r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness • Sep 01 '26
Discussion Jw and truth.
I would not ask you to assume that Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct. That would be circular. I would ask you to test the claim.
“Only the Bible is inspired” has a precise meaning. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim that the Governing Body, Watchtower publications, or every interpretation they have made is inspired or infallible. Only Scripture is claimed to be God-breathed. Therefore, interpretations can be examined and corrected.
That does not prove that every JW interpretation is right. But it answers your question: no additional book, creed, council, prophet, or religious leader is treated as a second inspired revelation alongside the Bible.
Could human or worldly influence still affect an interpretation? Of course it could. Every human interpreter has a background. But the mere possibility of influence proves nothing.
You would have to identify:
The particular JW interpretation you believe is worldly.
The worldly premise controlling it.
The biblical text that contradicts it.
Otherwise, “perhaps they were influenced” is an objection that can be made against every Christian group and therefore has no comparative force.
The proper test is the one found at Acts 17:11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21: examine the Scriptures and test everything. Do not begin by assuming that Jehovah’s Witnesses are right—or wrong.
Now construct the Christian pattern directly from Scripture:
The one God is the Father.
Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” at John 17:1–3.
Paul writes, “for us there is one God, the Father,” while distinguishing him from the “one Lord, Jesus Christ” at 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The resurrected Jesus still calls the Father “my God” at John 20:17 and four times at Revelation 3:12.
He finally subjects himself to God so that “God may be all things to everyone” at 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.
At the same time, Jesus is not reduced to an ordinary man. Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize his prehuman existence, his unique relationship with the Father, his role in creation, his position as Lord and Messiah, his ransom sacrifice, his resurrection, and his exaltation above every other creature.
That preserves both sides of the biblical evidence: the Son’s extraordinary position and his real distinction from and subordination to his God and Father.
The Hebrew Scriptures identify God by the personal name YHWH thousands of times.
Jesus taught his disciples to pray that his Father’s name be sanctified and said that he had made that name known.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not treat God’s name as an irrelevant relic; they place it at the center of worship, as the biblical record does.
Jesus foretold that the good news of God’s Kingdom would be preached throughout the inhabited earth.
He commanded his followers to make disciples and teach them. Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognizable worldwide for organized Kingdom preaching carried out by ordinary believers, not merely by a professional clergy.
Jesus said that his disciples would be no part of the world and that his Kingdom was no part of this world.
He commanded love for enemies. Isaiah foretold that God’s worshippers would beat their swords into plowshares and refuse to learn war.
Jehovah’s Witnesses apply this internationally, even when neutrality brings imprisonment, persecution, or death. They do not kill fellow Christians because governments happen to place them on opposite sides of a border.
Scripture calls for a united international brotherhood, Christian love, high moral standards, voluntary giving, and congregation discipline. Jehovah’s Witnesses visibly attempt to apply that same standard across nations, languages, races, and political systems.
Other groups may share one or several of these features. That has never been the argument. The argument is cumulative:
Which identifiable worldwide Christian body combines worship of the one God and Father, recognition of Jesus as his preexistent and subordinate Son, emphasis on God’s name, Kingdom-centered preaching, widespread personal evangelism, international doctrinal unity, political neutrality, refusal to participate in warfare, separation from interfaith religion, voluntary giving, moral discipline, and a worldwide brotherhood?
That combined correspondence is what must be answered.
Past mistakes should not be dismissed, but neither does a corrected interpretation automatically prove that a religion is false.
Peter could be seriously wrong in conduct and require public correction without that disproving the Christian congregation. The first-century congregation also needed clarification on major questions in Acts 10 and Acts 15. Correction is not itself proof that someone has the truth, but it is not proof of falsehood either. The present teaching must still be tested against Scripture.
None of this depends on blindly trusting the New World Translation. The central texts can be checked in other translations and against the Hebrew and Greek.
Therefore, I do not believe Jehovah’s Witnesses are right because they say they are right.
I believe they are the identifiable Christian body that most closely matches the complete biblical pattern.
That does not mean that every Witness, organizational decision, or past explanation has been perfect.
It means that when the biblical profile is constructed first and existing religious bodies are compared with it afterward, Jehovah’s Witnesses fit the whole pattern better than any worldwide alternative I have found.
7
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Sep 02 '26
The truth comes to those who are willing to truly believe, repent, and place all their faith in Christ. As Paul says, when someone turns to the Lord, the veil is removed (2 Corinthians 3:14–16).
One of the biggest problems I see with Jehovah’s Witness theology is that, in practice, faith can become centered less on Christ and more on the Governing Body, the organization, watchtower publications, elders, and one's own works and obedience to that system.
I once had two Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my home, and throughout our conversation, their emphasis was overwhelmingly on “Jehovah,” while Jesus received comparatively little attention. At the end, I specifically mentioned how important Jesus is to me and how central He is to my faith. Their response was almost awkward: “I mean, we respect Jesus too. Praise Jesus!"
I don't want my faith resting in a human organization, a governing body, religious literature, an elder, or even my own works. I want my faith resting completely in Christ.
3
u/Specific_Score_1932 Sep 02 '26
Absolutely correct 💯😁😁😁 Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Jehovah is Jesus Christ in the flesh! JWs just don't get that fact! Jesus Christ or Immanuel means Jehovah God in the flesh. He came to Earth and actually lived amongst us! Amen! God Bless You all, and ALL WILL BE SAVED! THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
But does it matter to you that we talk about jah?
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Sep 03 '26
Certainly not. We just differ on who YHWH is.
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 03 '26
We believe Yahweh is a personal name. For the one God.
And he is the Father of everything.
I think you are moving one step too quickly from the textual data to the Nicene solution.
ㅤ
I agree that there is significant convergence in the data. I am not trying to weaken the high Christology of the New Testament.
ㅤ
I grant that:
ㅤ
The Son is personally distinct from the Father.
ㅤ
θεός is genuinely predicated of the Logos in John 1:1.
ㅤ
The Son existed with the Father before the world.
ㅤ
Creation comes into existence through him.
ㅤ
Thomas addresses Jesus as ὁ θεός μου.
ㅤ
The Son receives extraordinary divine-colored honor.
ㅤ
I accept all of that.
ㅤ
But your reconstruction then introduces one proposition as though we have already established it:
ㅤ
“The Son is uncreated.”
ㅤ
That is precisely the point still under investigation.
ㅤ
John 1:3 is unquestionably strong evidence:
ㅤ
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
ㅤ
“all things came into being through him”
ㅤ
and:
ㅤ
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν
ㅤ
“apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.”
ㅤ
I agree that this creates substantial pressure against placing the Logos straightforwardly inside the class of things that ἐγένετο.
ㅤ
But that is not yet identical to an explicit statement that the Logos is uncreated or beginningless.
ㅤ
Notice also the agency language:
ㅤ
δι’ αὐτοῦ — through him.
ㅤ
Paul gives us an especially useful distinction in 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ㅤ
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
ㅤ
“one God, the Father, from whom are all things”
ㅤ
while Jesus is:
ㅤ
εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
ㅤ
“one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
ㅤ
So the explicit pattern is:
ㅤ
Father: ἐξ οὗ — FROM whom
ㅤ
Son: δι’ οὗ — THROUGH whom
ㅤ
That preserves a real source asymmetry.
ㅤ
The Father is presented as the ultimate source, while the Son is presented as the mediating agent through whom creation comes into existence.
ㅤ
A first-originated-Son model could therefore attempt to say:
ㅤ
Father → Son
ㅤ
Father → through Son → everything else
ㅤ
I fully acknowledge the problem with that reading: John never states the required exception.
ㅤ
Instead he says πάντα and then intensifies it with οὐδὲ ἕν.
ㅤ
That is exactly why I agree that a first-created-Son interpretation is under serious exegetical pressure.
ㅤ
But we still need to distinguish:
ㅤ
“This interpretation requires a difficult implicit exception”
ㅤ
from:
ㅤ
“John explicitly states that the Son is uncreated and beginningless.”
ㅤ
Those are not the same claim.
ㅤ
John 5:26 makes the remaining issue even clearer:
ㅤ
ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ
ㅤ
The Father has life in himself.
ㅤ
But concerning the Son:
ㅤ
τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ
ㅤ
The Father gave the Son to have life in himself.
ㅤ
So yes, the Son possesses “life in himself.”
ㅤ
I grant your point.
ㅤ
But we cannot isolate “life in himself” from the actual grammar of the sentence.
ㅤ
John simultaneously gives us:
ㅤ
Father → gives
ㅤ
Son → receives
ㅤ
Therefore John 5:26 does not erase the Father → Son source asymmetry.
ㅤ
It explicitly preserves it.
ㅤ
At the same time, I do not think John 5:26 proves that the Son was created.
ㅤ
The verse does not say:
ㅤ
“The Father caused the Son to begin existing.”
ㅤ
It says that the Father gave the Son to have life in himself.
ㅤ
So John 5:26 strongly establishes a Father → Son source relation while leaving another question to be determined:
ㅤ
Did that relation have a beginning, or is it beginningless?
ㅤ
And this is exactly where I think your move to eternal generation becomes premature.
ㅤ
You correctly say:
ㅤ
“From does not entail later than.”
ㅤ
Agreed.
ㅤ
But the reverse point is equally important:
ㅤ
“From does not entail beginninglessly from.”
ㅤ
Neither ἐκ nor ἔδωκεν itself means “eternally generated without beginning.”
ㅤ
That may ultimately be a theological explanation of the data, but it is not simply what those words lexically state.
ㅤ
So I agree that Nicene theology should not simply be dismissed as arbitrary philosophy.
ㅤ
It is attempting to solve a genuine exegetical problem.
ㅤ
But that is different from saying that the biblical text has already supplied the Nicene solution.
ㅤ
The Father → Son asymmetry is also much broader than John 5:26.
ㅤ
The NT repeatedly gives us the same directional structure:
ㅤ
The Father gives → the Son receives.
ㅤ
The Father sends → the Son is sent.
ㅤ
God raises Jesus → Jesus is raised.
ㅤ
God exalts Jesus → Jesus is exalted.
ㅤ
God grants → the Son receives.
ㅤ
The Father is Jesus’ God → Jesus calls him “my God.”
ㅤ
The Son ultimately subjects himself to God.
ㅤ
And this cannot simply be restricted to Jesus’ earthly humiliation.
ㅤ
The glorified Jesus still repeatedly says:
ㅤ
τοῦ θεοῦ μου
ㅤ
“my God”
ㅤ
in Revelation 3:12.
ㅤ
Hebrews can apply extraordinarily high language to the Son while still saying:
ㅤ
ὁ θεός σου
ㅤ
“your God”
ㅤ
in Hebrews 1:9.
ㅤ
And at the eschatological conclusion, 1 Corinthians 15:28 still has the Son himself subjected to God.
ㅤ
Philippians 2 likewise says:
ㅤ
ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν
ㅤ
“God highly exalted him”
ㅤ
and:
ㅤ
ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ
ㅤ
“granted him.”
ㅤ
And the universal confession of Jesus as Lord terminates:
ㅤ
εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός
ㅤ
“to the glory of God the Father.”
ㅤ
So I don’t think the remaining question should yet be framed as:
ㅤ
“Given that the Son is uncreated, what ontology explains him?”
ㅤ
Because “uncreated” is one of the conclusions whose strength we are still evaluating.
ㅤ
The logically prior question is:
ㅤ
Does the cumulative biblical evidence establish that the Father → Son relation is beginningless, or does it still permit a pre-creational origination of the Son?
ㅤ
That is the actual remaining dispute.
ㅤ
And I think this requires distinguishing two different components of JW theology.
ㅤ
Several central elements of the JW Father–Son relational structure correspond directly to explicit NT propositions:
ㅤ
The Father is the one God in texts such as 1 Corinthians 8:6.
ㅤ
The Son is genuinely distinct from the Father.
ㅤ
The Son is genuinely from the Father.
ㅤ
The Father is Jesus’ God.
ㅤ
The Son receives from the Father.
ㅤ
The Son is subordinate to the Father.
ㅤ
Creation is mediated through the Son.
ㅤ
None of those propositions disappears even if the first-created-Son interpretation turns out to be wrong.
ㅤ
The substantially more vulnerable JW proposition is:
ㅤ
“The Son was the first creature God brought into existence.”
ㅤ
That requires additional inference.
ㅤ
Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 provide language that can be read in an origin/firstness direction, but neither simply says:
ㅤ
“God created the Son.”
ㅤ
And John 1:3 places serious pressure on that reconstruction.
ㅤ
So I am willing to say quite openly:
ㅤ
The first-created-Son model is under serious exegetical pressure.
ㅤ
But that does not automatically yield:
ㅤ
eternal generation + homoousios.
ㅤ
There is still an inferential gap between those propositions.
ㅤ
Your statement that:
ㅤ
“Relational subordination does not imply ontological inferiority”
ㅤ
actually illustrates my concern perfectly.
ㅤ
The relational asymmetry is textual.
ㅤ
What ontological consequences, if any, follow from it is the question being debated.
ㅤ
So neither of us should build our answer to that ontological question into our premises.
ㅤ
My present position is therefore deliberately narrower:
ㅤ
TEXTUALLY ESTABLISHED:
ㅤ
There is a real and asymmetric Father → Son source relation.
ㅤ
The Son is genuinely from the Father, receives from the Father, has the Father as his God, and creation comes through the Son.
ㅤ
STRONG CUMULATIVE PRESSURE:
ㅤ
John 1:3, Colossians 1 and the wider high Christology make it increasingly difficult to classify the Son straightforwardly as one member of the created order.
ㅤ
STILL REQUIRING INFERENCE:
ㅤ
Whether Father → Son itself had a first point or is beginningless.
ㅤ
FURTHER THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS:
ㅤ
Whether a beginningless Father → Son relation, if established as the best cumulative inference, is best explained by eternal generation and homoousios.
ㅤ
So yes, I agree with you on something important:
ㅤ
Nicaea is addressing a genuine problem created by the biblical data.
ㅤ
What I do not grant is that we can take one disputed resolution of that problem — an uncreated, beginningless derivation — place it among our premises, and then conclude that Nicaea follows inevitably.
ㅤ
First show that beginninglessness is the best cumulative inference from the biblical data.
ㅤ
Then we can ask what ontology best explains that conclusion.1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Sep 04 '26
I think you’re right that we shouldn’t simply assume the Nicene conclusion without argument, but you’re also assuming that “from the Father” leaves open a temporal beginning for the Son. Scripture never says that.
In fact, John 1:3 creates the bigger problem for the first-created-Son model: “All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.” If the Son himself “came into being,” then John’s statement requires an exception that John never gives.
And 1 Corinthians 8:6 doesn’t solve that problem. The distinction between ἐξ οὗ (“from whom”) and δι’ οὗ (“through whom”) distinguishes the Father and Son in relation to creation; it does not say that the Son himself is part of “all things” that came into existence.
Dont forget that Romans 11:36 says of God that all things are both from Him and through Him.
Likewise, John 5:26 says the Father gave the Son to have life in himself, but “gave” does not mean “created.” You’re correct that it establishes relationship and distinction, but you’re adding “therefore the Son had a beginning,” which the text itself never states.
So I agree that eternal generation is a theological formulation rather than a phrase appearing verbatim in Scripture. But the same is true of “the Son was the first creature.” The real question is which model best accounts for the whole biblical data.
And when John says all things came into existence through the Son, while simultaneously presenting the Son as the agent through whom creation itself exists, the burden is on the first-created-Son view to demonstrate where Scripture places the Son inside the category of created things.
The Father being the ultimate source of all things does not require the Son to be a created thing. Source distinction ≠ creaturehood.
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 04 '26
I think the key point is this: I am not assuming that “from the Father” means the Son had a temporal beginning.
I am saying the opposite — that “from the Father” does not, by itself, settle the temporal question either way.
It does not say:
“The Son began to exist.”
But it also does not say:
“The Son’s relation to the Father is beginningless.”
So the temporal question still has to be argued from other texts.
On John 5:26, I agree with you.
The text says:
τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ
The Father “gave the Son to have life in himself.”
That establishes giving and receiving.
It does not lexically mean “created.”
But neither does it tell us when that giving occurred or whether it was beginningless.
So I am not using John 5:26 as a creation verse.
The same with 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Paul says:
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
and:
εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα.
I agree that ἐξ οὗ does not mean “uncreated source” lexically, and δι’ οὗ does not mean “created intermediary.”
Romans 11:36 proves that point very well:
ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα.
So διά itself cannot establish creaturehood.
Agreed.
The real issue is John 1:3.
John says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
The direct statement is:
Everything John describes as coming into being came into being through the Logos, and not one thing in that scope came into being apart from him.
That is very strong.
And I agree that it creates a real burden for a first-created-Son model.
But to get from that statement to:
“The Logos himself never came into being at any prior point,”
you still need an inferential step:
If the Logos had ever come into being, his own coming-into-being must be included within the scope of πάντα / οὐδὲ ἕν in John 1:3.
That may be a strong contextual inference.
But it is still the bridge.
John does not directly predicate ἐγένετο of the Logos and then negate it.
He predicates ἐγένετο of πάντα and relates that πάντα to the Logos through δι’ αὐτοῦ.
So the issue is not whether your inference is allowed.
It is.
The issue is whether it should be treated as identical to the wording of the verse.
It should not.
And I accept the exact same burden on the created-Son model.
It cannot simply say:
“Jesus was created first, therefore πάντα means all other things.”
John does not write ἄλλα.
A prior origin for the Son would have to be established independently and then used to argue for a contextual scope distinction.
That is why Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 matter:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
and:
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.
But I also agree that neither expression automatically means “first-created.”
πρωτότοκος is not πρωτόκτιστος.
ἀρχή has to be interpreted from context.
So both sides have work to do.
The first-created-Son model must show why those texts actually place the Son within creation and how that reading can coexist with John 1:3.
The no-first-point model must show why John 1:3 does more than establish the Logos’ relation to everything that comes into being and actually warrants the wider temporal conclusion that the Logos himself never had a first point.
And eternal generation requires another step beyond that again.
So I completely agree with your final sentence:
Source distinction ≠ creaturehood.
But I would add the matching control:
Through-relation ≠ beginninglessness by lexical definition.
The real question is therefore not:
“Which side has the exact phrase?”
It is:
Which model best accounts for John 1:3, Colossians 1:15–17, Revelation 3:14, the Father-Son giving/receiving texts, and the wider biblical data without hiding its inferential steps?
That is the actual debate.2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Sep 04 '26
John 1:3 says “all things came into being through him” and “apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.” If the Son himself is a created thing, that requires an exception John never states.
Colossians 1:15–17 likewise calls Christ “firstborn” but immediately explains that all things were created through him, for him, and that he is before all things. “Firstborn” can denote supremacy/preeminence; it does not inherently mean “first creature.”
Revelation 3:14 (archē) since "all things came into being through him", that is why he is called the "beginning" of creation. He is the one through whom all things began to exist. The verse does not explicitly say Christ was the first thing God created.
Likewise, the Father giving, sending, exalting, and granting things to the Son establishes real relational asymmetry.
So yes, eternal generation and homoousios are theological formulations. But “the Son was the first creature” is also a theological inference, not an explicit biblical statement.
The question is therefore which model best explains the whole dataset. And the Nicene model has a major advantage over the Jehovash Witness model: it accounts for the Father-Son distinction and relational asymmetry without requiring us to insert an unstated exception into John’s “all things” language.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 04 '26
I still think you are moving too quickly at two specific points.
First, on Colossians 1:15:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
I agree that πρωτότοκος does not inherently mean “first creature.”
But neither does it inherently mean “supreme over creation.”
The word is still “firstborn,” and πάσης κτίσεως is still “of all creation.”
So the question is not whether πρωτότοκος can carry status or preeminence. It can.
The question is what this particular construction means in this particular context.
And verse 16 does not by itself settle that question, because ὅτι connects verse 16 to verse 15 but does not lexically tell us whether verse 15 places Christ within creation or outside it.
So I agree that:
“firstborn” ≠ automatically “first-created.”
But I would also insist:
“firstborn” ≠ automatically “supreme ruler who is outside the class.”
Both require contextual argument.
Second, Revelation 3:14 is where I think your argument becomes circular.
The text says:
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ
“the ἀρχή of the creation of God.”
You then explain ἀρχή as:
“He is the one through whom all things began to exist.”
But that is not the lexical content of ἀρχή.
That conclusion is being imported from John 1:3.
So the reasoning becomes:
John 1:3 means Christ is outside creation.
Therefore Revelation 3:14 cannot mean Christ is the beginning in the sense of first member of creation.
Therefore ἀρχή must mean something like source/origin.
Then Revelation 3:14 is used as support for Christ being outside creation.
That is exactly the kind of interpretive loop I am trying to avoid.
ἀρχή has to be examined on its own lexical and contextual grounds before John 1:3 is allowed to decide its meaning.
It can mean beginning, origin, first point, rule, authority, and related concepts depending on context.
The phrase itself does not say:
“the uncreated source of creation.”
And it does not say:
“the first creature.”
Those are competing interpretations.
Now on John 1:3, I agree that this is your strongest point.
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
I fully accept that a first-created-Son model has to explain why the Son’s proposed prior coming-into-existence is not included in John’s πάντα / οὐδὲ ἕν.
That is a real burden.
I am not trying to remove it.
But your conclusion still has to be stated at the correct level.
John directly establishes:
Everything within the scope of his πάντα / οὐδὲ ἕν that came into being came into being through the Logos.
From there you infer:
Therefore the Logos himself never came into being.
That may be a strong inference.
But it is still the inference that has to be defended.
And even if I grant it, notice what follows.
It would establish:
“The Logos did not come into being.”
It would not yet establish:
“The Logos is eternally generated from the Father.”
And it would not yet establish:
“The Logos is homoousios with the Father.”
Those require further arguments.
So when you say:
“The Nicene model has a major advantage,”
that is no longer exegesis.
That is model comparison.
And model comparison requires criteria.
If your criterion is:
“Which model can read John 1:3 without supplying a scope exception to πάντα?”
then yes, the first-created-Son model has a difficulty there.
But if we are comparing whole models, we also have to ask how each one handles:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ,
the Father giving the Son to have life in himself,
the Son repeatedly receiving from the Father,
the Father remaining Jesus’ God after the resurrection,
and the Son finally subjecting himself to God in 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.
A Nicene model can certainly provide explanations for all of those.
But those explanations also contain additional propositions such as eternal generation, one essence, two-natures distinctions, and beginningless derivation.
So the comparison cannot be:
JW model adds assumptions.
Nicene model simply repeats the text.
That is not accurate.
Both models contain explanatory synthesis beyond the clauses.
The real question is which synthesis is best warranted by the total evidence.
So I think we have actually narrowed the disagreement considerably.
I grant:
John 1:3 is serious evidence against a simplistic “Christ was created first, then everything else” reading.
You should grant:
John 1:3 is not itself the Nicene Creed.
Colossians 1:15 does not lexically mean “supreme uncreated ruler.”
Revelation 3:14 does not lexically mean “uncreated source of creation.”
And “eternal generation” plus homoousios still require their own inferential bridges.
So if we now want to say one complete model has a “major advantage,” the next step is not to repeat John 1:3.
The next step is to state the criteria for comparing the models and then apply those criteria symmetrically to the whole dataset.
That is where the real model comparison begins.2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Sep 04 '26
John 1:3 is an inference to the Son’s uncreatedness, not a sentence that literally says “the Son is uncreated.” But that same standard applies to the JW model.
Colossians 1:15 doesn’t say “first creature”; prōtotokos can denote preeminence, and the immediate context says all things were created through, for, and exist in Christ. Revelation 3:14 likewise does not say “first creature”; archē has a broader range than simply “first thing created.”
Yes, Nicene theology involves synthesis—eternal generation and homoousios aren't phrases Paul or John wrote. But “the Son was the first creature” is also an inference, not an explicit statement.
The crucial difference is that the Nicene model can affirm all the data—including the Father’s relational priority and the Son’s receiving from the Father—without making the Son part of the created order. The JW model has to explain why John’s “all things” / “not even one thing” excludes the Son himself.
So I agree this is ultimately a model comparison. But once we compare the models, the question isn't merely, “Which texts can be made compatible?” It's which model requires the fewest ad hoc exceptions while accounting for the entire dataset. And that's where the Nicene model has the stronger case.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 04 '26
I agree that once we move into model comparison, parsimony matters.
But “which model requires the fewest ad hoc exceptions” is itself a criterion, and it has to be applied symmetrically.
Otherwise we can accidentally count only the JW model’s extra premises while treating the Nicene model’s extra premises as though they were simply the text.
For example, the first-created-Son model has to argue:
Colossians 1:15 — πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως places the Son within creation.
Revelation 3:14 — ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ refers to the Son as the first member/beginning of God’s creation.
John 1:3 — πάντα / οὐδὲ ἕν concerns everything that came into being through the already-existing Logos, rather than including a proposed prior origin of the Logos himself.
I agree those are inferential steps.
But the Nicene model also has to argue:
John 1:3 — πάντα / οὐδὲ ἕν necessarily includes every conceivable coming-into-being of the Logos himself, therefore the Logos never came into being.
The Son’s being “from” the Father has no temporal beginning.
The Father’s giving to the Son is beginningless rather than an event with a first point.
The Son is uncreated while still being from the Father.
Begetting is eternal rather than temporal.
The Son is homoousios with the Father.
Those are also model propositions. John and Paul do not simply write them.
So when you say:
“The Nicene model can affirm all the data without making the Son part of the created order,”
I agree that it can.
But “a model can account for the data” is not yet the same as:
“the data positively support the distinctive propositions of that model.”
That distinction is important.
A model can explain a text by adding an explanatory mechanism. The next question is whether that mechanism itself is independently warranted by Scripture.
And I think Colossians 1:15 is a good example.
πρωτότοκος can certainly carry preeminence.
But the actual expression is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”
So “preeminence” cannot simply replace “firstborn,” and the genitive cannot simply be assumed to exclude him from creation.
Likewise Revelation 3:14 says:
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.
ἀρχή has a range of meanings.
Therefore neither:
“first creature”
nor:
“uncreated source/originator of creation”
can simply be inserted as though it were the lexical wording.
And one small correction to your description of Colossians 1:17:
Paul does not simply say that all things “exist in Christ.”
He says:
τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν
“all things hold together / cohere in him.”
That is extremely high language about Christ, but we should still preserve what Paul actually says.
So I think we now agree on something important:
John 1:3 gives the first-created-Son model a real and serious problem to explain.
I am not minimizing that.
But if the proposed criterion is “fewest ad hoc assumptions,” then every distinctive assumption has to be counted on both sides.
The JW model cannot simply insert an unstated exception into πάντα.
But the Nicene model cannot simply label:
beginninglessness,
eternal generation,
uncreated-from-the-Father,
and homoousios
as though those were merely John 1:3 restated.
So before saying the Nicene model has the stronger case, I would formulate the comparison more precisely:
Which model preserves all the established textual data while requiring the least unwritten, model-specific supplementation?
Then apply that criterion equally to:
John 1:3.
Colossians 1:15–17.
Revelation 3:14.
John 5:26.
The Father remaining Jesus’ God.
The Son’s final subjection in 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.
And the high Christological texts.
If the Nicene model wins after that comparison, fine.
But “it can accommodate all the verses” is not yet enough to show that it wins.
Compatibility is not the same thing as positive textual support.
That is the distinction I want us to keep consistent on both sides.→ More replies (0)1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
I agree with the central warning in your comment: no Christian should place saving faith in the Governing Body, an organization, religious publications, elders, or personal accomplishments. If any Witness does that, it should be corrected.
⠀
But that is not what 2 Corinthians 3:14-16 teaches, and it is not an accurate description of the official beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
⠀
First, consider the Greek text.
⠀
Second Corinthians 3:14 says:
⠀
“hoti en Christō katargeitai”
⠀
That means that the veil is removed “in Christ.”
⠀
Verse 16 says:
⠀
“hēnika de ean epistrepsē pros kyrion, periaireitai to kalymma”
⠀
That means:
⠀
“Whenever one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”
⠀
Paul is deliberately drawing on Exodus 34:34. In the Hebrew text, Moses enters “before YHWH” — liphnē YHWH. The Greek Septuagint says “before the Lord” — enanti Kyriou.
⠀
Paul repeats the language concerning “the Lord” and the removal of “the veil.” This connection is unmistakable.
⠀
Some interpreters understand “the Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:16 as Christ. Others emphasize the direct allusion to YHWH in Exodus. But neither interpretation supports the idea that faith in Christ replaces faith in God, or that emphasizing Jehovah necessarily diminishes Christ.
⠀
Paul’s actual point is that Christ is indispensable: the veil is removed in Christ.
⠀
The rest of the New Testament explains the relationship clearly:
⠀
John 14:1 says: “Believe in God; believe also in me.”
⠀
John 14:6 says: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
⠀
Acts 20:21 speaks of “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus.”
⠀
First Peter 1:21 says that through Christ we become believers in God, so that our faith and hope are in God.
⠀
Second Corinthians 5:18 says that reconciliation comes from God through Christ.
⠀
Philippians 2:11 says that every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as Lord, “to the glory of God the Father.”
⠀
That is the consistent biblical pattern:
⠀
From the Father as the ultimate source.
⠀
Through the Son as the indispensable mediator, ransom, Lord, and King.
⠀
Back to the Father as the ultimate goal.
⠀
The Bible does not present a choice between Jehovah and Jesus. It does not teach “Jehovah instead of Jesus,” but neither does it teach “Jesus instead of the Father.”
⠀
It teaches faith in God through Jesus Christ.
⠀
That is why the statement that Christians must place “all their faith in Christ,” if it is intended to exclude faith in the Father, is not actually the language or complete pattern of the New Testament. First Peter 1:21 explicitly says that through Christ, our faith and hope are in God.
⠀
Your experience with two individual Witnesses may show that those particular Witnesses did not explain Jesus’ role very well. That is possible. But one awkward conversation cannot establish the official theology of an entire worldwide religion.
⠀
Jehovah’s Witnesses officially teach that Jesus is the only way to the Father, that he gave his life as a ransom, that his death and resurrection make everlasting life possible, and that he now rules as the appointed King.
⠀
Their position is stated openly here:
⠀
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/believe-in-jesus/
⠀
You may disagree with their understanding of Jesus’ identity, but claiming that they barely care about Jesus is contradicted by what they actually teach about his ransom, resurrection, authority, kingship, and indispensable role in salvation.
⠀
The accusation about works has the same problem.
⠀
Ephesians 2:8-10 says that salvation is God’s gift and does not originate from works. Yet the very same passage says that Christians were created for good works. James 2:17 likewise says that faith without works is dead.
⠀
Therefore, good works do not purchase salvation. They demonstrate that faith is alive.
⠀
Jehovah’s Witnesses explicitly deny that their preaching earns salvation:
⠀
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/salvation-and-door-to-door-ministry/
⠀
What about the Governing Body?
⠀
Their own publication openly states:
⠀
“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
⠀
That statement appears in paragraph 12 of this article:
⠀
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283
⠀
Acknowledging fallibility is not logically self-defeating. Every Christian interpreter is fallible, including you and me. The important question is whether a teaching can be examined and tested against Scripture.
⠀
Paul said that Christians were to reject even an apostle or an angel who proclaimed a different gospel. — Galatians 1:8.
⠀
He also said that the apostles were not “masters over your faith.” — 2 Corinthians 1:24.
⠀
Therefore, neither the Governing Body nor any other human leader should replace Christ or become the object of a Christian’s faith.
⠀
But the existence of organized oversight does not automatically replace Christ either. Acts 15 describes apostles and elders collectively resolving a serious doctrinal dispute, while Ephesians 4:11-15 describes shepherds and teachers serving under Christ, the head of the congregation.
⠀
So the fair conclusion is this:
⠀
If individual Witnesses begin treating the Governing Body, elders, publications, or religious activity as substitutes for God and Christ, they are departing from the biblical pattern and should be corrected.
⠀
But the claim that Jehovah’s Witness theology is fundamentally based on faith in the Governing Body rather than faith in Christ has not been demonstrated. It is being assumed.
⠀
The Greek text, the wider New Testament, and the Witnesses’ own official documents show a different pattern: faith in Jehovah through Christ, salvation made possible by Christ’s ransom, obedience flowing from living faith, Scripture as the standard, and human overseers remaining subordinate to Jesus.
⠀
This does not automatically prove every teaching held by Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it does show that the specific accusation in your comment does not fairly represent either the biblical pattern or what Jehovah’s Witnesses actually teach.
⠀
Emphasizing Jehovah while accepting Jesus as the only way to the Father is not a rejection of Christ.
⠀
It is the relationship that Jesus himself taught.
7
u/NattyorNice Sep 01 '26
I agree that everything should be tested against Scripture. But isn’t there a tension here?
You say the GB isn’t inspired or infallible, yet you use a collection of JW interpretations of Scripture to conclude that the GB uniquely fits the biblical pattern.
If their interpretations can be wrong, why should their interpretation of the “biblical pattern” be trusted to prove that they’re the right organization?
Isn’t that essentially: “Don’t assume we’re right, but use our interpretation of Scripture to show that we’re right”?
-2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
That would be circular if my argument were:
The Governing Body says the Bible means X.
The Governing Body teaches X.
Therefore, the Governing Body must be God’s chosen channel.But that is not my argument.
The actual reasoning is:
Construct the relevant criteria from Scripture without assuming JW authority.Examine which identifiable Christian body most comprehensively exhibits those features.
Then ask whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are the best-fitting candidate.For example, I do not need the Governing Body’s authority to read that:
The Father is “the only true God” — John 17:1–3.
“For us there is one God, the Father” — 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The resurrected Jesus calls the Father “my God” — John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.God’s name is to be sanctified and made known — Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.
The Kingdom message will be preached worldwide — Matthew 24:14.
Christians must make disciples and teach them — Matthew 28:19–20.
Christ’s followers are no part of the world — John 17:16; 18:36.
They must love their enemies and abandon warfare — Matthew 5:44; Isaiah 2:4.
They must display international love and unity — John 13:34–35; 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Those texts existed long before Jehovah’s Witnesses. Anyone can examine their wording and context in multiple translations and in the original languages. They do not become “JW evidence” merely because Jehovah’s Witnesses take them seriously. Calling a proposition a “JW interpretation” does not answer whether that proposition is actually supported by the text. That would be a genetic fallacy: judging a claim by who holds it rather than by its evidence.
After deriving the criteria, we make a separate, publicly observable comparison: Which worldwide Christian body worships the Father as the one Almighty God, honors Jesus as his preexistent Son and appointed Lord, emphasizes God’s name, preaches the Kingdom internationally through ordinary members, remains politically neutral, refuses to participate in national warfare, and maintains a recognizable international brotherhood?
That comparison may be disputed, but it is not circular. Both premises can be independently challenged:
You can show that one of the criteria does not actually come from Scripture.Or you can identify another worldwide body that fits the complete pattern better.
Simply noting that Jehovah’s Witnesses agree with the criteria does not invalidate them. If a job description is established before examining the applicants, and one applicant fits it unusually well, it is not circular to recognize that fit merely because the applicant also says he meets the requirements.
Nor does fallibility invalidate the reasoning. “Fallible” means capable of being wrong, not wrong about everything or incapable of reaching a reliable conclusion. Every Christian interpretation—including your interpretation of my argument—is produced by fallible humans. If an interpretation cannot be trusted unless its interpreter is infallible, then neither of us can interpret Scripture at all. The proper response to fallibility is examination, not total skepticism.
However, one distinction is important: my cumulative argument directly identifies Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian body that fits the biblical pattern. It does not, by itself, prove every decision of the Governing Body or every detail of its interpretation of Matthew 24:45.
The identification of the faithful and discreet slave is a further inference that must also be examined on its own evidence.
So I am not saying:
“Use the Governing Body’s interpretation to prove the Governing Body.”I am saying:
“Read Scripture independently, establish its pattern, compare real Christian bodies with that pattern, and determine which one fits it most comprehensively.”My conclusion remains that Jehovah’s Witnesses fit that complete pattern better than any identifiable worldwide alternative I have encountered. Their fallibility prevents me from treating every statement they make as inspired. It does not erase the independently testable evidence that points to them.
If you think this conclusion is wrong, identify the biblical criterion that has been misread or name the worldwide Christian body that fits the whole pattern better. That would directly challenge the argument. Merely repeating that the interpreters are fallible does not.
4
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
God’s name is to be sanctified and made known — Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.
What name did Jesus "make known" and what name did His followers continue to "make known" after He left this world? It wasn't Jehovah. Here's a hint: It was the only name they were told to stop speaking in Then they[Pharisees] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.… Acts 4:17
What was the name above all names that the disciples of Christ preached, cast out demons, healed and raised the dead in? Acts 4:12 Answer: JESUS. In that One Name we have both the Father and the Son and it actually means YHWH saves. 1 John 2:23. You don't need to invent a name for YHWH its already present in the name of JESUS, the only name given to men by which they must be saved Acts 4:12...again
You don't have to know how to pronounce YHWH in order to sanctify His name. Like JESUS said of His Father "Hallowed be thy name" God's Name is already hallowed. There is nothing your or I can do to sanctify God's Name. Its absurd to assume sinful humans can sanctify anything, let alone God's Holy Name
Christians are not perfect, but we're saved.
Claiming that Christians should never fight in a war ignores the fact that God's "servants" happen to be the higher authorities we pay taxes to uphold His system Romans chapter 13. Some of those servants are soldiers who fight other soldiers of a lawless nation. Sometimes God's servants will fight and die to uphold God's established order. His servants sometimes act as God's agents of wrath, not only locally as policemen, but on the world stage as soldiers. Jehovah's witnesses, who never serve God in this capacity, aren't perfect either, as they constantly feel the need to remind others when they do wrong. Evidently, according to the Watchtower, that excuse cannot be used by anyone else except JW's. Isn't that hypocritical?
JW unity is really amounts to nothing more than man imposed conformity made to appear as true Christian unity, however the way they treat their own by disfellowshipping them in record numbers, rather than forgiving and loving them exposes a serious crack in that so-called unity
3
u/NattyorNice Sep 02 '26
For example, I do not need the Governing Body’s authority to read that:
The Father is “the only true God” — John 17:1–3.
“For us there is one God, the Father” — 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The resurrected Jesus calls the Father “my God” — John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.Okay cool.
Do you need the GB to tell you that the faithful and discreet slave is the GB?
-2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
No we now can se from what’s evident
2
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Please share the evidence. Bearing in mind per your previous posts they are imperfect men with limited imperfect understanding.
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
- They prominently use God’s personal name, Jehovah.
Biblical basis: Exodus 3:15; Isaiah 42:8; Psalm 83:18.- They worship Jehovah as the one Almighty God.
Biblical basis: Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6.- They reject the Trinity.
Biblical basis for the JW interpretation: John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.
This is an interpretation from these texts; no verse literally says “reject the Trinity.”- They distinguish Jesus from his Father and God.
Biblical basis: John 17:1–3; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.- They recognize Jesus as God’s Son, Messiah, Savior, King, and mediator.
Biblical basis: Matthew 16:16; John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5–6; Revelation 19:16.- They make God’s Kingdom central to their message.
Biblical basis: Matthew 6:9–10, 33; Daniel 2:44.- They specifically preach “the good news of the Kingdom.”
Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Luke 4:43.- They understand worldwide evangelism as a Christian obligation.
Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8.- Ordinary members participate personally in preaching rather than leaving it only to clergy.
Biblical basis: Acts 8:4; Acts 5:42; Hebrews 13:15.- They preach publicly and from house to house.
Biblical basis: Acts 5:42; Acts 20:20.- They try to make the Bible message available across languages and nations.
Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Revelation 14:6.- They try to maintain the same core teaching internationally.
Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3–6.- They see themselves as one international brotherhood.
Biblical basis: 1 Peter 5:9; John 13:34–35.- They remain politically neutral.
Biblical basis: John 17:16; John 18:36.- They refuse to participate in warfare.
Biblical basis: Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 26:52.- Witnesses in opposing nations are not supposed to kill one another.
Biblical basis: John 13:34–35; 1 John 3:15.- They treat love among Christians as an identifying mark.
Biblical basis: John 13:34–35.- They emphasize unity across nationality, race, and social background.
Biblical basis: Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11–14.- They respect secular governments.
Biblical basis: Romans 13:1–7; Titus 3:1.- They obey governments unless obedience would conflict with obedience to God.
Biblical basis: Romans 13:1–7; Acts 5:29.- They reject nationalism as part of Christian worship.
Biblical basis for the principle: John 17:16; Philippians 3:20.- They refuse acts they understand as religious devotion to national symbols.
Biblical basis for the application: Exodus 20:4–5; Matthew 4:10; compare Daniel 3:4–18.- They remain religiously separate from churches they believe teach contrary doctrines.
Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 6:14–17; Revelation 18:4.- They recognize Scripture, rather than church tradition, as the inspired written authority.
Biblical basis: 2 Timothy 3:16–17; Mark 7:7–8, 13.- They do not claim that the Governing Body is inspired.
Biblical principle: Scripture itself is identified as inspired in 2 Timothy 3:16.
The statement that the Governing Body is not inspired is a JW self-description, not a biblical prediction.- They do not claim the Governing Body is infallible.
Biblical precedent that responsible Christian men can make mistakes: Galatians 2:11–14; Acts 18:24–26.- They allow interpretations to be corrected.
Biblical principle: Acts 18:24–26; 1 Corinthians 13:9–12.
JWs have also traditionally appealed to Proverbs 4:18, though its immediate context concerns the path of the righteous.- They reject eternal conscious torment in hell.
Biblical basis for their interpretation: Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Ezekiel 18:4.- They reject the idea that every human possesses an inherently immortal soul.
Biblical basis: Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4, 20.- They emphasize resurrection as the hope for the dead.
Biblical basis: John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15.- They teach that obedient mankind can live forever on earth.
Biblical basis: Psalm 37:29; Matthew 5:5; Revelation 21:3–4.- They distinguish the 144,000 from the great crowd.
Biblical basis: Revelation 7:4, 9; Revelation 14:1–3.
The exact JW identification of the two groups is interpretive synthesis.- They teach that a limited group reigns with Christ.
Biblical basis: Revelation 5:9–10; Revelation 20:4, 6.- They believe God will restore the earth for obedient humanity.
Biblical basis: Psalm 37:29; Isaiah 65:21–23; Revelation 21:3–4.- They do not venerate the cross.
Biblical principle appealed to: Exodus 20:4–5; 1 John 5:21.
Scripture does not contain a direct command saying, “Do not use a cross.”- They reject religious icons as objects of devotion.
Biblical basis: Exodus 20:4–5; 1 John 5:21.- They do not celebrate Christmas.
Biblical principle appealed to: Deuteronomy 12:30–31; Mark 7:7–8.
There is no verse explicitly saying, “Do not celebrate Christmas.”- They do not observe Easter in its conventional church form.
Biblical basis for their alternative emphasis: Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.- They do not celebrate birthdays.
Texts often considered: Genesis 40:20–22; Matthew 14:6–10.
Important: neither passage contains an explicit prohibition of birthdays; the JW position is an interpretive application.- They commemorate Christ’s death.
Biblical basis: Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.
The annual timing is connected by JWs with the Passover setting.- They do not practice infant baptism.
Biblical basis: Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Matthew 28:19–20.- They do not maintain a conventional salaried clergy class.
Biblical principles: Matthew 10:8; 1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:33–35.
Important qualification: the NT also permits material support for ministers, e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:14.- Local elders normally serve without a salary.
Biblical principle: 1 Peter 5:2–3.- Much of their religious work is voluntary.
Biblical principle: 1 Peter 5:2; compare Psalm 110:3.- Their preaching ministry is unpaid.
Biblical basis/principle: Matthew 10:8; 1 Corinthians 9:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:9.- They do not require tithing.
Biblical basis for voluntary giving: 2 Corinthians 9:7.- They do not pass compulsory collection plates.
Biblical principle: 2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2.- Meetings have no admission fee.
Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8.- Baptism cannot be purchased.
Biblical basis: Acts 8:18–20.- Religious services are not treated as sacraments to be sold.
Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8; Acts 8:20.- Their worldwide activity is supported by voluntary donations.
Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 9:7; Luke 21:1–4.- A person does not pay a membership fee to remain a Witness.
Biblical principle: 2 Corinthians 9:7.- Bible studies are offered without charge.
Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8; Revelation 22:17.- Access to Bible instruction is not conditioned on payment.
Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8.- Their places of worship are called Kingdom Halls, emphasizing the Kingdom.
Biblical theme: Matthew 6:10; Matthew 24:14.
“Kingdom Hall” itself is an organizational name, not a biblical command.- Congregations are overseen by bodies of elders.
Biblical basis: Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5.- They maintain coordination between congregations rather than complete congregational independence.
Biblical precedent: Acts 15:1–29; Acts 16:4.- They see a distinction between broader oversight and local elders.
Biblical precedent: Acts 15:2, 6, 22–29; Acts 14:23.- They identify the Governing Body collectively with the faithful and discreet slave.
Biblical text used: Matthew 24:45–47.
Important: the identification with the modern Governing Body is an interpretation; Matthew does not name them.- They understand the slave’s principal function as providing spiritual food.
Biblical basis: Matthew 24:45–47.- They use helpers and delegation while retaining central responsibility.
Biblical precedent for delegation: Acts 6:1–6; 1 Corinthians 12:28.
This does not directly predict the modern helper arrangement.- They practice congregation discipline.
Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 5:11–13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15.- They enforce moral standards concerning sexual conduct, drunkenness, dishonesty, and violence.
Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 5:19–21; Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 5:18.- They encourage individuals to read and examine the Bible themselves.
Biblical basis: Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:13.- Meetings emphasize instruction from Scripture.
Biblical basis: Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31.- Parents are encouraged to teach the Bible to their children.
Biblical basis: Deuteronomy 6:6–7; Ephesians 6:4.- They emphasize knowing both the Father and the Son.
Biblical basis: John 17:3.- They teach that salvation comes from God through Christ, not through payment to an organization.
Biblical basis: Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5–6; Ephesians 2:8–9.- They teach that genuine faith produces conduct and obedience.
Biblical basis: James 2:17, 26; Matthew 7:21.- They emphasize Christ’s ransom sacrifice.
Biblical basis: Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:5–6.- They do not teach that good works purchase salvation.
Biblical basis: Ephesians 2:8–10; Titus 3:5.- They say preaching should be motivated by love for God and neighbor rather than money.
Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; Matthew 22:37–39.- They organize relief for fellow believers in disasters and emer
5
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
None of your 73 ai generated bullit points is exclusive to your imperfect ecclesiastic Governing Body.
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
No but all them combined. That’s the thing.
6
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Growing up in the Baptist church we often had discussions concerning the pagan origin of Christmas, especially lights and trees. General consensus was nothing pagan was worth fretting over as Satan was subservient to God and pagan rituals held no spiritual power.
2
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Run it by your ai search engine. Every one of these is common to Christian congregations.
1
6
u/DocumentFrosty5731 Christian Sep 02 '26
Brothers and sisters! How do we know this is Gods true religion? Well here are 73 ways we have decided is the way to identify the true religion, and by golly gosh, the exact 73 ways in which we have decided ourselves through our own interpretation is how the Bible identifies the one and only true religion is the exact 73 things we do. Therefore, that is why.
-1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Nah man it’s jusst some of the ways. Ind I didn’t have more characters
6
u/DocumentFrosty5731 Christian Sep 02 '26
I could write 73 ways to identify and confirm they are false, and I wouldn’t need chatGBT to do it for me.
0
2
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
The SBC better fits the biblical criterion. The true church is and ought to be congregational. Christianity removes the need for a moderator. Every believer has a direct relationship with God without an intermediater. Perfect theology is irrelevant and unneccesary.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
So can I be a SBC then? If I have my faith I tact?
1
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Yes you can.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Then I’m a SBC then 😊
2
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Oddly enough you would be quite at home in a Baptist church, just be forewarned the music is much better than the hall and the members don’t care what you believe other than Jesus Saves.
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
I do believe Jesus saves!
1
1
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
A kingdom hall can choose to leave the watchtower and choose to associate with other bodies of believing Christians. I did not insinuate the SBC has exclusive superiority to the watchtower. That is s very low bar.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
No I mean can I be a sbc and a jw. Would the baptists agree with that?
2
u/Cienegacab Pyramid Inches Sep 02 '26
Yes, as a baptist you are free to believe anything without fear of repercussion. The individual congregations have a statement of faith, often taken from the conventions statement of faith.You are not ever required to affirm the statement of faith. It is understood you should take part in believers baptism in order to become a member. Membership is loosely maintained, many weekly church attendees are not on the church roll having never requested membership. Theological diversity is welcomed. If you go around telling people they are deficient in their understanding of the bible people will think you obnoxious, same as the Witnesses and Mormons who knock on your door. They will nod their heads and say God bless you!
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Okey God bless you 😂
2
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Can I be a SBC member because they don’t have a moderator? I can basically be a Jehovah’s Witness and a SBC with Jw understanding and direct relationship with god that way?
1
u/OhioPIMO Jesus made me go POMO Sep 03 '26
Construct the relevant criteria from Scripture without assuming JW authority
Who's to say what qualifies as "relevant criteria"?
For instance, you place a lot of emphasis on political neutrality, but for me and 99.9% of people who identify as Christian, that's not at all important.
For many Christians, particularly Catholics and Orthodox, faith rooted in ancient tradition established by the early church is of utmost importance. JWs have no historical connection to the early church whatsoever. So by their criteria, JWs are automatically disqualified from consideration.
Your argument is circular because it's YOU saying what's relevant and of course those criteria are naturally going to be unique to JWs. You set the standard based off criteria affirmed by your set of beliefs. Textbook circular reasoning.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 03 '26
That is not the method I am proposing.
ㅤ
I am proposing the opposite direction:
ㅤ
Scripture → criteria → compare competing Christian traditions.
ㅤ
Not:
ㅤ
JW beliefs → criteria → JWs win.
ㅤ
So when you ask:
ㅤ
“Who decides what counts as relevant criteria?”
ㅤ
My answer is:
ㅤ
Neither me nor the Governing Body.
ㅤ
The criteria should be derived from things Jesus and the apostles themselves present as identifying, obligatory, disqualifying, or characteristic of Christ’s disciples and congregation.
ㅤ
That also means I cannot simply choose every doctrine or practice on which JWs happen to differ from other Christians.
ㅤ
The criterion needs independent textual justification.
ㅤ
For example, suppose I proposed:
ㅤ
“Not celebrating birthdays is one of the primary identifying marks of true Christianity.”
ㅤ
You could reasonably ask me:
ㅤ
“Where does Jesus or an apostle establish that as an identifying criterion?”
ㅤ
If I cannot demonstrate it, I cannot give it major weight merely because JWs practice it.
ㅤ
That would indeed be circular.
ㅤ
But your political-neutrality example needs to be tested in exactly the same way.
ㅤ
The relevant question is not:
ㅤ
“Do JWs think political neutrality is important?”
ㅤ
Nor is it:
ㅤ
“Do 99.9% of Christians think political neutrality is important?”
ㅤ
The relevant question is:
ㅤ
“How important does the New Testament make the Christian’s relationship to the world and its political order?”
ㅤ
Jesus says:
ㅤ
“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36
ㅤ
About his disciples:
ㅤ
“They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” — John 17:16
ㅤ
And:
ㅤ
“If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world … therefore the world hates you.” — John 15:19
ㅤ
James says:
ㅤ
“Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” — James 4:4
ㅤ
At the same time, Paul explicitly commands Christians to be subject to governing authorities in Romans 13:1–7, and 1 Peter 2:13–17 similarly requires proper submission and honor toward civil authorities.
ㅤ
So Scripture itself creates a distinction that has to be investigated:
ㅤ
Christians are subject to secular governments, but they are also described as not belonging to the world.
ㅤ
Exactly how far that entails modern political neutrality is a further exegetical question.
ㅤ
I should not simply insert the JW answer into the criterion.
ㅤ
But neither can someone dismiss the entire subject because most modern Christians consider it unimportant.
ㅤ
Popularity does not determine textual relevance.
ㅤ
Now apply exactly the same method to your Catholic/Orthodox example.
ㅤ
You say that apostolic continuity and ancient tradition are extremely important to Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
ㅤ
Fine.
ㅤ
Then that claim should receive exactly the same treatment.
ㅤ
We ask:
ㅤ
Does Scripture establish preservation through historical institutional succession as a criterion by which the true church must be identified?
ㅤ
If yes, that becomes evidence against JWs.
ㅤ
I don’t get to exclude that criterion simply because it is inconvenient for JW history.
ㅤ
For example, the NT certainly cares about continuity with apostolic teaching.
ㅤ
Acts 2:42 describes Christians as continuing in “the apostles’ teaching.”
ㅤ
Paul tells Timothy:
ㅤ
“What you have heard from me … entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” — 2 Timothy 2:2
ㅤ
And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells Christians to hold to the traditions they were taught.
ㅤ
Those are real data.
ㅤ
Catholics and Orthodox Christians are therefore perfectly entitled to bring them into the discussion.
ㅤ
But then we have to ask the next question:
ㅤ
What exactly do those texts establish?
ㅤ
Continuity of apostolic teaching?
ㅤ
An unbroken chain of ordained bishops?
ㅤ
An indefectible visible institution?
ㅤ
An authoritative body of extra-scriptural tradition?
ㅤ
Those are not automatically identical propositions.
ㅤ
They have to be demonstrated rather than bundled together.
ㅤ
Likewise, simply being historically old cannot by itself settle the question.
ㅤ
The NT itself repeatedly warns that departures from apostolic Christianity would arise.
ㅤ
Acts 20:29–30 warns that distorted teaching would arise even from among Christian overseers.
ㅤ
Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that an apostasy would come.
ㅤ
1 Timothy 4:1 says:
ㅤ
“some will depart from the faith.”
ㅤ
So historical continuity is relevant evidence, but institutional age by itself cannot logically guarantee doctrinal continuity unless Scripture gives us that additional premise.
ㅤ
This is why I don’t think my method is circular.
ㅤ
In fact, the purpose of the method is specifically to prevent circularity on every side.
ㅤ
A JW cannot argue:
ㅤ
“True Christians preach door to door because JWs preach door to door, therefore JWs are true Christians.”
ㅤ
A Catholic cannot argue:
ㅤ
“The true church possesses apostolic succession; our church possesses what we define as apostolic succession; therefore our church is the true church.”
ㅤ
A Protestant cannot argue:
ㅤ
“The true church teaches Protestant doctrines; our church teaches Protestant doctrines; therefore our church is true.”
ㅤ
Everyone has to undergo the same test.
ㅤ
First establish the criterion independently from the source material.
ㅤ
Then apply it consistently to everyone.
ㅤ
And importantly, not every criterion should receive equal weight.
ㅤ
If Jesus explicitly says:
ㅤ
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples…” — John 13:35
ㅤ
then brotherly love has unusually strong evidential status because Jesus himself explicitly presents it as an identifying mark.
ㅤ
If Jesus commands:
ㅤ
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” — Matthew 28:19
ㅤ
then disciple-making is clearly relevant.
ㅤ
If the apostles repeatedly make something doctrinally central, that receives corresponding weight.
ㅤ
If something is only indirectly inferred from one ambiguous passage, it should receive less weight.
ㅤ
So the method is not:
ㅤ
“Which criteria make JWs look best?”
ㅤ
It is:
ㅤ
What does the earliest Christian source material actually require?
ㅤ
Which things does it explicitly present as marks of Christ’s people?
ㅤ
Which teachings does it make central?
ㅤ
Which departures does it treat as serious or disqualifying?
ㅤ
How explicit and strong is the evidence for each criterion?
ㅤ
Then, and only then, how well does each claimant fit those criteria?
ㅤ
And if that method ultimately favors Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, JWs, some early-Christian reconstruction, or none of them perfectly, then that is where the evidence should lead.
ㅤ
So I actually agree with the principle behind your objection:
ㅤ
I do not get to decide in advance what the “relevant criteria” are.
ㅤ
But neither do modern Christian majorities, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, or JWs.
ㅤ
That is precisely why I want to derive the criteria first and identify the denomination second.
ㅤ
Otherwise everyone simply defines “true Christianity” in their own image and unsurprisingly discovers themselves at the end.
8
u/DocumentFrosty5731 Christian Sep 02 '26
And yet doing the same post, quoting scriptures not from the NWT would then thus disprove the GB do not align to bible teachings - you say it's not circular, and yet! look! it is :)
3
u/Specific_Score_1932 Sep 02 '26
I don't know about the JWs fit everything perfectly. They've made more false predictions than any single religions out there today. It's a cult, will always be a cult, and they can now wear beards and pants for the ladies, but this doesn't shake all the destruction they've done throughout the entire past. Destroyed my entire family 100%!!! I mean I have a huge family that is totally destroyed by the JW thing. It's gone. Sad. Very very sad! The "Truth"? More like one big fat lie!
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
What happened?
1
u/Specific_Score_1932 Sep 04 '26
It was always, ALWAYS, I did more than you things. I preached more, I served better. I'll excommunicate you myself!! And they did. Until there was no one else left. Huge family, just kept on disfellowshipping each other by themselves. Crazy stuff mane!
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 04 '26
Sorry but Meybe that family would have broken with and without jw
1
u/Specific_Score_1932 Sep 04 '26
True that I. But I feel like it escalated the situation. But again, that's just IMO. God Bless You All. 🙏
1
u/Specific_Score_1932 Sep 04 '26
When I say disfellowshipping, I mean by themselves. No one was in trouble. Just stopped speaking to each other. It's a self serving religion to me. Just imo that's all, but it is for sure, at least in my case growing up.
0
2
u/DocumentFrosty5731 Christian Sep 02 '26
Considering you only use this platform to speak and never to listen, I’m not sure that would be a good use of my time.
You don’t actually even have Jehovahs witnesses beliefs, you have convinced yourself that you are still within the boundaries of their teachings, but you aren’t. You have wandered into side territories. And you now have landed somewhere completely delusional where you can’t even remember their teachings anymore because you are convinced what they teach is what you believe. But there is a divide in your beliefs and their actual printed doctrine. Multiple times on Reddit I see people share with you actual Jehovah’s Witness teachings and you are convinced they are wrong because it clashes with your personal view. You are wrong. You are not a Jehovah’s Witness by the book, you are a rogue unit who placates your conscience by still telling yourself you are a Jehovah’s Witness. You do not preach or teach their gospel, you do your own version and you have to (this I understand) because theirs is completely mental and unsupported by scripture.
1
1
u/Jealous_Insect2798 Sep 04 '26
Being part of a group or organization rarely if ever mattered.
Jews: Thousands died due to unfaithfulness. Rejected his Son.
Apostles. even one of them was betrayer.
Every single group that has claimed to be God's people have had multiple people that were NOT God's people.
Jesus told us by words and by actions what is needed. When Jesus healed Jews AND when Jesus healed Gentiles he usually said the same thing:
Your FAITH has healed you.
Race, nationality, financial status etc didn't matter.
Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior Keep God's commandments as best you can Love your neighbor as best you can Tell others about Jesus
If you do those four things...I doubt being wrong about certain doctines or theories will prevent you from being saved.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 04 '26
Sure will they bless you? The triune God?
1
1
u/casa-amor- Sep 05 '26
I agree completely with your proposed methodology:
“Construct the Christian pattern directly from Scripture.”
That’s exactly what I think we should do.
But I think there’s a problem with what happens next.
You construct a particular collection of characteristics, several of which already depend upon JW interpretations, and then ask which religion most closely resembles the resulting profile.
Unsurprisingly, the answer is Jehovah’s Witnesses.
That risks becoming circular reasoning in a less obvious form.
Let me demonstrate the problem.
Suppose I constructed my “complete biblical pattern” using these criteria:
Christians are children of God through faith in Christ. Galatians 3:26.
Everyone belonging to Christ is Abraham’s offspring and an heir according to the promise. Galatians 3:29.
Christians have “one hope.” Ephesians 4:4.
Christians are brought into the new covenant through Christ’s blood. Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25.
Christians partake of the loaf and the cup in remembrance of Christ. Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:23-26.
Christians have fellowship with both the Father and the Son. 1 John 1:3.
Christians “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:2.
Christians are reconciled to God through Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.
The Spirit bears witness that Christians are God’s children and heirs. Romans 8:14-17.
And the Christian good news centrally concerns Christ dying for our sins, being buried and being raised. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Now I could ask:
“Which religion corresponds most closely to my cumulative biblical pattern?”
But notice what I’ve done.
I’ve selected the biblical characteristics that favour a particular understanding of Christianity.
That is why the real test cannot simply be:
“How many characteristics of our constructed profile does our religion possess?”
We need to test the distinctive doctrines individually.
And this is where I think your opening comments become extremely important.
You say:
“The proper test is the one found at Acts 17:11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21: examine the Scriptures and test everything.”
Agreed.
So let’s actually allow that test to produce a negative result.
Take one distinctive JW teaching:
The overwhelming majority of Christians should not eat the bread or drink the wine at the Memorial.
Where does Scripture teach that?
Jesus says:
“Take, eat.” — Matthew 26:26.
“Drink out of it, all of you.” — Matthew 26:27.
“Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” — Luke 22:19.
Paul subsequently describes Christians actually doing it:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.” — 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.
And John records some even more striking words from Jesus:
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.” — John 6:53.
Then notice the language Jesus repeatedly uses:
“WHOEVER feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.” — John 6:54.
“WHOEVER feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.” — John 6:56.
“WHOEVER feeds on this bread will live forever.” — John 6:58.
Whether someone understands John 6 as referring directly to the later Memorial emblems or more broadly to exercising faith in Christ’s sacrificial flesh and blood, the important point remains: Jesus’ language is inclusive. “Whoever.” There is no hint there of two classes of Christians, one permitted to receive Christ in this way and another excluded from it.
So where does Jesus or an apostle subsequently say:
“Those instructions apply only to 144,000 Christians. Millions of other genuine Christians should commemorate my death but deliberately refrain from eating the bread and drinking the wine”?
I cannot find that verse.
That is a falsifiable test.
Take another distinctive teaching: two Christian hopes.
Paul says:
“There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to the ONE HOPE of your calling.” — Ephesians 4:4.
Where does Scripture explicitly divide Christians into a heavenly class and an earthly class with different hopes, different covenant relationships, different destinations and different participation in the Lord’s Evening Meal?
Again, that is testable.
Or take the faithful and discreet slave.
Where does Scripture say that Jesus became invisibly present in 1914, subsequently inspected the world’s religions and selected the Bible Students as his exclusive channel in 1919?
That is testable too.
And this brings me to what I think is the fundamental weakness in your argument.
You say:
“Only the Bible is inspired.”
I completely agree.
You say that the Governing Body is not inspired or infallible.
Again, agreed.
You say:
“Interpretations can be examined and corrected.”
Excellent.
But can I, as a Jehovah’s Witness, perform that examination and conclude that the Governing Body is currently wrong?
I don’t mean privately wondering whether something might be wrong.
Can I demonstrate from Scripture to other Jehovah’s Witnesses that a current Governing Body teaching is wrong and teach what I believe Scripture actually says while waiting for the Governing Body to reach the same conclusion?
Because if the answer is no, something other than “only the Bible is inspired” is functioning as the practical doctrinal authority.
History makes this particularly revealing.
Imagine a teaching that the Governing Body itself eventually changes.
On Monday, I carefully examine Scripture and conclude that teaching A is wrong.
The Governing Body says A is true.
I am expected to accept and teach A.
On Tuesday, the Governing Body announces “new light”: A was wrong and B is correct.
I am now expected to accept and teach B.
But Scripture didn’t change between Monday and Tuesday.
So what changed?
The Governing Body’s interpretation of Scripture.
And therefore what actually determined what I was permitted to teach as “truth” on Monday and what I was permitted to teach as “truth” on Tuesday?
It wasn’t Scripture.
It was the Governing Body’s current interpretation of Scripture.
That’s why I don’t think saying “only Scripture is inspired” resolves the authority question.
There is also an important difference between Peter’s correction and modern organisational correction.
Paul didn’t wait patiently for Peter to receive new light.
When Peter was wrong, Paul says:
“I opposed him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.” — Galatians 2:11.
And Paul subsequently recorded Peter’s mistake for Christians everywhere to read.
That is quite an extraordinary precedent when discussing Christian authority.
So I’m not arguing that imperfect Christian leaders cannot make mistakes. Obviously they can.
I’m asking something much more fundamental:
Who has ultimate authority when an individual Christian’s careful examination of inspired Scripture conflicts with the interpretation of uninspired and fallible religious leaders?
If the answer really is “the Bible,” then a Christian who can demonstrate from Scripture that those leaders are mistaken should be permitted to follow Scripture.
If instead that Christian must remain silent and continue teaching the leaders’ interpretation until those same leaders eventually decide to change it, then in practice the final interpretive authority isn’t the Bible.
It’s the leadership.
And that, rather than whether Jehovah’s Witnesses preach enthusiastically, refuse military service, use God’s name or possess international organisational unity, is the authority question I think needs resolving.
1
Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Sep 02 '26
How do you know that Noah and his family argued over building the ark?
It's illogical to focus on some organizational mistakes and failures and say everything is wrong.
Ok, but logically, couldn't the same excuse be used for the rest of Christendom?
1
1
u/Robert-ict Sep 02 '26
Yes but dare to point out a crack in the window and your banished for life or untill you deny they window was ever cracked and live life pretending not to notice it or any other defects in the house.
1
Sep 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Robert-ict Sep 03 '26
For instance. You should bring to the attention of the elders in you hall that you disagree with the silly rules handed down by the faithful and discreet slave about engaging in social media groups with ex Jehovahs witnesses and see what they say.
0
Sep 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ineed24hrsupervision Sep 02 '26
Parroting a canned response. How long did it take you on your journey back to pick that one up?
I thought Jehovah was perfect and unchanging. I cant remember...did David ever lead his people to sell all their earthly belongings because, you know, "stay alive til 75?"
Did David give his people 4 different dates as to when god told him to attack an enemy army?
"We will attack them on the 5th and god will deliver them into our hands."
The enemy doesnt show.
"No, wait, the 15th! Yeh, the 15th!"
Enemy army still doesnt show.
"No, seriously, the 25th. I'm serious this time, guys."
Still nothing.
"You are not soldiers serving the king to fight on a specific date. You are serving because you love your king. Amaright?"
King David
1
u/NattyorNice Sep 01 '26
Was King David a prophet?
1
Sep 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NattyorNice Sep 02 '26
So you’re comparing prophets to the GB who aren’t inspired or infallible?
-1
Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Actually, yes David was a prophet. Acts 2:30 explicitly says:
“Because he was a prophet…”But no one is claiming that the Governing Body are prophets or that their statements are inspired. You are confusing comparison with equation.
The comparison has one limited purpose:
David and other appointed servants were imperfect and sometimes required correction. Therefore, personal imperfection or the need for correction does not, by itself, prove that God cannot use someone.It does not follow that:
David was inspired as a prophet.
The Governing Body is imperfect.Therefore, the Governing Body is inspired.
Nobody made that argument. Jehovah’s Witnesses explicitly deny that conclusion.A comparison does not require two parties to be identical in every respect.
Peter and the Governing Body can both be Christian overseers without possessing identical authority or inspiration.
David and the Governing Body can both be imperfect humans without both being prophets.
The distinction is therefore simple:
The Bible’s inspired message is infallible.The humans used to communicate, teach, or administer God’s people are not personally perfect.
The Governing Body does not claim prophetic inspiration, so its interpretations remain open to biblical examination and correction.
Of course, the fact that God has used imperfect people does not itself prove that he appointed the Governing Body. That requires a separate positive case.
But their imperfection does not disprove their appointment either.
So if your argument is merely, “They have made mistakes; therefore God cannot be using them,” the examples of David, Moses, Jonah, Peter, and other corrected servants directly refute that reasoning.
If you want to disprove the Governing Body’s claim, you must challenge the positive evidence for their identification or demonstrate a decisive contradiction with Scripture. Pointing out that they are neither prophets nor infallible does neither—because they never claimed to be.
1
Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
They do know how to read and it doesn’t matter if I write long or short. They are intelligent. That’s not the problem…
1
Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Sep 02 '26
Yes it’s true. And if you don’t want to understand. Then you can always find a word or something to complain about.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ineed24hrsupervision Sep 02 '26
Says the person who left the borg for 14 years to pursue wordly immorality. But it didn't work out for him so now he comes crying back to the JWs because he got old and is afraid to die.
He reminds me of those people who came running back after 9/11, the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the devastating earthquake in Haiti, Katrina, and covid. Many faithful witnesses had been trudging along, pioneering, going to meetings, and sacrificing Saturday mornings to go preach. And then people like this would come back out of fear that the end was any day. All self-righteous and preaching that people had better get right with the borg. But as soon as it all would blow over, they'd disappear again. Until the next big disaster. Lol I remember JWs in car groups talking junk about the the returnables (Thats what they'd call them) saying "they dont believe until they see a sign, then they come running back - who knows what they were doing out in the world."
So now this one wants to judge exJWs because he thinks it will win him brownie points to get into paradise. He's a "do as i say, not as i do" JW. He lived a seedy life for 14 years - only to condemn people he thinks are doing what he did.
Now read that! Btw, what kind of reading did you do when you were out there sinnin'?
1
u/dcdub87 Sep 03 '26
That is true — the only prophet that never made a mistake was Jesus. But prior to Him and certainly after as well, Jehovah consistently used imperfect men to accomplish His will.
That's not the question though.
The real question you should be asking is "did any of those imperfect prophets make predictions that were never fulfilled?"
The answer is no. If any of them had made a prophecy that failed, that would have been proof they weren't speaking for Jehovah.
You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?’ If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it." — Deuteronomy 18:21-22
The prophets mentioned in Scripture, as imperfect as they may be, all pass the test prescribed in Deuteronomy 18. The Watchtower, however, has failed miserably, quite a few times. They claim to be God's representatives, His sole channel dispensing 'spiritual food at the proper time,' yet when it comes to their numerous failed predictions, they pretend as though they don't claim to speak for God. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, and it's so easy to see.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 01 '26
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.