Jehovah's Witnesses

obligated

Senior Member
I left the cult after the corporate office wouldn't expel a child serial molester.They are being sued for their mistakes of covering up instead of cleaning out the bad.I have relatives that wont talk to me but associate with the dirtbag molester!I don't associate with criminals so that ends that.There are good people there but its a Real Estate scam at best.Silent Lambs.org has news clips,court records and other FACTS on their covering up of pedophiles and tormenting the victims.One of my friends son was raped by an Elder and they threatened the victim.A friend of our family was molested by the same dirtbag and shot himself in the head.Elders wouldt do his service because he shot himself!Such a loving group of people!Shouldnt have clicked on this thread!
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
I left the cult after the corporate office wouldn't expel a child serial molester.They are being sued for their mistakes of covering up instead of cleaning out the bad.I have relatives that wont talk to me but associate with the dirtbag molester!I don't associate with criminals so that ends that.There are good people there but its a Real Estate scam at best.Silent Lambs.org has news clips,court records and other FACTS on their covering up of pedophiles and tormenting the victims.One of my friends son was raped by an Elder and they threatened the victim.A friend of our family was molested by the same dirtbag and shot himself in the head.Elders wouldt do his service because he shot himself!Such a loving group of people!Shouldnt have clicked on this thread!

I have found a place online to debate them on their beliefs. They are very poor losers in debate and many times will erase entire threads when they are beaten. I find their eschatology is the easiest to defeat them on using scripture alone...they believe Christ came back in 1914 and are used to debating futurist about why... I m preterist and believe Christ came back in the first century just like He said He would, that makes their head spin when I show them the time statements requiring His return in the first century, much like the one on my signature.
 

obligated

Senior Member
The changed their view on the 1914 date like they did on their other dates.My biggest issue was criminal activity of members that was covered and crazy rules that changed every few years in their magazines.
If a prophet fails several times is that not a false prophet?If they were gods mouthpiece would they not be right the first time?There is a lot of lies about the Watchtower on the internet but there are enough solid news reports,court records and enough copies of past literature to make the case as real estate scam/cult/pedophile heaven.Then there is biblical issues.As they say"the light is getting brighter"!I add and the roaches are running!
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
They are not a happy people.
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
Other than some mis-guided ideas of who Jesus is or when he will return, both of which we debate among ourselves, they do many things which we commend.
They just take it to an extreme which we even as fundamental Christians see as overboard. Things such as works, witnessing, and keeping your fellow Church members in line.

Just as other Christians on here feel, they believe they must always do more to warrant salvation. They don't believe Jesus' blood did what God said it could do. Therefore they are never free. They always feel guilty that their works aren't enough.They are still yoked with the burden of sin. We see this among ourselves on this forum.

They are criticized for spending too much time doing God's work and not enough time with their own families.
I'd say we can learn from them by seeing ourselves in some of their beliefs. Should we spend more time doing God's work? Should we be more focused on a works based salvation? Should we police our own Church crowd more? Should we shun our own Church crowd more?

In seeing how they believe shouldn't we be more focused on the spiritual side of Christianity, realize the power of the Blood of Jesus, and let everyone into our Church such as homosexuals and let God separate the Tares from the Wheat?

The lesson I gain the most from Churches who say we must go through their mediators to get to God is I already have one.
The lesson I gain the most from Churches that say I must follow their doctrine is I already have one. That I must be in their organization, well I'm already in one.

Galatians 2:21
I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
 
I’m fairly new on here, and I’ve just been reading and not been a participant until today. DartonHunter has been doing a great job in answering questions, but I thought I would chime in as I’m a long time Jehovah’s Witness.

After reading all these stories about what people believe about Jehovah’s Witnesses, I must say a lot of what is said about our beliefs isn’t accurate. Both the hearer and teller are responsible for that. As an example, if I came to your door and you asked me, “Yes or no, do you believe Christ Jesus died on the cross for your sins?”

I can’t really answer that question yes or no since I don’t believe Jesus died on a cross. My answer would be “Yes I believe Christ Jesus died for me, but not on a cross.”

(Years ago Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Jesus died on a cross, but after a lot of research we now believe it was just a wooded stake with no cross piece.)

However, there would be some Witnesses that would just answer the question no, expecting to be given a chance to explain, but the person at the door might ask another question, and another question, and no explanation would ever be given. Then that person would forever swear that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in Jesus, or that we don’t believe Jesus died for us. That wouldn’t be true, but that person knows what the Witness told them and they would be adamant that’s what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.

The point I’m trying to make, is to understand someone you need to be talking about the same thing, and often people think they are talking about the same thing, but their not. Thus misunderstandings arise.
 
I see some on here really want to know what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. Since I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, retired, and in bad health, I have the time. I’ll tell you what we believe.

I’m not here to argue, and some people clearly have that agenda, so don’t expect me to reply.

Blood Transfusions
In the early Christian congregation the prohibition on blood came about because another issue had been raised. The issue of whether Christians had to get circumcised like those under the Mosaic Law.

Acts 15:5, 6 says, But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.” 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter.

What they decided is found in verses 28 and 29.

Acts 15:28, 29, For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from fornication [sexual immorality of all types]. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Note in verse 29 where it says to keep abstaining from . . . blood.

Now note one of the Mosaic Law’s was that the Jews couldn’t eat blood.

Leviticus 17:11,12 says, “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself (God) have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’”

Now I want to point out that Christians are not under the Mosaic law, that was done away with by Jesus, however we read in Acts that the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ apostles, and the elders agreed that abstaining from blood was one of the necessary things Christians were instructed to do. So in reality the prohibition against eating blood in the old testament was continued in the New Testament.

Think for a moment, that prohibition against eating blood just doesn’t mean eating food nowadays. If you go to the doctor and he asks you questions and examines you then says, “You are becoming an alcoholic, I want you to abstain from all alcoholic drinks.”

Does that mean you can be hooked up to I.V. and be provided alcohol intravenously?

No! Everyone know what it means if someone is abstaining from sex. It means no sex at all. Likewise it means Christians are to take no blood into their bodies. And that’s also how the early Christians understood it.

An early Christian writer Tertullian said, “We do not have the blood of animals at our meals"

As for having a blood transfusion to save your life, one, you don’t know a blood transfusion will save your life, transfusions have killed people.

Two, where in the Bible does it say you can break God’s laws to save your life?The scriptures show over and over that people that break God’s laws die. Remember when King David was transporting the Ark of the covenant on a wagon instead of having it carried?

It was clearly stated that the only authorized bearers, the Kohathite Levite priests, should carry the Ark on their shoulders. Ignoring these instructions brought calamity. When the cattle pulling the wagon nearly caused it to tip over, Uzzah, who was likely a Levite but certainly not a priest, reached out to steady the Ark and was struck down by Jehovah for his irreverence.

Though David was well-meaning, his attempt to move the Ark in a wagon was in violation of God’s command and resulted in failure and the death of Uzzah. Uzzah’s grabbing hold of the Ark also shows that good intentions do not change what God requires. (See Exodus 25:13, 14; Numbers 4:15, 19; 7:7-9; 2 Samuel 6:6,7)

Three, back in Acts the 5th chapter it’s related how the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin. The high priest said;

Acts 5:27-28 “We strictly ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet look! you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.” 29In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”

Note that the apostles were risking their lives by disobeying the Sanhedrin, yet they went ahead and obeyed God. What does that have to do with blood transfusions? Just that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe you should obey God, no matter what. The Bible says to abstain from blood so we don’t have blood transfusions even if it means our death.

What many don’t know is all types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs.

Good day!
 
Last edited:
What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about God's Kingdom?

God's Kingdom
Jesus instructed us to pray for God’s ‘Kingdom to come’ because it’s the way that Jehovah plans to fulfill all his promises regarding mankind and the earth. Thus this Kingdom that Jesus instructs us to pray for is a real government, with Jesus himself ruling as King.

Chapter two of the Bible book of Daniel shows that this Kingdom will be set up in the last days and destroy the existing kingdoms.

Daniel 2:44 says, 44 “In the days of those kings [The ruling powers in the last days] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever.”

Jesus’ enthronement in heaven was described in a vision given to the prophet Daniel, who wrote: “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man [Jesus] happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days [Jehovah] he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.” (Daniel 7:13,14)

When the above happens it will be a fulfillment of a prophecy given to Jesus’ mother Mary by the angel Gabriel. This is found at Luke 1:31-33, where it says, “And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus. 32This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33and he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom.”

Some denominations however teach their congregations that the Kingdom of God is within your heart. They point to Luke 17:21, which in some Bible Translations say, “the Kingdom of God is within you?”

For example the New International Version Bible, starting with verse 20 says, “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within* you."

The above Bible has a footnote that points out that scripture can also read, “. . . the kingdom of God is, *‘among you.’” A point that we will see is significant.

Many Bible translations read like the New International Version, that the Kingdom of God is ‘within you,’ while many other translations translate Luke 17:21 a bit differently. Some examples,

The New Jerusalem Bible, (njb) “The kingdom of God is among you.”

The Common English Bible, (ceb) “God's kingdom is already among you."

The Darby Translation, (dby) “The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

The Message Bible, (msg) “God's kingdom is already among you."

New American Standard Bible, (nas) “For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

As you can see the original Greek language can be translated different ways, all rendered so the reader can get the correct thought. However, those translations rendering that verse as, ‘The Kingdom of God is within you,’ make the verse hard to understand in as much as some denominations came up with the idea that the Kingdom of God is something inside of a person. The best renderings should show that God’s designated King of the Kingdom, ‘Jesus’ was among them, or in their midst, not confuse people.

Let’s look at several points that help us to understand that the Kingdom of God is not within a person.

(1) Simply reading the above verse in context one can see that the pronoun ‘you’ at the end of the verse is plural and refers to the Pharisees, and not singular and to the hearts of individual Christians as some denominations teach.

Again, the words in that verse, ‘Having been asked by the Pharisees,’ and ‘Jesus replied,’ show Jesus was answering the Pharisees, and make the ‘you’ at the end of that verse plural and not singular.

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states regarding this verse: “ . . . understood in the unfortunate modern sense of 'you' as singular; the 'you' is plural (Jesus is addressing the Pharisees.) The theory that the kingdom of God is an inner state of mind, or of personal salvation, runs counter to the context of this verse, and also to the whole New Testament presentation of the idea."

(2) Jesus wouldn’t have used the Pharisees to show us where the Kingdom of God is. Why not? Because Jesus said at Matthew 23:13 that the Pharisees would be excluded from the Kingdom because their form of worship was hypocritical and thus unacceptable to God.

(Matthew 23:13) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.”

Did you note that this scripture reads as if the Kingdom is something men can enter, not something within them.

(3) Notice what the Bible book of Mark says about the Kingdom of God.
Mark 4:1,2-10-12 says, “Again he [Jesus] began teaching beside the sea, and a very large crowd gathered near him. . . . 2And he began to teach them many things with illustrations . . . . . . 10Now when he was alone, (with his disciples) those around him with the Twelve began questioning him about the illustrations. 11He said to them: “To you the sacred secret of the Kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things are in illustrations, 12so that, though looking, they may look and still not see, and though hearing, they may hear and still not get the sense of it; nor will they ever turn back and receive forgiveness.”

We see that Jesus revealed Bible truths to his disciples, the ones that believed he was the foretold Messiah, and followed his directions, but to those that wouldn’t turn back from their wrongful course, which would include his opposer’s the Pharisees, he spoke with illustrations. Thus he would not have revealed the secret of the Kingdom of God to them.

How was God’s Kingdom among those people at that time, including the Pharisees? Well, Jesus was the one whom Jehovah appointed to be the King of the Kingdom. As the King-Designate, Jesus was right in the midst of those people. He taught about the Kingdom of God and performed miracles, even raising up dead people, giving them a preview of what that Kingdom would accomplish. In a very real sense, then, the Kingdom was in their midst or among them.

(4) Since Jesus taught Bible truths to his disciples, their view of the Kingdom should be significant. On one occasion during the final days of Jesus’ ministry, the mother of Jesus’ disciples James and John came to Jesus and said: “Give the word that these my two sons may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” (Matthew 20:21)

Clearly, she was not speaking about something in the heart of her sons. She understood that the Kingdom involved rulership with Jesus, and she wanted her sons to have a share in it. In fact, Jesus did promise his 11 faithful apostles that they would be in his Kingdom and “sit on thrones and “judge” with him. (Luke 22:30) To his followers, then, Jesus’ Kingdom was to be a real government, not something in your heart.

(5) What about the people in general in Jesus’ day? Did they understand the Kingdom to be in your heart, or did they expect a real government? At Jesus’ execution, a criminal impaled alongside him pleaded: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” Jesus assured the dying man that he would be with him in Paradise. (Luke 23:42,43)

Clearly, there is no scriptural support for the notion that the Kingdom of God is anything other than what it is, an actual government, one that will bring dramatic changes to the earth, just as foretold.
(See Isaiah 9:6,7)
 
My mom's kingdom hall has two sections.My cousin is also a JW,but they go to different sections during the same time.Why do they have the Kingdom Hall sectioned off like that? Why dont they just bust down the wall and all worship together?

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t have a paid clergy class like most denominations. Our worship is set up like the early Christian Congregation. All are considered brothers, but some are termed elders while others are termed ministerial servants. The Elders take the lead and care for worship while ministerial servants will run the sound system etc. Both chair meeting parts, where other brothers and sisters are also used. My congregation has about 12 elders and about an equal number of ministerial servants.

New Witnesses need training in the ministry, door to door work, and in conducting Bible studies, etc., so each week we have a ministry school with various men, women, and even children receiving training. (It's a school one has to volunteer for.)

Also why do they control where and at what time you worship? Seems like every few months My mom is changing up, one month its Sunday afternoon worship the next month it's in the mornings.

Local congregations are in charge of meeting times. They don’t usually change unless there are more than one congregation using the building. Then they exchange meeting times once a year so it’s fair for everyone.

My cousin lived in a different part of town one time, but she could not worship at the kingdom Hall my Mom worshiped at, they told her where she would be attending. Why cant JW's be free to worship at the kingdom Hall of there choice and at what time they would like to worship?

Actually they probably told her where she should attend, because she lived closest to a certain Kingdom hall. They do that to keep the sizes of congregations manageable. Our buildings usually only have seating for about 200 people.

In practice people visit other congregations all the time. I live in Florida and the congregations down here are packed with snowbirds and vacationers during the winter.

A month or so ago I missed the Sunday meeting at my Kingdom Hall, it has a 10:00 a.m. start time. So I went to a Kingdom hall across town that has a 1:00 p.m. meeting.

I felt right at home! I could go to any Kingdom Hall in the world and feel right at home.
 
Last edited:
Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on whether infants and small children should be baptized?

Infant Baptism
Jesus instructed his followers: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19, 20)

Note the words, (Make disciples . . . baptize them) Those words show that those who are baptized must first be disciples of Jesus. That is, they are individuals who have learned about Jesus and have chosen to believe in him and follow him, a choice that no infant, or small child, can make.

Other scriptures also show that knowledge of Jesus is a requirement of being his disciple . . . before that person is baptized.

At Pentecost, 33 C.E., the Jews and proselytes that assembled there already had a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. There they heard Peter speak about Jesus the Messiah, with the result that 3,000 “embraced his word heartily” and “were baptized.” (Acts 2:41; 3:19–4:4; 10:34-38)

Those in Samaria first believed Philip’s preaching of the good news, and then they were baptized. (Acts 8:12)

The Ethiopian eunuch, a devout Jewish proselyte who, as such, also had knowledge of Jehovah and the Hebrew Scriptures, heard first the explanation of the fulfillment of these scriptures in Christ, accepted it, and then wanted to be baptized. (Acts 8:34-36)

Even so, many people insist that Jesus’ command applies to small children.

However, the fact that Jesus did not teach that infants should be baptized is significant. Why? Because Jesus earnestly taught his disciples about God’s requirements. At times, he repeated key teachings to ensure that his disciples grasped the point. (Matthew 24:42; 25:13; Mark 9:34-37; 10:35-45)

Yet, not even once did he teach that infants should be baptized. Did Jesus somehow forget to mention the requirement? No, in a prayer the night before his death, Jesus said to his heavenly Father, “I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do.” (John 17:4) The next day just before he died Jesus said, It has been accomplished, then he hung his head and died. (John 19:30)

Jesus accomplished all his Father sent him to do, thus it follows that if infants and small Children were to be baptized Jesus would have said so. Why didn’t he? Because infants and small children are considered holy if they have a believing Christian parent. Thus they don't need to be baptized until they reach the age of understanding and can make the choice.

Paul explains at 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 “ . . . If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; 13and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15But if the unbelieving one chooses to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not bound under such circumstances . . .”

The dictionary defines sanctified as: made holy; consecrated: So where it says the one mate is sanctified in relation to the other it means the marriage is sanctified or considered holy in the sight of God, not that the Christian mate makes the other mate a Christian.

So we see minor children too young to have the ability to make decisions are considered holy because of the believing parent. The point needed to be understood here is, if infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to be considered holy because of the believing parent.

So clearly, the Bible does not teach that infants and small children should be baptized. They are already considered holy because of their believing parent.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
Welcome aboard, I have a question.


When was the great tribulation and where do you back that up in Scripture?
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Glad you are willing to share what you believe. Many of us here take great interest in other's beliefs... even if they don't agree with our own. I have several questions that stem from conflicting beliefs from the only two JW's I have known. One said they worked for their salvation, another said no, yet he kept a written log on hour many hours each week that he had in door to door. Question of my own, do you consider injesting blood a a transfusion the same in God's eyes. Well, I guess you do, maybe I should word it differently... well, I can't find the words because I realize that I would not be asking but rather pointing out my own thoughts. I myself have many like beliefs to the Jw's but not in regards to the blood issue. Not that I just don't want to accept it because it does not suit me but on the bases that I don't think the intent of the writer was that which Jw's have interpreted it. Mercy... should I delete this or not. I really don't wish to sound argumenative. I try to spur dialog. But this sounds more like me trying to prove you wrong. Oh well, I'll post it. Are there different beliefs within JW's? Possibly any group that calls themselves JW's but that don't hold to the obstaining from blood as a rule of faith?
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Hey Will, you do a good job conveying your thoughts in your post.
 
Welcome aboard, I have a question.

When was the great tribulation and where do you back that up in Scripture?

Thank you for your kind welcome!

As for your question, it's not the kind I plan on answering at first. People are more interested in why we believe the things we do. Like why don't we have blood transfusions. So for right now I plan on answering questions that I think generate the most interest.

Thank you, and good day!
 

glynr329

Senior Member
This is the way I think. I do not judge anyone on what they believe I am not god and so is no one else. If it makes you a better person no matter your belief that is great. I am pretty sure if you really believe you are not supposed to either. I can tell you this and always said it. If all religions work as hard as JW your churches would be full. That is a fact period. All religions need to change their way of thinking. Stay positive try to change others by telling them how great it is. Stop condeming and leave the negativity out of it. That is what true believers should do. Again period!!!
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
Thank you for your kind welcome!

As for your question, it's not the kind I plan on answering at first. People are more interested in why we believe the things we do. Like why don't we have blood transfusions. So for right now I plan on answering questions that I think generate the most interest.

Thank you, and good day!


I certainly have different interests than a lot of folks, I won't disagree there.

Maybe you will answer this. I'm Revelation there's two accounts of John bowing down and worshipping an Angel. Both times he is rebuked for it and told to worship God only.
But when John fell at Jesus feet in worship he was comforted for it.
How do you suppose John is comforted for worshipping Jesus but rebuked for worshipping an Angel?
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
I certainly have different interests than a lot of folks, I won't disagree there.

Maybe you will answer this. I'm Revelation there's two accounts of John bowing down and worshipping an Angel. Both times he is rebuked for it and told to worship God only.
But when John fell at Jesus feet in worship he was comforted for it.
How do you suppose John is comforted for worshipping Jesus but rebuked for worshipping an Angel?
When did John bow at Jesus feet? I can't recall this.
 
Top