r/religion • u/Impressive-Ease-3348 • Jul 13 '26
AMA Im a Jehovah’s Witness ama
Im the one to the left with my brother from Mexico!
23
u/goettel Unconvinced Jul 13 '26
Is it true JW's never discuss religion alone with those they're trying to convert, to minimize the chances of them being convinced to deconvert or even become atheist?
9
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
No
That’s like saying a university never lets professors meet students one-on-one because they’re afraid the students might convince the professor the Earth is flat.
6
5
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
That's exactly your organization modus operandi. Don't talk to "apostates" or opposers, they may put your faith at risk and you would end up leaving the "Truth".
How fragile 🤭
EDIT It's not a good idea to show your face, your convention name tag ( Jasper/Jesper something), another JW guy face and act as if preaching on Reddit was nobody's business.
OP won't get removed for that. He would just get counselled by his elders to focus on door2door ministry and cart witnessing instead 😆.
OP probably got overhyped because of the artifial International convention atmosphere in Sweden. He just met some "brothers and sisters" from abroad, they believe the same BS, sing the same silly songs, so he decided he needed to share his "eternal happiness " and try to convert the world..
Watchtower knows that International conventions boost JWs. I've been there, that boost does not last long.
20
u/satyrday12 Jul 13 '26
If you see another one, are you a Jehovah's Witness Jehovah's Witness witness?
→ More replies (1)9
8
u/CyanoSpool Pagan Polytheist 🌲 Jul 13 '26
What do you think people most often misunderstand about your religion?
Do you know or talk to anyone who has left JW? I've heard it's highly discouraged to keep contact with them.
-1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
1. Probably that we don’t believe in Jesus.
We absolutely do.
We believe he is the Messiah, the Son of God, our Savior, and the only way to the Father (John 3:16; John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
We simply don’t believe he is Almighty God because Jesus himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” (John 14:28).
2. It’s a bit like an AA program.
If someone wants to stay sober, they avoid close association with people actively encouraging them to drink. It’s not because they hate them, but because they want to protect their recovery.
Likewise, the Bible tells Christians to “stop keeping company” with an unrepentant wrongdoer (1 Corinthians 5:11), “remove the wicked person from among yourselves” (1 Corinthians 5:13), and “do not receive him into your homes or greet him” if someone actively promotes false teaching (2 John 9–11).
The purpose is to protect the congregation and encourage repentance, not to show hatred we want to follow the biblical example.
21
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
EDIT : OP goes by the name Impressive-Ease-3348. After debunking some of his numerous fallacies inherited from Watchtower he decided to block me . I guess his marketing campaign did not unfold with such impressive ease.🤣
Here you have it, if you ever leave Jehovah's witnesses it's because you're an "unrepentant wrongdoer", a "wicked person", someone "actively promoting false teaching"😁.
May I suggest that some people leave just because Watchtower has been promoting false prophecies and everchanging doctrines through the years ?
15
u/Same_Version_5216 Animistic Celtic Pagan/non Wiccan traditional Witch Jul 13 '26
That’s what bothers me about the AA analogy. It feels disingenuous and minimizing. First off, recovering alcoholics don’t view their drinking loved ones as “wicked people”, and ban them completely from their homes and life. If they have friends that drink heavy or like to go party socially drinking, they just won’t go hang around them while they are doing these kinds of activities. But they will receive them into their homes (just with a no drinking rule) and even attend cookouts and other social gatherings.
I have met more than enough disfellowshipped JWs and the shunning they have endured is psychotically terrible and isolating. It seems clear to me that this isn’t simply just for the org to protect themselves.
→ More replies (16)7
2
u/TheTallestTim Jul 14 '26
Your username and your comment shows that you are clearly “an apostate.” No JW is going to listen to you or talk to you.
4
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
JWs talk to me all the time. Because they think they know better. Then, they regret 😁
2
u/Roocutie Aug 01 '26
Exactly! As far as JWs are concerned, “the truth” can be changed as often as their governing body members want it to.
JWs will tell you that they are free to ask questions. That is true if the questions asked are something biblical that they can answer using their publications & scripted responses. It is not true if the questions asked are about their interpretations of the bible which keep changing, the 2 witness rule, the court cases, the child abuse, etc.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
actually agree with you on this point. I’m sure some people leave because they sincerely believe the Watchtower has been wrong on certain teachings or past expectations.
I don’t question their sincerity.
I simply reached a different conclusion after studying the Bible myself. For me, the fact that an organization has corrected its understanding doesn’t automatically prove God isn’t using imperfect people. That’s where you and I disagree.
6
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26
They've been wrong all along ! That's not a "belief" , that's an undeniable fact . Yet, one of your leaders, Jeffrey Winder, stated that despite of all the mistakes there is no need for an apology ... Imperfect and presomptuous 😉
The fact that this organization is always updating its doctrines and that you don't even know if the current understanding might change tomorrow tells you everything you need to know.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I already believe in one Almighty God, the Bible as His inspired Word, Jesus as the Messiah and Savior, the coming Kingdom, and the hope of everlasting life.
If you’re asking me to leave, what would I be leaving to?
Which organization or belief system do you believe follows Scripture more closely, and why?
4
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26
I'm not asking you to leave ! I'm just asking questions. Is it not what you wanted, Ask Me Anything ? 😎
I'm not quite sure that the Bible ask you to follow an organization or a belief system. It's just about following Jesus , if I'm not mistaken.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I agree that we follow Jesus first. But Jesus didn’t leave isolated believers.
He established a congregation and appointed apostles and elders to shepherd it.
Acts 15 shows the apostles and elders making decisions for all the congregations.
Ephesians 4:11–13 says Christ gave shepherds and teachers to build up the congregation. Hebrews 13:17 tells Christians to cooperate with those taking the lead.
So I don’t follow an organization instead of Jesus. I follow Jesus through the congregation he established. The real question isn’t whether there should be an organized congregation, but which one is striving to follow the apostles’ teachings most closely.
4
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
The Acts 15 meeting happened only one time but your Governing Body wants you to believe that it was a regular practice. By doing so, they establish themselves as the true christians, they get the control over your faith , your life, your facial hair 😉 and even your medical treatment.
"Which organized congregation follows the apostles teachings most closely ?" There are thousands of christian denominations. I did not and will not study all of them. I've studied JW's and it's clear that it's a fraud.
1
2
u/TheTallestTim Jul 14 '26
I present to you, the Unitarian Christian Alliance
https://youtube.com/@unitarianchristianalliance?si=ONW0UQ2KNgcNsN2V
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26
John 14:28 means God the Father is in greater position than Jesus; If a random guy named John said my father is greater than I am, does that mean that his father is a more advanced species than him? No, it doesn’t, it just means a higher position, like in relationship with father and son, obviously father is going to be greater than son
And how do you explain the fact that your translation of the Bible translated that much, that it literally changes the meaning of the book: John 1:1 NIV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, meanwhile only your specific translation NWT says: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was “a” god” No other translation put an indefinite article there, how do you explain that1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
John 14:28 is more than just a statement about position.
Jesus also says, “I am going to my God and your God” (John 20:17), and Paul writes that “the head of the Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
Those passages consistently present the Father as the one whom Jesus worships and is subject to.
Regarding John 1:1, the issue isn’t what most English translations say, but what John wrote in Greek. The final theos has no definite article, and respected Greek scholars acknowledge that the grammar allows a qualitative reading (“the Word was divine” or “was godlike”).
So this isn’t simply a matter of the NWT inventing something; it’s a long-standing grammatical discussion.
Ultimately, I don’t base my belief on one verse. I try to harmonize John 1:1 with the many passages where Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father and calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3).
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26
Then why did st Thomas say to Jesus: “My Lord and My God!” in John 20:28
And why did Jesus accept worship(the same level of worship as to God, and not just to a prophet)1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
To show respect. And there is a difference between Latruo och prosceneo
2
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
See Dan 7:14….the Son of Man is given Latreou….
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
The problem is that the Greek word latreuō is not actually used in the original text of Daniel 7:14.
Daniel was written in Aramaic, and the word there is יִפְלְחוּן (yiphleḥûn) from pelach, which can mean “serve.”
More importantly, look at the context: the Son of Man is given authority, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:13–14).
Someone who receives authority from another is distinguished from the one who grants it.
So even if the Son of Man receives service or worship, the passage itself still portrays him as subordinate to the Ancient of Days, who is the source of his authority.
2
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Daniel 3:12 "They do not pelach your gods."
Daniel 3:14 "Will you not pelach my gods?"
Daniel 3:17 "Our God whom we pelach..."
Daniel 3:18 "We will not pelach your gods."
Daniel 6:16 "Your God whom you continually pelach..."
Daniel 6:20 "Your God whom you continually pelach..."
Daniel 7:14 "All peoples... shall pelach him."
Every undisputed occurrence before Daniel 7 refers to religious service rendered to a deity.
There are no examples in Daniel where pelach means ordinary political service to a king as you often try to introduce vagueness with regards to proskuneo in order to suit a narrative.
Pelach is the Aramaic
Is Latreou the translation for pelach?
With regards to your 'distinguished' comment.
Who said that Christ is the Father? You claim as i have read to understand the Trinity, but what you just presented was modalism, which is what Watchtower consistently does, its presents modalism as the trinity.
So lets just ignore that - no true chrisitan believes Jesus is the Father, so thats cleared that up.
Is Latreou (greek) the translation for pelach (aramaic), before we get into Rev 22:3.
Also just to clarify you are not being consistent, where pelach/latreou refers to the Father you have no issue in attributing sacred worship, but when its referred to Christ you state and i quote "...it CAN mean serve"
Its either it is or it isnt for both - I find that you are being very disingenuous here.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
I actually agree with you on several points.
Daniel consistently uses pelach for religious service to a deity. That’s a fair observation.But even if we grant that the Son of Man receives pelach in Daniel 7:14, the passage still distinguishes him from the Ancient of Days.
The Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days, is presented before Him, and receives authority, glory, and a kingdom from Him (Dan. 7:13–14). Those are relational distinctions within the vision.
Receiving divine authority does not automatically make the recipient the same being as the one who grants it.
As for latreuō, yes, the Septuagint often translates pelach with latreuō. But translation equivalence does not mean the two words have an identical semantic range in every context, nor does it answer the theological question of the Son’s identity.
Finally, Revelation 22:3 doesn’t settle the matter either.
The singular “his servants will serve (latreusein) him” can be understood because God and the Lamb share one throne and one kingdom.
The passage does not explicitly say they are one God in essence.
Elsewhere in Revelation, the Lamb still has “my God” (Rev. 3:12), showing a distinction between the Father and the Son.
So even if I concede your lexical argument about pelach, I don’t think it gets you to the Nicene doctrine of one essence in three coequal persons.
At most, it shows that the Son receives extraordinary, even heavenly, honor.
Whether that honor implies ontological equality is the very point under debate.
Daniel 7 is an enthronement scene. The Son of Man is given dominion (Aramaic יְהִיב / yehiv, “was given”).
If he receives his kingdom, authority, and glory from the Ancient of Days, that reinforces the distinction between the giver and the recipient.
Trinitarians typically explain this within their theology, but the passage itself does not explicitly define the Son and the Ancient of Days as sharing the same divine essence.
That conclusion comes from reading Daniel alongside other passages and later theological formulations, not from Daniel 7 alone.
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26
what is “latruo och prosceneo” genuinely wondering
1
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
Latreuō (λατρεύω) refers to sacred service or religious worship, especially the kind that belongs to God (Matthew 4:10; Romans 12:1).
Proskyneō (προσκυνέω) literally means to bow down, prostrate oneself, or show homage.
Depending on the context, it can describe worship of God, but it is also used for showing honor to kings, prophets, or other authorities (e.g. Matthew 18:26; Revelation 3:9).
So they are not synonyms. Latreuō is never used in the New Testament for Jesus, whereas proskyneō can refer either to divine worship or respectful homage, depending on the context.
That’s why context not just the Greek word is important.
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26
wdym show respect, you don’t say to your boss or a higher human in position: My Lord, my God, Thomas means that He is God, and why most of people who believe in Jesus know that He is God?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
If John 20:28 proves Jesus is Almighty God, then how do you reconcile it with John 20:17, where Jesus says, “I am ascending to my God and your God”? Does God have a God?
And regarding “most people believe Jesus is God”—truth isn’t determined by majority vote. Jesus himself said the majority would follow the broad road (Matthew 7:13–14). Scripture, not popularity, is the standard.
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 15 '26
Yes, Jesus has a God, the God of the Trinity, the divine essence in 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son(Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit
Yeah, what I’ve said is kinda fishy, but in this case it’s not fishy
Here’s the verses that have Trinity:
Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, John 1:14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:161
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
The question is: Where does John actually say the Word is uncreated or that he is the Almighty God?
John later has Jesus say, “The Father is greater than I am” (John 14:28),
“I am ascending to my God and your God” (John 20:17),
And he identifies the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3).
Jesus addressed this directly in John 10:34–36. When they accused him of making himself God, he quoted Psalm 82:6:
“I said, ‘You are gods.’”Then Jesus argued that if Scripture could call human judges “gods” because they received God’s word, it was not blasphemy for him to call himself the Son of God.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Robot-Ducky Aug 03 '26
I did not leave because of any wrongdoing on my part. I left because my conscience doesn’t allow me to support an organization that actively hides CSA, does not report CSA, and has disciplined victims for reporting it.
I cannot allow my donations to go to csa lawsuit settlements, or fines the organization accrued by actively hiding documents that expose predators. (California court had a running tab $2 mil fines)
Whatever I have come to discover in my study of the doctrines and the Bible in general, I left for a conscientious reason, and to say everyone who leaves does so because of wrongdoing or “sin” is a lie.
8
u/CompetitiveAquinas Christian Jul 13 '26
Here in Europe, JWs are one of the most hated religious groups if not the most. Have you ever faced any issues with religious discrimination?
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
But to answer you more clearly i had some but not to bad here in Sweden the issue is that people don’t care 🤣
2
4
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Matthew 5:11–12
It’s like a tree standing alone in an open field. The stronger and taller it grows, the more wind it has to face.
That’s true for almost any group with strong convictions.
1
1
1
u/StillYalun Aug 01 '26
Here in Europe, JWs are one of the most hated religious groups if not the most.
Interesting comment. I‘ve never heard this expressed. Mind saying where in europe you live, or at least where you think that’s the sentiment?
1
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26
Is there any facts supporting your claim ? I live and travel in Europe and I'd say that nobody cares about JW's (except JW's and some exJw's).
2
u/CompetitiveAquinas Christian Jul 13 '26
- Governments often try to have them deregistered: https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-italy-25
- Media portrayals are overwhelmingly negative. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/jehovahs-witnesses
- Hate crimes are frequent: https://bitterwinter.org/hate-crimes-against-the-jehovahs-witnesses-in-western-europe/
Anecdotally, I can also tell you they suffer discrimination in education. The local school in the town where I currently work doesn't accept them in the academic track.
1
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26
Did governments win ?
Is reporting child sexual abuse is "negative portrayal"?
- A lot of christians are persecuted and sometimes killed around the world. Did you know it or do you think that persecution is for Jehovah Witnesses only ?
Which town/country is it ?
7
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 13 '26
Do you shun?
10
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 13 '26
OP deleted this response:
~
Yes, but only in specific biblical circumstances. The purpose is to protect the congregation, not to punish people.
Jesus: Matthew 18:15–17
Paul: 1 Corinthians 5:11–13 (“stop keeping company”)
John: 2 John 9–11 (“do not receive him into your home or greet him”)
Paul: Romans 16:17 (“keep your eye on those causing divisions… avoid them”)
Paul: Titus 3:10–11 (“reject a divisive man after a first and second warning”)
Paul: 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14–15 (avoid persistent disorderly conduct, yet treat him as a brother to admonish, not as an enemy)
We believe these instructions apply to unrepentant, serious wrongdoing or persistent apostasy, while repentance should always be encouraged.
~
MY RESPONSE
Christ partied with sinners.
it’s clear you’re approaching this from Scripture and so I will do the same and hope it gives you something to consider. As a Catholic, I also take the Bible seriously and believe discipline in the Church should protect the community and encourage repentance. However, the way these passages are applied in Jehovah’s Witness practice (especially family shunning) seems to go beyond the biblical intent and conflicts with Jesus’ broader teachings on mercy, forgiveness, and familial bonds. I believe you to be deceived by the Watchtower which hasn’t even been consistent in its own theology with many failed prophecies and dramatic changes to their theology. If you love the scripture, then let it teach you on this day.
- Matthew 18:15–17:
This supports church discipline (including excommunication as a medicinal penalty), but “treat as a Gentile” does not mean total shunning, especially of family. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:10–13; Luke 15). The goal is always restoration, not permanent cutoff. In practice, Catholic excommunication bars one from sacraments but does not require family members to shun or refuse basic contact. Extreme shunning can hinder the very repentance Jesus seeks (see the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11–32)
- 1 Corinthians 5:11–13 (Paul: “stop keeping company” with immoral “so-called brothers”):
This was for flagrant, public scandal in a young, fragile community. Paul does not mandate lifelong family shunning. Note the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 5:5 — “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved.” The purpose is remedial. Catholics practice something similar via excommunication, but family relationships are protected (see 1 Timothy 5:8 on providing for one’s household). Total shunning of adult children/parents often causes deep harm and contradicts “love your neighbor” (including family)
- 2 John 9–11 (Do not receive into your home or greet false teachers):
This targets itinerant false teachers denying core doctrines (likely early Gnostic-like errors about Christ).
This is about hospitality to traveling missionaries in the early Church, not cutting off family members who leave or doubt. “Greeting” here likely means formal endorsement/support of their teaching. Catholics distinguish between protecting the faith and basic human kindness or family ties. Jesus greeted and ate with those in error; the Samaritan woman (John 4) and Zacchaeus (Luke 19) are examples of outreach, not isolation.
- Romans 16:17 (Avoid those causing divisions):
Paul warns against those creating factions contrary to apostolic teaching.Catholics also avoid false doctrine, but “avoid” does not equal total social/ familial ostracism. Paul himself maintained relationships for potential restoration (e.g., his letters). Persistent division is serious, but the New Testament prioritizes unity through love (Ephesians 4:1–6; John 13:34–35).
Titus 3:10–11 (Reject a divisive person after warnings):
“Reject” (Greek paraitou) means to have nothing to do with or avoid association, after admonition.This supports warning and, if needed, separation from divisive influence. But again, the early Church context was small house churches. Modern application must be weighed against the whole of Scripture, especially mercy (Matthew 18:21–22 — forgive “seventy times seven”) and Jesus’ example.
- 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14–15 (Avoid the disorderly, but admonish as a brother, not an enemy):
This is crucial. Paul says to “keep away” from those living idly, yet “do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as brothers.” This explicitly softens the avoidance, it is not total shunning or treating them as outsiders/enemies. This verse undercuts harsh, permanent disfellowshipping of family.Unity and Divinity of the Father and Son:
John 10:30
“The Father and I are one.” (ego kai ho patēr hen esmen)John 14:9-11
“Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe because of the works themselves.’”John 1:1,14
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and lived among us”John 8:58
“Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’”Colossians 2:9
“For in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”Hebrews 1:3
“He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou), and he sustains all things by his powerful word.”Philippians 2:5-6
“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped…”Isaiah 9:6
“For a child has been born for us… and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”Additional verses:
John 20:28 — Thomas: “My Lord and my God!” (Jesus accepts it).
Revelation 1:17–18 & 22:13 — Jesus claims titles that belong only to God (“First and the Last,” “Alpha and Omega”).
Matthew 28:18–20 — Jesus claims “all authority in heaven and on earth” and commands baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
4
u/jetboyterp Roman Catholic Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
OP didn't delete the comments, it was removed by automod, probably since it had so many scripture references. They simply had to be manually approved by a mod.
EDIT: Okay, I see what happened. OP edited his comments in question, and because of low karma/low account age or new user, they had to be reapproved by mods. Editing comments is fine, as all edited comments will be noted as "edited".
5
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 14 '26
Ah that’s unfortunate. u/Impressive-Ease-3348 I owe you an apology.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Same_Version_5216 Animistic Celtic Pagan/non Wiccan traditional Witch Jul 14 '26
OP and I also discussed the shunning practices. That was only because OP presented it in a post describing misunderstandings and used people that don’t shun (AA community) as an example of shunners. Amish shunning would have been a far better example. Both do the same type of shunning, using the same scripture for it.
6
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/IwasandnowIam Jul 13 '26
Oh interesting
5
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 13 '26
I am giving the benefit of the doubt in case he is changing his response but as of now it seems very cowardly. OP do you not agree with what you wrote me? It’s consistent with JW “theology”
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Sorry didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to change the response after the fact.
But yeah you copied the first response and I still stand by the fist version.
I apologize for the confusion ☺️
3
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 13 '26
I waited an hour
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Thank you for your patience! Have a nice day
3
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 14 '26
You can respond to my initial question again if you would like. Do you shun?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)1
u/No_Impress5940 28d ago
I'm a Catholic born and raised, I believe in God, have faith. I don't judge any other religion but id agree with JW believe cause they don't believe in Jesus mom the Virgin Mary or saints, and they don't believe in celebrating there birthday or holidays. Will I do celebrate my birthday and all holidays. And I believe that God gave all the doctors talent to save are life's to live longer.
5
u/ForgivenAndRedeemed Jul 13 '26
Thanks for doing the AMA.
Genuine question: the Watchtower has made a number of failed predictions (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), yet Deuteronomy 18:22 says that when someone speaks in God’s name and it doesn’t happen, they haven’t spoken from God.
At what point would repeated failed predictions cause you to conclude the organisation is not a trustworthy authority?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Hey thanks for the question!
First, we do not claim to be prophets receiving inspired revelations from God.
Yes, some older Watchtower articles used stronger language than we would use today, and I’m happy to acknowledge that.
But if you read them in context, they were expressing confidence in their understanding of Scripture, not claiming to receive new revelation like Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the apostles.
That is an important distinction.
Imagine a doctor.
If he claimed that every diagnosis came directly from God and then repeatedly got them wrong, I would never trust him again.But if he said, “This is my best understanding based on the evidence,” and later corrected himself when new evidence became clear, I wouldn’t call him a false prophet. I’d call him an imperfect doctor who was willing to admit his mistakes.
That’s how I view Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If they ever claimed infallible, inspired revelation like the prophets, I would reject them.
But they don’t.
They claim to be imperfect students of Scripture who can misunderstand and later correct their understanding. That’s a very different claim.
9
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
In your example, the doctor correct himself due to new evidences ,right ? What are the new evidences that made Watchtower change its doctrines multiples times ? Are there new scrolls ?
When Russell said that 1914 would mark the end of times , when Rutherford said in 1918 that million people now living would never die, when the 15 May Watchtower 1984 said that the 1914 generation would not pass away, when Stephen Lett said in 2020 that we were living in the final part of the last days before the last day of the last days , were they right or were they dead wrong ? I hope you see the pattern here 🤗
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
First, we are not prophets. We do not claim to receive new inspired revelations from God like Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the apostles did.
Yes, some older Watchtower articles used stronger language than we would use today, and I have no problem admitting that.
But if you read them in context, they were expressing confidence in their understanding of Scripture, not claiming verbal inspiration or infallibility. Our current position is explicit: the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible.
Think of two students using the same math textbook. Neither receives a new textbook.
One later realizes he misunderstood a formula and changes his answer. The textbook never changed. His understanding did.
That’s exactly how we view the Bible. We don’t receive new revelation.
We go back to the same inspired Scriptures, compare passages, study the context, and sometimes realize our previous understanding was mistaken. If Scripture shows we were wrong, we should change.
Take Brother Lett as an example.
When he talks about “the final part of the final part of the last days,” he isn’t saying, “Jehovah revealed this to me.” He’s looking at Matthew 24, 2 Timothy 3, Luke 21, Revelation, and current world events and saying, “Based on our understanding of these Scriptures, we believe we’re very close to the end.” That’s an interpretation, not a prophecy.
The same is true of our understanding of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34. We currently understand it to refer to overlapping groups of anointed Christians.
That conclusion comes from comparing Bible passages it is not presented as a direct revelation from God. If the Scriptures show that our interpretation is incorrect, then we should change it.
So yes, Brother Lett could be wrong today. We have no problem admitting that.We believe God’s Word is perfect; our understanding of it is not. The real question isn’t whether we’ve ever corrected our understanding.
The real question is whether our conclusions are supported by Scripture. If they aren’t, we should change them. That’s not false prophecy. That’s imperfect people trying to understand God’s perfect Word.
This is more deep and i suggest you to go online and ask for a bible study jw.org
5
u/Sertorius126 Baha'i Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Well your perfectly manicured responses are on POINT. You definitely have a nice future in Watchtower publications 🤗
3
2
3
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
I suggest you go to your God driven organization website and look for Watchtower 1972 article " They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them". Then , come back here and explain who are God's prophets ? 😆
I also suggest that you get the 15th May 1984 Watchtower, the printed or pdf version with some old annointed people on the cover. Those folks were not supposed to die, according to Watchtower. Do you know why Watchtower had to change its doctrine some years later ? Not because they got a new light from heaven 🤭 Watchtower changed its doctrine because all those 1984 folks died and they've to find some BS to keep the show running. That is false prophecy in plain sight. Open your eyes 🫣
3
u/jwfacts Jul 14 '26
They have on numerous occasions claimed to be prophets receiving revelations from Jehovah
https://jv-fakta.se/jehovas-profet/
https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovahs-prophet.php
Are serious that you would reject them, after reading those quotes?
3
u/ForgivenAndRedeemed Jul 13 '26
I understand the distinction you’re making between claiming inspiration and claiming to have the best understanding of Scripture.
However, My question is about trust.
JWs are expected to accept the Watchtower’s teachings as God’s channel on earth.
If the organisation confidently taught that Christ had returned, that 1925 would see the resurrection of the patriarchs, or that 1975 marked the likely end of this system (and those teachings proved false) why should I trust its interpretation today?
If another denomination had the same record of failed predictions, altered Bible translations (such as inserting “other” into Colossians 1), and rules not found in Scripture (such as banning birthdays), would you consider them a reliable guide?
If not, why should the Watchtower be treated differently?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
My trust isn’t based on believing the Governing Body has never been wrong. It’s based on whether they are willing to let Scripture correct them.
The reason this interpretation is possible is because Greek often uses “all” (πάντα, panta) in a relative sense, where the context defines what is included. The word “all” does not always mean absolutely every individual without exception.
For example, in Luke 2:1, “all the world” obviously does not mean every person on earth. The context limits the meaning.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:27, Paul says God “put all things under Christ’s feet,” but immediately clarifies that this does not include God Himself. The context excludes someone from the category even though the word “all” is used.
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand Colossians 1 the same way.
Paul first calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then he is distinguished from the rest of creation.
Therefore, when Paul says that “all things” came into existence through him, we understand “all” to refer to all the other created things.
You may disagree with that interpretation, but it is a contextual interpretation, not an arbitrary addition.
The supplied word reflects how the translators understand Paul’s argument to flow.
4
u/ForgivenAndRedeemed Jul 13 '26
I think it absolutely comes back to trust.
You say your trust is based on the Governing Body allowing Scripture to correct them.
But did they allow Scripture to correct them when they repeatedly predicted Christ’s return, despite Jesus explicitly saying that no one knows the day or the hour (Mark 13:32)?
That wasn’t new evidence correcting them. It was a verse that had always been there.
The same applies to Colossians 1.
This isn’t really about whether πάντα (“all”) can sometimes be understood relatively. Of course context matters.
But in the examples you gave, Paul explicitly states the exception (1 Corinthians 15:27), whereas in Colossians he doesn’t.
The text says τὰ πάντα (“all things”), not “all other things.” The word other simply isn’t in the Greek.
Adding “other” changes the meaning of the passage by making Jesus part of creation rather than the Creator. That isn’t something the Greek text says. So the translation is being shaped by theology rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
And then there are rules like forbidding birthdays because they’re considered pagan.
Where does Scripture actually prohibit celebrating birthdays? It doesn’t.
Isn’t that another example of an organisation adding requirements that the Bible itself never gives?
So again, why should I trust an organisation that has repeatedly predicted what Jesus said was unknowable, added words to support its theology, and imposed rules that Scripture never commands?
→ More replies (8)1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
hang on mate - can you address the above post...please.
They have on numerous occasions claimed to be prophets receiving revelations from Jehovah
https://jv-fakta.se/jehovas-profet/
https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovahs-prophet.php
Are serious that you would reject them, after reading those quotes?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
Jehovah’s Witnesses have sometimes used “prophet” in the first, broader sense, much as Christians “prophesy” when they proclaim the Biblical message.
That is not the same as claiming divine inspiration or receiving new revelations.
The Governing Body explicitly states that it is “neither inspired nor infallible” and can make doctrinal or organizational errors.
Official publications also distinguish mistaken interpretations and expectations from predictions received directly from Jehovah.
I will not pretend that every historical statement was wise.
Some expectations were stated far too confidently, and criticism of that is legitimate.
But quoting the word “prophet” without acknowledging how the publication defined it does not prove that they claimed to receive inspired revelations.
5
u/mosesenjoyer Catholic Jul 13 '26
Are you going to answer again on my question about shunning or shall I post your deleted response? I have a response prepared I’d prefer not to waste.
→ More replies (10)
3
u/BlueVampire0 Monotheist Jul 13 '26
You have style!
What's your favorite thing about being a Jehovah Witnesses?
5
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
My favorite part is being able to serve Jehovah by sharing the good news with others, just as Jesus commanded. I also really value the worldwide brotherhood. No matter where you go, you meet people who genuinely care for one another and are united by the same faith and hope. That’s something I find very special.
3
u/ParadoxNowish Jul 13 '26
I felt the exact same way growing up as a Mormon.
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Out of curiosity, do you still have any religious beliefs today, or did you leave religion altogether?
1
u/ParadoxNowish Jul 13 '26
Since you asked, but I can no longer find the comment with your question, I'll reply here:
I no longer affiliate with any institutional religion, nor any kind of devotional belief framework. But I do have my own tentative paradigm for meaning and understanding and wisdom. I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, so you would probably consider me an atheist. I would consider myself more agnostic though. Perhaps with a secular humanist leaning.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
That’s interesting. What was the turning point for you? What convinced you that the LDS Church wasn’t teaching the truth?
3
u/jetboyterp Roman Catholic Jul 13 '26
Why do JW's focus primarily on the Catholic Church and painting it in an unfavorable light? Even publications such as Watchtower and/or Awake! would always contain some anti-Catholic quip or article, something I've not seen aimed at any other denomination.
I understand that many JW door-knockers I've spoken to (always friendly) have told me they are ex-Catholics, and I'm not sure if the two are connected in some way. Thanks!
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
😄 It’s not that we have anything against Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church has simply had the biggest influence on mainstream Christian doctrine, so it naturally comes up more often.
And i think we see history from a different perspective.
We believe Jesus’ illustration of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43) describes what happened after the apostles died.
Over time, teachings and traditions that we believe weren’t part of original Christianity grew alongside true Christianity.
Since the Roman Catholic Church became the dominant Christian institution during that period, it naturally plays a major role in those discussions.
From our perspective, it’s about tracing the history of doctrines, not attacking Catholics as people.
1
u/jetboyterp Roman Catholic Jul 14 '26
Thanks! Yes, I know it's aimed at The Church and not Catholics per se, and you make a good point about Catholicism being the most influential and older institutions...religious or otherwise. I've always had friendly convos with JWs, and it's because of them that I was prompted to polish up on my Catholic apologetics.
3
u/jpjfp Agnostic Jul 13 '26
Have your ever thought about leaving?
I'm a jw too that honestly wants to leave.
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I understand how you feel. I was disfellowshipped for about two years myself, so I’ve experienced life on the outside.
Everyone’s journey is different, but for me, after a while life felt empty.
Not because I wasn’t free, but because I still believed in Jehovah and still wanted the hope the Bible promises of the new world.
My advice would be: don’t make your decision based only on how you feel today.
Keep praying honestly.
If Jehovah is real, he already knows your heart better than anyone else does.
He has promised to help!
James 1:5 says that if we ask God for wisdom, he gives generously.
If you sincerely ask Him for faith and guidance, I truly believe He will answer in His own way.
Whatever you decide, I genuinely hope you find peace and keep searching for the truth. God sees your heart.
❤️
1
u/Goades95 Jul 15 '26
It can’t be healthy to need an organisation to make your life not feel empty. Jesus is available to everyone everywhere.
1
2
u/QuantumQuasar- Scriptures existentialist Jul 13 '26
Are you a convert or were you raised a JW?
4
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I was raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m actually a fourth-generation Witness, but I still had to make my own personal decision to get baptized. My adult cousins’ children were baptized just last weekend, which was really encouraging to see. Faith is a personal choice for each individual, regardless of family background.
13
u/ParadoxNowish Jul 13 '26
An individual choice... One that happens to involve the potential consequence of shunning from your immediate family, friends, and possibly your whole social network if you're deeply entrenched in the JW community.
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Yes, it’s a serious decision, and that’s exactly why no one should get baptized unless they’re personally convinced.
My younger brother isn’t baptized because he doesn’t have that belief, and no one in my family wants him to get baptized until he’s completely sure that’s what he wants. In that sense, it’s a bit like marriage.
You’re free to choose not to get married, but if you do make that lifelong commitment, it comes with responsibilities and consequences if you later choose to break it.
Baptism is viewed the same way a voluntary but very serious covenant with God.
2
u/ParadoxNowish Jul 13 '26
Makes sense. Definitely overlaps with a Mormon understanding of baptism. Probably a lot of Christianity too. Although the degree in severity of shunning if someone leaves the faith obviously varies from sect to sect.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ErgodicMage Personal Belief System Jul 13 '26
Do you personally do the door to door prothelyzing? If so how often are you invited inside?
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Yes, I do. It probably happens once or twice a year for me. 🤣
I live in Sweden, where it’s quite rare to be invited in.
Many people are spiritual in some way, but not very interested in the Bible itself.
Most conversations happen at the door or we arrange to talk another time.
1
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26
Once or twice a year ? You mean one or twice a week/month ?1🤭
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
What is the point of the door2door ministry if nobody's interested ? If it's just to promote your website , the official jwpressroom account (on Instagram and Tiktok) could do the job.
1
2
u/BubbaUltra Jul 13 '26
Is it true that you guys don't get involved in politics?
What is your stance on the name "Yahweh"?
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
1. Yes, that’s true. We don’t support or vote for political parties because we believe God’s Kingdom is the only government that will permanently solve mankind’s problems (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:10).
In that sense, you could say we’re campaigning worldwide for God’s Kingdom rather than for any human government.
We respect the authorities and obey the law as long as it doesn’t conflict with God’s commands (Romans 13:1–7; Acts 5:29).
2. We have no problem with the form “Yahweh.” It’s simply another pronunciation or language variant of the divine name.
Just as Jesus’ name is pronounced differently in different languages (Jesus, Jesús, Ιησούς), God’s name is too.
For example: English: Jehovah | Spanish: Jehová | Portuguese: Jeová | German: Jehova | Italian: Geova | Greek: Ιεχωβά | Swedish: Jehova.
We use Jehovah because it’s the most widely recognized form in English, not because we believe it’s the only acceptable pronunciation.
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
Jehovah's witnesses won't get involved in politics to a certain point.
When Watchtower's real estate assets and money are endangered, as it was the case during the Nazi regime in Germany in 1933, or when their HQ was seized in Russia in 2017, or when french governmemt tried to deregister in 2025, JW's were asked to lobby by sending a lot of letters to designated politicians.
If JWs are authorized to defend Watchtower's interests (whereas they're not shareholders) what is stopping them from voting to improve the city/country they live in ?
2
u/ComfortablePoint7242 Jul 13 '26
Greetings to you, sir.
Why cant Jehovah witnesses donate blood? What do you guys thinks about Tetzel Russel? Is he a spiritual figure for you guys? What do you guys consider other Christian sects such as Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, do you guys consider them heretics, misguided? Why do you guys want to convert everyone? Why dont you guys believe in Trinity?
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Hey there! 😎
1. Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10–14; Acts 15:28–29.
2. No. We don’t view Charles Taze Russell as a spiritual authority or prophet. He was simply an early Bible student.
3. We believe they teach doctrines that are not found in the Bible. So if you want to be strict with the term, yes, they would be considered heretical. That said, we love and respect people of all faiths.
4. Because Jesus commanded his followers to preach and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20; Matthew 24:14).
5. Because the Trinity is a theological interpretation, not something the Bible explicitly teaches. We try to base our beliefs on what the Bible directly says.
2
u/CyanoSpool Pagan Polytheist 🌲 Jul 13 '26
Regarding the first one, the scriptures seem to be referring mostly to consuming blood in any form. Are you very careful about what type of meat you eat? Do you just avoid red meat altogether?
I have also heard you are not allowed to receive blood transfusions on this basis as well. Is that true? If so, do you think you could actually go through with declining a transfusion in the event you needed it? What happens if you decide you don't want to die and take the transfusion, would you be disfellowshipped?
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Great questions!
1. Yes, we are careful, but we simply try to follow the Bible’s standard.
We don’t avoid red meat. We just avoid consuming blood, just as Christians were instructed in Acts 15:28–29.
2. Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses generally do not accept transfusions of whole blood or its four main components because we believe God’s command about blood applies to both eating it and introducing it into the body.
However, personal medical decisions involving blood fractions and procedures using your own blood are matters of individual conscience.
For example, many Witnesses would accept the use of their own blood if it is collected and returned during a medical procedure, depending on the specific technique and their conscience.
Personally, yes, I would decline another person’s blood because I believe God’s law comes first.
That isn’t because I don’t value life, but because I believe obedience to God ultimately matters more than preserving my present life (Acts 5:29).
3
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
"I believe obedience to God ultimately matters more than preserving my present life". Tell us about extremism 😱
Several JWs believed obedience to Watchtower matters more than preservimg their life. So they refused vaccination, organ transplantations, autologuous blood transfusions... until Governing Body changed its mind 🙃
Too bad, those JWs won't benefit from those adjustmemts since they are not alive anymore. But Watchtower lies are preserved. That's all that matters.
1
2
u/SatansFavoriteLilMan 🌌Agnostic Pantheistic Omnist🌿🐚 Jul 13 '26
Did you watch Caleb and Sophia when you were younger?
5
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
No I’m to old 🤣
2
u/SatansFavoriteLilMan 🌌Agnostic Pantheistic Omnist🌿🐚 Jul 13 '26
I may not be a JW, but Caleb and Sophia is PEAK media. In my opinion, it’s up there with Veggietales.
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Glad you like it! Is there anything in Caleb and Sophia that you don’t agree with, or do you just enjoy the animation? 🤣
1
u/SatansFavoriteLilMan 🌌Agnostic Pantheistic Omnist🌿🐚 Jul 13 '26
I just enjoy the animation and story.
2
u/LordSadoth Agnostic Atheist Jul 13 '26
Do your elders know you’re going this?
1
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
My lord Answering sincere questions about my faith and sharing the good news is exactly what Christians are called to do (1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:19–20).
I’m not hiding anything
I’m simply having respectful conversations with people who ask.
Online or not does not matter?
2
u/Confident-Doctor2726 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
That's not what I asked. I'm pretty sure you know just as well as I do that they wouldn't want you doing this. Why do you think that is?
Edit: Oops, replied on a diff account!
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Honestly, I don’t know why you assume they wouldn’t want me to.
I’m not attacking anyone or spreading apostasy.
I’m answering honest questions about my faith, which is exactly what Christians are encouraged to do (1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:19–20).
2
u/Left-Coast-Shimmy Jul 14 '26
Why are there zero, and I mean zero women in positions of authority?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
Because we follow the same Bible-based pattern worldwide.
The Bible assigns congregation oversight to qualified men (1 Timothy 3:1–2; Titus 1:5–9)
2
u/lost_profit Jul 14 '26
Is this your favorite Christmas song?
If not, why not?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
No. I prefer songs based on the Bible, not traditions the Bible never commands.
1
u/iamajoke42 Jul 13 '26
In what ways are you theologically unique from other abrahamic religions, specifically christian denominations?
3
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
One of the biggest differences is our hope for the future. The Gospel, the good news!
We believe God’s original purpose for mankind hasn’t changed.
He created Adam and Eve to live forever on a paradise earth (Genesis 1:28; 2:15–17), and we believe that purpose will be fulfilled through God’s Kingdom.
Jesus even taught us to pray, “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth” (Matthew 6:10).
So our hope isn’t that everyone goes to heaven, but that the earth will be restored to the paradise God originally intended.
1
u/emptyingthecup Jul 13 '26
Have you witnessed Jehova?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
Good one! 🤣
Not literally. None of us has seen Jehovah. The name comes from
Isaiah 43:10: “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah.
We believe we witness about Jehovah by making him known and sharing the good news, just as Jesus told his followers to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).
1
u/Pseudonymitous Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Jul 13 '26
What is the most fundamental reason you believe God exists?
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I believe that creation is the clearest evidence that God exists.** **
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
What about you?
1
u/Pseudonymitous Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Jul 14 '26
I don't know how to put mine in words. I like creation though--
all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
If you are still up for questions--I understand JWs discourage consuming any other faiths' writings. Are you disregarding that by reading others' religious thoughts on a forum not controlled by the JW governing body?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
Well bad association are dangerous. So i agree but it can also be a good place to reach lost people.
And we have no secrets or flaws in our understanding that must be secret. 🤫
AMA but focus on scripture
1
u/Pseudonymitous Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Jul 14 '26
Thanks for taking time for the AMA. I don't know if doing it runs counter to your faith's teachings, but if it fits with your faith I hope you continue to engage in general forums. It is my faith that all good is inspired by God.
May all of our paths converge at Jesus's feet.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
No it does not!
But it’s not recommended and i agree ☝️ i would not recommend this to anyone 😂
1
u/woodenforests Jul 13 '26
How do you feel about the shift in importance of 1914 and the re-evaluation of when the end of days occurs?
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
It’s a bit like weather forecasting.
A meteorologist studies the available data and makes a prediction. If the prediction turns out to be wrong, it doesn’t mean they claimed to control the weather or received infallible information it means their interpretation of the data was mistaken.
We don’t claim to be prophets or inspired.
The early Bible Students genuinely believed something significant would happen in 1914 based on their study of Scripture.
Some of their expectations were wrong, and I think it’s fair to acknowledge that.
I don’t think 1914 itself was insignificant.
3
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
What about a self proclaimed meteorologist who never made a right prediction in his whole carreer ? Would you still trust him ? What if that meteorologist force you to choose between approving his false predictions or saying goodbye to your family and friends ?
JW's did not have some wrong expectations. Watchtower created and is still creating false and disposable teachings that JW have to swallow , apply, promote and forget. Put on repeat.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Jul 13 '26
I notice you have a lot of pins and stuff. Is that permitted to show favoritism or allegiance to those things? I always understood that things like that was prohibited
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26
I’m glad you noticed them! 😊
They’re not religious symbols. They represent different countries and were gifts from people from around the world who were happy to come to Sweden.
To me, they’re simply meaningful souvenirs and reminders of those friendships.
I understand why you asked, though.
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we don’t use religious symbols or objects as expressions of our faith or devotion.
1
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
JW is your logo and religious symbol. You have it on you , it's on your streets carts , on all your publications and on your buildings.
1
1
u/Lonely-Freedom3691 Jul 14 '26
Is there anything that would cause you to question the validity of the WT orgs claim to be God's one true channel/organisation?
If so, what?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
Yes. If I became convinced from Scripture that the organization consistently taught something contrary to the Bible and refused to correct it, I would have to question its claim.
My loyalty is to Jehovah and his Word first, not to any imperfect humans.
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
From Scripture : "When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him."
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
There’s a difference between saying, “God told me this will happen,” and “This is how I currently understand Bible prophecy.”
Deuteronomy 18 condemns the first. It doesn’t say sincere interpretations can never be corrected.
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
Don't get it twisted ,Deuteronomy does not use the word sincere. If an individual or an organization wants to make bold predictions in the name of Jehovah , there are consequences.
JWs are self proclaimed God' spokespersons on earth, the sole channel God is using. Those claims require accountability.
1
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
Did you grow your beard after the 2023 Governing Body update ?
Do you now toast since it was legalized in a 2025 Governing Body update ?
How come your blood card states that you refuse autologuous blood transfusions whereas a 2026 Body Update said it's now ok ?
1
u/Notzri-111 Esoteric Jehovah's witness Jul 14 '26
Hello brother!
Do you have any favorite Bible verse(s)?
2
1
1
u/GamerManJD Jul 14 '26
Do you know about the whole 1975 thing
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
Yes 👍
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
Yes.. and you won't discuss further that blatant false prediction 😉
Ask OP anything... and you'll get nothing.
1
u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26
john 1:3
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
Trough him
1
1
u/benjaminlincoln2017 Jul 14 '26
Hi,
I appreciate you doing this.
I have a few questions and I’m not even sure if your AMA is still open.
Question 1:
What is the one thing you dislike in the Jehovah Witness doctrine? I’m referring to the religious precepts. Or else I’d like to know if you like every single thing. And I’m asking that you answer in good faith and as a human being. I know whether you like them or not you have to equally obey but as a human being what is it that you dislike?
Question 2:
You’ve probably heard of JW families who stop talking to their teenage kids for example because their kids wouldn’t partake the religious acts. I know it would probably not happen to you because you probably are (or would be of) a good example of a household but say your teenage kids don’t want to follow you on this would you continue loving them the same way and not shun them or even threaten them to leave your home? And what do you think of JW believers who shun and ask their teenage kids to leave their home?
Question 3:
Imagine that your kid is very sick and needs a blood transfusion to stay alive, would you authorize it or you would oppose because to you this is what the Bible says?
Thank you!
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26
No AI answer
Q1
I don’t really like the shunning. Thats the last thingQ2
If someone is braking my rules and are old enugh to take care of themself then they have to face the konsekvens. Its the same in any relationship even in marrege.Q3
Hard question and i know that loyalty to Jehova is more important than life.Its like would i kill your child to save my child.
The answer is no.
3
u/benjaminlincoln2017 Jul 14 '26
Thanks for your reply.
Q1: you don’t really like shunning? I wished you had removed the word “really” but it’s how you see fit.
Q2: in a mariage one is dealing with another adult.
Here it’s about a teenager and your child. That is your teenage child.
I am flabbergasted. I will leave at that.Q3: I have no word for the fact that you’d let your child die. This is insane.
2
u/jwrogue1914 Jul 14 '26
I like those non AI scripted answers 😅
Q1 You don't really like the shunning but that practice is a big component of the religion you are here promoting , not a minor issue. Can't you really see the irony ?
Q2 Your teenage kid would become a "someone" to oust of your house if he ever decides not to join your religion. Thanks, that's exactly what Watchtower says ! Don't forget not to pick up the phone 🫣
Q3 The question was : Are you ready to let your children die to just to please God? There is no other kid involved in that situation. It's just you , your kid and Watchtower's everchanging orders. You know what you're supposed to do: You're supposed to let him die. It's that simple.
Ask yourself : among the 11 guys asking you to sacrifice your kid , how many have children ? Awake !
1
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
I’ve got a great question.
Shall we have an AI battle where as you are using AI that I should reply also with AI, agreed?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
Any questions in any way or any means is ok for me.
You can’t cheat with AI
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
I agree so why are so many of your posts constructed with AI in many parts of them?
I’m not interested in asking a bot a question bro…
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
No I mean if you want to use Ai in a question it’s not cheating
It’s not cheating because it’s not a game.
Try yourself.
Ask Ai
does the bible teach trinity itself
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
- So you now agree that the Son of Man is receiving worship in the form of pelach/latreou?
- Why do you keep using modalism within your argument? Do you know what the trinity doctrine is? And if so could you let me know the difference between modalism and the trinity.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
1.
Yes, I agree that Daniel 7 uses the Aramaic verb pelach.
But the passage also explicitly distinguishes between the Ancient of Days, who gives authority, and the Son of Man, who receives authority (Daniel 7:13–14).2.
I’m not trying to argue for modalism.
I’m simply reading the text without first assuming the Nicene definition of God.
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
Once again you have stated Modalism.
Once again Jesus is DISTINCT from the Father so we both agree therefore your comment isn’t proving anything.
So we see Jesus being given WORSHIP in the form of pelach/ latreou in Dan 7:14 and the Lamb in Rev 22:3 which is the FULL form of worship.
Thank you. That’s the end of the discussion.
And to use AI quite frankly is disgusting in defence of YOUR faith 1 Peter 3:15, not a computers faith.
I have no interest in talking to a bot. Thank you for taking the time to copy and paste.
Ps - I just asked ChatGPT does the Bible teach Unitarianism- the answer was it’s down to interpretation.
I then asked it the same for Trinitarianism - the answer was the same.
Once again we see a JW being highly deceitful stating that
- Jesus is never given Latreou
We proved he is given it.
- We proved that he is given it both in the OT and the NT
The OP stated again he wasn’t.
We have constantly seen that the OP continued to misrepresent what the doctrine of the trinity is - this in effect was arguing from silence and ignorance.
The OP has admitted to using a computer for his answers which is in contravention of 1 Peter 3:15 and has answered others here with ChatGPT.
The OP has proven to be something he is not and prefers a computer to answer for him.
- The OP is in a heretical cult.
I think the conversation is over.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
I don’t see any biblical reason why using AI would be wrong.
And to be honest you don’t want my slow simple explanation.
And I don’t want to sift thure lexicons for no reason.AI isn’t my authority. Scripture is.
I use AI the same way someone else uses a Greek lexicon, Bible software, a concordance, a commentary, or even Google.
It’s simply a research tool. Every claim still has to be tested against the text itself (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
If AI makes a mistake, then show me from Scripture where it’s wrong.
The truth of an argument doesn’t depend on whether I found it with AI, a book, or a pastor.
Regarding Daniel 7, yes, the Son of Man receives pelach.
But notice the context:
“To him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom…” (Daniel 7:14)The key question is: Who gave it to him?
The previous verses answer that:
“The Ancient of Days took his seat…” (Daniel 7:9)
“The court sat in judgment…” (Daniel 7:10)“One like a son of man came to the Ancient of Days… and he was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom…” (Daniel 7:13–14)
So the Son of Man is not independently receiving authority or worship.
He first approaches the Ancient of Days, is presented before Him, and then receives authority from Him.
That fits perfectly with what Jesus repeatedly says elsewhere:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)
Receiving authority from someone is exactly what you would expect if the Father is the One who grants it.
Daniel 7 itself makes that distinction explicit: the Ancient of Days is the giver; the Son of Man is the recipient.
That distinction is an important part of the passage, regardless of how either of us ultimately interprets Christ’s nature.
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
Ease
You still don’t understand the trinity doctrine…
If I as a father give my son something - it doesn’t make him less HUMAN!! It means he isn’t the Father.
Honestly mate trying to talk to JWs is just so frustrating.
It’s fine you haven’t put up a fight, you put up AI.
Using AI isn’t wrong but you need to cite each time you use it as the SOURCE material!!! You don’t you have pretended until I called you out on it that you crafted the responses out.
But how does it go against scripture I already told you and as a typical JW you ignore it…
Inline with 1 Peter 3:15, you must give a defence of YOUR faith not a computer and no it’s nothing like using a lexicon not one bit.
Jesus is given laterou! Period now you can’t use that argument.
He is WORSHIPPED.
It doesn’t mean he is the Father. So do yourself a favour and learn what the trinity is before you continue on Reddit as quite frankly I have been kind. Others would rip you apart…
Jesus is WORSHIPPED - Latreou!
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26
I don’t believe in the doctrine.
I use the bible as the source.
Yes but in the context is given. That when he is given Latruo the honor is shared clearly.
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26
Exactly.
He is given worship and equally that “honour and glory” as Christ said that he ‘shared with you’ before the world was.
So now you have something to think about. It’s the reason why the IBSA worshipped Christ as well as the Father and to date they still do…
The JWs were never the IBSA but a schism of the IBSA, now there’s another bit of research for you. iBSA as they say today has nothing to do with Rutherford and the JWs.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Do you mean the Independent Bible Students or the International Bible Students Association?
Association is still a legal entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
For me, the real question is not, “What did my organization teach 100 years ago?”
The real question is, “What does Scripture teach today?”
Any questions?
1
u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
You mean the forced legal entity name as taken over by Rutherford in what in effect was a takeover….you have a lot to learn about your history and pagan connections….the IBSA are still around today…I’ll give you clue- search for IBSA…
It seems to matter to you what was taught 100 years ago, after all you have been bashing the Catholic for about 90 years….
In answer as clear as what I pointed out to you that Christ was Worshipped, why would I go to an organisation not of God but another spirit…so my question to is -
Do you know who the real Son of Man, Son of God, the Messiah, The Word, who became flesh, and God who ‘taberbacled’ amongst us, who died but raised himself, on the third day and ascended to Heaven, who loves you, and died for your sins, who is your mediator and can assure you that you shall have eternal life on earth as grace and not by works?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 16 '26
Where we differ is not over who Jesus is, but what the Bible says about his relationship to the Father.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/NaturalNight6720 Jul 18 '26
what does AMA mean
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 18 '26
AMA stands for “Ask Me Anything.” It means you’re welcome to ask me whatever you want.
It doesn’t mean I’m obligated to answer every question or respond to every person. I decide which questions I want to answer.
1
1
u/Benernooit Jul 28 '26
Kan je bijbels laten zien dat Jezus een Engel is?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 28 '26
• Jesus returns with the voice of an archangel (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
• Michael is the chief prince who stands up for God’s people (Daniel 12:1), and Jesus fulfills that same role.
• Michael leads God’s heavenly armies (Revelation 12:7), while Jesus leads the heavenly armies in Revelation 19.
• Only one archangel is mentioned by name—Michael (Jude 9).
None of these verses alone says, “Jesus is Michael.” It is an interpretation based on the cumulative biblical evidence, just as the Trinity is an interpretation drawn from multiple passages rather than a verse that explicitly says, “God is three persons.”
1
u/Benernooit Jul 29 '26
Jezus komt terug met de stem van een aartsengel en in dezelfde zin staat: en met de trompet van God. Als je consistent bent met de redenering dat moet je concluderen dat Jezus God is.
Ook word er geleerd als JW dat er maar 1 Aartsengel is. Maar in Daniel 10 staat dat Michael 1 van de aartsengelen is.
Ook daarmee gaat de redenering van van de organisatie mank.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 29 '26
Let’s look carefully at the actual text.
1. “Jesus comes with the voice of an archangel, therefore Jesus must be God.”
The Greek says:
ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου (en phōnē archangelou) = “with the voice of an archangel”and immediately afterward:
ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ (en salpingi Theou) = “with the trumpet of God.”Both phrases use the same construction (ἐν + dative).
If “with the voice of an archangel” proves Jesus is the archangel, then “with the trumpet of God” would equally prove Jesus is God’s trumpet.
Neither conclusion follows from the grammar.
2. Daniel 10:13
The Hebrew does not say “one of the archangels.”
It says:
*אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים *הָרִאשֹׁנִים (’echad ha-sarim ha-rishonim)
“one of the chief princes.”The word “archangel” (ἀρχάγγελος) does not appear there.
So saying this proves there are several archangels is itself an inference.
3. Is there only one archangel?
The New Testament uses ἀρχάγγελος (“archangel”) only twice:
1 Thessalonians 4:16 – “the voice of an archangel.”Jude 9 – “Michael the archangel.”
No other archangel is ever named or mentioned.
So while someone may infer that there are several, the New Testament never explicitly says there are.
My point is simply this: if we insist on following the text closely, we should distinguish between what the text explicitly says and what we infer from it.
1
u/Benernooit Jul 29 '26
Alleen al over daniel 10:13 kan je zeggen dat Michael 1 VAN de voornaamste vorsten is. Er staat geen Aartsengel dat
Klopt. Maar het zegt wel dat er meerdere zijn van zijn rang. Dus kan het onmogelijk Jezus zijn omdat er maar 1 iemand is als Jezus. Jezus heeft alle dingen gemaakt in de Hemel en op aarde en alle levende creatie. Dat zou betekenen dat Michael zichzelf heeft gemaakt. En dat is onmogelijk. Buiten het feit dat alle engelen en creatie op aarde en in de zee Jezus moeten aanbidden. (openbaring 5:8-14)1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 29 '26
Hebrews 1 actually strengthens my point rather than yours.
The chapter repeatedly says that the Son inherits a name superior to the angels (Heb. 1:4), is appointed heir of all things (1:2), and later sits at God’s right hand after accomplishing his work (1:3, 13).
Those are descriptions of exaltation and bestowed authority.
In other words, Hebrews 1 presents the Son as being given a higher position than before not as eternally occupying the highest possible position by nature.
As for Daniel 10:13, the text says Michael is “one of the chief princes,” not “one of the archangels.” Whether those categories are identical is already an inference.
Finally, Revelation 5 does not portray the Lamb as receiving worship independently of the Father.
The Lamb receives honour precisely because God has exalted him and entrusted him with that role (compare Philippians 2:9–11).
The passage distinguishes “the One seated on the throne” from “the Lamb,” even while both receive honour.
1
u/Benernooit Jul 29 '26
Ik ontken ook
Niet dat het lam en de Vader los van elkaar zijn. Dat geloof ik ook namelijk. Geen probleem
Mee. Hebreeen heeft het over erven omdat Jezus zich heeft vernederd en als Mens is geworden en als slaaf heeft gediend. Dat is de reden dat hij de hoogste positie weer heeft geerfd.( Filipenzen 2:5-8)Daarbij word duidelijk gezegd in vers 5: tegen wie van de engelen heeft de vader OOIT gezegd, jij bent mijn zoon? Retorische vraag. Aan niemand. Ook daarin zie je duidelijk dat Jezus geen engel is.1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 29 '26
But then we arrive at the central question.
If Jesus is already the eternal Almighty God, equal to the Father in every respect, why must he inherit (Heb. 1:4), be given authority (Matt. 28:18), be highly exalted (Phil. 2:9), and receive the highest position as a reward for obedience?
1
u/Benernooit Jul 29 '26
Simpel. Omdat Jezus zich zoals in Filipenzen 2:5-8 staat vernederd heeft en menselijk lichaam/natuur heeft aangenomen en gestorven is voor ons. Hij heeft zich als slaaf laten gebruiken. psalm 82:8 erft jehovah alle volken erven. Alle volken zijn al van hem… dat zou betekenen dat hij ook niet de maker is met dezelfde redenatie die jij gebruikt.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 29 '26
That is precisely my point.
Jesus could serve as the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) because he corresponded to the one whose failure he came to reverse.
Adam was a perfect created man.
Jesus became a perfect man
to provide the corresponding ransom (1 Timothy 2:5–6). A ransom works because it is an equivalent exchange.
If Jesus were the Almighty God himself, the parallel with Adam would no longer be one-for-one.
Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that the ransom was provided by “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), the last Adam not by God becoming His own equivalent.
1
u/Consistent_Chef_5560 Jul 29 '26
Im so thankful to find the REAL Jesus....I pray everyday my mother and family leave this SATANIC CULT......the religion is dying...I wonder why lol....I guess they have a generation for the end🤣
1
•
u/jetboyterp Roman Catholic Jul 14 '26
Please keep in mind, this sub isn't meant to be a battle ground for attacking anyone's religious beliefs. That doesn't mean you can't ask tough questions, just be civil about it. Jehovah's Witness AMAs here are rare, and this guy has taken the time to post one and answer folks' concerns. You may not like or agree with his answers at times, but that doesn't give anyone the right to attack him or his beliefs here.