I was reading an innocent thread about someone who was wondering whether to marry a Jehovah's Witness (J.W) lady, himself not been one. I did not want to derail the thread but wanted to "air my views" and encourage others to openly air their views too, about the Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian group, what you like about them, what you dislike about them and so on.

Its not and endorsement or otherwise, (like they need one anyway!) but just an avenue to "discuss, vent and appraise" everything you think about the "group". I have attended their services very well and l have attended other church organizations as well, in my own search for "that which is better, if not perfect".
Please, lets make it civil. That will be well appreciated so we can focus

Here is my take:

I would suggest that EVERYONE tell us before hand, their own religious denomination(Xtian, Islam, J.W, e.t.c).
If you’re a J.W. let us be able to “situate your comment” in that context. It is a fact that the way a J.W will ‘talk’ about his/her denomination would not be the same, when a “Redeemer or Catholic” (for example) is the one doing the talking.

Having said, I am NOT “a baptized” Jehovah’s Witness but l have mingled with them at ‘close quarters’ for over twenty years because my parents are one of them! I have attended all meetings you can imagine, from Igeduma to Sango-Otta bi-annual festivals. I have attended the Lords supper and l have spent countless hours “drilling them” when they come have Bible studies with me. I did all these because l felt “knowledge is important” especially that which concerns your spirituality.

I will break this into "short briefs" so as to address issues with "attention span" that occur when write-ups get lenghty and as we all know, all lengthyof religion are "long thing"!

I will address a few "misconceptions/pertinent issues" first. Why? Peeps seem to focus on such things the most.
Next, l will address a few "likes and dislikes" l have for them, in a comparative manner.

Cheers and good reading.

BTW: Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we can all live with that in a responsible way.

*Are they the only ones serving God? Absolutely NOT!
(Salvation is not by “one’s Denomination, it is by “individual appraisal” at God’s hand.)

*Do they have “excesses and black sheep” within the fold? Absolutely TRUE!

*Can we take one part of the Bible and discard the other parts? Absolutely NOT!

*Are certain things in the Bible left to “individual discretion”? Absolutely YES!

*Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a good Christian organization? Absolutely YES!

*Do they feel superior to other Christians (and this is wrong!)? Absolutely YES!

*Do they have a ‘somehow narrow’ understanding/interpretation of certain biblical doctrines? Absolutely TRUE

*Can we learn a lot from them? Absolutely Yes!

MISCONCEPTIONS
They dont pray using Jesus's name!
They do but start their prayer using and directing it to the father; like this : Jehovah our heavenly father, bla-bla-bla, (and then end it like this), we ask for all these in the name of your only begotten son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen (all then chorus Amen)

Notice they dont "repeat the "Amen" at every line of prayer (why? does anyone know why?) but only at the end! Mainstream Christian churches repeat the "Amen" for each line of prayer. Again, why? What does the Bible say about this or what inference can we draw from Biblical accounts?

Pertinent issues:

They Drink ALCOHOL/BEER!

This one would be very short: I know a lot of places where the Bible “cursed” drunkards (those who linger over wine, those who get intoxicated and loose self control): 1Tim 3: 2-3, Isaiah 5: 11, 22, Proverbs 23: 29 – 35, Proverb 31: 4-7.

Now, every where “wine” is used in the Bible, it is not referring to “Pure Heaven”, it is referring to “Alcoholic wine” (1 Samuel 1: 14), one that is intoxicating and makes one drunk!

The Bible did recommend the consumption of wine in a number of places (1 Tim 5:23).

Jesus himself turned water to wine so the people can make merry!
Thus, J.W. peeps are not committing ANY SIN by drinking alcohol.

They or anyone for that matter would be sinning against God “If we drink to the point of stupor”, point of intoxication or if we get drunk!
In this, it’s a matter of “individual capacity” to tolerate alcohol.
Now, l challenge ANYONE to show me (l neither drink nor smoke but l am interested in the outcome of the result) in the Bible where it says “Thou shall not drink alcohol/wine or where it says if you drink wine/alcohol, you have sinned”. Show me, please. Its like the J.W saying “don’t celebrate birthdays”, it is just a moral posturing corroborated with one or two nasty historical events! Its not always going to be so and its never always so!!

Cheers, Lastpage!

DONT "EAT" BLOOD

Yes, the Bible asks Christians not to “eat blood” (Leviticus 7: 26.).

So, l guess the question is “How can one eat blood”?
You could eat it directly by “ingestion” (direct drinking, as part of a mixture of drinks, a part of ingredients used to prepare food, e.t.c).

What about “indirectly”? Only an analogy would explain this: If for example, your Doctors says you should not ‘take/eat cocaine’, as it is bad for your health; You then refrain from snorting it through your nose, drinking tea from coca leaves but you say, l am free to inject it into my body using a Syringe & needle.
Question is: Would you suffer the same consequence as if you actually used the other method?
The answer is of-course YES! Thus, we can see that “blood transfusion” is not different from “eating blood” as it were.
This is why J.W people refuse blood transfusion.
May l add that there are “well researched blood expanders” that are not from blood but does the “same work” (in terms of clinical rejuvenation) as if you took blood. Thus, they are not actually committing suicide as some would think, there is an alternative moreover, the bigger benefit, not counting the side effects of blood transfusion, is obeying God’s command.


They dont believe in TRINITY
What does Trinity mean? It means that Jesus is the same “physical entity” as God (Jehovah) and it is also the same “physical entity” as The Holy Spirit. 3-in-1, as we usually say!

J.W’s say “There is a God (Jehovah), the Father of Jesus Christ (his Son) and the Holy Spirit is the power by which he comforts/empowers his children.

So, we have two opposing positions but what did the Bible say?

*Bible talks about God “The FATHER” and Jesus Christ “the Son himself” – 1 Corinthians 15: 24, 27-28.
*Jesus sat at the right hand of God ( Mark 16:19. or can anyone sit at the right hand of himself?).
*Jesus (the son) was a physical entity with God (His father). John 1: 1-4.
*Even Jesus himself called God (Jehovah) his Father! ( cant remember the exact place in the Bible, right now! I beg l no be Pastor o! ).
*Jesus said only “His Father” knows when the end will come (Mathew 24: 36).

In all, Christ keeps referring to his “father”, Jehovah God, as a distinct “physically personality “ from himself but in terms of “unity of purpose”, he says “they are one”.

Now, we should not confuse “their unified purpose” with their “different physical personality”.
This is where most churches and peeps make mistake and get confused!
So if Christ himself says “he has a father in heaven”, if Jesus said he will send the “holy spirit” to his disciples when he gets to “his father”, to comfort them in his absence, why do we keep saying this ‘equality and sameness of Trinity” stuff?

Cheers, Lastpage.

They wont be raptured!

Again, the Bible says “The meek will inherit the earth” (Book of Psalms!)

If J.W’s believe they are “meek”, don’t they have a right to lay claim to that prophecy?
For those that also believe they will be raptured to heaven, you equally have a right to lay claim to such belief!
No need to badger each other on that?

Issues that will come under this have to do with "the little flock" and the "big flock or multitude" that the Bible talked about.
Other issues that would come into play are the 'Last Supper", those who can partake of it, why everybody cant (unlike how it is done in Catholic and other Christian churches like Redeem, where everyone eats it), the 144,000 and their significance.

There isn’t enough space and time to start examining how true or genuine each of those “beliefs” is, I wont want to just "skim" it as it is very important but lets leave that till another day or someone else can pick it up from here.

LIKES AND DISLIKES

CHRISTIAN GROUP, SECT OR CULT?
Okay, there are a few things l disagree or dislike with Jehovah's Witness "Group". I am tempted to use the phrase "Sect", others have used the phrase "Cult" but l think that is derogatory so, l wont use it. I will leave the judgement "open" on that.

What is a "Sect"? What is a "Cult".
These are English words and using their definition, we can examine the J.W's and see if they "fit-in" to those definitions.

Here is one:

CULT: A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult?oldid=0

Here is two:

The specific Christian definition of a cult is “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” In simpler terms, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to remain unsaved if he/she believes it. As distinct from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be part of the religion, yet denies essential truth(s) of that religion. A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

Just two examples for now.
Question: Do J.W's fit into these definitions? You be the judge.

For simplicity, l will stick to my use of the phrase "Group" to define them.
l must ask: Even as they are Christians and would not consider other Christians as Christians, (they call others “ Christiandom”), if they would not accept others as equal and forbid marriage between them (as Christians) and others as “christiandoms”, do they fit the definition of a Cult? Do they have the right to call others "Christiandoms" while arrogating to themselves "Christians"? Who call is this?


BIRTHDAYS

As it relates Birthday celebrations, the “excuse” they give (Jesus never celebrated his birthday, Peter’s head was cut-off during such a Birthday celebrations), are myopic, in my own opinion.
Every Birthday does not and did not end that way!
In fact, such celebrations can be used for good or evil, just like the J.W’s festivals at Igeduma or Sango-Otta in those days, can be used for good or evil!
It is not the Birthday that was wrong, it is the way it was celebrated, back then!
Is it then a case of "moral persuasion" not to celebrate Birthdays or a "biblical injunction"?

if it is the later, it is sacrosanct but if it is the former, then it is only obligatory but not a requirement and therefore, not binding!

Cheers, Lastpage

Are there things l don’t agree with, in the J.W’s doctrines, of course, they are many!

For example, if you study or showed interest or even get baptized as one of them and then later on, you discovered that they have some “untenable positions” in their doctrine and for such, you would like to attend other churches (aside their Kingdom Hall), they will quickly append you with this derogatory term: “Backslider”!

Another is “dusting their feet-off" at the doors of people who don’t want to attend or listen to them!

From Bible account, this is supposed to be a sort of “curse” on that household!
I marvel, why would a “Christian” want to put a curse on another Christian, simply because they don’t agree with your doctrine (Though more importantly, the Bible also says “Curse without reason shall not land”!).

I see it as not exhibiting the spirit of Christ who preached forgiveness and tolerance.
I recall that God blessed Solomon because “He did not asked for the death of his enemies”, when God gave him the freedom to ask for “anything he wished”. That is a worthy “Christian example”.

*I love their persistence and their “going from door to door” as commanded in the Bible.

*I love the fact that they have not made “money and prosperity” the center of their Ministry, unlike other Christian Churches.

*I love the fact that they adhere to the Biblical principle of giving in secrecy, such that your right hand does not know what your left hand gives”; Unlike our current main-stream Churches who will force, threaten and invoke hell-fire, just to empty your pockets and if you prove stubborn, they will ostracize you and remind you that “all your problems are caused because you dont give enough to the church; like who does not have challenges? Even Jesus did!

Most of all, l love the fact that they actually “take time to dig deep and study the Bible”, even the smallest 6yr old J.W kid will floor most Pastors of any main stream church, by their in-depth knowledge of the word of God; The Bible! Check out the boldness with which even these young ones can face any size of audience and you will marvel.


l love the Awake magazine, its very informative but l am aware that they have reduced the urgency with which they “market “ their magazines nowadays (Guess they are responding to the reality of the recession as well!). I dislike the “The Watch Tower “ magazine to some extent, it mostly used in propaganda though almost all Christian churches have woken up to such style but and even The Redeem Church has “propaganda books” for as little as our 5yr olds!

Have you been to their “Kingdom Hall” (Church) before, even as a first timer?
They would “acknowledge you personally by shaking your hand”, from the "Elders" to the 5yr old who sees it as normal tradition .
They will try their best to make you feel welcomed and even call you “Brother or Sister” but have you attended one of our main stream churches as a first timer?
Except where they ask you to raise your hand if this is your first time (The J.W’s know themselves so much that a first timer would stand out like a sore thumb!), you are virtually non-existent afterwards and l know peeps who have regularly attended a particular Church for more than one year and they are still strangers to each other in that church!
They don’t just give a hoot!

(Am l being biased here? You be the judge)

Ofcourse, if you are "loaded", its just a matter of weeks before you get “recognized and elevated to the front seat!, and you could become a Deacon in a twinkle of an eye!

In the J.W hall, anyone can seat anywhere, no “high-seat” for the rich and mighty! I still remembered that some decades ago, l reluctantly followed my old peeps to the J.W assembly at Sango Otta in Ogun state and there sitting beside me on the “floor and wooden bench” was one of those considered “rich” in those days, one Oshopey man who had this Oshpey Industries somewhere around Palm-Groove/Onipanu axis of Lagos!

I attend redeem church right now and in my local church, we have these “executive, very cushioned and confy chairs” (about five) that only the Pastor, his wife and two or three close pals can seat on! That is what l call segregation, in the house of God!
Let us know, how is it in your own church about this "special seats"?

Cheers, l dey come!
Lastpage

MUSIC, DANCE AND JAZZY!

I dislike the fact their “meetings” can, not even occasionally, get very boring! Even more boring is their “song of praises” (more like a recitation of some sorts!).
They don’t dance to their songs, of course, its not musical at all and will fit more in a burial service; no drums, no guitar, no cymbals, just one “concerto piano which can get off-key at times!
Wetin, na una kill Jezuus?
Whats wrong with dancing and rolling on the floor, just for your creator?

But the main stream churches really give meaning to the phrase that “God does not need anything else from us except dancing and praises”. One of the reason l could not become a J.W is that l love “praise & worship songs”, it moves my spirit.

If that is the only thing l gain in church in a day, l am happy with myself.
Even “bad-boy” David (father of Solomon in the Bible) knew the advantages of singing and dancing unto God and he actually has “taken advantage” of God on a few occasion, using these “key” (you can read it as “weakness”, in our own material world).
He will just play music to Jehovah and [b]l can imagine Baba-God himself, smiling and saying “You naughty boy, now you’re pressing my soft button! Go away and sin no more”![/b]

This is one thing l think in my own opinion, J.W’s are missing and they don’t even know it!

I also appreciate the fact that J.W’s have not cluttered their ‘Ministry’ with often fictitious embellishments of “healing and miracle” as is the case in most of these prosperity churches.
They have sick people and they have poor people amongst them but l have not for once hear them “organize a revival” promising miracle healing and sudden wealth but then, l am also aware that they don’t have the highest mortality rate and neither can we rate them as the “poorest” in this country!

You can go to a J.W hall meeting without a farden in your pocket or just ten naira only, no one would harass you or look down on you for daring “the lord” with coins!
You would not be scared and swamped with invectives about how “a devourer will enter your purse” if you contribute “chicken-change” in church on Sunday but our dear main stream churches have completely outlawed “lean times” and the fear l have seen some exercise, just because they don’t have enough to contribute in church on Sunday (some would actually prefer to stay home that face such humiliation) is mind-bending.

I just dey come again!
Lastpage!!

Pastoral Preachings!

Everyone is competent and expected to “preach and educate” other members in a J.W meeting/church service.

They simply give out the “topic”, you do the homework (with assistance from more knowledgeable brothers) and you come and deliver it to the whole assembly, to the best of your ability.

This has a lot of benefits to the members and the “preacher” person, most of all, it builds the person spiritually and mentally.

Contrast this with other mainstream churches where it’s a “one-man-show” who preaches day-in, day-out and even on days he has nothing tangible to say but waffles meaninglessly (and boringly too!) back and forth with the occasional sprinkling of “God just told me now” or “God just put it into my heart what l should say now” but of course, we know he is just telling us that he is unprepared for today’s sermon!

I dislike the fact that J.W’s seems unconcerned about anything “political or governance in nature”.
They claim their government or interest, like Christ, is not of this “wacked system of things”!

I disagree because they are part and parcel of the “wacked system”, it affects them and their household, it affects their Ministry too.
Did someone not say “we die the day we remain silent in the presence of Evil”?

Are the J.W’s dead? Did Jesus Christ himself not “get involved” and clean the stables when charlatans were trying to take over the church? Why did he not just fold his hands and proclaim: My government is not of this world, do whatever you like?

Did he not contribute his tax, did he not lay down rules, teach and take “affirmative actions” by ‘alleviating people’s problems’ healing them, providing food for the masses, nurturing both their spiritual and physical needs (Something like a councilor or LGA chairman would do in todays settings).

J.W’s are rather too focused on the spiritual needs while neglecting the physical needs of people; that is what this “we are not part of this world and therefore will not contribute to “leadership and human management” in our environment, (which is what “Politics” is all about) is. (or should be about!).
If good people run away from politics, why should they then complain about "Odechukwu" or Alao Akala (a.k.a Soyoyo! ) or Tinubu a.k.a god-father Mafioso or Ojuyo'bo!? ) If roads are paved and good, wont they get to the Assembly ground safely and on time?
*If Hospitals are well equipped, wont their delivering Mothers face less risk and wont it further help them to void "taking blood" ?
*If food is acheap and affordable, wont their wards be better nourished?
*That Generator noise that makes them close the doors and windows on one side of the meeting hall could have been history if "NEPA" had not been looted blind by those they left the till for! l mean those of this world/Christendom!

As long as you're human in the midst of other humans, you dont just talk "the talk", you walk "the walk"!

Aaah, its late, got to catch some sleep before its day break!

Cheers to all, may tomorrow be better than today, IJN.

Though i'm not a member of JW, I do like them and i also noticed some of these flaws you have mentioned. All churches or christian organisation has their own flaws, catholics, redeem, anglican, methodist and so on. This was actually why the bible advised us to 'test all spirits and hold forth to that which is good'. I have no hatred or disregard for any christian organisation, just that i always try to dig deep into their doctrines and look for any errors. Lest i forget, i attend God's Kingdom Society. Though we share some doctrines with JW, we also differ in some other things.

Lastpage

Well done and many thanks for this informative thread; to be honest, my attitude to the JWs is similar to yours by and large (though this may come as a surprise)  ---- there is then the issue of false (or at least wrong) prophecies concerning the ending of the world.

However I want to take issue with one thing from your posts. You said:

lastpage:
. . . . What does Trinity mean? It means that Jesus is the same “physical entity” as God (Jehovah) and it is also the same “physical entity” as The Holy Spirit. 3-in-1, as we usually say!

That is not a very accurate representation of the Trinity doctrine and can be misleading.

The Trinity doctrine is that Jesus Christ is of one "being" with the Father; or of one "substance" with the Father. In layman's terms, Jesus is of the same "material" as the Father; or Jesus is of the same "stuff" as the Father. This is represented in the technical expression - consubstantiality; see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality.


Knowing you from time past here, I am confident you will appreciate the subtle but very important difference.

If we simply say that Jesus is the same "physical entity" as the Father without qualification ------ then we will NOT have a/The Trinity; in fact, we will be heading in the same direction as the "Jesus Only" people.

Cheers.

subscribing,

lastpage:

Now, l challenge ANYONE to show me (l neither drink nor smoke but l am interested in the outcome of the result) in the Bible where it says “Thou shall not drink alcohol/wine or where it says if you drink wine/alcohol, you have sinned”. Show me, please. Lastpage!

Proverbs 23:31-32
31 Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly!
32 In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.

Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


Luke 1:15
15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit [a]while yet in his mother’s womb.

@ OP


for your info,there is already another thread where all issues about JW are being tackled with jehovah's witnesses participating.if this forum was properly moderated,the two threads would have being merged by a moderator.here is the thread:


"Jehovah's Witnesses: the only true religion"?:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.288.html

@lastpage
Lol. I thoroughly enjoyed your write-up. Very informative. Well done. Just a few quick observations:

lastpage:

Another is “dusting their feet-off" at the doors of people who don’t want to attend or listen to them!

From Bible account, this is supposed to be a sort of “curse” on that household!
I marvel, why would a  “Christian” want to put a curse on another Christian, simply because they don’t agree with your doctrine (Though more importantly, the Bible also says “Curse without reason shall not land”!).

I see it as not exhibiting the spirit of Christ who preached forgiveness and tolerance.
I recall that God blessed Solomon because “He did not asked for the death of his enemies”, when God gave him the freedom to ask for “anything he wished”. That is a worthy “Christian example”.

(1)  The Witnesses do not have a policy of dusting their feet on people’s doors. They believe that preaching to you serves as a witness and the dust will automatically drop anyway. Of course there may be some overzealous members who will engage in that sort of thing, but this is not a church policy.

(2) About their songs, funny, I actually like them. In fact, I can listen to them all day. It’s only in a JW or Catholic Church service that I may experience some inner peace while attending. In an Anglican or Pentecostal service I just keep praying for the thing to come to an end because of the high decibel noise.

(3) I find your take on the blood transfusion issue a tad simplistic and way too superficial.

Thanks "everyone' that have contributed so far.
I particularly commend the "level of decorum" we have all displayed,.,.,.so far! (l pray the "you're a mofo, a low-life, e.t.c., crowd will miss this one!)

I will give a response in the evening when l am rested from todays "ups and downs"!

But in a jiffy, @Lagosshia.

The thread you referred has a very different context to this one.
That one wants to "prove" that the J.W is the "only acceptable religion" ! I guess only a J.W will buy that moreover, we cant even "prove or disprove" that claim!

Here, we are simply concerned at x-raying the practices, assumptions, misconceptions, likes and dislikes of the "group".
You can take sides (politely) but we will not pass a verdict of such magnitude!
[b]
Ours is more of an "exercise in observation" [/b]and J.W's (or any fan of theirs) too can buttress or nullify an "assumption!

But allow me to catch some rest and we will jaw-jaw over it, together with the other peeps.

Cheers.

I just want to quickly touch on the issue of blood transfusion.the bible as does the Holy Quran talk against eating blood and not against transfusion.

To justify the practice of rejecting and opposing transfusion,which is suicidal,the OP used an out-of-place analogy.he/she said that if cocaine is forbidden/prohibited to sniff,would it be okay/allowed to take  in cocaine through other means like injecting it or boiling coca leaves? To that i must let the OP know that cocaine does not flow in our veins.had cocaine instead of blood being found to flow naturally in our veins,and life depends on its presence,it would be ok to have it in our veins and also transfuse it in times of need or emergency to save life.the prohibition against the eating of blood,and not against transfusion,is because if blood is eaten it passes through digestion and can harm our health.the proper place for blood to be is in our veins.without it,we can die.so at times of emergency when our body is losing blood,it is perfect to have it transfused into our veins.transfusion sends blood into our veins and not into our stomachs.cocaine on the other hand is harmful regardless if it is in the noise,stomach or vein.


Moreover,if alternative to blood transfusion is available,it is more expensive.and what if alternative is not available in the hospital/country you live? Jehovah's witnesses are taught by the watchtower to readily accept death (suicide) in times of emergency than to accept blood transfusion.that is the power of programming!

More replies to come against half-truths and fallacies.

I have a Pentecolist background

This article is interesting as it lays bare some facts abt JW

on politics i dont blame them as like many xtian organisations also steer away of politics though some have now mingled with the corrupt ones and now alow some of them to preach on the pulpit.
Which is why i respect tunde bakare, he is like a prophet of old but should have stayed out of politics
I feel the clergy shd not have been involved with the prayer of Baba Go Slow as they mortgaged their integrity and they have not been able to recover

On eating blood my own take is that while you can figuratively compare transfusion to eating of blood
The purposes are different
A live being saved may affect the world. God gave us knowledge its how we use it that is bad

To the life that is saved due to blood, the joy is untold whle if a life goes u end up grudging your religion
If the person in question is an adult he can deny himself this transfusion but a child shd not go through it

More to come as the thread goes on

I would a thread on the ECKS too

@hakunajay

Though i'm not a member of JW, I do like them and i also noticed some of these flaws you have mentioned. All churches or christian organisation has their own flaws, catholics, redeem, anglican, methodist and so on. This was actually why the bible advised us to 'test all spirits and hold forth to that which is good'. I have no hatred or disregard for any christian organisation, just that i always try to dig deep into their doctrines and look for any errors. Lest i forget, i attend God's Kingdom Society. Though we share some doctrines with JW, we also differ in some other things.

Growing up, l noticed your "Society" and l've always wondered what the difference between the two groups, seeing that their name is very similar (the "Kingdom" was a give-away! ) and l learnt your 'society' was a break-away from the J.W's.
Can you educate us further on the differences and why your side broke away from them.

Cheers,
Lastpage

@Enigma:

Well done and many thanks for this informative thread; to be honest, my attitude to the JWs is similar to yours by and large (though this may come as a surprise) ---- there is then the issue of false (or at least wrong) prophecies concerning the ending of the world.

However I want to take issue with one thing from your posts. You said:

Quote from: lastpage on Today at 02:32:09 AM
. . . . What does Trinity mean? It means that Jesus is the same “physical entity” as God (Jehovah) and it is also the same “physical entity” as The Holy Spirit. 3-in-1, as we usually say!

That is not a very accurate representation of the Trinity doctrine and can be misleading.

The Trinity doctrine is that Jesus Christ is of one "being" with the Father; or of one "substance" with the Father. In layman's terms, Jesus is of the same "material" as the Father; or Jesus is of the same "stuff" as the Father. This is represented in the technical expression - consubstantiality; see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality.


Knowing you from time past here, I am confident you will appreciate the subtle but very important difference.

If we simply say that Jesus is the same "physical entity" as the Father without qualification ------ then we will NOT have a/The Trinity; in fact, we will be heading in the same direction as the "Jesus Only" people.

Cheers.

Thanks for your comment.
You used the words "being", "substance", "material", "stuff", to describe the relationship between Christ and "God" (the father).

What about the "third leg" of the arrangement? The "Holy Spirit"? How would you relate the three together?
My own explanation was from a "Redeem point of view" 'cos l asked the Pastor of my own parish about the issue! You know at the end of every service, we say the "benediction": In the name of the father, the son and the Holy ghost, bla-bla-bla,.,.,.

Personally, l am convinced about the "Unity of purpose" of the three. What purpose? That God's sovereignty is declared amongst men.
I also believe that, judging from the way Christ talks about "God, his Father", he most uses a "second person" phraseology (Dont touch me cos l have not yet ascended to my Father, 'l and my father are one, e.t.c), l think these shows that "he was not talking to and neither referring to himself!

Again, Jesus Promised to "send the Holy spirit" to his Disciples, after he gets to heaven, to comfort them and strengthen them, in his absence.
How is it possible to read this to mean that "He was going and would them "send himself" back to them?'

Does it not imply that even though they are of the same "substance", of the "same material" (as in their holiness), of the "same stuff" in terms of spirituality, BUT they are of different "physical presence"?
Thats the only rational explanation l can give to it and still make sense of what Jesus said in so many related and relevant places in the Bible.

What do you think?


Cheers,
lastpage

@MyJoe:

(1) The Witnesses do not have a policy of dusting their feet on people’s doors. They believe that preaching to you serves as a witness and the dust will automatically drop anyway. Of course there may be some overzealous members who will engage in that sort of thing, but this is not a church policy.

(2) About their songs, funny, I actually like them. In fact, I can listen to them all day. It’s only in a JW or Catholic Church service that I may experience some inner peace while attending. In an Anglican or Pentecostal service I just keep praying for the thing to come to an end because of the high decibel noise.

(3) I find your take on the blood transfusion issue a tad simplistic and way too superficial.

I will have to go along with your position on post number (1). I guess when it comes to maters of religion, "zealousness" (like Apostle Peter! ) could have an impact.
I also think issues like "environment and level of prior formal education" can also be an influencing factor.
I noticed that "Female J.W's" dont wear Trouser!

Growing up, l took up this issue with a "Brother" during a Bible study.
I will later go into details of his explanation and that of others on the issue (Dinner time and kids are waiting! ) but l noticed that in Europe and the Americas, the female members adorn trousers!
I also noticed that the "not-so-educated" members of the J.W take issues far too seriously and "enforce it" with an iron hand! I showed an elderly woman (J.W) the picture of another J.W woman l took with her in Europe, some years back when l came around and told her that "see, that is a "sister" in trouser, how come sisters here ban the same trouser? She told me its their "culture" but l reminded her that God's laws are "Universal". irrespective of "location, race, religion or culture".

Can you relate with an earlier post l "copied" (with permission ) from another J.W poster on his explanation on the "Use of blood" by Christians?
I find the explanation very rational, from a purely religious point of view but another Poster now threw spanners in the works by implying that "if it is in the course of a greater and common good, some religious obligations can be "bent" around, just like Christ "bent around" the issue of Sabbath Day, in the Bible.
What is your take on that?

As per their "Concerto jazzy" music, well, l love Jazz but not that type, l prefer the instrumental jazz rendition of songs l already like. Like the instrumental version of "Phil Collins - Paradise, for example.

Cheers

I dislike so my things about J W, they feel their group is superior to others. They dont attend other churches but want you to attend theirs.
Infact a JW brother told me my friend who is a JW too is a religious fanatic, that he doesnt like the girl. you can imagine

@rezzy,
Hmmmm.,.,., i can see you really dont like them!

but is there "anything" you like about them?
Like the "nice hymns" they play during service? There should be "something" you like naaah?
What about their "sharp guyz"?

lastpage:

@Enigma:
Thanks for your comment.
You used the words "being", "substance", "material", "stuff", to describe the relationship between Christ and "God" (the father).

What about the "third leg" of the arrangement? The "Holy Spirit"? How would you relate the three together?
My own explanation was from a "Redeem point of view" 'cos l asked the Pastor of my own parish about the issue! You know at the end of every service, we say the "benediction": In the name of the father, the son and the Holy ghost, bla-bla-bla,.,.,.

Personally, l am convinced about the "Unity of purpose" of the three. What purpose? That God's sovereignty is declared amongst men.
I also believe that, judging from the way Christ talks about "God, his Father", he most uses a "second person" phraseology (Dont touch me cos l have not yet ascended to my Father, 'l and my father are one, e.t.c), l think these shows that "he was not talking to and neither referring to himself!

Again, Jesus Promised to "send the Holy spirit" to his Disciples, after he gets to heaven, to comfort them and strengthen them, in his absence.
How is it possible to read this to mean that "He was going and would them "send himself" back to them?'

Does it not imply that even though they are of the same "substance", of the "same material" (as in their holiness), of the "same stuff" in terms of spirituality, BUT they are of different "physical presence"?
Thats the only rational explanation l can give to it and still make sense of what Jesus said in so many related and relevant places in the Bible.

What do you think?


Cheers,
lastpage

In addition to "being" and "substance", another technical word is essence.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same being, the same substance and the same essence.

Now, my understanding of your post quoted is that it does not detract from the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine acknowledges that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; it is possible to use the word "different" but that can be misleading and "distinct" is more accurate.

So the Trinity doctrine says you have three distinct persons in one and the same God --- hence, we say three in one and one in three. Of course Jesus made references to the Father and to the Holy Ghost ----- and this accords to what I have just said about the distinct personalities of each of the three even in the unity of their oneness. A tree and its branch and roots are one and the same yet "distinct".

You can also see this old post from here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.32.html#msg6775459

Note the use of "both separable and inseparable". Cheers. 

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Just as God's "word" and His "breath" are both separable and inseparable from God so are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both separable and inseparable from God the Father.

@lastpage
I like their hymns especially the one about Naomi.
And for my friend, apart from being a religious fanatic, her speech is always guided. At times i wonder whether she commit sin using her mouth

I have an interesting Bible story.

Matthew12 9:13 Quote 9 After departing from that place he went into their synagogue; 10 and, look! a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand

From this story, Jesus clearly violated a Law to DO GOOD. He went further to ask those present if they would not act in a similar fashion to save even an animal.

Given that eating blood/blood transfusion is prohibited by God's law too. What example has Jesus set by his action above to his followers with regards to compassion for life and laws made for Man since Man was not made for the laws.

Ok let me start from what i like about them before going into the bad stuffs. Firstly, i like their passion, commitment and zeal in serving God. They are not like christians who have taken the Grace of God for a ride and an occassion to sin and ask for mercy later. But the truth is this, they have a lot of loop holes like any other people but i have found that they they have a way of reading scripture out of context to suit their confused belief. These are part of the horrible beliefs i cringe at

1. Jesus is arch angel Michael- Their reason is gotten from 1st Thess 4:16 and Jude verse 9 (how sad)

2. 144,000 people selected by "Jehovah" wil go to heaven while the rest will remain and inherit the earth because the bible says in Matt 5:6. My question is how will the 144,000 be selected and they say only God knows and i wonder y Jesus and the other apostles didnt specifically expantiate on this throughout the length and breath of the bible.

3. Jehovah will not punish man eternally over the few years he spent on earth because He is a merciful God- Sincerely i dont care so much about their other doctrines but i believe this is where the devil has succeeded in pulling a wool over their eyes for them to believe that since God is so kind, we can live any how without the fear of hell and rapture. This is just to say a few.

@Uche:
I like your post.
I am not speaking on the behalf of J.W peeps, not in anyway but let me add "my observations" to your post, very quickly.

From your Number 3:
J.W peeps say that God is not that wicked to reserve hell for we humans. infact, let me quote you to make it easier/quicker.

3. Jehovah will not punish man eternally over the few years he spent on earth because He is a merciful God- Sincerely i dont care so much about their other doctrines but i believe this is where the devil has succeeded in pulling a wool over their eyes for them to believe that since God is so kind, we can live any how without the fear of hell and rapture.

*From your own observations in Nigeria or elsewhere, do you think that J.W's are taking advantage of this "position on hell" to commit atrocities in the society?
*Compared to other Christian denominations who profess hell as a place of torment, do you think there have been (or are) more criminal elements within our society, who are J.W's or the other way round?

*How many of our treasury looters are J.W's? How many armed robbers in our areas of living are J.W's? How many peeps whose "life-style and wealth display" are J.W's?

*Again, using an analogy, do you think we should "obey our parents out of fear of the punishment they would mete to us" rather than out of love, respect and the fervent belief that their instructions to us, are for our own good?

*Finally, are you aware that the Bible said Jesus was "in-hell" for three days? What did he do to merit going to "a fiery fire burning place"?
Cant get the verse now but even Job asked/pleaded that God should "keep him safe in hell" till his troubles are over!
Do you think these would be logical if we actually go by the "general belief of what Hell is suppose to be"?


BTW: concerning the 144k peeps, can a J.W person explain it to us all, over here?
*I know of places in Revelation where it quotes" Our Spirit tells us that we are Children/first fruit/inheritors with Christ".
*Something about singing a new song and only the 144K could sing the song
*Something about them being a "virgin and redeemed out of the world" (this virginity issue sef. e dey cause wahala 2much! )

Thanks for your comment

@Lastpage, LagosShia

Again and Again I ask. Can someone have a take on the issue of Jesus healing a man on the sabbath which was a clear violation of LAWS of the Sabbath? Can anyone also throw more light into the exemplary significance of his action with regards to giving blood to a helpless dying JW witness child whose parents are adamant that it is against JW doctrines?

A whole lot of TRUTH lies within these verses. Matthew 12 9:13.Why is everyone avoiding this issue. I believe this thread was started for informative purposes.

I await the first wise one who would explain these issues to all.

@IstCitizen,
Thanks for your patience.
I was hoping a "J.W peep" (someone with above average understanding of this issue, unlike me!), will "bail-us-out" but it wont be fair if we dont even make an attempt, at least from our own "main stream Christianity" point of view.

Like l said, l am not a J.W. neither am l so versed in the Bible, l just try my bit, for my soul's sake!

There are two issues at stake here:
1.) God's express command which constitute "a sin" (albeit the "old testament" as against "moral issues" outlined in the Bible (like avoiding Birthdays, avoiding alcohol, avoiding polygamy, avoiding jealousy, e.t.c). Does what Jesus did on a sabbath, go against the principle of the law of sabbath?

But then, the "understanding" of such issues must be inline with "the total and wholistic objective" of the Bible, new or Old.

2.) Trying to avoid 'a trap' set by those playing to the gallery!

3.) Does it go against the requirement in God's law?

Let me start with 1.
Keep the sabbath day "holy" was God's command.

Question is "how do you keep the sabbath day "HOLY"?
By not doing a good deed? By not lifting a finger at all? By not eating? By doing Evil?
Did Christ keep the principle of that law, by his action?
Let me leave the answer "open" to everyone to interpret.

In relation to (2).
Again, what was the "objective" of the "learned people" who were involved in this episode?
From Bible accounts, they were people who were looking for an excuse to TRAP JESUS!
They wanted him to run "foul of the law" handed over to them by Moses and some prophets, so they can "arrest him"!
(situate this in context with when they tried the same "sharp move" on Jesus, concerning the "paying tax" to King Ceaser and he had to "use an innocent fish" to pay the tax! . At another time, Jesus used the issue of "A man with 100 sheep, where just one, fell into a ditch and he left the 99 to look for the single one! ).

Now, Jesus knowing what they were about, used there question to answer them back (a typical Nigerian move, l will say!).
If he had refused, the would "tag him" evil for not helping a sick man! (knowing that if he "did any work" on a Sabbath, they could also accuse him of flouting "The Law"!)

So, Jesus "did a good deed" by healing the leprous man, "ON A SABBATH DAY".
By "doing a good deed", he has also kept the "principle of the law" of Sabbath day, "Holy". ------------------------(aaa)
No "contradiction" here at all. "command" and 'action" are in order!
Both requirements have been fulfilled.
What can be more "holy" than doing good ?
If (1) and (2) has been fulfilled, (3) is them fulfilled by implication.


Now, lets "relate" this to the "Dont eat blood question" and "saving a life analogy" that you made; but flouting (or appearing to flout) the law, like is our first case up there. (Which is what l think you want?)

We will use the same "yardstick" we used before.
1)Does "the action" go against the principle required in "the law"?
2) Does the action serve the purpose of "silencing critics" or "escape a set-trap" by the learned Pharisees?
3)Does it contravene God's requirement?

Command: Dont eat blood. Why? because the "blood is the soul/life of that living thing" and that part of it belongs to God.
Action: By taking blood, does that "action" go against the "principle" of that law? Lets wait and see

Is there a way to "take/eat blood" without contravening the "command"? NO!

(compare with healing on a Sabbath in "(aaa)" above.)

Now, lets assume you now "take/eat blood by any means" (transfusion, by mouth, e.t.c) in other to SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE! ------(bbb)

The only good you have done here (and its a big one!) is to save a (your) life. --------------------------(ccc)

The difference here however, is that "in doing "this good deed!" you have disobeyed God!

(compare this to (aaa) above!)

To further buttress the difference between the two scenario and why the "good deed" in (aaa) is not the same with a similar "good deed" in (ccc),
(and this one is from a religious point of view, so you might not buy it if you dont believe it! ).

Jesus said "if you "loose your life" in the process of "obeying his commands", that your life will be ransomed back to you, even in Paradise!

Look at it this way: Jesus lost his life (killed on the stake/cross) so that he could obey God's command, that he die for humans so they can be reconciled back to God, having f.cked-up through Adam and Eve (by inheritance now), in the garden of Eden.
He obeyed and suffered the tribulation (imagine the "first born heavenly creation" becoming a human and being killed by humans!).

But God's promise to "give him back that same life" even at a higher levels, was CONFIRMED when he rose up and ascended to heaven.
If God can do that, do you think its worthwhile to "loose a/your life here" and "try God" for his promise ?
OR
Try and save your own life here and disobey God?
Remember that "blood transfusion is not 100% guaranteed that the "taker" would survive, even the operation!

Looks like a very hard choice, when faced with imminent death but who says obeying God was McDonald stuff?

This is how far l can go, l know it may not have answered all or quenched your reservations but hopefully, with time, with more questioning and more importantly, with God's help, you may look at the flip side of the coin.

Cheers bro.

And please, no one is the "first wise one" here, we are all learning from each other.

cheers.