Jehovah's Witnesses and Evangelical Christianity

The Watchtower 1 June 2000 carried a four-page article entitled, The Changing Face of ‘Christianity’. As this article is so fundamental in revealing the beliefs and nature of the Watchtower Society,wewant to comment on all the main issues raised. We will first reproduce some of the article and then make comments on what the Watchtower tells us is God’s truth for today. 

The opening paragraphs set the tone of the article and establish the purpose of writing it.

“Suppose you commission an artist to do a portrait of you. When he is finished, you are thrilled; the likeness is perfect. You think of your children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren looking at the portrait with great pride. Some generations later, however, one of your descendants feels that the receded hairline in the portrait is unflattering, so he has hair added. Another dislikes the shape of the nose, so he has that changed. Other “improvements” follow with succeeding generations, so that eventually the portrait bears little resemblance to you. If you knew this were to happen, how would you feel? No doubt indignant. Sadly, the story of this portrait is, in essence, the story of the nominal Christian church. History shows that soon after the death of Christ’s apostles, the official face of “Christianity” began to change, just as the Bible foretold. -Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43; Acts 20:30. – p.4.”

So, what is described as the nominal Christian church – which actually equates to all groups except the Jehovah’s Witnesses – has changed and altered God’s original plan. But how? Several examples are given in the article and I want us to investigate each one carefully.

“Christ and his disciples taught that there is only “one God the Father,” distinguished by his personal name, Jehovah, which appears some 7,000 times in early Bible manuscripts. (1 Corinthians 8:6; Psalm 83:18) Jesus was created by God; he is “the firstborn of every creature,” says the Catholic Douay Version of the Bible at Colossians 1:15. Thus, as a created being, Jesus frankly stated: “The Father is greater than I am.” John 14:28. – p.5.”

I believe this one short paragraph to be so full of error, misleading statements and twisted meanings that it would take more than this article to unravel. In simplicity though we need to ask when, where, why and how?

When did Christ and His disciples teach that there was only one God and Father distinguished by the name Jehovah? There is not one shred of evidence anywhere that the disciples or Jesus ever pronounced the name of Jehovah and if they did, there would have been rebellion amongst the Jews who had not pronounced the name for centuries.

We reproduce here some of the details we printed about this on pp.49-52 of Jehovah’s Witnesses – their beliefs and practices. [Witnesses]

“Claim 1: the tetragram is found instead of a Greek word in the LXX

This is truth, but not the whole truth, and in any case, here the Society contradicts itself. They base their case almost entirely on the discovery of a part copy of the LXX called ‘P. Fouad Inv. No. 266’. Dated first or second century BC, it contains parts of Deuteronomy 18:5-32:19. (See Insight on the Scriptures, WBTS, Vol.1, p.326.) This is almost certainly of Jewish origin because it is written in square Hebrew characters on a scroll. The Society concludes that because this one copy of the LXX contains the tetragram then all copies must have, especially the ones that Jesus read. Nevertheless, in an earlier publication we read: ‘Jehovah’ does not occur in the Septuagint version, that name being represented by the Greek words for ‘the Lord'”. (Equipped for every Good Work, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1946, p. 53).

What makes this contradiction even more remarkable is that the Deuteronomy fragments were first published in 1944 and the ‘Equipped’ book was not published until 1946.

There were many versions of the LXX and some used by the Jews would have had the four Hebrew letters but those used by the Christians did not have any special wording at all. Most, if not all, of the versions that the Society quote are of Jewish origin and therefore the scribes, translating or copying, would be simply keeping to their traditions by using the tetragram. We should also note that the Society has carefully avoided mention of another portion of the LXX called ‘P. Ryl. GK. 458’ dated middle second century BC. C. H. Roberts points out in Two Biblical Papyri, p. 44, “it is probable that kyrios was written in full.” In other words, this version probably did not contain the tetragram.

Claim 2: Jesus and His followers pronounced the divine name, and therefore we should today

As already shown, only two BC copies of the LXX have been brought forward for evidence. Therefore, it is a wild assumption to say that the manuscript Jesus read in the synagogue contained the tetragram. However, just for a minute let us accept that this was the case. Would the Scribes and the Pharisees allow Him to pronounce the name without a violent outburst? Luke 4:22 tells us they all began to give favourable witness. I do not believe that this calm, appreciative reaction followed the first time the tetragram had been pronounced in a synagogue for hundreds of years! The reaction only comes later when the Jewish leaders realise He is talking about God choosing Gentiles instead of Jews.

In addition, if the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to make known the name of God by pronouncing it, He failed. The NWT takes pains to show that Jesus used the divine name. However, apart from a dozen or so quotes from the Old Testament (we will look at the validity of these later) they can only find evidence to put ‘Jehovah’ in the mouth of Jesus twice! Jesus did not make the divine name known by pronouncing it. We close this section with the comments of two biblical scholars about ‘Jehovah’ in connection with Jesus. It is worth noting that the first, Steve Byington, has translated a modern version of the Bible that the Society promotes.

If we need to argue the point of translating ‘the Lord’ where the Greek says ‘the Lord’, my argument would be that when Jesus and the apostles and their friends spoke an Old Testament text aloud, they said ‘the Lord’ for ‘Jehovah’ even in so careful a quotation as Mark 12:29 (the newly found manuscript of Isaiah may be cited as fresh evidence that the custom of saying ‘the Lord’ began before the time of Christ…), and we cannot presume that the apostles wrote otherwise than they spoke (S. T. Byington, The Christian Century, 9 May 1951, p.589).

Referring initially to the tetragram in the Aquila Fragments, H. H. Rowley wrote in the Expository Times soon after Vol. 2 of the NWT Old Testament was released in 1955:

Actually this offers no evidence that it was pronounced by the reader, any more than it was pronounced by the Jew who read from the Hebrew, where also it was written… if our Lord had rejected the unwillingness to pronounce the Name… it might have been expected that His disciples would have noticed and followed Him in this. Such evidence as we have indicates that when He quoted Psalm 110 He used words which mean ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ and not ‘Yahweh said unto my Lord.’ Similarly, there is no evidence that in Romans 929,15:9, or 2 Corinthians 6:17 Paul ever wrote anything other than Kyrios to represent the (tetragram).

Claim 3: the tetragram appears in the original New Testament manuscripts

This is the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society’s equivalent of the theory of evolution. There is no evidence but it must be. In fact, all the evidence points in the other direction. There is not one New Testament manuscript known today in which the tetragram appears and there is no evidence of a conspiracy to get rid of the tetragram.

The Watchtower place their ‘burden of proof’ on a work by George Howard, published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1977. The KIT pp.1137-38, quotes from his work:

“In the following pages we will set forth A THEORY that the divine name… was originally written in the N[ew] T[estament] quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament].”

As we have emphasised, this is a theory, and Professor Howard maintains to this day that it should be treated as a theory until a New Testament manuscript is found with the tetragram. Howard starts his article, “In order to support this theory,” and ends:

“Concluding observations… We have refrained from drawing too many conclusions due to the revolutionary nature of THIS THEORY. Rather than state conclusions now in a positive manner it seems better only to raise some questions that suggest a need for further examination a) IF the tetragram was used in the NT, how extensively was it used…”

Professor Howard clearly then saw the need for caution and further investigation. He still says that until a manuscript of the New Testament is found with the tetragram his theory remains a theory. However, the WBTS are not content with that so they conclude the KIT article with a quantum leap:

“We concur with the above, with one exception: We do not consider this view a ‘theory’, but, rather, a presentation of the FACTS (???) of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.”

Please note our ‘???’ What facts? Actually, the Society is up to their normal tricks in missing out much of Howard’s article. One of the relevant parts is:

“We can imagine that the NT text incorporated the tetragram into its OT quotations and that the words KURIOS and THEOS were used when secondary references to God were made in the comments that were based upon the quotations.”

Also the article dealt,

“primarily with the divine name as it was written… not with what word or words the reader pronounced.”

Therefore, even if the WBTS wish to consider this theory a fact, all they can claim from it is that the divine name would be in the New Testament Scriptures only where it quoted Old Testament Scripture. They have, however, gone far beyond that, even to claiming the pronouncing of the name, which Howard says he does not deal with.” [Quote end]

WHY AND HOW

This takes care of the when and where and we believe shows beyond reasonable doubt that the claims of the Society are false. But what about the why and how. Why does the phrase “firstborn of all creation” mean He was created and how does the phrase “my Father is greater than I” mean that Jesus is different?

In Colossians 1:15, the Greek word translated firstborn is prototokos whereas the Greek for first-created would be protoktistos. Prototokos means the first-begotten and can never mean the first one to be born. Its meaning is priority to or pre-eminence over; therefore Jesus is the pre-eminent one over all creation and not a created being Himself.

Whichever English word is used we must discover what the Greek means. For instance, does Colossians 1:18 mean that Jesus was the first one to be born from the dead? That would not be true because Lazarus was before him, as indeed were others in the Old and New Testaments. Is the Scripture wrong? No, because the Greek word has the meaning of position, place, ranking. This is seen in the Old Testament where on at least two occasions the first to be born lost the position of firstborn to the second to be born.

“Firstborn has always, in the Hebrew tradition, had to do with place and pre-eminence over. The context of Colossians makes it clear that the word is used in the same way. That ‘He might come to have first place in everything'” (v. 18). – Witnesses, p.57

So, firstborn of all creation does not mean the first one to be created but what about “greater”?

“Jesus said His Father was greater than He was, therefore how can Jesus be God? The argument sounds logical and because the Witnesses rely so much on logic, they have problems. However, what does ‘greater’ mean? Better? Different than? The same Greek word is used in John 14:12: ‘greater works you will do.’ Are we going to do better or different works than Jesus? No, greater here simply means in more magnitude; they will be no better and certainly not different. The self-imposed limitations of Jesus’ earthly life caused His Father to be greater only at that time and in that place. Incidentally, only things in the same magnitude can be compared. Jesus claimed equality and oneness with the Father, John 5:18; 10:30, and therefore could be compared with Him.” – Witnesses, p.90

Evangelical Christians believe therefore that there is so much error in just that one small paragraph. But a Jehovah’s Witness would accept it all without question. We need to help them lovingly to question what is happening.

But by the third century, certain influential clerics, enamored of the trinitarian teaching of pagan Greek philosopher Plato, began recasting God to fit the Trinitarian formula. In the following centuries, this doctrine unscripturally elevated Jesus to equality with Jehovah and made God’s holy spirit, or active force, into a person. – p.5.

We would need another book to answer this paragraph but let me again reproduce a few paragraphs from my book Jehovah’s Witnesses – their beliefs and practices to enable you to begin to answer what Evangelical Christians see as a blasphemous statement. However, remember that the Witness would not knowingly blaspheme, they would believe these statements to be true and so if we communicate with them on this issue we need to do so lovingly not in an attitude of condemnation.

“The fact that the Trinity ‘dogma’ was not written down until the fourth century is true. The reason, though, is not that it was only invented then but that this truth, believed and taught in the early church, came under severe attack at that time. The truth had not been questioned so fiercely before and ad never needed to be defined ‘on paper.’ Now Christians wanted everyone to know what they believed. This aspect is dealt with in more detail in Why Should you Believe ‘Should you Believe in the Trinity’. – Witnesses, p.81-2

There are also several Scriptures that clearly deny the position the Society take, even the context of their pet Scripture John 1:1.

Verse 1: ‘In the beginning,’ the Greek phrase for this is the same as the Greek translation (Septuagint) for Genesis 1:1. When the beginning begun God was there and now when the beginning begun the Word, Christ was there. Neither of them created and both in existence before any creation took place. Hebrews 7:3, even in the NWT shows that the Son of God had no ‘beginning of days or end of life,’ He is eternal.

Verse 3: All things created by Him. The Word of God offers no exceptions as the emphasis in this verse shows: ‘apart from Him nothing came into being.’ Only if you bring human interpretation to bear can you say that Christ was created.

Verse 14: Only-begotten. The Greek word monogenes is contrasted with the word for born, gennao in verse 13. Christ is the unique one, not born as we are but begotten. Begotten can never mean created.

“We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is just this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself… What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is (C. S. Lewis, Beyond Personality, 1944, p.12).”

We can only rightly understand the term ‘the only begotten’ when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. ‘The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect he is not “after” the Father’ (VINE, Vol.3, p.140) – Witnesses, pp.83.

The Watchtower article then ‘trots out’ two of the regular citations they use to disprove the Trinity. We quote the paragraph below and in bold type add the parts of the quote they miss out.

Concerning the church’s adoption of the pagan concept of the Trinity, the New Catholic Encyclopaedia says:

It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the… Trinity… Among the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome… in the final decade of the 1st century, bears witness to God the Father, to the Son, to the Spirit… From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation on the key words Trinitarian and dogma. The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

Similarly, The Encyclopaedia Americana says:

“Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching… The alleged fact that Jesus died for our sins, and thus guarded us against the effects of the wrath of God, is categorically denied. To believe that Jesus’ death did have this result would be to cast an aspersion on God’s character… Moreover, man should not, Unitarians believe, accept such an offer on the part of Jesus…

What is also dishonest about the above quote is that the Society omits to tell their readers that it comes from an article on “Unitarianism.” Unitarians deny both the deity of Christ and that Christ died for our sins.” [End Quote]

Having dealt with the name of God and the Trinity the article next turns its attention to the immortal soul or not as they believe.

It is commonly believed today that humans have an immortal soul that survives the death of the body. But did you know that this church teaching was also a later addition? Jesus affirmed the Biblical truth that the dead “are conscious of nothing at all,” that they are asleep, as it were. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-13) Life would be restored by means of a resurrection – ‘a standing up again’ from the sleep of death. (John 5:28, 29) An immortal soul, if it existed, would need no resurrection, since immortality precludes death. Jesus even demonstrated the Biblical teaching of the resurrection by raising people from the dead. Take the example of Lazarus, who was dead for four days. When Jesus resurrected him, Lazarus came out from the tomb a living, breathing human. No immortal soul slipped back from heavenly bliss into his body when Lazarus awoke from the dead. If that were the case, Jesus would hardly have done him a favor by resurrecting him! John
11:39, 43, 44
.

Let us look at these scriptures first.

John 11:11-13 in no way shows that the dead know nothing at all. It does not comment on what Lazarus was feeling when he was dead and so no assumptions can be made. But what about Ecclesiastes 9:5 this obviously also does not back up the statement that Jesus affirmed this position but just what does it say?

This verse is dealing with reward and comparing what the living and dead know. The living know that they will die but for the dead it is too late and all they are aware of is that they are dead – they do not know of anything about when they were alive – it is too later to make any changes or affect the future. They no longer have a reward from this life and they do not have a portion in this life. There is nothing in these verses to even begin to indicate the simple fact that the dead are not conscious they are simple not conscious of the life they lived previously.

We then come to the argument that if Lazarus was in immortal bliss Jesus would not have done him a favour in resurrecting him. I believe that the Society basing their view that the immortal soul is unbiblical on such a humanistic argument shows where the thinking comes from. Let us be a little more realistic by asking the vital question – what does the word ‘resurrection’ actually mean.

Resurrection is a key teaching in Scripture because it is the confirmation of what Jesus Christ accomplished at Calvary (see Acts 1:22 and 4:33)

1 Corinthians 15:35-53 – Physical bodies will put on incorruption and immortality. Paul taught that in the resurrection our bodies would be raised incorruptible and immortal. There maybe a time lapse between the death of the mortal body and the resurrection of that same body but this is what Scripture teaches.

John 5:28, 29 – These verses are very clear in what they teach. Verse 24 has already shown that those who truly believe have already passed into eternal life and do not have to go through judgement. Those who do not have this life will have the judgement spoken of in verse 29. Also note Hebrews 9:27 – men die once and then comes the judgement. There is no teaching of a resurrection to a second chance.

1 Peter 1:23 also talks about that which is imperishable or incorruptible. Greek scholar W.E.Vine says of this word, “not liable to corruption or decay.” This is something, which will not rot, or decay and must have a future in the resurrection, as it cannot pass out of existence.

Lazarus was going to die again – this was not his final resurrection. He was brought back to life here and was not at this point moving on to his eternal reward. Scripture however shows that there is a resurrection to an incorruptible and immortal life and no matter how much the Watchtower Society wants to put a smokescreen over it; they cannot surely ignore what the Scriptures actually say.

The article then adds what is a clear misquote; the words in red are not quoted but are in the original and show clearly that the writer does not agree with the Watchtower Society even though they want to claim he does.

What, then, is the source of the immortal soul theory? The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology says that the concept “owes more to Greek philosophy than to biblical revelation.” The Jewish Encyclopedia explains: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy ScriptureIt is the Psalmist’s implicit faith in God’s omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality.

The article next turns its attention to hell and says,

Often, one falsehood leads to another, and that is true of the immortal-soul teaching. It opened the way for the pagan notion of eternal torment in a fiery hell. *

(* Footnote: “Hell” is a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades, both of which simply mean “the grave.” Thus, while the English translators of the King James Version translated Sheol 31 times as “hell,” they also rendered it 31 times as “grave” and 3 times as “pit,” thereby showing that these terms mean basically the same thing.)

Yet the Bible plainly states that “the wages sin pays is death”-not eternal torment. (Romans 6:23) Thus, describing the resurrection, the King James Version states: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them.” Likewise, the Douay Bible says that “the sea… and death and hell gave up their dead.” Yes, simply put, those in hell are dead, ‘asleep,’ as Jesus said. -Revelation 20:13.”

First, we look at the translations of the words mentioned above.

Sheol

Is it possible for the Hebrew word ‘sheol’ to simply mean ‘the grave,’ every time it is used in Scripture? If it is possible then the Watchtower teaching that there is no eternal spirit and that after death we are just a memory in the mind of God waiting to be remembered and restored, would be true.

However, this definition gives problems with the following Scriptures, amongst others, in the NWT.

Even Sheol underneath has become agitated… At you it has awakened those impotent in death… All of them speak up and say… – Isaiah 14:9-10. How can they speak?

… the distressing circumstances of Sheol themselves found me – Psalm 116:3. What are the distressing circumstances?

... that you may deliver his very soul from Sheol itself – Proverbs 23:14. It is possible not to go to Sheol!

… Let them go down into Sheol alive… – Psalm 55:15. You can get there and still be alive!

This is the way of those who have stupidity… they have been appointed to Sheol itself… God himself will redeem my soul from the hand of Sheol, for he will receive me – Psalm 49:13-15.

 

The psalmist saw a distinct difference between himself and the stupid with relation to sheol.

Hades

Then what about the Greek word hades?

… and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it – Matthew 16:18.

If Hades were the place of the unconscious, it would be understood that it could not overpower the church.

And in Hades he lifted up his eyes… cried out and said… – Luke 16:23-24

 

The Society want to dismiss this as a parable but even so it must be a true story and therefore the rich man was alive in Hades

And Hades gave up the dead… and they were judged… – Revelation 20:13.

 

From Hades the only resurrection is to judgement, not to live for a 1,000 years.

As we see, the two words cannot mean, in all cases, the grave and so there are problems for the Watchtower definition. It is also true that the translators of the King James Version did mix up the translation of the word hell but you will notice in more modern translations this has been sorted out. Finally, we must add that this article did not even mention the Greek word gehenna which is the word translated hell in the New Testament.

Gehenna

It is finer (better) for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go off into Gehenna, into the fire that cannot be put out – Mark 9:43, NWT.

Being maimed in this life is a serious matter how would it be better to go into unconsciousness?

Notice also the ‘everlasting’ quality, a fire that cannot be put out. This is seen in other Scriptures. Matthew 25:46 is an example of this that the Witnesses try to get around by giving a secondary meaning to the word ‘punishment’. But this verse contrasts the righteous going into eternal life, a life that will last forever with the wicked going into eternal cutting-off (NWT). There is nothing eternal about being annihilated.

We can, from this brief look, see that Scriptures do not agree with the definitions given to the words by the Society, rather they show that sheol and Hades are the place of waiting after death. They also show that there is an eternal part of man that is ‘alive’ there during this time. Gehenna is the final place of everlasting punishment to which the wicked are banished after judgement.

Conclusion

The Society in seeking to bring the article to a close move on to a section entitled Disfiguring the “Portrait” in Modern Times. They say,

The disfiguring of God and Christianity continues today. A professor of religion recently described the struggle in his Protestant church as one “over the authority of Scripture and creed versus the authority of alien and humanistic ideologies, between the church’s faithfulness to the lordship of Christ versus an accommodation and reformulation of Christianity to the spirit of the age. The issue at stake is this: Who sets the agenda for the church… Holy Scripture or the dominant ideology of the day?

Of course, we are already aware of the answer to this rhetorical question and we are not disappointed,

Sadly, “the dominant ideology of the day” still tends to win out. It is no secret, for instance, that many churches have changed their stand on various issues so as to appear progressive and open-minded. Especially in moral matters, the churches have become quite liberal, as mentioned in the opening article. Yet, the Bible leaves no doubt that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are gross sins in the eyes of God and that those practicing such sins “will not inherit God’s kingdom.”

There would be many of us that would agree with this particular illustration but isn’t that a smoke screen at this point. To get to that kingdom in the first place we need to have a relationship with Christ that sadly Witnesses do not teach in the same way as evangelical Christians do. We need to know what it means to be justified now and have certainty of eternal life. Sadly, that is also not true of a Jehovah’s Witness. We need to have a clear vision of who Jesus is and what Jesus has done for us. Sadly, we believe, most Witnesses are just like the two on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. Study these Scriptures and see what these two actually had knowledge of but it was not a reality in their lives.

They knew that Jesus was a prophet mighty in His deeds and His words. They knew that the tomb was empty. They had knowledge of a message given from heaven that Jesus was alive. Surely this would be enough to convince them of the reality of Jesus – sadly not. Only when they truly saw who Jesus was and then later He prayed that their minds would be open to understand the Scriptures did the full light dawn.

The Society says that eternal life consists of taking in knowledge (their translation of John 17:3) – and that is why they are like the two on the road to Emmaus – they are seeking after all the knowledge but not necessary a living relationship (knowing).

It is true that some parts of what is termed the ‘church’ are not leading on moral issues but surely it is equally true that unless we respond and are obedient to the fundamental message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we will never be in the kingdom, so we can be barred. Just as vital, if not more so, than what we do, is what we are inside, because in the end if Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives we will not be simply a member of a man-made organisation as tragically many Jehovah’s Witnesses and those in organised religion are. But we will be as evangelical Christians delight in telling, we will be living examples of who Jesus is. We will not be obedient because we feel we must but because the Holy Spirit (whom Witnesses deny exists in the evangelical biblical understanding) will work in and through us.

The article continues,

Look to the Original “Portrait” Speaking to the Jewish religious leaders of his day, Jesus said that their worship was `in vain because they taught commands of men as doctrines.’ (Matthew 15:9) Those clerics did the very same thing to Jehovah’s Law through Moses that the clergy of Christendom did, and still do, to Christ’s teaching they splashed the “paint” of tradition over divine truth. But Jesus stripped away all falsehoods for the benefit of honesthearted people. (Mark 7:7-13) Jesus spoke the truth, whether it was popular or not. God’s Word was always his authority. -John 17:17. What a contrast Jesus presents to most professed Christians! Indeed, the Bible predicted: “People will be avid for the latest novelty and collect… teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4, The Jerusalem Bible) These “myths ” of which we have considered a few, are spiritually destructive, whereas the truth of God’s Word builds up, and it leads to everlasting life. This is the truth that Jehovah’s Witnesses encourage you to examine. John 4:24; 8:32;17:3.

How tragic that some leaders in the Society, that we believe know better, wrote that for those who know no better, so that they will become more entrenched within the Society’s position. As we believe we have shown in this article, beyond reasonable doubt, God’s Word shows that it is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are preaching the myths not the evangelical Christian church. Note carefully the sentence that follows this accusation and consider the implications. Is it not the truth of God’s Word that GIVES eternal life but doesn’t the ‘truth’ that the Watchtower Society proclaims close the door for those who would even desire to enter.

If what we say is correct, this is truly a tragic situation, because thousands of genuine seekers of truth are blinded by a man-made organisation.

Categories: Jehovah's Witnesses

Tags: ,,,

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.