity doctrine was gathering the Christian leaders together to the First Council of Nicaea of 325 CE.
Constantine was not a Trinitarian, he was an Arian.

After the First Council of Nicaea, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued an edict against Arius' writings, which included systematic book burning. In spite of the decree, Constantine ordered the readmission of Arius to the church, removed the bishops (including Athanasius) who upheld the teaching of Nicaea, allowed Arianism to grow within the Empire and to spread to Germanic tribes on the frontier, and was himself baptized by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia
(source)​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I know Paul is not completely in line with Jesus.

There are so many things so questionable what he teaches.

You seem to put Paul in the same level as Jesus.

We have Jesus' instructions, we don't need Paul's instruction.

Peter thought Paul's teachings were completely in line with the teachings of Jesus.
But Peter also thought that Paul's teaching included too many things that needed an advanced Jewish education for Gentile believers to understand.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Peter thought Paul's teachings were completely in line with the teachings of Jesus.
But Peter also thought that Paul's teaching included too many things that needed an advanced Jewish education for Gentile believers to understand.

Can you explain what you're trying to say here? Are you referring to: 2 Peter 3:16 which states; "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

 

[genuineoriginal]

[/I][/B]
Can you explain what you're trying to say here? Are you referring to: 2 Peter 3:16 which states; "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Yes, I am referring to 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes, I am referring to 2 Peter 3:16.

You have to understand that the Apostle Paul was sent to the gentiles in particular. Paul was to deliver a Gospel that he received from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. That Gospel wasn't the same Gospel that Jesus preached during His earthly Ministry to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The gentiles were not subject to the 'LAW' nor did they know anything about what Christ was previously preaching to the Lost sheep of Israel. This was a NEW Gospel. Peter and his fellow Disciples/Apostles preached the Kingdom Gospel to the House of Israel and Paul preached the Gospel of the Grace of God, to the gentiles.

I believe that's why Jesus, during His earthly ministry, told His followers, NOT to go into the way of the gentiles. Jesus knew that Paul would soon be preaching the Gospel of God's Grace to the gentiles.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You have to understand that the Apostle Paul was sent to the gentiles in particular. Paul was to deliver a Gospel that he received from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. That Gospel wasn't the same Gospel that Jesus preached during His earthly Ministry to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The gentiles were not subject to the 'LAW' nor did they know anything about what Christ was previously preaching to the Lost sheep of Israel. This was a NEW Gospel. Peter and his fellow Disciples/Apostles preached the Kingdom Gospel to the House of Israel and Paul preached the Gospel of the Grace of God, to the gentiles.

You misunderstand Paul if you think that the Kingdom Gospel is not the Gospel of the Grace of God.

Acts 28:23 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.​

I believe that's why Jesus, during His earthly ministry, told His followers, NOT to go into the way of the gentiles. Jesus knew that Paul would soon be preaching the Gospel of God's Grace to the gentiles.

Jesus told His followers not to go to the Gentiles because His ministry was during the last week of the prophecy of the seventy weeks and the children of Israel still had a few years to complete the tasks set upon them in the prophecy.
The seventy weeks ended shortly after the death of Stephen and before the time Peter was sent to Cornelius, the Gentile.
Paul's mission to the Gentiles was to teach the Gentiles that they could join the Jews in the promises of the New Covenant, where God stated that He would remember their sins no more.

 

[musterion]

You misunderstand Paul if you think that the Kingdom Gospel is not the Gospel of the Grace of God.

The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached from way back. John prepared the way for it and it went from there.

Paul said his Gospel was something hidden until revealed by God to him.

Not the same Gospels.

Go back to Salt Lake City.

 

[truthjourney]

Attrocious, isn't it.
They go to any lengths to hide their errors and deception.

Speaking of which .......

Here is an instance where they are deceptive about their translation of John 1:1



Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly translate John 1:1 as follows:

"Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"
- New World Translation, 1960 edition
(emphasis mine)

​

In their Appendix they have an article explaining why they translate it this way and they quote from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey to justify their translation.

Mantey, upon learning that he had been quoted, wrote a two page article showing that it is not proper to translate this verse as the Jehovah Witnesses had done. He entitled his article A Grossly Misleading Translation.
Mantey skillfully explains the grammar of this verse and the significance of the absence of the Greek article in the last phrase of verse 1.
Dr. Manley's article is reproduced below in full:

A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION John 1: 1 which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under !he auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement. The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams' translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek, For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) docs in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as !hey have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have. If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they were distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely, divine. Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit" (not 'a' spirit; 1 John 4:16, "God is love" (not 'a' love); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e., they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristic of the subject, whether as to nature or type. The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1: 18 he explained that Christ has been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature. Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19 for instance: "That all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word" (Williams' translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ who we believe is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity? - Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Th.D., Ph.D., D.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Northern Baptist Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois

Yes it is atrocious.

I'm familiar with the way they translate and interpret John 1:1. And also 1Tim.2:5 which I have mentioned in comments in this thread.

The man you mentioned, Mantey, was in a video I had watched before shown around the 19:46 minute mark.

Also in this video is Ray Franz who I've also mentioned who was an elder in the Governing Body for nine years. But what he saw and experienced really bothered his conscience. He was disfellowshipped for eating a meal with a disassociated JW and was also accused of apostasy. Following his removal, Franz wrote two books that related his personal experiences with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and his views on Jehovah's Witnesses teachings; Crisis of Conscience (1983) and In Search of Christian Freedom (1991)

Frustrated by what he viewed as the Governing Body's dogmatism and overemphasis on traditional views rather than reliance on the Bible in reaching doctrinal decisions, Franz and his wife decided in late 1979 that they would leave the international headquarters.

This is the video. It covers a lot of history on the JWs.

 

[CherubRam]

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?

It's saying the word was "deity", not "divine."

 

[CherubRam]

It's saying the word was "deity", not "divine."

The word "God" is a modern day invention.
The word theos translates into English as "divine."

Strong's Greek: 2304. θεῖος (theios) -- divine - Bible Hub
biblehub.com/greek/2304.htm

theios: divine. Original Word: θεῖος, α, ον. Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: theios. Phonetic Spelling: (thi'-os) Short Definition: divine. Definition: divine; subst: the Deity. HELPS Word-studies. 2304 theíos (an adjective, derived from 2316 /theós, "God") – divine, manifesting the characteristics of God's nature.
Strong's Greek: 2305. θειότης (theiotés) -- divinity, divine nature
biblehub.com/greek/2305.htm

Strong's Concordance. theiotés: divinity, divine nature. Original Word: θειότης, ητος, ἡ. Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: theiotés. Phonetic Spelling: (thi-ot'-ace) Short Definition: divinity. Definition: divinity, divine nature. HELPS Word-studies. Cognate: 2305 theiótēs (a feminine noun derived from 2304 /theíos, ...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You misunderstand Paul if you think that the Kingdom Gospel is not the Gospel of the Grace of God.

Acts 28:23 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.​

Jesus told His followers not to go to the Gentiles because His ministry was during the last week of the prophecy of the seventy weeks and the children of Israel still had a few years to complete the tasks set upon them in the prophecy.
The seventy weeks ended shortly after the death of Stephen and before the time Peter was sent to Cornelius, the Gentile.
Paul's mission to the Gentiles was to teach the Gentiles that they could join the Jews in the promises of the New Covenant, where God stated that He would remember their sins no more.

And, of course, you're wrong and earned yourself a coveted Neg-rep from Old GM.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached from way back. John prepared the way for it and it went from there.

Paul said his Gospel was something hidden until revealed by God to him.

Not the same Gospels.

Go back to Salt Lake City.

Gen-O needs to stick with his Watchtower comic books.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The word "God" is a modern day invention.
The word theos translates into English as "divine."

Strong's Greek: 2304. θεῖος (theios) -- divine - Bible Hub
biblehub.com/greek/2304.htm

theios: divine. Original Word: θεῖος, α, ον. Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: theios. Phonetic Spelling: (thi'-os) Short Definition: divine. Definition: divine; subst: the Deity. HELPS Word-studies. 2304 theíos (an adjective, derived from 2316 /theós, "God") – divine, manifesting the characteristics of God's nature.
Strong's Greek: 2305. θειότης (theiotés) -- divinity, divine nature
biblehub.com/greek/2305.htm

Strong's Concordance. theiotés: divinity, divine nature. Original Word: θειότης, ητος, ἡ. Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: theiotés. Phonetic Spelling: (thi-ot'-ace) Short Definition: divinity. Definition: divinity, divine nature. HELPS Word-studies. Cognate: 2305 theiótēs (a feminine noun derived from 2304 /theíos, ...

Read this, please.

Attrocious, isn't it.
They go to any lengths to hide their errors and deception.

Speaking of which .......

Here is an instance where they are deceptive about their translation of John 1:1



Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly translate John 1:1 as follows:

"Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"
- New World Translation, 1960 edition
(emphasis mine)

​

In their Appendix they have an article explaining why they translate it this way and they quote from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey to justify their translation.

Mantey, upon learning that he had been quoted, wrote a two page article showing that it is not proper to translate this verse as the Jehovah Witnesses had done. He entitled his article A Grossly Misleading Translation.
Mantey skillfully explains the grammar of this verse and the significance of the absence of the Greek article in the last phrase of verse 1.
Dr. Manley's article is reproduced below in full:

A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION John 1: 1 which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under !he auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement. The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams' translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek, For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) docs in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as !hey have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have. If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they were distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely, divine. Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit" (not 'a' spirit; 1 John 4:16, "God is love" (not 'a' love); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e., they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristic of the subject, whether as to nature or type. The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1: 18 he explained that Christ has been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature. Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19 for instance: "That all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word" (Williams' translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ who we believe is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity? - Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Th.D., Ph.D., D.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Northern Baptist Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois

 

[Tambora]

JWs are instructed not to read, watch or listen to any material or information that is not directly from the Governing Body. Because the Governing Body considers information outside of their own to be "of the world", "part of Satan's system"; it is an us vs them mentality.

This was the experience I had with them also.
Trying to have an actual bible study with them was like pulling teeth.
They couldn't really answer anything without looking up a reference in their notebook.
And they would show you all their literature, but wouldn't accept any of your literature.
Wouldn't even look at it!

But the most bizarre thing about them was that if there was a question their little notebook didn't have a reference to, they would up and leave immediately.
Wouldn't even finish the conversation or finish reading the scriptures we were discussing.

After I patiently listened to their spill on their 'paradise on earth', where they claimed that their 144,000 would get to be with the Father God in heaven, but all others would not and were on earth with Christ just like it was with Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall.
So I ask a simple and obvious question ...... "Who was walking and talking with Adam in the garden?"
They wouldn't answer!!!!
Sat there with a shocked look, fumbling through their notebook, and then said they would have to find out the answer and get back with me.
I said, we both have a bible right here with us, why can't we just read it and see who it was.
They refused and left.
That is NOT studying scripture.

 

[musterion]

But the most bizarre thing about them was that if there was a question their little notebook didn't have a reference to, they would up and leave immediately. Wouldn't even finish the conversation or finish reading the scriptures we were discussing.

An ex-JW says this is what happens: if they're real go-getters, they go back to HQ and seek advice from an elder (whatever they call their elders). The elder realizes there's a problem -- someone who actually knows the Bible who, possibly, could open the robot's eyes. So the elder basically forbids them going back, tells them to write you off as good as burned up. So they don't and you never see them again. Other JWs may show up down the road, but they're from a different bunch who doesn't know your house has the big invisible X on the door. The process repeats.

Mormons do the same thing.

It's when they find someone they can fool and who will listen to them that they'll keep coming back until they've got you.

Satan is the apex predator of the universe.

 

[musterion]

Also...this will be a broad generalization based only on my own experience.

Both are blind but JWs tend to be less intelligent than Mormons.

JWs are more programmed and unable to think on their feet beyond the script they've been taught.

Mormons stick to a script but will go a little ways off-script before they bail out. They'll test you to see just how far your knowledge extends, and will keep up with you to a point.

Also, Mormons seem to have a better innate sense of the threat posed by a knowledgeable Bible believer, but Mormons (imo) also have a better sense of when they're being beaten...or possibly embarrassment...than the Watchtower drone has. Mormons put up a good fight for awhile...JWs are, from the get go, like beating your head against a wall that cannot hear you.

This could help explain the lower level, more cartoonish/childlike approach JWs take when compared with the more intellectual/academic approach of the LDS.

It could also explain why we tend to see more JW drones on message boards than Mormons...the drones stick around longer because the anonymity and the ability to ignore what they can't answer works to their benefit. They end up being trolls and should be banned as such, but until they are, it gives them a sense of power and equality that they absolutely won't have standing on your porch reading a memorized script.

There could be some Duning-Kruger reinforcement at work here: they're too stupid to realize just how stupid they are, so in their stupidity they think everyone else is stupid. Exhibit A: the Meshak people.

Also, Watchtower drones tend to be older folks, while Mormon door to door missionaries are always young dudes (and sometimes females, I'm told). Not sure what to make of that, if anything.

Anyway, to put it bluntly...seems to me that the Watchtower's ministers and literature appeal to less intelligent lost people. The LDS ministers and literature (which is basically BoM) appeal to somewhat more intelligent lost people. The ministers you see handing out both tend to reflect it.

Now...ever wonder why you can't get anywhere with TOL's JWs?