I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses

[walter]

Walter said: “I see you like to debate about so many words. I don't find it useful to prove other people wrong and carry on an endless debate.”

Walter, the usefulness of discovery of error (we ALL have, including me), is that it gives us a chance to abandon error and to adopt more correct models of theology. One great challenge (for all of us) is to abandon our pride and to be humble enough to abandon comfortable errors in our search for true religious principles.


Walter said: “I like to list the scriptures that help me to form a belief, and read the scriptures that help others form beliefs.”
I understand and think this is a very admirable desire and do not fault this at all. The problem with offering incorrect scriptures, or incorrect interpretation of sacred texts is that to the degree that we accept and offer errors to others, we do not serve Gods purposes regardless of our good intent. So, one can honor the intent while criticizing the error.



Walter said: “I feel that everybody has the right to believe the way they want to believe.”
I think this is an honorable and correct attitude and think you are perfectly correct to feel this way. However, this does not mean that errors cannot or should not be pointed out, while allowing one to believe error if they still desire to.



Walter said: “I have a feeling that you would debate what I said even if I said nothing and listed only scriptures.”
You are in error on this point.
If you simply post a scripture without context, I might have asked for clarification, such as “Why did you post a scripture without context?” or “What does the scripture mean to you?” or similar questions.

This does not represent disinterest or simple criticism for criticisms sake, but rather it is a desire to understand what you were trying to accomplish and what you think the text means. I do not know much about the many, more modern Christian schisms that have developed. I would like to be less ignorant on them.

My questions are a manifestation of interest and a value of your opinion and not a disinterest in your opinions.



Walter said: “Sorry I'm not good at debates.”
That is perfectly fine.

I do NOT view our discussion as a debate (at least not at this point), but rather I am trying to discover the logic underlying why you adopted your current theology and why you think your theology takes priority over the ancient Christian religion with its theology.

This is why I have asked (repeatedly), why you think your new and modern religion should take priority over the ancient form of Christianity as described by the ancient Christians in their literature.

I do admit that I am disappointed in not having this, specific, question answered. If you remember, the very first post introduces a new Member of the Jehovahs Witness theology who said : "Ask me anything about my beliefs, if you want".

I was simply taking the Jehovahs Witness up on the offer.


As I said before, I honor you for being willing to discuss your religion with others in a format that is uncomfortable.

If I used only scriptures would that be useful? If not, which way would be acceptable to you and not in error?

 

[walter]

I do NOT view our discussion as a debate (at least not at this point), but rather I am trying to discover the logic underlying why you adopted your current theology and why you think your theology takes priority over the ancient Christian religion with its theology.

In my mind reading the Bible which is some 2,000 years ago written, is a pretty ancient Christian religion theology.

If your Bible as well as any Bible is my ancient Source for information, what am I doing that's in error?

 

[walter]

This is why I have asked (repeatedly), why you think your new and modern religion should take priority over the ancient form of Christianity as described by the ancient Christians in their literature.

I am an individual who reads the most ancient words you can find in the New Testament and the Old Testament, I myself have no new modern religious theology.

All I am interested in is the actual words from Jesus word for word, and the words from the apostles in agreement word for word. If Jesus or the apostles do not talk about a specific subject, I have nothing more to say.

============================================================================================================

Why do you find it necessary to pick apart my every word and sentence?

 

[walter]

Walter, why should this new "easy believism" your religious movement has created and adopted take priority over the earliest form of Christianity described by the ancient Christians themselves? Why leave the early and more authentic for the late and less authentic with it's different interpretations of biblical text?

For me personally I only talk about what I can prove with Jesus ancient words or the Apostles ancient words in agreement. If the subject is not talked about by them I myself have no proof of anything. I feel Jesus and the Apostles must know what is important enough to record in the Bible.

 

[walter]

#1. I support my beliefs with only the Bible to ensure I get ancient original theology 2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17; Luke 8:21; Romans 15:4;
Hebrews 4:12; Matthew 4:4; Acts 17:11
#2. When the Bible does not explicitly address a specific topic, Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to pray and search for related scriptures and guiding principles from within the Bible.

I am not perfect I make mistakes frequently but these are the two main ways we determine anything.

 

[walter]

If you love Jesus and his Father may I offer you up this message:

We do have something in common I think, we both love Jesus and his Father and I feel that it is an important Bond even though we believe differently.

 

[Clear]

Hi Walter:

Walter said: “If I used only scriptures would that be useful?”
Simply quoting a scripture is not as helpful as adding explanatory comments regarding what YOU think the scripture means.
YOU, yourself pointed out: “one person has 10 scriptures that prove a point and another person has 10 scriptures that prove an opposite point, … in the end you can't really prove anything!”
If you simply quote a scripture, I cannot tell if you even understand what you are reading.



Walter said: “If not, which way would be acceptable to you and not in error?”
Of course, all of us will have errors in our interpretations.
However, taking no position at all as to what one believes OR, taking no position regarding what a text means to you, is a very, very inefficient method of putting your beliefs across to others.
It would help if you would simply and clearly state what you believe, and offer a scripture to support your belief and offer explanation as to why you think a specific scripture supports your belief.



Walter said: “In my mind reading the Bible which is some 2,000 years ago written, is a pretty ancient Christian religion theology.”
I understand, that, in your mind, you imagine you are reading and quoting from a 2,000 year old bible.
The reality is that you are quoting from English translations which are just over 500 years old and you are NOT able to read actual 1,600 year old texts. Nor do you seem to realize that your interpretations are fairly modern.

As YOU, yourself told us: “Jehovah's Witnesses originated as a branch of the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s.”
For example, your 150 year-old theology, somehow, interprets ancient texts to create new theology where no cognizant spirits of mankind exist, whereas the ancient Judeo-Christians interpreted any existing biblical texts to indicate cognizant and intelligence of individuals resides in their spirits.
Hence, your 150 year old religion may read ancient texts, but it applies 150 year old interpretations in many cases.
Old texts; yes. Old interpretations; often, no.

This is why your religions’ INTERPRETATIONS and its newer and more modern theology is not found in ancient Judeo-Christian texts while other Christian religion interpretations having spirits inside mankind ARE supported by the Judeo-Christian literature. For example, IF your "spiritless" religion is ancient, why does the early Judeo-Christian literature only describe the ancient Christian belief that spirits exist in all individuals and your religious theology on this point is nowhere to be found in ancient Christian interpretations?.

Thus, your religion can survive in the world of dogma and interpretation, but dies if it tries to enter the historical world.



Walter said: “I am an individual who reads the most ancient words you can find in the New Testament and the Old Testament, I myself have no new modern religious theology.”
While this sort of personal pep-talk is common among Christians, You do not seem to read koine nor Hebrew to any significant extent. You read English. This is not particularly ancient. (You have even tried to use a concordance in the place of a lexicon...)
What does it mean that you do not know such basic points regarding Greek or Hebrew or textual variants?



Walter said: “All I am interested in is the actual words from Jesus word for word, and the words from the apostles in agreement word for word. If Jesus or the apostles do not talk about a specific subject, I have nothing more to say.”
This naïve claim is similar to your last claim but it is not grounded in historical reality.
Like all other individuals, you also interpret and form meaning and theological assumptions from what you read, just like all other humans do.
As YOU, yourself explained: ““Everyone has favorite scriptures and the different light they associate with them…”

REGARDING APPEALS TO AUTHORITY TO TRY TO CREATE CREDIBILITY IN OUR CLAIMS:
Walter. I DO NOT fault you for attempts to try to create authority for your claims by claiming you "read the bible".
Most of us do this or something similar.
I often do the same by referencing to historical Judeo-Christian literature and refer to what the ancient Judeo-Christians wrote in their sacred literature when they describe their ancient beliefs. I notice Thomas (and others) often makes wonderful use of ancient quotes.

The problem is that, since much of your specific theology did not exist in ancient Judeo-Christianity, your attempt to do the same by simply offering bare scriptures, offered without commentary or explanation doesn't add any increased authority or increased comprehension.
Instead, this mechanism creates an obvious and immediate impasse since all other Christians can do the same by offering similar scriptures to prove entirely different theological claims.



Walter said: “For me personally I only talk about what I can prove with Jesus ancient words or the Apostles ancient words in agreement.”
What new and important theological point do you think you prove by offering a bare scripture without commentary? So far, it seems you use the bible, just like the rest of us...



Walter said: “#1. I support my beliefs with only the Bible to ensure I get ancient original theology.”
This is a convenient claim.
The problem is, that you have already admitted to OupaPiet, you say you use links containing other peoples words because you like the way others explain your theology. And, multiple posters have pointed out to you that you, like all others, interpret what you read to create personal meaning like all of us do.
This is NOT using “only the Bible”.

I would suggest you pick a theological principle that you think is important and present it; then support it with scripture and commentary to explain and support it and not make any other "side claims" while you are discussing on the specific religious principle you are trying to present to readers.

This is only a suggestion and I realize most minds works different than each other.

In any case Walter, I hope you can keep up your kindness and brotherly love in the midst of trying to support your theology. I hope your own spiritual journey is good.

 

[walter]

Boy that's a lot of words.. Why do you find it necessary to say so much? Why can't we just look for something we can agree on and build on that, Instead everything I say you've got paragraphs of disagreement. I wish there was a much better way to communicate than this.

Maybe you could list what you believe and why you believe it.. and that's it. Instead of an endless disagreement about most everything I say?

From all your comments does anyone even know what you believe and why you believe it?

 

[walter]

In any case Walter, I hope you can keep up your kindness and brotherly love in the midst of trying to support your theology. I hope your own spiritual journey is good.

Thank you for any kind words you have written. Myself I have a very short attention span, and I find it very difficult to comprehend most of your comments, I have had a problem remembering a paragraph I just read, sorry if my comments are not appropriate to your comments because I don't remember some of the words you have written down.

It is better for me to have little short conversations, sorry I know that's probably irritating.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Perhaps I missed it, but do JW's believe that people will go to heaven? Do they believe in a resurrection? If so, is it physical? Spiritual? Or both?
Is it just the 144,000?

I ask this because I have never had clarity on the subject and I have had a lot of JW friends over the years. I had a friend who claimed that only 144,000 would be alive in God's kingdom. He also believed it would be a physical, not spiritual life. He never got back to me on the matter. He wasn't allowed to speak to me anymore after he started asking questions.

If I understad correctly, their beliefs are like those of the Armstrong churches and SDAs in that they believe you are unconscious, asleep, dead, at death, and resurrected bodily, the body and the soul are not separate. They believe in a new heaven and a new earth, and those faithful who are resurrected live forever on the new earth. The wicked are destroyed. I belive the 144000 number has to do with people who go to the new heaven while everyone else is happy on the perfect new earth. I cannot remember what the criteria is for being in the 144000. That doctrine also may be fully unique to the JWs and not the other churches I mentioned. Howeve the number is from Revelation.

If I seem to be rehashing what has been posted - I was trying to provide a summary and framing in a way that I thought MIGHT get closer to answer the specific questions being asked.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Walter claimed: “Do we get salvation from our actions or are obedience of the scriptures? No. It is by God's Grace and Jesus sacrifice, not from anything we have done or will do.”

Thomas disagreed: “I disagree. What we do brings us closer to, or further from, God. Jesus said what we have to do to attain eternal life. The Reformation tried to separate 'faith' and 'works' – the former means everything, the latter nothing. I don't see the two as separate. What we believe shapes what we do. Faith calls for action.”


I have to agree with Thomas on this specific point.

The silliness of creating a “new and improved” Christian religion where the individual has no choice nor responsibility to be obedient to any commandments or instructions from God yet is rewarded the same as those who try their best to obey God is strange (to me).

I do not see any advantage of creating another new Christian religion that has no logical advantage over the earliest form of Christianity.

Walter, why should this new "easy believism" your religious movement has created and adopted take priority over the earliest form of Christianity described by the ancient Christians themselves? Why leave the early and more authentic for the late and less authentic with it's different interpretations of biblical text?

I don't have the impression that the JW movement is any more easy-believism than regular Christianity
I think heterodox movements like the JWs arise because serious study of the bible sometimes leads thoughtful people to feel tradition has taught wrong things and led people astray. So they try to get it "right" whatever "right" is.

 

[walter]

I don't have the impression that the JW movement is any more easy-believism than regular Christianity
I think heterodox movements like the JWs arise because serious study of the bible sometimes leads thoughtful people to feel tradition has taught wrong things and led people astray. So they try to get it "right" whatever "right" is.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your respectful words.

 

[walter]

I don't have the impression that the JW movement is any more easy-believism than regular Christianity
I think heterodox movements like the JWs arise because serious study of the bible sometimes leads thoughtful people to feel tradition has taught wrong things and led people astray. So they try to get it "right" whatever "right" is.

It seems like many faith's I talk to have a good reason to believe what they believe to be true, it's just each person is so different, what's important to one person is not to the other person, and everybody's experiences and knowledge differ, one person values literature and tradition and another person only values what Jesus and the Apostles say.

I fail many times but I try to love my neighbor as myself in my comments, I will continue to try to improve on this. May peace be with you.

 

[moralorel]

If I understad correctly, their beliefs are like those of the Armstrong churches and SDAs in that they believe you are unconscious, asleep, dead, at death, and resurrected bodily, the body and the soul are not separate. They believe in a new heaven and a new earth, and those faithful who are resurrected live forever on the new earth. The wicked are destroyed. I belive the 144000 number has to do with people who go to the new heaven while everyone else is happy on the perfect new earth. I cannot remember what the criteria is for being in the 144000. That doctrine also may be fully unique to the JWs and not the other churches I mentioned. Howeve the number is from Revelation.

If I seem to be rehashing what has been posted - I was trying to provide a summary and framing in a way that I thought MIGHT get closer to answer the specific questions being asked.

Similar, but not quite.

Herbert Armstrong believed that the 144,000 would be physical beings left over from the tribulation. As far as what he believed would happen to them afterwards, I don't know. He also believed the wicked would get to live again and get to properly know Jesus for a second chance at salvation. If they didn't change then they would perish forever in the 2nd death.

Maybe someone from the Armstrong churches could elaborate?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Similar, but not quite.

Herbert Armstrong believed that the 144,000 would be physical beings left over from the tribulation. As far as what he believed would happen to them afterwards, I don't know. He also believed the wicked would get to live again and get to properly know Jesus for a second chance at salvation. If they didn't change then they would perish forever in the 2nd death.

Maybe someone from the Armstrong churches could elaborate?

That sounds familiar, but it's been so many years since my grandfather thundered about it.
Is there anyone else here now that is or was part of the Armstrong churches?

What I am confident of is how the Armstrongites and descendants, and the SDAs and related denoms, and JWs, and Christadelphians and a few other minority groups all think, is that one dies and remains unconscious until bodily resurrection, and the unsaved are annihilated.

 

[walter]

Doesn't Jesus speak about love for God and love for neighbor as being more important than most anything?

AI Overview
Yes, absolutely; Jesus taught that loving God wholeheartedly and loving your neighbor as yourself are the first and greatest commandments, summarizing all other laws and prophets in these two, showing they are the foundation of faith and more important than rituals or rules. He emphasized this isn't just a feeling but requires tangible actions of care, compassion, and generosity towards everyone, even enemies, linking love for God and love for others as inseparable.

 

[walter]

Doesn't Jesus speak about love for God and love for neighbor as being more important than most anything?

AI Overview
Yes, absolutely; Jesus taught that loving God wholeheartedly and loving your neighbor as yourself are the first and greatest commandments, summarizing all other laws and prophets in these two, showing they are the foundation of faith and more important than rituals or rules. He emphasized this isn't just a feeling but requires tangible actions of care, compassion, and generosity towards everyone, even enemies, linking love for God and love for others as inseparable.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which commandment in The Written Law is the greatest?” 37 Yeshua said to him, “You shall love THE LORD JEHOVAH your God from all your heart and from all your soul and from all your power and from all your mind.” 38 “This is the great and the first commandment.” 39 “And the second which is like it is, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commands depend all The Written Law and The Prophets.”

 

[Clear]

Walter said: “Boy that's a lot of words.. Why do you find it necessary to say so much? “
And I have wondered why your responses lack data and logic and clarity.

Caritas started the Opening Post by offering to answer J.W. belief,
I assumed you understood this context.

However, many of your claims are, historically, incoherent and your meanings are obscure. You offer bare scriptures without explaining why you think they support your claims.
This is very inefficient.



Walter said: “Why can't we just look for something we can agree on and build on that, Instead everything I say you've got paragraphs of disagreement. “
This is an acceptable suggestion. Lets try out your suggestion.

Can you at least agree that your new religion with its interpretations of sacred text is NOT the same as ancient Christian beliefs they described in ancient Judeo-Christian literature THEIR interpretations and THEIR beliefs?

If you agree with this, the next question is what advantage your modern religion has over that of the earliest Christian religion and why should your interpretations take precedent over the interpretations of the earliest form of Christianity?




Walter said: “I wish there was a much better way to communicate than this.”
There IS a better way to communicate.
You could simply answer the questions you are asked or if you don’t know the answer, simply state “I don’t know the answer to that question.”



Walter said : “Maybe you could list what you believe and why you believe it.. and that's it. Instead of an endless disagreement about most everything I say?”
Good idea.

WHAT I BELIEVE: The ancient Christians describe their belief in a cognizant, intelligent and Communicative spirit placed inside of each individual that exists separate from the Body. Modern Jehovahs Witness Theology abandoned this belief. I think the early Judeo-Christianity is more logical, more rational and more intuitive and raises fewer theological dilemmas than Jehovahs Witness religion.

WHY I BELIEF THIS: The vast early Judeo-Christian literature describes the existence of spirits of individuals inside the bodies of all individuals. Their literature describes and explains such beliefs in great detail. This specific Jehovahs Witness theology is not to be found in the ancient Judeo-Christian literature, hence Jehovahs Witness theology is not historically coherent regarding the spirits that are placed into the bodies of mankind.

MY SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS (AND STILL IS): WHY is the Jehovahs Witness interpretations and theology to take priority over the interpretation and theology of ancient Judeo-Christian theology?

Does following your suggestion help any?



Walter said: “I have a very short attention span, and I find it very difficult to comprehend most of your comments, I have had a problem remembering a paragraph I just read, sorry if my comments are not appropriate to your comments because I don't remember some of the words you have written down.”
I noticed that many of your early posts seem to be much more complex and contained greater information and historical quotes. Did something happen between those posts and your latest postings?

If you have such a "short attention span" that you have "a problem remembering a paragraph [you] just read", This IS a real problem for communication…
There are options besides simply quoting irrelevant scriptures.
You could try saying, “I don’t understand the questions I am being asked.” Or you could say: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”
Or why not simply avoid discussions that your attention span will not support?



Walter said: “It is better for me to have little short conversations, sorry I know that's probably irritating.”
Walter, I am not irritated at you.

I honor your courage and your apparent desires to "do good". However, your lack of knowledge and inadequate historical coherence and logic do make accurate and efficient conversations more difficult.

Do you simply want to “bow out” of this thread asking basic questions?

I will not fault you if you do not want to continue and will still feel grateful there are people like you that seem to have love for others.
Having answers to even simple and basic questions are not (to me) as important as moral character (which you seem to have). Good luck in your spiritual journey and your continuing search for answers to basic questions.

 

[walter]

Thank you for your explanations, I will keep your words in mind.

 

[walter]

MY SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS (AND STILL IS): WHY is the Jehovahs Witness interpretations and theology to take priority over the interpretation and theology of ancient Judeo-Christian theology?

I myself have my own Theology I explain my fundamental beliefs with Jesus words and the apostles words in agreement Alone. That's it!

I already explained how we determine our beliefs.. Read my comments. #645
Thank you for your explanations, I will keep your words in mind.