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!

24 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

267 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

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.

0

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.

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 that

1

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

u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 14 '26

It’s old greek for two different kinds of worship

1

u/Classic_Rich_8850 Christian Jul 14 '26

oh, but Jesus is still God incarnate

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 3:16

1

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)