Recently two pleasant ladies came to our door. They were Jehovah’s Witnesses. I immediately I told them I was a pastor so as not to pretend that I was ignorant of the Bible and then to suddenly surprise them. They were still interested in talking to me, although I could tell they did change gears. They gave me a book and asked to visit with me again. The book was titled, What the Bible Really Teaches. I did read it and I want to respond quickly to a number of issues. I divide them into Samaritan issues and essential issues.
Samaritan issues are inspired by Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well. When the conversation became too personal, the Samaritan woman tried to divert the conversation into a debate about where true worship should take place. Jehovah’s Witnesses do this in a number of ways but I will only mention a few. JW’s claim that Jesus was crucified not on a cross but on a sake. Part of their reason is to avoid the “idolatry” of “false” Christians who decorate their homes and bodies with crosses. Although historical and archaelogical evidence support the translation of “cross,” it is safe to say that God will not decide our eternal fate by how many planks we thought were used on Good Friday. JWs also believe it is wrong to celebrate holidays. They do not mention that Jesus celebrated both biblical and nonbiblical holidays. They object to the pagan origins of holidays. In this they include New Years, even though Rosh Hashanah is New Years, although at a different time. As for pagan origins, our days and months often go back to pagan worship. January and March come from the Roman gods Janus and Mars. Wednesday and Thursday come from the Teutonic gods Woden and Thor. Do we stop using those as well? What we must remember is that these arguments have more sociological than theological value. They serve as identity markers to separate JWs from the heathen masses.
More important than these are issues like the identity of Jesus. They see Jesus and Michael the archangel as the same being. This, even though the first chapters of Hebrews go to great lengthes to argue that Jesus is greater than any angel. They reject the Trinity as it is not mentioned in the Bible. Canon, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are words not mentioned in the Bible but they accept those concepts. By making Jesus a god and not God they are going against the Jewish concept of monotheism, a belief that Jesus explicitly endorsed. Orthodox Christians affirm there is only one God but that he is Father, Son and Spirit. They can argue that the Trinity was created by a corrupt church council. Do they realise that the same people who developed the description of the Trinity also defined the canon? Our first canonical list of all 66 books comes from Athanasius, one of the greatest defenders of the orthodox view of the deity of Christ. If they are wrong on the Trinity, were they wrong with the canon of 66 books as well? JWs also believe that people cease to exist at death and then much later God chooses to resurrect them. They are correct in their emphasis on the resurrection but incorrect on the end of existence at death. There are numerous descriptions of shades of the deceased in Sheol and in 1 Samuel 28, the shade of Samuel is contacted and communicated with. Jesus told the thief on the cross that they would be in Paradise that day and we see the souls of the martyrs in Revelation calling out to God before the resurrection. As for the name Jehovah, that is an acceptable although not preferrable form of the Hebrew YHWH. It is fine to use that but what they neglect to tell people is that the New Testament never uses the name Jehovah. In fact the New Testament is unanimous that the name by which people are saved is Jesus.
I plan to work through this in greater detail at a later date. But for the moment, my advice, if you are encountering Jehovah’s Witnesses is to avoid the Samaritan issues and focus on the essentials. That is what Jesus did with the woman at the well.
More
12 responses so far ↓
Janette // April 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Looking forward to the rest of the story!
Pam // April 5, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Let me assure you, “pastor”, that any experienced Witness of Jehovah is equipped to handle conversations with the like of you. We look forward to it! We are not-in the least- bullied by anyone who titles himself “father”, “reverend”, “Doctor”, or the like. Your knowledge is really shallow. so many examples in this one article . Just a few: Jesus is clearly the archanel, Michael [meaning CHIEF of the angels] Our scriptural references in the “Teach” book prove that clearly…Next: Where in the BIBLE does it say Jesus celebrated “holidays”? He was Jewish; therefore he was-by the Mosaic Law-obligated to celebrate it with all Jews. He specifically commanded his disciples to commemorate his death, which true Christians do ’til this day. A basic encyclopaedia will aid you to see how pagan the origins of most “holiday” deemed christian are. The HOLY God oof the Bible is not going to bless such disgusting customs invented by those who disdain His worship. Next, regarding the use of the cross: Use of the cross long ante-dates Christianity. Have you read your encyclopaedia lately on the subject? These are but a few, sir. I suggest in your next instalation, you might reference with scripture if you are going to attack us.
Stephen Bedard // April 5, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I have no intention of attacking or bullying anyone. My intention with the pastor remark is that it would be unfair of me to pretend to be ignorant of the Bible when in fact I can read Greek and Hebrew, have studied the Jewish context of the New Testament and have read the Bible numerous times. I do not want to be dishonest. As for biblical references, I would be happy to add them. Regarding holidays, holidays are literally holy days and so Jesus did celebrate holidays. You did not comment on New Years being biblical even if the date has been changed. As for biblical holy days, please comment on John 10:22 where Jesus celebrates the Feast of Celebration (today called Hannukah), a non-biblical holiday. Please also comment on the importance of the name Jehovah and why it does not appear in the New Testament. These are not attacks, but my attempt at conversation between two interpretations of the Bible.
Alex Reynolds // April 17, 2008 at 12:42 am
Wow, Pam please take a deep breath and re-read what you’re typing before you hit ‘Submit’. Firstly I don’t understand why you call what Mr Bedard wrote as bullying. At no time does he attack the two Witnesses, in fact he refers to them as ‘pleasant’. I am a former member of your religion and I believe I can safely say that your response would not be the one an Elder would approve of. But of course that is only my opinion. Some further points -
You suggest that he ‘reference with scripture’ yet at no time do you do this. Stating “Our scriptural references in the “Teach” book prove that clearly” doesn’t help the interested readers of this article, those who most likely do not have access to the “Teach’ book. So where in the bible does it state that Jesus is the archangel Michael? How is this ‘clear’? Let me help you - maybe referencing 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where it says (referring to Jesus) “Because the Lord himself will descend from Heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” The letter of Jude verse 9, states: “But when Michael the Archangel……” By using the word ‘the’ Jude is clarifying there is only one archangel. So comparing the two scriptures leads to the conclusion that Michael and Jesus are the same being. You could also point out that the term ‘archangel’ only ever occurs in the bible in the singular, never in the plural. Of course neither of these points ‘prove’ anything. It is all open to debate and interpretation.
Also, at no point does Mr Bedard state that there are no pagan origins to holidays celebrated in modern times. In fact the only holiday he mentions is New Years Day, and when you call him on it he then gives you Hannukah - with a biblical reference! Yes a large number of supposed ‘christian’ holdays/celebrations have ‘pagan’ origins. But does that make them ‘disgusting’? Lets consider Birthdays. When I questioned an Elder why we didnt celebrate birthdays I was told that it was because the step-daughter of Herod, Salome, was given the head of John the Baptist as a birthday present. Do the actions of a single person dictate that a practice is bad? I really don’t feel that a loving and caring holy father God would be so disgusted at the celebration of a new life, a child of god, coming into the world. Once again, only my opinion.
Lastly, regarding your attack on the use of the cross. Yes the use of the cross symbol predates Christianity, but so what? Mr Bedard makes mention of the act of crucifixion but you seem to gloss over that. Were you perhaps intending to say that the act of crucifixion pre-dates christianity? If so then unfortunately the very encyclopaedias you seem to use as proof disagree with you - ‘Method of capital punishment among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD
(http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9361947)
compared to - Christianity: ‘Religion stemming from the teachings of Jesus in the 1st century AD’ (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9360716).
Pam i sincerely hope you don’t take my response as a personal attack. As I have stated these are my opinions. I would be very interested in your response. Thanyou.
Alex Reynolds // April 17, 2008 at 12:54 am
That was of course meant to be ‘Thankyou’ at the end there :)
Stephen Bedard // April 17, 2008 at 5:28 am
Thank you Alex for your comments. As a former Jehovah’s Witness, I have a question for you. I know that only those who are among the 144,000 are allowed to receive communion at the annual celebration. How does one prove that they belong to this select group and meet the neccesary criteria? Any help would be appreciated.
Alex Reynolds // April 17, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You are welcome Stephen. Conversations such as these are of great interest to me. I like nothing more than a good debate, but only if the debaters remain rational and can back up what they are claiming is proof.
Regarding your question. Please bare in mind I left the Witnesses the day after my sixteenth birthday, which unfortunately was over 15 yeas ago so my knowledge cannot be taken as fact.
Firstly, you refer to it as communion. I don’t remember it ever being referred to as that and for some reason hearing it referred to using that term strikes me as incorrect for some reason. Once again I may be mistaken.
The topic of the 144,000 was of great interest to me during my time in the Witnesses. When I asked that very same question (How do you know who the chosen people are?) my bible studies teacher answered that ‘they know in their hearts. They are full with the love of God and feel their appointment in that select group’. Of course being a teenager at that time her answer rankled. How are those people any better or more deserving than me? I love God. I worship Him. I’m a good person etc etc. Luckily my congregation had one of these exalted people so I was able to witness this firsthand. Even with my teenage self-absorbed attitude I was able to feel the aura of contentment that surrounded this person. He truly was a kind, decent man and his love for God was unquestionable. I was also happy to see that he wasn’t an Elder. Anyone could become part of the chosen! I still had a chance! When I told my feelings to my studies teacher she said that the 144,000 were already selected, whether born yet of not, and that I could not be a part of it. I could still enjoy life in paradise as a perfect human though so be happy with that. Of course she didn’t say it in a mean way, she was a sweet and loving person, but I was still stunned. I questioned her on the logic of this belief. How can an imperfect human, living in an imperfect world, be guaranteed a place in the 144,000 before they are even born? Do they have some sort of anti-corruption clause? She honestly told me that she didn’t have the answers I sought and referred me to one of the Elders for guidance. Before my meeting with the Elder I prepared a list of questions, ranging from minor (and kind of petty but remember - teenager!) ones - ‘Why can’t we wear denim jeans to sunday worship?’ - to the major - How can God have always existed? What existed before God? (Revelations 22.13 - ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I have been and always shall be.’) and of course ‘How can a member of the 144,000 be selected for this honor before they are even born?. To his credit he didn’t dismiss any of my questions, treating each one as important. But his answers became increasingly evasive. He often put it down to faith, which I remember really rankled, especially with the major ones. The Witnesses pride themselves on their ability to ‘prove’ any question with quotes from the bible. The Elder’s inability, or reluctance, to do so with my questions was probably the beginning of my decline of belief and led to my ever increasing need to question every facet of the religion. Some future revelations and actions were the final straw and I left the church. The mystery of the 144,000 was never fully explained.
As mentioned at the beginning of my post I have not been a member of the Jehovah’s Witness for many years. If I have incorrectly stated current Witness belief then I apologize and welcome any corrections from current members. I would especially appreciate answers to my questions from years ago:
How can God have always existed? What existed before God?
‘How can a member of the 144,000 be selected for this honor before they are even born?
Thankyou
Stephen Bedard // April 17, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Thanks again for sharing. I appreciate your balanced viewpoint. Just out of curiousity, now that you have left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, how would you describe your spirituality?
As for what existed before God, I would suggest you pick up a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. He has an interesting section about God and time. He suggests that God does not exist in time and therefore it is meaningless to talk of a time before God as God is in no time. It is not easy to understand. But then think of the big bang. There was a super dense mass of matter that exploded and caused the universe. Where did that matter come from and what happened before? Scientists might say that time did not begin until the big bang. The point is that it is impossible to conceive of a time before the beginning of the universe, with or without God. What we do know is that the universe does exist and we just need to decide if it happened with or without God. Does that help?
Alex Reynolds // May 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Sorry for the delayed response.
My spirituality is not easy to describe. I am finding it hard to put into words. Let me give you a little background.
When I was 2 years old my younger sister died. As i’m sure you can understand that upset my mother immensely and she was sunk in a sea of depression for many years. One of the ways she fought against the depression was with an almost childlike belief that God would help her, as long as she found the ‘true’ religion. This began her trek through the majority of ‘major’ religions available, everything from Buddhism, Judaism, Mormons etc, and the Witnesses. Of course we (my brother and I) were dragged along for the ride. She eventually settled on the Witnesses. This didn’t sit well with us. Not because we considered them any better or worse than any of the others, but more out of the need to distance ourselves from what we considered her irrational belief that the Witnesses could wave their hands and solve all her problems and grief. We were part of the Witnesses together for around 3 years but my brother and I left on my 16th birthday (I spent my birthday at one of their week-end long Conventions and I was very angry about it). She continued and as far as I know she is still a member (we haven’t spoken for a couple of years).
But years later I have learnt to appreciate my tour of those various religions. Those experiences combined with my own research later has developed my current beliefs.
So back to your question. I think it will be easier if I put my thoughts down in list form. If anyone reading them has an opinion I would love to hear it, but please keep in mind that these are my opinions and we are all entitled to have our own. I do not require a personal attack. Thankyou.
I don’t belong to any organized religion. I have an aversion to them based mainly on my experiences with the Witnesses and Mormons, as well as research into the Catholic Church. People don’t need an organization of flawed human beings telling them the right way to worship. If you love God then all the best. If you prefer to call Him Allah then once again peace to you. If your act of worship is getting naked and dancing among the tress then go for it!
I believe that God exists, but more as an energy that flows through the universe. Does He/It have a conscious? Yes, but is it omnipresent? I don’t know. I am a firm believer in Karma.
I believe in both Creation and Evolution. I believe in the Big Bang, but I believe it was a controlled explosion, not an accident, and that it is progressing in an evolutionary manner.
I believe that Jesus existed and that he was an extraordinary man. But was he the son of God? In the sense that we all are the children of God then absolutely. But the ‘actual’ Son of God, I don’t think so. The reasons are many and would constitute a whole different post.
I’m not sure what the above classes me as and like I said it has been hard putting it all into words. Any feedback is appreciated. Thankyou.
Stephen Bedard // May 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I respect the fact that you have retained an interest in God and spirituality despite a difficult religious upbringing. Too many people give up based on what they have seen other people do with religion. You are very obviously open to many ideas although hesitant to embrace organized religion. I can understand that. One of the things that I would challenge you with is the difficulty of taking from so many traditions, especially those that are mutually exclusive. I would encourage you to look again at Jesus, not from the perspective of organized religion but from the gospels themselves. What does Jesus seem to say about the nature of God? I encourage you to keep searching. Faith is a journey and we all need to persist through the many difficulties and uncertainties that we encounter. Keep searching!
Mary // August 15, 2008 at 1:31 am
Thanks for sharing :)
I too am searching. I believe in Yahweh and Jesus and the holy spirit. Right now I am doing some research into the Bible. I want the most accurate translation I can find. It’s pretty difficult since I only understand English.
During the course of my research, I have come across some startling bits of information. To say the least I am very frightened for those who have translated these newer bible versions.
So far, it appears that the King James Version comes the closest but it is not without concern.
Does anyone have any feedback regarding Bible translations ?
Thank you for your input ! :)
Is it just me or does it seem that Christianity today seems to be very similar to politics of today? Different parties, different ideals, different agendas ???
Just a thought. In my research I have read a lot of mud slinging between protestants and catholics and JW’s etc. etc. etc. Kinda reminds me of todays presidential candidates.
Just a thought :)
Stephen Bedard // August 15, 2008 at 8:43 am
Keep on searching! Yes it is unfortunate that religious people can get nasty. What we have in common is that we are all human and that means we have a tendency to get defensive and overeact. We need to judge religious movements by their core values and not some of the mistakes that their followers have made.
It is a great question about Bible translations. I think I understand your hesitation about newer Bible translations. There are passages in the King James Version that are not found in newer translations. Does this mean that newer translations have deliberately left them out for theological reasons? I too have done research into this. The problem is not with new translations but with the Greek manuscripts that the KJV is based on. The Greek text that was used was based on much later texts and does not take into account some earlier ones that were available at the time and definitely does not include some excellant manuscripts that have been discovered since. Unfortunately over time there have been little changes and additions that have been added to the texts. Some were mistakes and some were notes by scribes that happened to get inserted into the texts. But because of the large quanity and early nature of the texts we now have, we are able to reconstruct the earliest form of the text. That earliest form does not include a number of passages in the KJV. Remember we want the most accurate Bible, not the longest Bible. If you are looking for a good modern translation of the Bible I would recommend the English Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version or Todays New International Version.
Leave a Comment