Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer. It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.” On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint. Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth. Why is this important?
The WatchtowerIn the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower. This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles. Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus. They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life. Through The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.
You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above. After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion. They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities. You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower. You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages. But you would be wildly wrong.
An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!
You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna. Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there. Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories. Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city. Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression. Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.
In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias. The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest. They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant. Why do they do it? They do it because it is their job to do it! In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.
Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery. It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging. Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so. And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.
But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated. Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right. As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.” (Proverbs 14:15) With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.
Taken Out of Context
We have not the gift of prophecy
Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.
The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the longer the better. There are dozens of such lists on the Internet. These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.
Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted. Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones - have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:[1]
With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction.
With regard to 1914: : "We are not prqophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]
With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]
With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]
Charles Taze RussellIt’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.
No Claim of Inspiration
Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)
1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."
1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]
We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.Zion's Watch Tower, 1908
1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]
Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]
1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]
1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]
1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]
1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]
1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]
1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]
Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)[15]
Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975
F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.
1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]
1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.[17]
1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.[18]
2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.[19]
It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications. Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false.
Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?
Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics? Even if he had done so, what would that have proved? If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all. However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort.
Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false
The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.” When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”. This is an incomplete sentence in English. Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made. If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874. Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.” So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make. Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite. And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.
Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work. But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible. The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.[20]
It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument. In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position. This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.
Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect. It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.
Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many. ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]
Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate. But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?
Double Standards and Bigotry
If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone. Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.
Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day. He believed theMartin Luther Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"[23]
John WesleyMethodist founder John Wesley wrote: "1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan."[24]
In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in LosBilly GrahamAngeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”[25]
If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185.that the Witnesses are false prophets. Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.
This should give all of us food for thought. If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions? Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.
Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?
I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.
Prophecy and Interpretation
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God. But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’. True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form. In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:
It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]
“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future. It involves claiming to have a message directly from God. It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible. Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”[27]
The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet.
Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible. Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet. When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision. He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible. No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment). Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet. Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! [28]
Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible. It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.
Conclusion
On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:
(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?
(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours). On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?[29]
(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?
(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations. But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.
Beware of half truths. You might end up believing the wrong half!
Footnotes and References
[1] I am grateful to other Witness writers for bringing many of these citations to my attention. Additionally, the book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition [JWD2] by Greg Stafford contains extensive research on this matter. Quotations from publications after 1950 are generally taken from the Watchtower Library 2003 CD-ROM. Almost all Russell’s writings are freely available on the Internet.
[2] Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110
[3] The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3.
[4] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.
[5] Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 425.
[6] Zion 's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).
[7] "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).
[8] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.
[9] The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).
[10] Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62 (emphasis added).
[11] Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194 (emphasis added).
[12] The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8.
[13] "Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, 262-263 (emphasis added)
[14] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.
[15] The Watchtower, 15 August 1968, page 499.
[16] The Watchtower, 1 March 1979, page 23-24.
[17] Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 9. (Published 1988)
[18] Jehovah’s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 708 (Published 1993)
[19] The Watchtower, 1 December 2002, page 17.
[20] Occasionally, The Watchtower (for example 1 April 1972) has referred to true Christians (not specifically to the writers of Watch Tower publications) as “prophets”. However, the word is placed in inverted commas, which shows that it is not meant literally. The 1972 article is simply drawing parallels between experiences in the life of the prophet Ezekiel and those of Christians today as they fulfil Christ’s commission to preach to all the nations. This sense of the word ‘prophecy’ is recognised by many ‘mainstream’ Christians., Billy Graham’s biography is called “A prophet with Honor” . Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God - meaning their responsibility to give a Christian witness. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264of.htm) In view of other comments (cited in the main article) in which the Society specifically repudiates prophet status, both before and after this article was published, attempts to use this article to demonstrate that the Watch Tower Society claims to be an inspired prophet are obviously misrepresenting the sense of the article.
[21] The Watchtower, 15 March 1980, page 17-18.
[22] John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken [Army Sermon Against the Turks],"Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.
[23] Ibid, p. 201.
[24]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html
[25] McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)
[26] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pp. 462-3.
[27] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506
[28] Luther is also quoted on certain websites as having said that Jesus would return 300 years from his time. (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby [London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818], pp. 7,8.) I have not been able to verify this source, although I have no reason to doubt it.
[29] A computer search for the expression “inspired prophet” on the Watchtower 2003 CD-ROM (containing The Watchtower) since 1950 plus most other publications, revealed that the expression came up 44 times. Every single occurrence was referring to a Bible writer.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe text further attempts to discredit critics by characterizing them as biased and uncharitable, likening their actions to a photographer who deliberately highlights the worst aspects of a beautiful city. However, this analogy overlooks the responsibility of a religious organization that claims to represent God. Unlike a city that can be appreciated for its beauty despite its flaws, a religious organization that purports to be God’s sole representative cannot afford to propagate repeated doctrinal errors or unfulfilled predictions without losing credibility. Criticism of such errors is not "bigoted" but necessary for accountability, particularly when the lives and faith of millions of people are influenced by the organization’s teachings.
DeleteMoreover, the appeal to double standards by pointing out the errors of Protestant leaders like Luther or Graham is both misleading and diversionary. While it is true that other Christian figures have made eschatological mistakes, these errors are not comparable to the systematic and institutionally endorsed prophetic timelines of the Watchtower. Most mainstream Christian denominations do not claim exclusive authority to interpret prophecy, nor do they demand unquestioning allegiance to a single governing body. By contrast, the Watchtower's prophetic failures have real-world consequences, including social, psychological, and financial impacts on its members.
You conclude by asserting that critics misrepresent the Watchtower’s statements as prophecy rather than interpretation, yet this defense is contradicted by the organization's own literature and history. For example, the Watchtower has often framed its prophetic interpretations as urgent divine warnings, with an expectation of compliance from its members. Such a stance inherently implies a level of authority and accuracy that transcends mere interpretation. When these predictions fail, the organization shifts blame onto the members for misunderstanding or misapplying the teachings, as seen in the infamous 1976 statement that "it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him…but his own understanding."
Finally, the claim that the Watchtower has admitted its errors and does not shy away from criticism is only partially true. While the organization has occasionally acknowledged past mistakes, these admissions are often framed in a way that deflects responsibility and minimizes the damage caused by their erroneous teachings. Instead of taking full accountability, the Watchtower redirects attention to the faithfulness of its adherents or the broader mission of spreading Bible truths, without addressing the deeper issues of credibility and theological integrity.
In conclusion, the apologetic defense offered by this text is insufficient to exonerate the Watchtower Society from the charge of being a false prophet organization. Its reliance on rhetorical distractions, false equivalences, and selective citations cannot obscure the pattern of repeated doctrinal errors and failed predictions. For an organization that claims to be God’s exclusive channel of communication, such a track record raises serious questions about its legitimacy and accountability. Critics are not "bigots" for pointing out these flaws; rather, they are engaging in a necessary examination of an institution that wields significant influence over millions of lives.
The fact that the uninspired nature of these pronouncements were made beforehand and not afterward is the key they are not post hoc rationalisations,jesus commanded hus followers to keep on the watch and that what the brothers have attempted to do but always with Daniel ch.12:8,9 and 1Corinthians ch.13:9 in mind that the servants if JEHOVAH have never had a plenary understanding of prophecy and the understanding would come gradually,the theme of a gradual unsealing of prophecy continues in the Book of revelation chapter 5:1-5 a clear allusion to Daniel ch.12:8,9 where the gradual unsealing of prophesy comes at JEHOVAH'S pleasure in the end times. The end times has been a concern to many mainline denominations at various times in their history. The critics are bigots if they consistently sideline critical facts like the fact that we are cessationists,or disclaimed beforehand any claim of inspiration on our expectations a good faith interlocutor would at least acknowledge those critical facts rather than consistently seek to hide or minimize them. Members of your church have claimed visions and miraculous powers the charge of false prophet is therefore much more appropriately directed at you,especially as the Bible links false prophesying to claims of miracles
DeleteMatthew ch.7:21,22KJV"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
JEHOVAH'S Modern day servants being committed cessationists have never and will never claim miraculous knowledge or signs it us members of your church who claim miraculous powers not us,so thus just more projection. And these prophecies that the Vatican approved prophets proclaim what is their record of fulfillment?
John Wesley was the leader of his church as was Martin Luther how silly to claim then that they were without institutional backing, and our expectations are based on our study of prophesy they are not as mister nincsnevem and his kind would have you believe derived from inspired dreams and visions or claimed angelic visitation this type of nonsense us why we can't.take christendom's representatives seriously,it is their side that is claiming miraculous knowledge not ours visitation from Mary and other saints and the like they bear the hallmarks if the false prophesying the scriptures warn us about,characterised by claims of the miraculous Matthew ch.24:24NIV"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
DeleteFrom the revolution climax book chapter 36 end notes.
Deletepublished by the Watchtower society"In the early 1800’s European merchants were smuggling large quantities of opium into China. In March 1839 Chinese officials tried to stop the illegal trade by seizing 20,000 chests of the drug from British merchants. This led to tension between Britain and China. As relations between the two countries deteriorated, some Protestant missionaries urged Britain to go to war, with statements such as the following:
“How these difficulties do rejoice my heart because I think the English government may be enraged, and God, in His power may break down the barriers which prevent the gospel of Christ from entering China.”—Henrietta Shuck, Southern Baptist missionary.
Finally, war broke out—the war that is today known as the Opium War. Missionaries wholeheartedly encouraged Britain with comments such as these:
“I am constrained to look back upon the present state of things not so much as an opium or an English affair, as the great design of Providence to make the wickedness of man subserve His purposes of mercy toward China in breaking through her wall of exclusion.”—Peter Parker, Congregationalist missionary.
Another Congregationalist missionary, Samuel W. Williams, added: “The hand of God is apparent in all that has transpired in a remarkable manner, and we doubt not that He who said He came to bring a sword upon the earth has come here and that for the speedy destruction of His enemies and the establishment of His own kingdom. He will overturn and overturn until He has established the Prince of Peace.”
Regarding the horrendous slaughter of Chinese nationals, missionary J. Lewis Shuck wrote: “I regard such scenes . . . as the direct instruments of the Lord in clearing away the rubbish which impedes the advancement of Divine Truth.”
Congregationalist missionary Elijah C. Bridgman added: “God has often made use of the strong arm of civil power to prepare the way for His kingdom . . . The agency in these great moments is human; the directing power divine. The high governor of all the nations has employed England to chastize and humble China.”—Quotations taken from “Ends and Means,” 1974, an essay by Stuart Creighton Miller published in The Missionary Enterprise in China and America (a Harvard Study edited by John K. Fairbank)." Christendom's bloodstained history clearly marks her as tool of Satan with no standing to correct anyone in religious/moral matters
Watchtower 1952 April 15 p.253 Aids for Understanding Prophecy
ReplyDeleteThey are then faithful in publishing and preaching the revealed prophecies to the utter ends of the earth. The twentieth-century preaching prophets of Jehovah are the ones who are running to and fro over the Bible to gain knowledge of the divine pronouncements which is on the increase.—Dan. 12:4.
- - - -
Watchtower 1959 January 15 pp.39-41 Down with the Old—Up with the New!
... but, Who will be Jehovah's prophet to the nations, to speak to them everything that He should command? Who will be the modern Jeremiah? ... So who will prophesy with his message in this time of the end of the nations of this world? ... How was the question answered? ... The fact that decides the answer to the question is, not, Do all the clergy of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism agree that Jehovah's witnesses have been and are God's prophet to the nations? but, Who discerned the divine will for Christians in this time of the world's end and offered themselves to do it? Who have undertaken God's foreordained work for this day of judgment of the nations? Who have answered the call to the work and have done it down till this year 1958? Whom has God actually used as his prophet?
14 By the historical facts of the case Christendom is beaten back in defeat. Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths...
- - - -
Watchtower 1964 June 15 pp.365-6 Jehovah, the God of Progressive Revelation
THE KINGDOM'S ESTABLISHMENT
22 As Jehovah revealed his truths by means of the first-century Christian congregation so he does today by means of the present-day Christian congregation. Through this agency he is having carried out prophesying on an intensified and unparalleled scale. All this activity is not an accident. Jehovah is the one behind all of it. The abundance of spiritual food and the amazing details of Jehovah's purposes that have been revealed to Jehovah's anointed witnesses are clear evidence that they are the ones mentioned by Jesus when he foretold a "faithful and discreet slave" class that would be used to dispense God's progressive revelations in these last days.
- - - -
Watchtower 1964 October 1 p.601 Pay Attention to Prophecy
... for God has on earth today a prophet like organization, ... Jehovah's anointed witnesses on earth.
- - - -
Watchtower 1972 April 1 p.197 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them'
People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?
IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET"
These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. ... Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.
- - - -
Holy Spirit — The Force Behind the Coming New Order! (1976) p.148 ch.8 "Spirit of Life from God Entered into Them"
The facts substantiate that the remnant of Christ's anointed disciples have been doing that prophesying to all the nations...
- - - -
Watchtower 1982 October 1 p.27
8 In behalf of such individuals who at heart seek God's rule instead of man's rule, the "prophet" whom Jehovah has raised up has been, not an individual man as in the case of Jeremiah, but a class. The members of this class are, like the prophet-priest Jeremiah, wholly dedicated to Jehovah God through Christ and, by the begettal of Jehovah's holy spirit, they have been made part of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession."
Notice the quotation marks around the word prophet in many of those quotes, I would also like to point out that those statements disclaiming the inspired nature of their expectations were made BEFORE the disappointments not after, as they were made beforehand you have no case,if they were made afterward you could argue that this is some kind of post hoc rationalization but not when they were made beforehand. Do you consider Martin Luther and John Wesley to be false prophets? Good catholic that you are you may consider a pair of the reformation's leading lights to be false prophets what about church father tertillian?
ReplyDeleteAnother consideration is that we are cessationists there is no charismatic movement among us so doctrinal orthodoxy preclude the acknowledgement of any modern prophet.
From the aid to Bible understanding article "gifts from God"
Subheading:gifts of the spirit:In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs and portents that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb. 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, one or more of the apostles directly chosen by Jesus were present. (Acts 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs and portents that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb. 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, one or more of the apostles directly chosen by Jesus were present. (Acts 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly scene.
Your argument primarily attempts to deflect criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses by invoking cessationism, accusing critics of bigotry, and pointing to perceived flaws in “Christendom,” but these deflections do not address the central issue of false predictions made by the Watchtower Society. You also presented several flawed arguments that fail to adequately address the core issue: the Watchtower Society’s repeated self-identification as a “prophet,” its authoritative proclamations about future events, and the subsequent failed predictions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the claim that their "uninspired nature" excuses incorrect predictions overlooks a fundamental problem: the Watchtower’s repeated proclamations of future events under the guise of biblical interpretation. These were not presented as speculative theological musings but were taught authoritatively as truths. For example, dates like 1914, 1925, and 1975 were presented with such confidence that members were led to adjust their lives and expectations accordingly. While the Society may claim that such pronouncements were not prophecies in the strict sense, the practical impact on adherents’ lives was indistinguishable from what would occur if they were believed to be divine revelations. Calling these merely “misunderstandings” or “expectations” does not absolve the organization of its responsibility for the disappointment and spiritual harm caused by these erroneous teachings.
The reference to Daniel 12:8-9 and Revelation 5:1-5 as evidence of "gradual unsealing of prophecy" is a misapplication of the text. These passages do not support a model of ever-changing interpretations of Scripture. Instead, they describe specific eschatological events under God’s sovereign control. The gradual unveiling of prophecy in the Bible pertains to God’s plan for salvation history as revealed through Jesus Christ and the apostles—not to organizations repeatedly revising their teachings over time. The Watchtower’s appeal to these passages as justification for doctrinal changes undermines the biblical concept of God's immutable truth. It also contradicts Hebrews 13:8, which affirms that Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday and today and forever."
The accusation of bigotry against critics further fails to engage with the substance of the criticisms. Suggesting that critics are biased for pointing out the Watchtower’s errors is an ad hominem fallacy, designed to discredit the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Whether or not critics have biases does not negate the factual reality of the Watchtower’s failed predictions and doctrinal inconsistencies. Moreover, the suggestion that critics "hide" the Society’s disclaimers of inspiration is unfounded. These disclaimers, while occasionally stated, are irrelevant to the issue: it is not whether the Watchtower explicitly claimed inspiration, but whether its authoritative teaching led followers to believe and act as though the organization had divine backing.
The attempt to paint “Christendom” as more guilty of false prophecy, through references to visions, miraculous claims, or the Opium War, is a classic red herring and „te quoque” defense. Even if some within Catholic or Protestant traditions have made errors or questionable moral decisions, these do not excuse or diminish the errors of the Watchtower Society. The Bible holds every teacher and organization accountable for their own actions (James 3:1), and the sins of others do not absolve Jehovah’s Witnesses of theirs. Furthermore, the historical events cited, such as missionary involvement in the Opium War, are irrelevant to the specific theological issue of false prophecy. These events, though condemnable, are not analogous to the repeated doctrinal shifts and failed eschatological claims of the Watchtower Society.
The assertion that Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 24:24 condemn critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a misapplication of Scripture. These verses address false prophets and false messiahs who deceive others by performing miraculous signs. The critics of the Watchtower do not claim miraculous powers but challenge the Society’s record of incorrect teachings. Ironically, the Watchtower fits more closely into the description of Matthew 7:21-23 because it has consistently proclaimed interpretations that have proven false, leading people to place misplaced trust in its authority.
DeleteThe accusation of “projection” against critics for supposedly claiming miraculous powers is both unsubstantiated and irrelevant. Catholic and Protestant claims of miracles are rooted in historical and theological traditions that are distinct from the false prophecy charge leveled against the Watchtower. The Watchtower’s repeated failures in predicting specific dates are a separate issue entirely. Additionally, appealing to cessationism as a defense is contradictory; cessationism would logically preclude any claim to understanding new prophetic truths or dates, as these would fall under the category of special revelation.
You emphasize the quotation marks around the word "prophet" in many of the cited Watchtower quotes, as though this diminishes the significance of their self-designation. However, the inclusion of quotation marks does not negate the clear intent of the language used. The Watchtower repeatedly describes itself as fulfilling the role of a prophet on behalf of God, claiming to be the channel through which God reveals His will. For example, the April 1, 1972, issue of The Watchtower explicitly states that Jehovah’s Witnesses “act as a prophet of God” and compares their role to that of biblical prophets like Ezekiel. Whether the word is placed in quotation marks or not, the practical implications are the same: the organization asserts itself as God’s chosen instrument for interpreting prophecy and delivering His messages. This self-characterization is incompatible with the subsequent claim that the organization has never acted as a prophet or made authoritative prophetic claims.
The argument that statements disclaiming inspiration were made "before" disappointments, not "after," does not absolve the Watchtower Society of responsibility. It is disingenuous to make definitive statements about future events (such as those concerning 1914, 1925, or 1975) while simultaneously inserting disclaimers that hedge against accountability. This tactic attempts to claim the authority of divine guidance while avoiding the consequences of failure. In practice, many Jehovah’s Witnesses acted upon these predictions as though they were divinely assured, which resulted in significant life changes and disappointments. The inclusion of disclaimers cannot erase the harm caused by these authoritative pronouncements, nor can it negate the organization's failure to act with the caution and humility befitting its role as a self-proclaimed guide for millions.
The comparison to Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Tertullian is a red herring that distracts from the central issue. While these figures may have made eschatological statements or predictions, their roles and the contexts of their statements differ significantly from those of the Watchtower Society. Luther and Wesley, for instance, were individuals expressing personal interpretations of Scripture, not institutional bodies claiming exclusive divine authority to interpret prophecy. Furthermore, these figures did not establish ongoing organizations that repeatedly set and revised specific dates for prophetic events, nor did they assert themselves as the sole channel of communication between God and humanity. The Watchtower Society’s institutional nature and repeated prophetic failures make it uniquely culpable.
The appeal to cessationism and the denial of charismatic gifts does not exempt the Watchtower Society from scrutiny. While Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that they do not believe in modern miraculous gifts, they simultaneously assert that their organization is “spirit-directed” and the exclusive channel of God’s truth. This creates an inherent contradiction: if the organization is directed by God’s spirit, as the Watchtower repeatedly claims, then its teachings and prophetic statements carry the weight of divine authority. When those teachings fail, the organization cannot escape accountability by retreating into disclaimers about being uninspired. The Bible does not distinguish between “inspired” and “spirit-directed” prophets; rather, it holds all who claim to speak for God to the highest standard of truth (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). By its own claims of being “spirit-directed,” the Watchtower Society invites the same scrutiny applied to inspired prophets.
DeleteThe citation of passages from the Aid to Bible Understanding article on the cessation of miraculous gifts does not address the issue of false prophecy. The cessation of charismatic gifts does not negate the biblical requirement for truthfulness in all who claim to speak on behalf of God. The Watchtower’s failed predictions, such as those concerning the dates mentioned earlier, demonstrate a failure to meet the biblical standard of prophetic reliability. Additionally, the argument that “prophetic understanding comes gradually” based on Daniel 12:8-9 and Revelation 5:1-5 misinterprets these passages. These texts describe the unfolding of God’s sovereign plan and His progressive revelation through Scripture, not a pattern of repeated error and correction by human organizations claiming divine guidance.
Finally, the accusation of "bigotry" against critics is another attempt to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Criticism of the Watchtower Society’s claims and record is not bigotry but a legitimate exercise of biblical discernment. Jesus himself warned about false prophets and instructed his followers to evaluate them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). The Watchtower Society’s track record of failed predictions and doctrinal inconsistencies constitutes the “rotten fruit” by which it can be identified as a false prophet. Moreover, labeling critics as bigots does not address the substance of their arguments or the evidence presented against the organization.
In conclusion, the Watchtower’s defense relies on misdirection, ad hominem attacks, and misapplied Scriptures. Rather than addressing the core issue—its history of failed predictions and doctrinal instability—it shifts the focus to its critics and unrelated historical events. However, the Bible emphasizes that God’s Word is unchanging and that His truth does not require continual revisions or failed predictions (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8). The Watchtower’s appeal to gradual understanding does not excuse the harm caused by its teachings, nor does it align with the biblical model of prophecy and teaching. As such, these defenses fail to justify the organization’s repeated errors and highlight the theological and moral problems inherent in its approach.
The Watchtower Society’s attempts to redefine its role as a “prophet” while disclaiming the consequences of failed predictions are inconsistent and unscriptural. The organization’s claims to be God’s exclusive channel of truth carry a responsibility for accuracy and reliability that it has repeatedly failed to uphold. By seeking to evade accountability through rhetorical gymnastics, the Watchtower Society undermines its own credibility and exposes itself to the very criticism it seeks to deflect. The biblical standard for those who claim to speak for God remains clear and uncompromising: their words must align with the truth, and their predictions must come to pass. The Watchtower Society has failed this standard, and no amount of disclaimers or deflections can change that fact.
I said that it is your church that is acting on the continuationist paradigm therefore it is your church that us open to the false prophet claim not us ,we did not claim to utter a prophesy there fore we are.not liable to any claim of false prophesy ,you seize on this to divert from the Far more serious crime of the oceans of innocent blood your church has spilt and continues to spill and the fact that visions that you claim you receive from Mary and the saints have proved to be false.
DeleteThe reason we are sure of our organisation is directed by JEHOVAH is that while your church celebrates immortality even allowing those living in open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law to occupy teaching positions and you eagerly murder your coreligionists en masse at the behest of godless politicians we enjoy a global peace that only be the product of JEHOVAH'S Spirit the apostles and their.followers had wrong expectations so wrong expectations are not a cause for stumbling the.apostles and their followers did not murder each other at the behest of caesar,so christendom's bloodstained course us a clear disqualifier where as not having a plenary grasp of prophecy us not.
DeleteAs your understanding of an idea becomes more complete whatever extrapolations you made are bound to be adjusted,and that is the issue the understanding of prophecy and extrapolations based on those understanding, of course our enemies are desperate to halt our advance they have shown a willingness to even stoop to violence in their attempts at destroying us so dishonest argumentation is certainly not a bridge too far,
DeleteThis argument from the Watchtower adherent conflates various issues in an attempt to deflect from core concerns about their organization’s credibility. Below is a detailed refutation of the key claims made in the text, showing its flaws, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteJWs have repeatedly claimed that their organization acts as God’s "prophet" (e.g., The Watchtower, January 15, 1959, p. 40-41; April 1, 1972, p. 197), while also denying infallibility or being inspired. However, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 defines a false prophet as anyone who speaks in God’s name and whose predictions fail—whether they claim inspiration or not. Thus, by claiming to represent Jehovah yet making incorrect predictions (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), the organization meets the biblical definition of a false prophet. While Jehovah’s Witnesses deny being continuationists, they claim to receive "progressive revelations" and act as God's exclusive channel. This is functionally equivalent to continuationist claims, as it implies ongoing divine guidance.
Numerous publications by the Watchtower Society (e.g., Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89-90) predicted specific events (e.g., Armageddon, the resurrection of patriarchs) that failed to materialize. Denying these as prophecies is disingenuous when they were presented as definitive statements of God's will. The Bible does not distinguish between "inspired" and "uninspired" prophecy. False prophecy is determined by whether a statement in God’s name comes true (Deut. 18:22). The Watchtower's failed predictions qualify regardless of their disclaimers. Deceptively framing failed predictions as mere "expectations" evades accountability. If they truly represent Jehovah, their statements should reflect His infallibility. By shifting blame to their followers for misunderstanding, the organization demonstrates a lack of transparency and integrity.
Pointing to historical sins of individuals within the Catholic Church (e.g., during the Crusades or Inquisitions) is not a substantive counterargument, but a red herring and te quoque defense, and whataboutism. These actions are not representative of the Church’s core teachings. The Church has consistently taught the sanctity of life and repentance for sin. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have their own issues with harmful policies, such as the blood transfusion ban, which has led to countless preventable deaths; and disfellowshipping and shunning practices that harm families and individuals emotionally and psychologically. The Catholic Church’s history spans over 2,000 years and encompasses diverse political, cultural, and social contexts. It is unfair to compare its historical missteps with the short, centralized history of Jehovah’s Witnesses while ignoring the latter's harmful practices.
The Catholic Church does not endorse every reported vision. Apparitions like those at Lourdes and Fatima undergo rigorous investigation before being declared credible. False claims or misunderstandings do not discredit the Church as a whole. The Bible records visions and dreams as legitimate means of divine communication (e.g., Acts 10:9-16, Matthew 17:1-9). Rejecting all visions contradicts Scripture, especially when the Jehovah's Witness organization claims to receive divine "guidance." By the way, as a Catholic, it is not mandatory to believe in private revelations at all; for example, if I do not believe in a single Marian apparition, I can still be a Catholic in good standing.
Absolute pacifism within a community is not necessarily evidence of divine favor. Many non-religious organizations also experience harmony without claiming divine guidance. Additionally, Jehovah’s Witnesses face internal divisions, including individuals leaving due to abuse or doctrinal concerns. While claiming neutrality, the Watchtower Society's policies have contributed to suffering (e.g., child abuse scandals and failure to report abusers). True peace requires justice, which has often been neglected.
DeleteWhile the apostles misunderstood certain aspects of Jesus' mission especially before the sending of the Holy Spirit, their teachings did not contain false predictions. They have never endorsed specific dates or outlined an eschatological chronology. The Watchtower’s leadership, by contrast, has published numerous failed dates and doctrines under the guise of divine authority. The apostles admitted when they misunderstood or erred (e.g., Peter’s denial of Christ), but the Watchtower Society deflects blame for its errors onto followers or claims they were "progressive revelations." This lack of accountability undermines trust.
Accusing critics of dishonesty or violence without evidence is a distraction. Instead of addressing the specific issues raised (e.g., failed prophecies, harmful practices), this argument shifts focus to perceived persecution. While Jehovah's Witnesses have faced persecution in some contexts, criticism of their doctrines and practices is not inherently dishonest or malicious. It is reasonable to examine and question any organization claiming exclusive divine authority.
This argument relies heavily on fideism, rejecting reason and evidence in favor of an uncritical acceptance of the Watchtower Society’s claims. It also employs ad hominem attacks, deflections, and false equivalences to avoid addressing legitimate concerns. In contrast, the Catholic tradition embraces faith and reason as complementary. Criticism of the Church's human failings is welcomed when done constructively, as the Church recognizes its need for reform and accountability. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, evade accountability by dismissing failed prophecies as "wrong expectations" and shifting blame to critics rather than addressing their organizational flaws.
Deuteronomy 18 is about identifying a prophet like moses it is you people who are claiming to have supernatural prophetic abilities like moses not us this is just projection,the Bible says that Christians will be identified by the peace among them not by a plenary understanding of bible prophesy,christemdom manifest does not enjoy that peace see Isaiah ch.2:2-5 christendom has been doing the opposite of what Isaiah prophesied.
DeleteNot only within but with those around us mass murdering anarchy is a definite disqualifier from scared service. The Bible indicates that peace is evidence of JEHOVAH'S Rule among Christians the churches of christendom are in denial, but that will not spare them JEHOVAH'S Judgement.
ReplyDeleteYou've cleverly changed the subject, but that wasn't the topic of discussion now.
DeleteWhat qualifies a community as a representative of the God of peace is certainly a key element of the discussion, the most damning aspect of the bloodletting is not the oppression of religious minorities, though that is certainly bad enough,but the mass fratricide of your coreligionists over political, nationalistic and ethnic differences, it's the way you people treat those who you claim are your friends that is the real stumbling block.
DeleteDeuteronomy 18:20-22 explicitly outlines how to identify false prophets:
ReplyDelete• "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death." (Deuteronomy 18:20, NIV)
• "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22, NIV)
This passage applies broadly to ANYONE who claims to speak in God’s name but delivers false predictions, not just to someone claiming to be “a prophet like Moses.” While Deuteronomy 18 does contain a prophecy about the coming of Christ as the ultimate Prophet (verse 15), verses 20-22 address the more general issue of how to identify false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 applies to anyone claiming to speak for God while making false predictions. It is not limited to identifying “a prophet like Moses.” If an organization claims to speak in God’s name but delivers failed predictions, it falls under the condemnation of this passage.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have repeatedly claimed to be God’s “prophet-like” channel of communication, even describing themselves as a modern “Ezekiel class” or a collective prophet. However, they have made numerous failed predictions about key eschatological events, like the end of the world in 1914, 1925, and 1975, or the the generation of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon. These predictions were made with the claim of divine backing, but they did not come true. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, this demonstrates that these were not messages from God. If Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to speak in God’s name (which they have done) and their predictions fail, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 applies directly to them. Their argument that Deuteronomy 18 is only about a prophet like Moses is an attempt to evade accountability.
The claim that others (e.g., “Christendom”) are projecting their own errors onto Jehovah’s Witnesses is unfounded. The argument ignores the documented evidence of the Watchtower's own failed predictions. Furthermore mainstream Christian denominations do not claim to have the kind of exclusive, prophetic authority that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. The New Testament teaches that no one knows the exact timing of the end (Matthew 24:36), which directly contradicts the Watchtower’s repeated date-setting. Christians who adhere to the Bible do not claim to possess prophetic abilities like Moses. It is the Watchtower Society that has claimed prophetic authority while delivering failed predictions.
The Watchtower’s argument regarding Isaiah 2:2-5 misapplies this prophecy. The text speaks of a future time when nations will seek God’s ways, resulting in peace. However, this prophecy does not describe the criteria for identifying God’s people prior to its fulfillment. Isaiah 2:2-5 refers to a future eschatological period of peace under God’s direct rule, not a present human effort, to a vision of God’s kingdom being universally recognized. While peace among Christians is a mark of their faith (John 13:34-35), this is not the same as claiming that any organization perfectly fulfills Isaiah 2:2-5 today. Additionally, the argument against “Christendom” ignores the historical context of Isaiah’s prophecy. It applies to the messianic kingdom and not to the organizational disputes among modern religious groups. So Isaiah 2:2-5 speaks about a future messianic age of universal peace, not the present status of any religious organization. Claiming to fulfill this prophecy today is unwarranted.
Your response claims that Christians are identified by peace among them and accuses “Christendom” of lacking this peace. However true Christian unity is grounded in faith in Christ and adherence to biblical teaching (Ephesians 4:3-6), not in belonging to a single human organization. The argument also ignores divisions within the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own history, such as splinter groups that formed after doctrinal disagreements (e.g., Bible Students vs. Jehovah’s Witnesses after 1916). The Bible does not teach that an outward claim to unity (e.g., organizational uniformity) is the ultimate mark of true Christianity. Instead, unity comes from shared faith in Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. Unity in Christ is a spiritual reality, not the result of belonging to a specific organization. The Watchtower’s claim to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy of peace is unsupported by the text or by their own history.
DeletePointing to historical sins, whether wars, divisions, or violence committed by Catholics, does not disqualify the Catholic Church from being the true Church founded by Christ. The Church consists of both saints and sinners. This reality has been acknowledged since its foundation, as evidenced by Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, Peter’s denial, and the imperfections of many early Christians. Jesus Himself foretold this dynamic: In the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30), Christ warned that there would always be a mixture of good and evil within His Church until the final judgment. The sins of individuals do not negate the truth of the Church’s teachings or its divine origin. The Church teaches repentance, not perfection: The Catholic Church has never denied that its members—including clergy—have sinned throughout history. However, it has consistently taught repentance, forgiveness, and the call to holiness (Mark 1:15). Unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses' claim of near-perfection among their adherents, the Catholic Church acknowledges human weakness and calls all people to conversion.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that their internal peace is evidence of divine favor. However, peace cannot be measured merely by the absence of physical violence within a community. True peace is rooted in justice, love, and truth—qualities that cannot be sustained if a community permits systemic harm, as in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ harmful policies. The Catholic Church has historically been one of the largest promoters of peace and reconciliation. It has mediated in international conflicts, advocated for human rights, and consistently preached the dignity of every human life. Pope John Paul II, for example, was instrumental in the peaceful end of communism in Eastern Europe. While Jehovah’s Witnesses claim peace, they ignore the emotional and spiritual harm caused by their shunning policies, disfellowshipping practices, and mishandling of abuse cases. Forcing individuals into isolation or silencing dissent does not constitute true peace; it is merely the suppression of visible conflict.
The accusation that the Catholic Church has failed because of divisions among Christians or conflicts involving Catholics misunderstands both history and theology. These divisions, while tragic, do not disprove the Church's divine foundation. The Church has never taught violence against others, whether within or outside its community. Even during historical events like the Crusades, the Church sought to defend Christians against aggression, not promote fratricide. Any acts of violence by individuals or groups must be understood as deviations from Church teaching. Jesus prayed for His followers to be one (John 17:21), and the Catholic Church continues to strive for unity among Christians. While divisions exist, these are the result of human sin and pride, not a failure of the Church’s teachings. The Church remains the visible sign of unity in the faith, even as it calls others to reconciliation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses criticize the Catholic Church for historical conflicts and divisions but fail to address their own issues, like doctrinal flip-flopping and harmful policies. The Watchtower Society has a history of doctrinal changes, including failed prophecies about the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, and 1975). Such inconsistencies raise questions about their claim to be the sole representatives of divine truth. The blood transfusion ban has led to preventable deaths, while the mishandling of child abuse cases and shunning policies have caused immense suffering. These are significant moral failings that undermine the claim of being a peaceful and just community. Many have left the organization due to disagreements over doctrine or harm caused by its practices. Apostasy within their ranks is often blamed on individuals rather than reflecting on systemic issues.
DeleteIt is critical to remember that Christ came to redeem a fallen world, not establish a community of perfect individuals. The Catholic Church acknowledges the reality of human sin and the need for grace: St. Paul writes, “We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7). The Church is holy not because of its members but because of Christ, who sanctifies it. The Catholic Church has endured for over 2,000 years despite human failings, external persecutions, and internal challenges. This longevity and continuity in teaching cannot be explained by human effort alone; it is evidence of divine guidance.
In conclusion, the argument presented fails to address the Watchtower’s own history of false predictions and misrepresents biblical texts. Deuteronomy 18 condemns any false prophet, including those who claim to speak for God without divine authority. This applies directly to the Watchtower’s failed predictions. The Watchtower’s use of Isaiah 2:2-5 is out of context and misrepresents the prophecy’s fulfillment as occurring today. True Christian unity is based on faith in Christ, not organizational claims of exclusivity. The response attempts to deflect criticism by accusing others of projection and dismissing historical evidence, but this does not address the Watchtower’s accountability for its own actions and teachings.
The Catholic Church does not deny the sins of its members or its historical challenges. However, these failings do not invalidate its mission or teachings. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, who suppress dissent and present a facade of perfection, the Catholic Church acknowledges the reality of human sin while calling all people to repentance and sanctity. True peace is not found in superficial harmony but in the truth of Christ, who works through His Church to bring about justice, love, and reconciliation.
You really want to compare mass murder and tolerance of gross sin not just in the pews which would be bad enough ,but from the pulpit ,we have been consistent on what matters to JEHOVAH definitely not murdering fellow human would be near the top of the list,not tolerating immorality, identifying the only God worthy of our latreo, the only priest from whom this God will receive intercession,the condition of the dead the mechanism of the ransom ,the millennium, the purpose of the millennium true separation from the present civilization that we may qualify as founders of a new civilization of JEHOVAH'S Making,we have been consistent on the big stuff,chtistendom has been inconsistent or a no show on the big stuff while sweating the small stuff. The Jews would have made the same argument against the hated sect of messianists that had recently come along in the first century outrageously claiming to be JEHOVAH'S True church,they too would have been able to point to unfulfilled expectations these neophytes once broadcasted. Would you have identified the the true Messiah and his true church if you were back there with this mindset that prefers form to substance
ReplyDeleteThere is no peace in christendom period within churches not among churches definitely, what harmful policy the mass murder of religious minorities and and Co religionists over political differences there no harmful policies among JEHOVAH'S People there are only liars like yourself trying to divert attention from the obviously murderous nature your church,everybody who takes the vow knows that if he later turns his back on his vow the Bible's sanction awaits it is no secret,the sanction is there to prevent frivolous taking of the vow of dedication,how anyone can compare the voluntary taking of an oath with a known sanction expulsion from the community with the oceans of innocent blood spilt by Christendom and her tolerating of gross sin even among her teachers is beyond me and christendom's wicked three headed demon God is not content to have his thugs harass us in this life he threatens eternal torture in the next life.
ReplyDeleteA lot of cognitive dissonance is at work to see in the peace JEHOVAH Has given his loyal servants the work of Satan and in the bloodstained oppression of christendom the work the prince of peace and his God of peace. Let me make it clear though that I am not singling out the catholic church the protestants and orthodox churches have been at least as oppressive.
What matters is the way we interpret the words of our teachers not those meanings imposed on them by unprincipled enemies who have repeatedly shown a willingness to stoop to even murder in their desperation to be rid of us such cannot seriously be counted as good faith critics ,the apostles had wrong expectations. We know John the Baptist had wrong expectations this was unavoidable due to an incomplete understanding of the relevant policies nobody calls them false prophets the fruit of peace among them established the presence of JEHOVAH'S spirit among them,in fulfillment if Isaiah's prophecy at Isaiah 2:2-4 the notion that the blood stained anarchy and oppression of christendom is the product of Christ and the global peace we enjoy is the product of Satan is utterly irrational
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is the way we interpret the words of our teachers not those meanings imposed on them by unprincipled enemies who have repeatedly shown a willingness to stoop to even murder in their desperation to be rid of us such cannot seriously be counted as good faith critics ,the apostles had wrong expectations. We know John the Baptist had wrong expectations this was unavoidable due to an incomplete understanding of the relevant policies nobody calls them false prophets the fruit of peace among them established the presence of JEHOVAH'S spirit among them,in fulfillment if Isaiah's prophecy at Isaiah 2:2-4 the notion that the blood stained anarchy and oppression of christendom is the product of Christ and the global peace we enjoy is the product of Satan is utterly irrational
ReplyDeleteYou accuse the Catholic Church of "mass murder" and "tolerating immorality" but fail to substantiate these claims with proper historical evidence. While it is true that members of the Church, including clergy, have sinned throughout history, these individual failings do not represent the teachings or mission of the Catholic Church. Christ also instructed us on what to do when our religious leaders are hypocrites, even though their teachings are objectively correct: "Therefore, do and observe all that they tell you, but do not do according to their deeds, for they teach but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2) The Church has always called for repentance and sanctity, recognizing that human beings are fallible (e.g., 1 John 1:8-9, Mark 2:17). Events like the Crusades or the Inquisition are often cited out of context. For example, the Crusades were largely defensive wars responding to centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian territories. While there were abuses, these were deviations from Church teaching, not evidence of systemic immorality. Similarly, the Inquisition's primary purpose was to combat heresy and preserve societal order in a deeply religious age, not to indiscriminately kill or oppress. Your argument ignores the Church's extensive contributions to human rights, charity, education, healthcare, and peacebuilding. Figures like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Calcutta, and Pope John Paul II exemplify the Church's commitment to promoting the dignity of every human life.
ReplyDeleteYou compare criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses to Jewish opposition to the early Christian Church. This analogy is flawed. While the apostles sometimes misunderstood the timing of eschatological events (e.g., Acts 1:6-7), it’s all happened BEFORE they received the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), they never made false prophecies. They always affirmed that the exact timing of Christ's return was known only to God (Matthew 24:36). In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly set specific dates for the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), which failed to come true. This is explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, where false prophecy is identified by unfulfilled predictions. The early Church grew through the apostles’ preaching of Christ’s resurrection and their willingness to suffer martyrdom for their faith. This stands in stark contrast to the repeated doctrinal flip-flops and failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society, which have led to disillusionment and departures from the organization.
You claim that Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill Isaiah 2:2-4, which prophesies global peace under God's kingdom. However, Isaiah 2:2-4 refers to a future messianic age, not a present organizational structure. The prophecy envisions a time when all nations will seek God's ways and war will cease completely. This has not yet occurred, as evident in the ongoing conflicts and divisions in the world. While you claim internal peace, this ignores the emotional, spiritual, and familial harm caused by policies such as shunning, disfellowshipping, and the mishandling of abuse cases. True peace cannot exist where systemic harm persists, even if outward conflict is suppressed.
Your assertion that there are "no harmful policies" among Jehovah’s Witnesses is demonstrably false. Shunning and disfellowshipping isolate individuals from family and community, often causing severe emotional and psychological harm. The Bible calls for forgiveness and reconciliation (Matthew 18:21-22, Luke 15:11-32), not punitive isolation. The prohibition of blood transfusions has led to preventable deaths, including children. This policy is based on a misinterpretation of biblical passages like Acts 15:28-29, which refer to dietary restrictions, not life-saving medical procedures. Numerous legal cases have revealed the Watchtower Society's failure to protect victims of abuse, often prioritizing organizational reputation over justice. This contradicts biblical teachings on caring for the vulnerable (Matthew 18:6).
You refer to the "wicked three-headed demon God" of Christendom, a blasphemous mischaracterization of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Scripture, with passages affirming the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-3, Acts 5:3-4). The Trinity expresses the unity and love within God’s nature, not a polytheistic distortion as you claim. The Trinity has been a consistent teaching of the Christian Church since the earliest ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD). Your rejection of this doctrine reflects a break with historic Christianity, not a “return” to biblical truth.
DeleteYou accuse “Christendom” of "murderous nature" and claim that it promotes eternal torture. These accusations are baseless. The doctrine of hell is not about "murderous intent" but reflects God’s respect for human free will. Those who reject God’s love choose separation from Him, which is the essence of hell (2 Thessalonians 1:9). This teaching aligns with divine justice and mercy. The Catholic Church has consistently advocated for peace and reconciliation, as demonstrated by its efforts to mediate international conflicts and promote forgiveness. These actions are far from the "bloodstained oppression" you allege.
Your argument contains contradictions and unfounded accusations. You accuse others of false witness while ignoring the Watchtower Society's history of failed predictions, doctrinal changes, and harmful practices. This reflects cognitive dissonance, as you dismiss legitimate criticisms by labeling them as lies. Comparing the Catholic Church’s teachings to the Watchtower Society's ever-changing doctrines fails to account for the Church’s consistent adherence to apostolic teaching over 2,000 years.
In conclusion, your response relies on misrepresentations of Catholicism, selective use of Scripture, and unfounded claims about Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Catholic Church, despite the sins of its members, has consistently upheld the truth of Christ's teachings and the mission to bring salvation to the world. In contrast, the Watchtower Society’s history of false prophecies, doctrinal inconsistencies, and harmful policies undermines its claim to be God's sole channel of communication. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 remains a clear indictment of the Watchtower’s prophetic failures. True peace, justice, and unity are found in Christ and His Church, not in the suppression of dissent or the distortion of Scripture.
Only the one true God can be blasphemed your imaginary god cannot,the sponsoring of eternal sin is totally out of character with the God of the Bible all who separate themselves from the Holy God invariably separate themselves from the lone source of existence and thus have their existence ended, basic logic ,it is the churches plural I'm not singling out any particular church here but the record of history is plain that it is the CHURCHES of chtistendom who have repeatedly stoop to violence to impose their religion on unbelievers not JEHOVAH'S Peace loving community
DeleteYour assertions prove nothing the timing given for the prophecy is the end times,the period between the appearance of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple is an end time period the first century church was noted for its unity and it's refusal to take up arms even against its enemies,JEHOVAH'S Modern day servants resemble that peace far more than christendom ever has what I said was that the brothers have never claimed supernatural inspiration where as charismatic of christendom have so a charge of false prophet could more properly be brought against those claiming actual prophecy than against those who repeatedly disclaimed actual prophecy, the churches of christendom have always taken sides with their respective nations, they are definitely not beating swords into plowshares. History and the present is the basis for the observation that christendom is not a force for peace. And that only JEHOVAH can be the source of the unique peace hus people enjoy.
ReplyDelete1. "Only the one true God can be blasphemed, your imaginary god cannot"
ReplyDeleteThis statement reflects a misunderstanding of Catholic theology and an unwarranted dismissal of the Christian understanding of God. The Catholic Church teaches that the one true God is the God revealed in Scripture and fully manifested in Jesus Christ (John 14:9). The Trinity is not an "imaginary god" but the Christian understanding of the nature of the one God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rooted in Scripture. Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John 1:1-14 identifies Jesus as the Word, who was both with God and was God. Acts 5:3-4 shows the divinity of the Holy Spirit, equating lying to the Spirit with lying to God. Denying or misrepresenting the true God as revealed in Scripture is, in itself, a form of blasphemy. Rejecting the Trinity as "imaginary" while claiming allegiance to Scripture misrepresents the consistent teaching of the Church and early Christians.
Some resources for you:
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140126103621mp_/http://jwstudies.com/The_Trinity_exposed.pdf
• https://docdro.id/YjyzrLz
• https://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Triune-God-4-Web.pdf
• https://docdro.id/1UdIzcC
• https://docdro.id/iSD7hLH
2. "The sponsoring of eternal sin is out of character with the God of the Bible"
The argument that eternal punishment (hell) is incompatible with God's character fails to consider both the justice and mercy of God. The Catholic Church teaches that hell is not a punishment inflicted by God out of cruelty but the natural consequence of a free rejection of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Those who choose to separate themselves from God, the source of life, remain separated by their own decision. Scripture affirms both God's mercy (Psalm 145:8-9) and His justice (Romans 2:6-8). Jesus speaks repeatedly about eternal consequences for rejecting God (Matthew 25:46, Luke 16:22-26), emphasizing that hell is real and eternal. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ annihilationist view (the belief that the wicked cease to exist) lacks biblical support. Jesus speaks of eternal punishment, not annihilation (Matthew 25:46).
3. "The churches of Christendom stoop to violence to impose their religion"
DeleteThis claim unfairly generalizes historical events without considering the context and teaching of the Catholic Church. While individuals within the Church have committed acts of violence, these actions are contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Church. Jesus explicitly taught nonviolence (Matthew 5:39-44). The Church has always called for repentance and sanctity, recognizing human sinfulness. Crusades and Inquisition are often cited as examples of Church-sponsored violence.
However, the Crusades were defensive wars aimed at protecting Christian pilgrims and reclaiming lands taken by force during centuries of Muslim aggression. Check this link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150227100838/http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1483
The Inquisition sought to address heresies that threatened societal and spiritual order in deeply religious societies. While abuses occurred, they were not reflective of Church doctrine. The Inquisition’s purpose was initially to root out heresy, which was considered a serious crime because heretical beliefs could incite civil unrest, rebellion, and societal breakdown. In medieval Europe, heresy wasn’t just a private opinion; it was often linked to actions that destabilized kingdoms and led to violent uprisings. The term “Inquisition” often brings to mind gruesome images of widespread torture and executions. However, historical records suggest that the Inquisition, particularly the Spanish Inquisition, was far more restrained in its use of torture than secular courts of the same period. The number of executions has often been exaggerated by anti-Catholic narratives. In reality, many cases investigated by the Inquisition ended in non-lethal sentences or reconciliation rather than execution. Just google up: LEYENDA NEGRA, and here’s a link: https://t.ly/S16pH
The Catholic Church has been a leading advocate for peace, reconciliation, and human rights. Pope John Paul II’s role in ending communism in Eastern Europe is a prime example. Jehovah’s Witnesses, by contrast, claim to be “peace-loving,” but their internal policies, such as shunning and the mishandling of abuse cases, contradict this claim. Forcing emotional and social isolation is a form of violence against individuals.
4. "The timing of the prophecy is the end times"
The interpretation of biblical prophecy by Jehovah’s Witnesses often misuses eschatological texts. The prophecy in Isaiah 2:2-4 speaks of a FUTURE messianic age where God’s kingdom is universally recognized, and war ceases completely. While Christians strive for peace, this prophecy's ultimate fulfillment lies in the second coming of Christ and the establishment of His eternal kingdom. Claiming that Jehovah’s Witnesses fulfill this prophecy today is unwarranted. The prophecy envisions a universal peace, which has not been realized in the world or even within their own organization (e.g., doctrinal splits like those between the Bible Students and the Watchtower Society).
5. "Jehovah’s modern-day servants resemble peace more than Christendom ever has"
This claim ignores significant issues within the Jehovah’s Witness organization. The Watchtower Society has faced splits and schisms, such as the division between the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses after Charles Taze Russell’s death in 1916. Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their teachings multiple times (e.g., failed prophecies about 1914, 1925, and 1975). These inconsistencies undermine their claim of divine guidance and peace. Shunning, disfellowshipping, and the mishandling of abuse cases cause emotional and spiritual harm. These policies are not reflective of true peace but rather of organizational control.
6. "Jehovah’s Witnesses have never claimed supernatural inspiration"
DeleteThis claim contradicts the Watchtower Society’s own publications. The Watchtower Society has repeatedly claimed to be God’s exclusive channel of communication. For example, the 1972 Watchtower stated, “Jehovah’s visible organization today also receives its directions from the Lord through the governing body.” Despite disclaiming inspired prophetic (what is a non-inspired, but spirit-directed prophet?) status, the Society has made multiple failed predictions about the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975). According to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, these failed prophecies identify them as false prophets.
7. "History and the present show Christendom is not a force for peace"
This accusation ignores the Catholic Church's significant contributions to peace. The Church has mediated international conflicts, promoted human rights, and worked toward social justice. Examples include Pope Leo XIII’s support for workers’ rights and Pope John Paul II’s role in ending communism. The Church teaches that peace is rooted in justice, love, and truth (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2304). While human failings exist, the Church’s teachings consistently promote reconciliation and the dignity of every person.
The New Testament repeatedly affirms that true peace comes through Jesus Christ (John 14:27, Ephesians 2:14). Christ’s Church, as His body, is the instrument through which this peace is extended to the world. The Catholic Church, as the universal Church founded by Christ, continues to proclaim the Gospel of peace to all nations, fulfilling Jesus’ commission in Matthew 28:19-20.
In conclusion, you response relies on misrepresentations of Catholicism, selective interpretations of Scripture, and a flawed view of history. The Catholic Church, despite the human failings of its members, has consistently upheld the truth of Christ’s teachings and worked to promote peace and justice. The Watchtower Society’s claims of being a peaceful community are undermined by its history of false prophecies, doctrinal changes, and harmful policies. True peace is found in Christ, who is the source of unity, justice, and reconciliation, and whose Church He established to bring salvation to the world.
Our understanding of being the channel of JEHOVAH has nothing to do with uttering original prophecy so no there IS no contradiction only your desperate attempt to excuse the unchristian mass murder of the churches of christendom, JWs never picked up the sword against their enemies including those leaving our ranks to make common cause with christendom against us so again you totally miss the point, the bloodstained history of christendom disqualified her as representative of the true God JEHOVAH and his Messiah, her depiction of God as an utterly incomprehensible mystery is definitely not the depiction we find in scripture,
ReplyDeleteThe claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses act as "Jehovah's channel" but not as prophets attempting to utter original prophecy is an attempt to evade accountability for their failed predictions. However, the Watchtower organization has repeatedly claimed to act as God's exclusive channel of communication. For example, The Watchtower (April 1, 1972, p. 197) states that “Jehovah’s visible organization today also receives its directions from the Lord.” If the governing body claims divine direction yet makes false predictions, it meets the criteria for a false prophet outlined in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Predictions such as the end of the world in 1914, 1925, and 1975 were presented with certainty, often with the claim that they were revealed by Jehovah. For example, the book Millions Now Living Will Never Die (1920, p. 89-90) stated that patriarchs like Abraham and David would be resurrected in 1925. These events did not occur, which disqualifies their claim to speak for Jehovah. Deuteronomy 18:22 states, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.” The distinction between “prophet” and “channel” is irrelevant; any claim of divine revelation that fails is false prophecy.
DeleteThe argument that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ non-involvement in war makes them representatives of the true God ignores the broader biblical and historical context. The Catholic Church teaches that war is never ideal but can be justified to defend innocent lives (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2307-2317). For example, the Crusades were primarily defensive wars responding to centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian lands. Similarly, soldiers who defend their country from tyranny or oppression act in accordance with justice, as acknowledged in Romans 13:1-4, where Paul recognizes the legitimate authority of governments to wield the sword. While Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to avoid physical violence, their internal policies—such as shunning, disfellowshipping, and emotional manipulation—cause significant harm. Forcing individuals into social isolation, often cutting them off from family, is a form of psychological violence, contrary to Christ’s teachings on love and forgiveness (e.g., Luke 15:11-32).
The claim that the “bloodstained history” of “Christendom” disqualifies the Catholic Church as God’s representative overlooks several key points. The Catholic Church, as both a divine and human institution, has always acknowledged that its members—including clergy—are sinners in need of repentance (Mark 2:17). Historical sins, such as abuses during the Crusades or the Inquisition, reflect individual failings, not Church doctrine. Jesus Himself foresaw this dynamic in the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30), teaching that the Church would contain both saints and sinners until the final judgment. Events like the Crusades and Inquisition are often exaggerated or taken out of context. For example, the Crusades were defensive wars to protect Christian pilgrims and territories from centuries of Muslim aggression. The Spanish Inquisition, while imperfect, was far less brutal than secular courts of the time and primarily aimed at ensuring religious unity in a deeply religious age. The so-called “mass murders” attributed to “Christendom” are grossly overstated and fail to account for the historical realities of warfare and governance in pre-modern societies. The Catholic Church has been a leading advocate for peace and reconciliation. For instance, Pope John Paul II played a critical role in peacefully ending communism in Eastern Europe. The Church’s teachings on human dignity, forgiveness, and charity have inspired countless efforts to promote justice and peace.
The accusation that the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the Trinity presents an “utterly incomprehensible mystery” misrepresents Christian theology, The Trinity is rooted in Scripture. For example, Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; John 1:1-3 identifies Jesus as the Word, who was both with God and was God; Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. The Trinity is a divine mystery, meaning it transcends human understanding but does not contradict reason. God, being infinite, cannot be fully comprehended by finite human minds (Isaiah 55:8-9). This is not a weakness but a reflection of God’s greatness. The Watchtower Society caricatures the Trinity as polytheistic or incoherent, failing to engage with the historical and theological nuances of the doctrine as articulated by Church Fathers like St. Augustine and councils like Nicaea (325 AD).
DeleteThe claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses represent true Christianity because of their internal unity and peace is unfounded. The Watchtower Society has faced numerous splits, such as the division between the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses after Charles Taze Russell’s death. Doctrinal changes, such as shifting teachings on the 1914 generation, have caused further disillusionment and departures. The Watchtower’s history of failed predictions undermines its claim to be God’s channel. A community built on doctrinal inconsistency cannot claim divine authority with credibility. The emotional and spiritual harm caused by shunning, disfellowshipping, and the prohibition of blood transfusions contradicts the biblical principles of love, mercy, and justice. True Christian unity is not enforced through fear or control but flows from faith in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:3-6).
The JWs have no splits because we heed the bible's counsel to expel self appointed apostles, see Revelation ch.2:2 but we have never used state power against those opposing us even those making common cause with christendom against us,so this can in no way be compared with christendom's bloody oppression if religious minorities and her slaughtering of coreligionists over political differences,it is measure of the braineating nature of your doctrine that you think that stumbling in exegesis can in any way be compared to mass murder, apart from defying logic and scripture your three headed God is a failure,he has failed to stop his people from killing each other ,which us a disqualified failure.
DeleteThe failed predictions are not false prophecies though, and of course we accept responsibility for clumsy exegesis but any attempt to accuse us of claiming inspiration or infalliblity like catholicism's popes have is a flat out lie. one must claim to be a prophet like christendom's pope has by claiming infallibility to be a false prophet in the deuteronomy ch.18 sense they also claim to be receiving dreams and visions from dead saints which is necromancy a form of sorcery this along with their murdering of religious minorities clearly exposes them as part of babylon the great. Revelation ch.18:23NLT "The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The happy voices of brides and grooms will never be heard in you again. For your merchants were the greatest in the world, and you deceived the nations with your SORCERIES."
ReplyDeleteThis combined with their mass murder see Revelation ch.18:24 clearly exposes them as the demonised fraud that they are And now you are indulging in projection,to excuse the oceans of innocent blood that your church has spilt no amount of lies will ever sweep away Your bloodguilt it will cling to christendom just as the blood of abel clinged to cain. The Bible makes in plain that the spilling of innocent blood is of Satan and his false church babylon the great which includes but is not limited to the churches of christendom they dominate it and are the most reprehensible members of it because they lyingly pretend to be acting in behalf of Christ, the most important truths from JEHOVAH'S standpoint is the clear identification of JEHOVAH as the only God to whom we owe latreo and the one priest from whom he will receive intercession,and moral and religious standards will give us religious and moral purity in their eyes. the innocent blood spilt by christendom cries out for justice especially the blood of JEHOVAH'S Loyal servants which you have never repented of the fact that we have harbored wrong expectations like JEHOVAH'S Servants in times past does not begin to compare with christendom's mass murder and tolerating of gross sin not merely in the pews but from the pulpit, you are indulging in nothing but projection and deflection ,I will never forget the blood of my fallen brothers with which you have stained your hands and for which you obviously feel no remorse and JEHOVAH Remembers too be sure of that.
Your response is filled with accusations, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of Catholic theology, history, and practice.
ReplyDeleteThe JWs argue that their role as “Jehovah’s channel” does not involve uttering original prophecy, thereby exempting them from being accused of false prophecy under Deuteronomy 18. However, this reasoning is flawed for the following reasons. The Watchtower, January 15, 1959, stated: “Whom has God actually used as his prophet?… Jehovah’s Witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them.” The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, explicitly referred to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a "prophet": “This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women… Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses." Such statements clearly assert that the organization acts as a prophetic body. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, a true prophet's words must always come true. If they do not, the speaker is identified as a false prophet. Regardless of whether they claim inspiration, if they declare events as “Jehovah’s truths” and those predictions fail, they meet the biblical definition of a false prophet. Examples of failed predictions:
• 1914: The Watchtower taught that 1914 would mark the end of the world and the beginning of Christ’s earthly reign. When this failed, the organization revised its interpretation, claiming Christ began an "invisible reign."
• 1925: The Watchtower predicted the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their return to earth in 1925. This did not happen.
• 1975: The Watchtower suggested the end of the world would occur in 1975, leading many Witnesses to sell their possessions and make life-altering decisions. When nothing happened, the organization blamed members for "reading too much into the statements."
These examples show that the Watchtower has repeatedly made predictions in God’s name, claimed divine backing, and failed. According to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, this qualifies as false prophecy. The organization claims that their errors are due to “clumsy exegesis,” not false prophecy. However, this defense falls short because they claimed divine backing. The Watchtower consistently claims to be God’s exclusive channel of truth. For example, the Watchtower, July 15, 2013, stated: “Only Jehovah’s organization can rightly interpret God’s Word.” Such claims leave no room for “clumsy exegesis” when teaching what they say are "Jehovah's truths." If God is truly guiding the organization, there should be no need for repeated revisions or failed predictions. A prophetic claim must be judged based on its accuracy, not the intentions of the speaker. Even if the Watchtower disclaims inspiration, their repeated assertion that their teachings are from Jehovah makes them accountable under the standard of Deuteronomy 18.
JWs argue that their failed predictions about the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975) do not qualify as false prophecies because they do not claim divine inspiration. However, this contradicts their own historical claims. For instance, in Zion’s Watch Tower (July 15, 1894), Charles Taze Russell stated, regarding 1914: "We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours."
This clearly shows that they attributed their predictions to divine guidance. Claiming later that these were merely "clumsy exegesis" ignores their original statements about these predictions being from God. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 explicitly states that anyone who speaks a prophecy "in the name of the Lord" that does not come true is a false prophet. The repeated failed predictions from JWs meet this biblical definition. By contrast, the Catholic Church does not claim papal infallibility applies to speculative predictions or visions. Papal infallibility is limited to teachings on faith and morals proclaimed ex cathedra, not personal opinions or interpretations of prophecy.
The argument attempts to deflect criticism by accusing Catholicism of claiming infallibility, necromancy, and murder. These points are irrelevant to the accusations against the Watchtower but are worth addressing briefly. The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to formal, ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals, not to all papal statements or actions. It is a narrowly defined teaching and does not equate to claiming infallibility in all decisions or interpretations. The pope never endorsed a specific date or outlined an eschatological chronology. Catholic veneration of saints is not necromancy. Praying to saints is akin to asking fellow believers to intercede on one’s behalf (Revelation 5:8, Revelation 8:3-4). Necromancy, by contrast, involves attempting to summon the dead to gain secret knowledge, which the Church condemns (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2116). The claim that Catholicism has “murdered religious minorities” is an overgeneralization that ignores historical context. While there were regrettable events involving the Church, they do not excuse the false prophecies and doctrinal errors of the Watchtower. The claim that Revelation 18:23 refers to the Catholic Church as part of Babylon the Great because of “sorceries” is speculative and lacks biblical support. The chapter describes the fall of a symbolic entity referred to as Babylon the Great. This entity represents all corrupt systems opposed to God, including false religions and materialistic empires. The accusation that this specifically targets Catholicism is an interpretative leap. The Watchtower ignores the broader symbolism of Babylon the Great, which includes any organization or ideology that opposes God’s truth. The term "sorceries" (Greek: pharmakeia) in Revelation 18:23 likely refers to deceitful practices, not literal sorcery. It is metaphorical language used to describe how Babylon the Great deceived nations through its corrupt influence.
DeleteSo the doctrine of papal infallibility does not mean the pope is personally infallible or free from error in all matters. It applies only when the pope formally defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church (see Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I, 1870). It is a safeguard for truth, not a tool for personal prophecy. And the prayers to saints are not necromancy. The Church teaches that saints are alive in heaven (Matthew 22:32) and intercede for us before God (Revelation 5:8). Asking saints to pray for us is no different from asking living Christians to pray for us.
The argument highlights historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and conflicts involving Catholics as evidence of "bloodguilt." However, this ignores several critical points. The Crusades and Inquisition must be understood in their historical context. The Crusades were defensive wars in response to centuries of Islamic aggression, while the Inquisition aimed to preserve societal stability by rooting out heresies that threatened public order. Both were conducted under the norms of their time, which were far harsher than modern standards. While excesses occurred, the Church has acknowledged and repented for these actions (e.g., St. John Paul II’s Jubilee apology in 2000). While JWs claim moral superiority for avoiding political entanglements or military service, this does not absolve them of responsibility for the spiritual harm caused by their doctrines. For example, their prohibition on blood transfusions has led to countless preventable deaths, and their policies on shunning and abuse reporting have caused significant emotional and physical harm. Furthermore, the accusation of "bloodguilt" ignores the contributions of the Catholic Church to human dignity, education, and charity over the centuries. The Catholic Church has repeatedly upheld the sanctity of life and sought to defend the vulnerable, even amid historical missteps.
You wrote: "JWs have no splits because they expel self-appointed apostles." This claim is misleading. The lack of visible schisms within JWs results from their authoritarian structure, which suppresses dissent. Those who disagree are excommunicated and shunned, which prevents the formation of splinter groups but at the cost of personal and familial relationships. By contrast, Catholicism’s unity is not enforced through coercion but through adherence to a shared faith. While schisms (e.g., Orthodox, Protestant) have occurred, the Catholic Church remains united under the pope as the visible sign of unity (Matthew 16:18-19; John 17:21).
DeleteYou wrote: "The three-headed God is a failure." This is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is not "three gods" or "three heads" but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine is rooted in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14) and was articulated in response to early heresies like Arianism. The accusation that the Trinity is a failure because Christians have engaged in conflict is a non sequitur. Human sinfulness does not invalidate God’s nature or His revelation.
The response accuses Catholics of "projection and deflection" while ironically engaging in the same behavior. For example, accusing Catholics of "mass murder" deflects attention from the harm caused by Watchtower policies, such as the blood transfusion ban. Claiming Catholics "never repent" ignores historical apologies, while JWs dismiss their own failed predictions as "wrong expectations" without true accountability.
In conclusion, the Watchtower Society cannot escape the biblical definition of false prophecy by disclaiming inspiration while simultaneously claiming to be God’s exclusive channel of truth. Their failed predictions, coupled with their repeated revisions, meet the criteria of Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Attempting to shift attention to Catholicism does not absolve the Watchtower of its own errors. The Bible’s standard for truth demands accuracy and consistency—qualities that the Watchtower's prophetic record fails to meet. JWs rely on selective interpretations of history and Scripture to discredit the Catholic Church while ignoring the flaws and inconsistencies in their own organization. The Catholic Church acknowledges its human failings but remains the Church founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18), preserving the fullness of truth through Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. By contrast, JWs promote a theology that has repeatedly failed in prophecy, contradicted biblical teachings, and caused harm to countless individuals. Rather than casting stones, JWs should address their own contradictions and seek the fullness of truth found in Christ and His Church.
That is what the Bible commands us to do if you don't agree with our doctrine keep out there is nothing misleading about what I said only those who are baptized are liable to the BIBLE'S Sanction at 1CORINTHIANS CH.5:11-13 and there is no infant baptism in our theology , There is zero evidence that those who opt for bloodless medicine are more likely to die than those who do not the fact of the matter is that transfusions kill people,the British government recently had to pay out tens of millions in compensation for people killed by by blood transfusions. So check your facts and stop mindlessly copying and pasting propaganda,
ReplyDeletehttps://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/12/groks-take-on-bloodless-medicine.html
In the 1970s and 1980s in the United Kingdom 4670 patients with haemophilia were exposed to hepatitis C through contaminated NHS blood and blood products, and of this group 1243 were also exposed to HIV. So far 1757 of these patients have died, and many more are now terminally ill.
Deletehttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1857798/#:~:text=In%20the%201970s%20and%201980s%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%204670,more%20are%20now%20terminally%20ill.
This argument regarding blood transfusions is flawed and oversimplified for several reasons. While the tragic example of contaminated blood products in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s illustrates the need for safety in medical practices, it does not justify a blanket ban on blood transfusions for the following reasons. The example of contaminated blood transfusions during the 1970s and 1980s in the UK is being used selectively. This tragedy occurred due to failures in medical screening and oversight, not because blood transfusions themselves are inherently dangerous. Today, blood safety standards have drastically improved, and such incidents are exceedingly rare. Modern blood testing has made transfusions a safe and life-saving medical practice. Since the 1980s, significant advances in blood screening for diseases like HIV and hepatitis C have made transfusions far safer. Using a historical tragedy from decades ago to argue against current medical practices ignores these improvements.
DeleteThe statement implies that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ survival is proof of the correctness of their doctrine. This is a logical fallacy. Just because Jehovah’s Witnesses may not have been exposed to contaminated blood products does not mean their stance against blood transfusions is correct or justified. Avoiding one specific risk does not validate a broader prohibition, especially when it places individuals at risk in other life-threatening situations. Highlighting instances where refusal of blood transfusions has seemingly prevented harm ignores the many cases where such refusal has led to unnecessary deaths or suffering.
The Jehovah’s Witness prohibition on blood transfusions is based on misinterpretation of scriptural passages such as Acts 15:28-29 and Leviticus 17:10-14. These passages prohibit the consumption of blood as food, not its medical use. The context of these commands was dietary and symbolic, reflecting God’s covenant with Israel. Blood transfusions, which serve a life-saving purpose and do not involve eating, fall outside the scope of these biblical injunctions. Jesus emphasized mercy and saving lives, teaching that life and well-being take precedence over strict ritual adherence (Matthew 12:7, Mark 2:27). Refusing a life-saving treatment like a blood transfusion runs contrary to the overarching biblical principle of valuing human life.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal of blood transfusions has led to preventable deaths. Numerous documented cases show that refusal of blood transfusions has resulted in deaths that could have been prevented with this life-saving treatment. Examples include postpartum hemorrhage, surgical complications, and traumatic blood loss. While transfusions are banned, Jehovah’s Witnesses permit the use of blood fractions and derivatives, such as clotting factors and albumin. This inconsistency undermines their interpretation of biblical texts, as these fractions are also derived from blood.
While it is important to explore alternatives to transfusions (e.g., bloodless surgery), this should not justify a blanket ban. Modern medicine increasingly seeks alternatives to blood transfusions for medical and ethical reasons, but this does not render transfusions unnecessary or morally wrong. Individual medical needs vary. For some patients, transfusions remain the only viable option to save lives. A rigid ban disregards individual circumstances and medical ethics.
Christianity does not endorse rejecting medical treatment, including blood transfusions. Scripture affirms the use of medicine and healing as blessings from God. For example, Paul advises Timothy to use wine for his stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23), showing that medical interventions are not contrary to faith. Jesus healed the sick and valued human life. The New Testament does not suggest that Christians should refuse medical care or interventions.
It is you can't escape your murderous conduct and the fact that your claims of infallibility and your necromancy makes you fit the deuteronomy 18 description of a false prophet not us we can all see your shameless projection even if you ate too brain damaged to see the obvious
ReplyDeleteThat you can't see that there is no comparison at all between the merciless killing of millions which all the churches of christendom have indulged and the by comparison far more minor missteps of JEHOVAH'S Servants makes it clear that your churches teachings cause brain damage and anyone whose brain has not been eaten by the absurdities your church teaches will see that,it's so obvious
ReplyDeleteThere is no unity in the Catholic church you allow those living in open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law to preach and teach from your pulpit you murder one another on an industrial scale at the behest of corrupt politicians,what unity are you talking about? And there will never be unity in any of the churches if christendom because you disregarded the Lord's clear instruction to stay out if politics,those who think themselves smarter that JEHOVAH Invariably end up outsmarting themselves
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is clear believers are not to attempt communication with the dead,in ancient Israel this sin was punishable by death,
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy ch.18:9-11NIV"When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. "
It is clearly your church that is violation of Deuteronomy ch.18:9-11 not JEHOVAH'S Servants.
The claim that infant baptism is not biblical ignores the early Church's practice and the theological rationale behind it. Acts 16:15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 mention entire households being baptized. While infants are not explicitly mentioned, the inclusion of entire households implies no exceptions. The early Church Fathers, including St. Augustine and Origen, explicitly wrote about baptizing infants as a practice handed down by the apostles. The Council of Carthage (AD 418) also affirmed infant baptism as necessary for the remission of original sin. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit infant baptism, yet Jehovah's Witnesses reject it based on their interpretation, contradicting their claim to adhere strictly to Scripture.
ReplyDeleteJehovah's Witnesses’ rejection of blood transfusions, based on a misinterpretation of Acts 15:28-29, has caused preventable deaths. Acts 15 refers to abstaining from consuming blood as food, a ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant, not medical treatment. Blood transfusions are not eating blood; they are life-saving medical procedures. Numerous studies have demonstrated that refusing blood transfusions increases the risk of death in critical medical situations. While there are risks associated with any medical procedure, rejecting blood transfusions altogether has been linked to preventable deaths. They permit certain blood fractions, which contradicts their strict interpretation of Acts 15. This inconsistency undermines their claim to strictly follow Scripture.
The claim that the Catholic Church has engaged in widespread murder fails to consider. The Catholic Church, like any human institution, has had individuals who acted sinfully. However, these actions do not invalidate the Church's divine mission, as Christ Himself chose sinful men (the apostles) to lead His Church. The Church has often been falsely accused of atrocities. For example, exaggerated claims about the Inquisition or Crusades ignore the historical context and the Church's efforts to defend its faithful and territory. Jehovah's Witnesses claim neutrality in politics yet supported the Nazi regime in Germany during its early years, as documented by historians. Furthermore, their governing body has made doctrinal changes and predictions that have harmed members.
Jehovah's Witnesses accuse the Catholic Church of communicating with the dead, misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. Catholics do not "communicate with the dead" but ask saints in heaven to intercede for them. This is rooted in the belief in the Communion of Saints (Hebrews 12:1; Revelation 5:8). Revelation 6:9-10 shows martyrs in heaven aware of events on earth and interceding. The Bible does not prohibit asking saints to pray for us; it condemns attempting to summon the dead through occult practices. By equating Catholic veneration of saints with necromancy, Jehovah's Witnesses ignore clear distinctions between asking for intercession and engaging in forbidden practices like spiritism.
The claim that there is "no unity in the Catholic Church" is unfounded. The Catholic Church is the largest unified Christian body in the world, with over a billion members sharing the same faith, sacraments, and governance under the pope. While individual members may sin or dissent, the Church's teachings remain consistent, unlike the doctrinal changes seen in Jehovah's Witnesses' history (e.g., shifting views on the "generation" of 1914). Jehovah's Witnesses have experienced numerous doctrinal reversals, failed prophecies (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), and internal disputes. Their claim to unity often comes at the cost of suppressing dissent and shunning those who disagree.
DeleteJehovah's Witnesses claim that Christians should avoid politics and war. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), referring to the spiritual nature of His mission, not prohibiting political involvement. Christians are called to be "salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:13), influencing society for the common good. The Church has supported just wars to defend the innocent and ensure justice (e.g., against the spread of Nazism). Jehovah's Witnesses' stance on neutrality often leads to inaction in the face of evil. While claiming neutrality, Jehovah's Witnesses have cooperated with regimes like Nazi Germany and have made political compromises when convenient (e.g., in Malawi vs. Mexico).
Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Catholic Church fits the description of a false prophet. However, their organization predicted the end of the world multiple times (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975) and claimed these were "God's dates," which did not come to pass. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, this disqualifies them as true prophets. The Church does not claim that individual leaders or members are free from sin or error in judgment. Papal infallibility applies only to solemn definitions of faith and morals, not to predictions of events.
Your response reveals a deeply flawed understanding of Catholic doctrine and history, coupled with a defense of their own problematic practices. The Catholic Church, while composed of sinners, has consistently upheld the Gospel message for 2,000 years. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses' theological inconsistencies, failed prophecies, and historical errors undermine their claim to represent God's truth. A balanced examination of history and Scripture demonstrates the coherence of Catholic teaching and the problematic nature of Jehovah's Witnesses' accusations.
There is ZERO as in none whatsoever evidence that those who opt for bloodless medicine are more likely to die if such stats were available our self-styled betters would ensure that they were plastered all over the net. My mention of adult baptism was to point out the fact that those, who get baptized are doing so with full knowledge including knowledge if the Bible's sanction for defecting on ones vows, see 1corinthians ch.5:11-13
DeleteWhile it is true that advancements in bloodless medicine have improved outcomes for some patients, the claim that blood transfusions are inherently dangerous and unnecessary is misleading. Blood transfusions are a standard, evidence-based medical practice for treating severe anemia, hemorrhage, or trauma. They are life-saving in emergencies, particularly during surgery or childbirth complications. While risks exist, such as transfusion reactions or infections, these are rare due to modern screening and safety protocols. The benefits of transfusions far outweigh the risks in life-threatening situations. Refusing blood transfusions significantly increases the risk of death in situations like severe blood loss. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2001) found that Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused blood transfusions had significantly higher mortality rates in critical care situations.
DeleteBloodless medicine is not always a feasible substitute. Techniques like cell salvage or erythropoietin therapy cannot address acute, massive blood loss. The reference to payouts by the British government does not prove that transfusions are inherently harmful. These compensations were related to historical incidents, like contaminated blood during the 1980s and 1990s, not current practices. These were tragic but rare exceptions and have no bearing on the general safety of modern transfusions. Jehovah’s Witnesses' refusal of blood transfusions based on a specific interpretation of Acts 15:28-29 (abstaining from blood) overlooks the context. The prohibition against eating blood in the Bible referred to dietary customs, not medical interventions. It is not an ethical mandate to refuse life-saving care.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of the Bible’s stance on blood transfusions is a prime example of their rigid, legalistic approach to Scripture. The prohibition against consuming blood in Acts 15:28-29: was part of a cultural accommodation for Jewish Christians and referred to dietary practices, not medical procedures. Jesus taught that moral laws (e.g., preserving life) take precedence over ritual laws (Matthew 12:1-8). Applying this passage to reject life-saving medical care is a distortion of biblical principles. Christianity emphasizes the sanctity of life and the obligation to preserve it (Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill”). Refusing blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations, contradicts this principle.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim their practice of disfellowshipping is based on biblical commands, specifically 1 Corinthians 5:11–13. However, their interpretation distorts the intent of the passage and raises serious concerns. 1 Corinthians 5 addresses a case of public, unrepentant immorality (a man in a sexual relationship with his stepmother). The discipline was corrective and aimed at bringing the sinner to repentance (see 2 Corinthians 2:6-8), not permanently cutting them off from the community. Jehovah’s Witnesses apply this passage to enforce strict and often arbitrary rules on members, ostracizing those who disagree with their doctrines, even in non-moral matters. This goes beyond the intent of Paul’s instructions. The practice of completely shunning family members who leave the organization is uncharitable and contrary to Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness (Luke 15:11–32, the Parable of the Prodigal Son). Families are commanded to care for one another, regardless of religious differences (1 Timothy 5:8). Disfellowshipping serves as a form of social control, pressuring members to conform out of fear of isolation. This approach undermines the freedom of conscience that the Bible advocates (Romans 14:1-4).
That is not a new stat if you read the article on my blog by GROK You will see that there are actually universally acknowledge advantages to bloodless surgery,it is enough that no one has been able to produce any statistics at all from any era showing that bloodless medicine tends to have worse outcomes ,only those who freely choose to get baptised are liable to the sanction invariably your unbelieving family are going to outnumber your believing family so the peer pressure dynamic us actually pushing you away from the brothers nit toward them and if all we gad to worry about from our self- styled betters was being left alone we certainly would not consider that traumatic JWs have repeatedly shown a willingness to die for their faith at a much higher proportion than most other faiths these aren't the sort who will be intimidated by the prospect of being left alone by those they consider mentally and morally inferior
DeleteWrong bloodless surgery has been successfully applied in trauma conditions, where are you people's numbers that us the only way for you to win and the numbers are on our side, as I mentioned earlier blood transfusions kill thousands of people so your simplistic dichotomy of risky bloodless surgery and safe transfusions are a figment if your imagination.
DeleteThe church tolerated mass murderers as members in good standing rather than expelling them and used the powerful members to suppress religious minorities ,see Russia as an examples, Christ makes it clear that his true disciples will not tolerate such barbarism at times the church celebrated these thugs, clearly ALL ,again I don't want you to think I'm singling your church out or in any way implying that it was the worst offender,there us plenty of guilt to go around here.
ReplyDeleteThis assertion is not only historically simplistic but also reflects a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s teachings, structure, and role in history. The Catholic Church, as a spiritual institution, is not synonymous with the actions of its members, especially those acting in secular or political capacities. It is vital to distinguish between:
Delete• The Church's teaching authority (the Magisterium): Its role is to teach and guide on matters of faith and morals.
• The actions of individuals: Even Catholics, including leaders, can act contrary to Church teachings due to human sinfulness.
When members of the Church have engaged in immoral behavior, this reflects personal failings, not the approval of the Church. The Church has consistently taught the sanctity of life and condemned murder, barbarism, and injustice. Christ himself warned that there would be “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15) within the Church, and that the Church would contain both “wheat and weeds” until the final judgment (Matthew 13:24–30). These parables remind us that human imperfection does not invalidate the Church’s divine mission.
While it is true that Catholics, including clergy and laypeople, have committed acts of violence or aligned with political powers, this is not unique to the Catholic Church. History must be understood in its proper context. Societies were deeply intertwined with religion, and political powers often exploited religious institutions to achieve their goals. This does not mean the Church endorsed such actions. When Catholics failed to live up to Christian principles, these were betrayals of the faith, not its fulfillment.
If this claim refers to historical events in Russia, such as persecution of religious minorities, it is important to note the Catholic Church has never been in a position of influence in Russia. In fact, Catholics in Russia frequently faced persecution themselves, particularly during the Tsarist and Soviet eras. Suppression of minorities in Russia was largely a product of state policies, not directives from the Catholic Church. The Church has consistently upheld principles of religious freedom and human dignity: Dignitatis Humanae reaffirmed the right to religious freedom and condemned coercion in matters of faith. Throughout history, saints like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Augustine, and St. John Paul II advocated peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
The claim that the Church “celebrated thugs” grossly misrepresents historical reality. The Church has canonized countless saints who lived lives of heroic virtue and self-sacrifice. Meanwhile, individuals who acted violently or unjustly were often rebuked or excommunicated. For example, during the Crusades, the Church condemned atrocities committed by Crusaders that went beyond their mandate, such as the sack of Constantinople in 1204. The Church today openly acknowledges past failures by its members. Pope John Paul II famously asked forgiveness for sins committed by Catholics throughout history, including violence and intolerance. This humility and willingness to seek reconciliation demonstrate the Church's commitment to Christ’s teachings.
DeleteThe claim that the Church “tolerated mass murderers as members in good standing” misunderstands the nature of ecclesiastical discipline. While the Church can excommunicate members for grave sins, it also recognizes the possibility of repentance. The goal of excommunication is not punishment but reconciliation with God. In historical contexts, individuals in positions of power who committed atrocities may have avoided excommunication due to political pressures or a lack of evidence. However, this does not imply endorsement by the Church.
Your critique relies on Donatist reasoning, which argues that the Church's legitimacy is invalidated by the sins of its members. The Catholic Church rejects this heresy, teaching that the Church remains holy because its foundation is Christ, not human perfection. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Church, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal” (CCC 827). Jesus never promised that the Church would be free from sin. Instead, he established a Church to be a means of salvation despite the weaknesses of its members: “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The Church’s mission is to proclaim the Gospel and administer the sacraments, not to act as a tribunal of perfection.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church does not celebrate or condone barbarism or violence. While individual Catholics have committed grievous sins, these acts reflect human failure, not the Church’s teachings. The critique relies on a flawed understanding of Church history and a Donatist perspective that judges the Church by the actions of sinful members. The Church’s true mission remains rooted in Christ’s command to love, forgive, and seek reconciliation, as demonstrated by its consistent teachings and the lives of countless saints.
The Bible is clear the tolerating of those who murder among you makes you guilty of the blood they spilt worse yet many if those encouraging the murder do so from your pulpit,those encouraging sexual immorality do so from your pulpits,one has to be utterly deluded to think that Christ and his God will take pleasure with that,
DeleteYou like these religious leaders the prophet condemns in malachi ch.1:6-8NIV"“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7“By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty."
Like those religious leaders you disrespect JEHOVAH By suggesting he is bound to accept whatever low quality offering we make, JEHOVAH is a great king and oppression and immorality are beneath him,he us not under any obligation to accept any latreo from those who persists in dishonored him by tolerating pass murder and immorality living among them, and I'm always amazed those who try to terrorise their flocks with the threat if eternal torture would accuse us of being high control because we insists on JEHOVAH'S standard re:those making a dedication that they be ready to accept JEHOVAH'S Penalty beforehand and thus not take the oath frivolously. All one has to do is not take the oath and one will not have to worry about the sanction but whether one takes the catholic oath or not one is still in danger of Eternal torture according to your doctrine.
You attempt to justify their stance on blood transfusions, disfellowshipping, and their interpretation of biblical teachings while launching accusations against the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteYour response falsely portrays blood transfusions as inherently dangerous and claims that bloodless surgery is universally superior. This is misleading for several reasons. Bloodless surgery can be a viable option in certain circumstances, but it is not universally applicable. It is limited in cases of acute, massive blood loss, such as trauma, postpartum hemorrhage, or surgical complications. The absence of comprehensive statistics proving worse outcomes with bloodless medicine does not equate to its superiority; this is a logical fallacy known as ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’ (appeal to ignorance). The claim that blood transfusions kill thousands of people fails to account for the vast number of lives they save annually. Modern safety standards, including rigorous screening and advanced medical technology, have drastically reduced the risks associated with transfusions. Using historical tragedies to generalize about modern medical practices is both intellectually dishonest and medically inaccurate. Medicine is about balancing risks and benefits. While there are risks associated with transfusions, these are far outweighed by the life-saving benefits in critical cases. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ blanket prohibition on transfusions ignores individual circumstances and medical necessity, leading to preventable deaths—a direct violation of the biblical principle of valuing life (Exodus 20:13, "You shall not kill").
You argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of disfellowshipping aligns with biblical standards, but this interpretation distorts Scripture. Malachi 1:6-8 criticizes priests in Israel for offering defective sacrifices, symbolizing a lack of reverence for God. It does not support the extreme shunning practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which go beyond the intent of biblical discipline. The Catholic Church emphasizes reconciliation, as seen in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, where Paul urges the community to forgive and comfort a repentant sinner. The practice of completely ostracizing individuals, including family members, contradicts Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness (Luke 15:11-32). While church discipline exists in Catholicism, its purpose is correction and repentance, not permanent exclusion or emotional coercion. Jehovah’s Witnesses accuse other denominations of tolerating sin, yet their own history reveals significant issues, including documented cases of mishandled abuse allegations and internal corruption. The claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain a “higher moral standard” is inconsistent with their organizational failures.
The claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate superior faithfulness through their willingness to die for their beliefs lacks nuance. While it is admirable to stand firm in one’s beliefs, this does not inherently validate the correctness of those beliefs. Many religious groups, including Catholics, Protestants, and others, have martyrs who gave their lives for their faith. Willingness to suffer or die does not determine doctrinal truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ prohibition on blood transfusions has caused preventable deaths, particularly among children and pregnant women. Sacrificing lives for a misinterpretation of Scripture undermines the claim to moral superiority.
You criticize Catholic teachings on eternal punishment and accuses the Church of dishonoring God. These accusations are based on misunderstandings. The Catholic Church teaches that eternal separation from God (hell) is the result of a freely chosen rejection of God’s love and grace (CCC 1033-1037). This doctrine respects human free will and underscores God’s justice and mercy. The claim that this teaching is “terrorizing” misunderstands its purpose: to call individuals to repentance and reconciliation with God. Jehovah’s Witnesses accuse Catholics of dishonoring God by tolerating sin, yet this argument reflects Donatist reasoning, which conflates individual failings with the Church’s legitimacy. The Catholic Church recognizes human weakness while upholding its divine mission to administer the sacraments and proclaim the Gospel.
DeleteYour response contains several logical flaws:
• False Dichotomy: The argument creates a false dichotomy between blood transfusions and bloodless surgery, suggesting that one must universally choose one over the other. In reality, both approaches have their place in modern medicine, and rejecting one entirely is neither logical nor ethical.
• Selective Use of Scripture: The response cherry-picks biblical passages to support its position while ignoring others that emphasize mercy, healing, and the sanctity of life (e.g., Matthew 12:7, Mark 2:27).
• Circular Reasoning: The response assumes that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Scripture is correct and then uses this assumption to defend their practices. This circular reasoning fails to engage with alternative interpretations or broader theological arguments.
Your response relies on selective data, misinterpretation of Scripture, and flawed logic to defend their positions on blood transfusions, disfellowshipping, and Catholic doctrine. It dismisses the life-saving benefits of blood transfusions, distorts biblical teachings on church discipline, and falsely accuses the Catholic Church of dishonoring God. In contrast, Catholicism offers a coherent, compassionate, and biblically grounded approach that upholds the sanctity of life, the importance of forgiveness, and the unity of faith. The flaws in the Jehovah’s Witness argument reveal the dangers of rigid, legalistic interpretations of Scripture that prioritize ideology over the well-being of individuals.
It is a fact that transfusions kill people,there is no ,as in none whatsoever evidence that they are any safe bloodless surgery, and heeding jesus counsel remove those who choose to turn there back on their vow has meant that we don't have the undesirable situation of mass murdering dictators and gangsters as well as those advocating loose living as approved members among us in many instances even teaching their corruption from the pulpit, thr only way you cam make your case is statistics your argument from silence is a clear logical fallacy, their are statistics that show that those opting for bloodless medicine are less likely to suffer post operative complications it is idiotic for you to claim that our stance puts us at needless risk if you have no stats to back up your claim your argument by assertion continues to be rejected the verse us explicit quit fellowships with such a one not even sharing a meal,given the oceans of innocent blood your church has spilt it is hypocrisy of the highest order for you to presume to lecture us,I'm sure that those victims would rather be left alone to move on and find associates who share their values or to be welcomed back by unbelieving family and relatives who would previously gave regarded them as oddball because of their decision to choose this unpopular style of worship rather than be slaughtered over political ,ethnic,or religious differences by catholics protestants,orthodox adherents in good standing,
DeleteYou tolerate abomination among members and even clergy it is obvious that you have been rejected by JEHOVAH Who makes it clear that the wicked must be removed if the entire church us not to be judge as wicked,
ReplyDelete1Corinthians ch.5:6-8NIV"1Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
The whole church us guilty before JEHOVAH if those living in open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law are Tolerated among us ,christendom allows degenerates to teach from pulpit,making herself like eli in 1 Samuel 2:30 NIV"“Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.“ Eli failed to expel his corrupt sons from the clergy JEHOVAH made it clear that he was going to put up with that as I explained if you can't demonstrate from the Bible itself do not bother your assertion us a reason to not believe rather than the opposite so either you demonstrate from scripture you remain Silent don't was space asserting based on a non-existent authority.
I'm not just talking about history but about the present all of Christendom’s armies chaplains there to justify killing if fellow humans to the soldiers, during the both world wars the churches were among the top recruiters in the colonial wars the churches egged on the colonizers seeing those wars as a necessary plowing of the ground for their missionary efforts.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Opium wars many church men urged on the conquerors justifying the bloodletting as a necessary prelude to the missionary work.
You assert that “tolerating sin” among members and clergy renders the entire Catholic Church guilty before God. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and conflates individual sins with the Church's divine mission. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses a specific case of grave, unrepentant immorality within the Corinthian community. Paul urges the community to discipline the individual, not because the entire Church becomes wicked, but to protect the integrity of the community and encourage the sinner's repentance (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, where Paul later advises forgiveness for the same sinner once repentance occurs). The Catholic Church disciplines members who engage in public, unrepentant sin through excommunication, a measure meant to inspire repentance and reconciliation, not permanent exclusion. The Church's teachings on this are consistent with biblical principles (Matthew 18:15-17). The accusation relies on Donatist reasoning, which judges the Church's legitimacy based on the moral failings of its members. The Catholic Church teaches that while members are fallible sinners, the Church itself is holy because Christ is its head (Ephesians 5:25-27). The example of Eli’s failure to discipline his sons does not apply to the Catholic Church. Eli tolerated his sons' corruption without taking action, whereas the Catholic Church has clear mechanisms (e.g., canon law, excommunication) to discipline clergy and laity alike. The Church has condemned abuses and taken steps to address scandals, such as in recent decades with stricter policies on clergy misconduct. The sins of individuals do not nullify the Church's mission. Christ Himself warned that "wolves in sheep’s clothing" (Matthew 7:15) would infiltrate the Church but promised, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
ReplyDeleteYou criticize the Catholic Church for its alleged historical “involvement” in wars, including the colonial era and the Opium Wars, and claims that the Church supports killing through military chaplaincy. The Catholic Church has always taught that war is a last resort and must meet strict moral criteria to be justifiable (CCC 2307-2317). The Church does not glorify war but acknowledges the necessity of defending the innocent and restoring justice in certain situations. For example, fighting against Nazi aggression during World War II was a moral imperative. Military chaplains do not justify killing but provide spiritual care to soldiers, reminding them to act justly even in wartime. This reflects Christ’s teaching to minister to all, even those in difficult circumstances (Matthew 25:35-36). While individual clergymen may have supported unjust actions, the Church as a whole did not endorse these wars. Such actions reflect human failings, not Church doctrine. The Church has repeatedly condemned colonial exploitation, as seen in Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus (1537), which declared indigenous peoples fully human and condemned their enslavement. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim neutrality but have made compromises in practice. The 1933 Watchtower declared support for Hitler’s regime, only later reversing its position. This initial cooperation undermines claims of strict neutrality. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi were persecuted for refusing to buy political cards, while Witnesses in Mexico compromised by carrying government-issued cards. This inconsistency highlights selective neutrality.
The claim that “Christendom” is currently “wicked” relies on a sweeping generalization that fails to distinguish between individual failures and the Church’s divine mission. The Church is the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27) and cannot be judged solely by the actions of its members. Jesus warned against uprooting the "weeds" before the harvest, teaching that the Church would include both sinners and saints until the final judgment (Matthew 13:24-30). The Church constantly calls its members to holiness and repentance (CCC 827). The failures of individual Catholics are a call to deeper conversion, not evidence of institutional wickedness. The Catholic Church is the largest unified Christian body, governed by the pope and united in faith and sacraments. In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses have experienced doctrinal reversals (e.g., failed prophecies in 1914, 1925, and 1975) and rely on an ever-changing interpretation of Scripture by the Watchtower Society.
DeleteYour argument relies on selective application of Scripture. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, as explained, this passage does not condemn the Church but calls for addressing sin within the community. Jehovah’s Witnesses often interpret Scripture in a rigid, legalistic manner that ignores broader context, such as their stance on blood transfusions (misinterpreting Acts 15:28-29) or disfellowshipping (misapplying 1 Corinthians 5:11-13). Jehovah’s Witnesses accuse the Catholic Church of tolerating sin but fail to address their own contradictions. Deuteronomy 18:22 states that a false prophet is one whose predictions do not come to pass. The Watchtower Society has repeatedly predicted the end of the world, with each date proving false. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ harsh disfellowshipping policies contradict Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation (Luke 15:11-32).
In conclusion, your response reveals a flawed understanding of Scripture, Church history, and theology. Their arguments rely on Donatist reasoning, historical inaccuracies, and misinterpretation of biblical texts. The Catholic Church remains holy because its foundation is Christ, not the moral perfection of its members. The Church acknowledges human failings, seeks repentance, and upholds the sanctity of life and justice, in contrast to the doctrinal inconsistencies and harsh practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You should read: https://justpaste.it/eiata
While it is true that blood transfusions carry some risks, they are minimal compared to their life-saving benefits in emergency situations. Medical studies have consistently shown that blood transfusions reduce mortality in cases of massive blood loss or trauma. For example, research published in The Lancet and JAMA highlights that for patients suffering from severe blood loss, timely transfusions can significantly reduce the risk of death. The risks, such as transfusion reactions or infections, are rare due to rigorous screening and matching protocols in modern medicine. On the other hand, bloodless surgery is not universally suitable. It often requires careful pre-surgical planning and specific techniques that may not be feasible in emergencies or for patients with severe anemia. Its success largely depends on the patient’s condition, the procedure, and the availability of experienced surgeons.
DeleteYour argument conflates adherence to doctrinal purity with medical decision-making. While religious organizations are entitled to their beliefs, enforcing doctrinal adherence by disfellowshipping those who accept life-saving medical care (such as blood transfusions) is ethically questionable. Jesus’ teachings emphasized mercy, compassion, and saving lives (e.g., Mark 3:4: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?”). Prioritizing doctrinal purity over a person’s survival does not align with the example of mercy and care that Jesus demonstrated.
While bloodless medicine can reduce certain complications, such as immune reactions to donor blood, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. A 2012 study in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that patients undergoing bloodless cardiac surgery (e.g., Jehovah's Witness patients) had similar outcomes to those receiving transfusions. However, the study also emphasized that bloodless surgery is often reserved for highly controlled settings and patients who are meticulously prepared. For trauma cases or uncontrolled bleeding, transfusions remain the gold standard. Moreover, complications from transfusions are not a justification for outright banning them. Modern medicine has addressed many risks through advancements like leukoreduction, pathogen testing, and improved matching techniques.
"Blood transfusions kill thousands of people." - This statement exaggerates the risks of transfusions. According to the World Health Organization and the American Red Cross, blood transfusion-related deaths are extremely rare in developed countries due to advanced screening and transfusion practices. For instance, transfusion-transmitted infections like HIV or Hepatitis C are now virtually nonexistent in many parts of the world due to rigorous testing. In contrast, delaying or refusing a necessary blood transfusion can significantly increase mortality. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine noted that patients who refused transfusions in critical situations had significantly higher death rates compared to those who accepted transfusions.
DeleteWhile there are indeed benefits to bloodless surgery, such as reduced exposure to donor blood and associated risks, this does not negate the value of transfusions in life-threatening situations. Blood transfusions are critical in emergencies involving massive blood loss, where there is no time for blood-saving techniques like hemodilution or erythropoietin therapy to take effect. Both bloodless surgery and transfusions have their place in modern medicine, and dismissing one in favor of the other is an oversimplification. The issue is not whether bloodless surgery is inferior but whether it is always a viable alternative. Statistics comparing bloodless and transfusion-based medicine show that outcomes depend on the context. For elective surgeries, where pre-operative planning is possible, bloodless techniques can be effective. However, for emergencies like ruptured aneurysms or traumatic injuries, blood transfusions are often the only viable way to prevent death. For example, data from trauma centers show that delayed transfusion in hemorrhagic shock increases the risk of death by over 50%.
There are ample statistics and case studies documenting deaths among Jehovah's Witnesses due to refusal of blood transfusions. For example, a study in Archives of Internal Medicine (2001) reviewed cases of severe anemia in Jehovah’s Witness patients and found significantly higher mortality rates due to refusal of transfusions. Such data directly challenges the claim that refusal of transfusions does not increase risk.
So the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses is based on their interpretation of Scripture, but this stance does not hold up under ethical, medical, or theological scrutiny. Modern blood transfusions are safe, life-saving, and have minimal risks. While bloodless surgery has its place, it is not universally applicable, particularly in emergencies. The argument against transfusions is not supported by objective medical evidence, and the claim that bloodless surgery is always safer is misleading.
In its latest April 2025 Watchtower Study Article 17 and paragraph 12 the Watchtower writes: "Today, Jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection. He will never allow Satan to corrupt true worship. (John 17:15)”
DeleteInterestingly, this claim aligns closely with the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, which asserts that the Church established by Christ will endure until the end of time, safeguarded by God from falling into total error or corruption. However, this raises an important question: if pure worship cannot be corrupted, how do groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile their claim of being the sole "true Church" with the notion that the original Church supposedly fell into a "Great Apostasy"?
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that after the death of the Apostle John, the first-century Christian Church quickly fell into apostasy, allowing "false Christianity" to dominate the world for approximately 1800 years until their movement restored "true worship" in the late 19th century. But if God permitted such a complete loss of true worship for nearly two millennia, how does this not contradict their own claim that God would never allow Satan to defile pure worship? Such an assertion implies that God either abandoned His Church or failed to protect it, which stands in stark contrast to their claim that He would never permit Satan to overcome it.
The Catholic doctrine of indefectibility, rooted in Christ's promises, provides a coherent and scriptural response to these questions. In Matthew 16:18, Christ states unequivocally, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." This promise affirms that the Church founded by Christ will never be overcome by the forces of evil. Similarly, in Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." These assurances confirm that the Church will remain intact, guided and protected by Christ Himself, until the end of time.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' narrative of a total apostasy undermines these divine promises. If, as they claim, the Church fell into complete corruption immediately after the apostolic age, then Christ’s words would seem empty, His promises unfulfilled, and His mission thwarted. Such a view inadvertently portrays God as incapable of preserving His Church against Satan’s influence, a conclusion that contradicts both Scripture and reason. Moreover, the idea that "false Christians" could erase "true worship" from history for 1800 years directly opposes their own teaching that God would not allow Satan to corrupt pure worship.
This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when we consider the practical implications of their claim. If true worship disappeared for nearly two millennia, how can Jehovah’s Witnesses be certain that their current teachings reflect the original message of Christ and the apostles? Without an unbroken continuity of doctrine and practice, there is no reliable means of verifying their claim to represent "pure worship." In contrast, the Catholic Church, through its unbroken apostolic succession and consistent teaching authority, provides an enduring witness to the truths handed down by Christ and His apostles.
Historically, the claim of a "Great Apostasy" is also deeply flawed. There is no evidence of a sudden and total collapse of the early Church, as Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest. Instead, the historical record demonstrates a continuous development and preservation of Christian doctrine and worship. The writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Augustine, testify to the unbroken transmission of apostolic teaching and the visible unity of the Church. These early Christians wrote extensively about the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the authority of the Church—elements that Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss as later corruptions but which are clearly rooted in the practices of the earliest Christian communities.
DeleteFurthermore, the concept of a "Great Apostasy" raises theological problems regarding God’s fidelity and justice. If God allowed the Church to fall into total error for centuries, what does this say about His promises and His care for humanity? Such a scenario implies that countless generations were deprived of access to true worship and salvation—a notion that is irreconcilable with the biblical portrayal of God as a loving and faithful shepherd who desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).
In contrast, the Catholic understanding of indefectibility provides a theologically sound and historically consistent explanation. While the Church has faced internal scandals, external persecutions, and doctrinal challenges, these do not undermine its divine foundation or its role as the guardian of truth. Human sin and weakness have always been present within the Church, as evidenced by the behavior of some of its members throughout history. However, these failings do not invalidate the Church’s teaching authority or its mission. Just as the apostles were fallible men chosen to spread the Gospel, so too the Church is made up of imperfect individuals who rely on God’s grace to fulfill their vocation.
The Catholic Church’s continuity and resilience, even in the face of human shortcomings, stand as a testament to Christ’s promises. The sacraments, the apostolic succession, and the consistent proclamation of the Gospel demonstrate that the Church has remained faithful to its mission. This fidelity is not the result of human effort alone but of God’s providential guidance through the Holy Spirit.
In summary, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim of a "Great Apostasy" fails to account for the biblical, historical, and theological evidence of the Church’s indefectibility. Their assertion that God would never allow Satan to corrupt pure worship directly contradicts their belief that the early Church fell into complete error shortly after the apostolic age. The Catholic Church, grounded in Christ’s promises and sustained by the Holy Spirit, provides a coherent and enduring witness to the truth of the Gospel. Far from being extinguished, the light of true worship has continued to shine throughout history, offering hope and salvation to all who seek it.
Your argument that jesus can't get his people to stop killing each other but Satan can is irrational in the extreme,and at 1samuel 2 JEHOVAH Made it clear that those who tolerate immorality are not suited to represent him they dishonor him by allowing the unrepentant to spread their corruption from the platform how could possibly justify such open and ungodly corruption,there us no way I going to accept the bloody anarchy and open moral corruption that you are desperately attempting to justify could ever be a fruit of JEHOVAH'S Spirit,and I think anyone whose brain has not been broken by catholic stupidity would see the obvious as well, your illogical assertion do not negat2Pthe bible's clear prescription ,2Peter ch.2:2NIV"Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute."
DeleteThat is clearly referring to christendom,if you are more violent and corrupt than those who don't profess belief in your christ why should I adopt your Christ my christ has caught his disciples to live in peace and your christ has not only failed to teach his people to live in peace or to adopt the bible's moral code but apparently you can't even see that that is a negation of your claim to the Christianity of the bible . You are making less and less and sense as you continue to push this unbelievably stupid and senseless line of "reasoning"
The catholic church is irrational if it expects Me to abandon the by loving brotherhood for it's bloodstained anarchy by the fruit the tree is known the mass slaughter of brother believers and the violent oppression religious minorities are CLEARLY the fruit of Satan the the devil and and the emptyheaded extrabiblical theology that justifies this stain on the name of Christ is equally from the mind of the prince of darkness, it's increasingly clear that those who accuse us of being brainwashed are indulging in major league projection they are the brain damaged ones not us I thank JEHOVAH for sparing us from such delusion, we have made errors but thanks to JEHOVAH nothing compared to christendom we have never made the error of giving latreo to any other than JEHOVAH, we have never made the error of trusting any other intercessor but the christ of the bible, we have not made the error of becoming a tool to any politician or political party, we have not made the error of slaughtering our brothers at the behest of godless politicians, we have never made the error of allowing those who live in open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law to teach from our platforms, because rather than assign authority to greco-roman philosophy we assign the highest authority to JEHOVAH'S Word and your stupidity confirms the wisdom of that course
DeleteBy the fruit the tree is known peace and brotherhood cannot come from Satan and bloodstained anarchy and oppression are not from Christ, the fact that brothers have rather go to their death, a death often at the hands of church members in good standing with not so much of a rebuke from church authority proves conclusively to anyone whose brain has not been broken by indoctrination who is being led by the Spirit of JEHOVAH and who is under the control of the prince of darkness. You can't receive forgiveness because first there must be admission of guilt before there can be the necessary heartfelt repentance over sin that precedes forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteThere are no numbers at all showing your claim that those who opt for bloodless medicine are more likely to die your continuing to repeat this lie only confirms the diabolical nature of the Catholic church it has no problem using lies like it's true lord Satan the devil until you produce some numbers to back up this claim I am going to be forced to regard you as nothing but another lying propagandist so I expect to see some numbers backing up this accusation that bloodless medicine has higher mortality rate or a retraction in the absence of either I will consider my suspicion that you are bad faith actor who has no problems stooping to mendacities to make his pont confirmed,so either some statistics or a retraction of this extremely dishonest claim that bloodless medicine us less safe.
ReplyDeleteThe accusation that “Jesus can’t get His people to stop killing each other but Satan can” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity, human free will, and the Church’s nature. God does not coerce human behavior, even among believers. While Jesus calls His disciples to live according to His teachings (e.g., love, peace, and forgiveness), humans remain free to reject His commands. The moral failures of individuals within the Church reflect human sin, not the failure of Christ or the Church’s divine mission (cf. Romans 3:23, "all have sinned").The claim implies that Satan’s ability to promote superficial unity among Jehovah's Witnesses is superior to Christ’s divine mission. However, the Bible warns that Satan’s strategies can appear deceptively righteous (2 Corinthians 11:14-15), while Christ’s mission centers on inner transformation and free cooperation with God’s grace, not coercion. In the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30: Jesus explicitly taught that the Church would contain both righteous and unrighteous members until the final judgment. This reality does not negate the Church’s holiness but highlights the process of sanctification.
ReplyDeleteYou cite 1 Samuel 2 to argue that the Catholic Church tolerates immorality, thus dishonoring God. This misapplies the biblical text. Eli tolerated the sins of his sons without taking action, which resulted in God’s judgment. However, this is not analogous to the Catholic Church, which disciplines unrepentant sinners through excommunication (cf. Canon Law, Canon 915; Matthew 18:15-17). The Catholic Church has publicly condemned immoral actions, including clerical abuse, and implemented reforms to address these failures. While there have been individual failings, these do not invalidate the Church’s divine mission.
Your argument is rooted in Donatist logic, which falsely assumes that the Church’s holiness depends on the moral perfection of its members. The Bible acknowledges the presence of sin among God’s people (e.g., Peter’s denial of Christ, Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians). Despite these failings, the Church remains holy because Christ is its head (Ephesians 5:25-27). The Church’s holiness is not based on the moral perfection of its members but on its divine foundation and mission to sanctify sinners. The sacraments, apostolic succession, and the consistent proclamation of the Gospel demonstrate the Church’s fidelity to Christ.
The accusation that “Christendom” is defined by “bloodstained anarchy” and “oppression” oversimplifies history and ignores essential distinctions. While there have been regrettable actions by individuals and groups within the Church, the Church as an institution has consistently taught principles of justice and peace (e.g., the Just War Doctrine, CCC 2307-2317). The misuse of religion for political or personal gain reflects human sin, not Church teaching. You ignore the JW organization’s own history of compromises, such as the 1933 declaration of support for Hitler’s regime and inconsistencies in their claims of neutrality (e.g., carrying political cards in Mexico while refusing them in Malawi).
The citation of 2 Peter 2:2, claiming it refers to “Christendom,” is a selective interpretation. This chapter warns against false teachers and their destructive heresies. It does not single out the Catholic Church but applies to any group or individual promoting error. Ironically, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ failed prophecies (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975) and changing doctrines fit this warning more closely than the Catholic Church.
The claim that bloodless medicine is inherently safer or more effective than conventional treatments, including blood transfusions, is a nuanced topic that requires a critical examination of evidence, not emotional rhetoric. Let me carefully refute the accusation made in the text and address the issues at hand. Before addressing the substance of the accusations, let us clarify that the Catholic Church does not oppose or endorse specific medical treatments like bloodless surgery or blood transfusions based on dogma. Instead, the Church encourages the use of science and reason in preserving human life, affirming the sanctity of life as a core principle (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270–2274). The accusation that the Catholic Church is “diabolical” or serves “Satan” is inflammatory and unsupported by evidence. This kind of rhetoric undermines serious discussion and distracts from the core issues.
DeleteYour challenge regarding blood transfusions and bloodless medicine misrepresents the facts. Studies have consistently shown that blood transfusions are life-saving in emergency situations, especially in cases of massive blood loss or trauma. For example, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that patients refusing transfusions had significantly higher mortality rates. Bloodless techniques can be effective in controlled settings (e.g., elective surgeries), but they are not universally applicable. For trauma or hemorrhagic shock, transfusions remain the gold standard, reducing mortality by over 50% in some cases. The Jehovah’s Witness prohibition of transfusions, based on a misinterpretation of Acts 15:28-29, prioritizes doctrinal adherence over human life. This contradicts Jesus’ emphasis on mercy and saving lives (cf. Mark 3:4).
Jehovah’s Witnesses and others advocating for bloodless medicine often claim that it is universally safer and associated with lower mortality rates. However, such claims are selective and lack context. It is true that bloodless techniques have been successfully implemented in specific medical contexts, especially when meticulous planning and preparation are possible. For example, elective surgeries where blood conservation methods (like cell salvage, hemodilution, and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents) are employed. Patients who cannot receive transfusions due to medical conditions like rare blood types or severe allergies. However, these are specific contexts where bloodless surgery is effective. They do not represent emergency situations or cases involving massive blood loss, such as trauma or obstetric hemorrhages.
When it comes to emergency medicine, where rapid blood replacement is critical, the claim that bloodless methods are always safer falls apart. Research shows that blood transfusions remain the most effective treatment for life-threatening blood loss. For example, trauma Patients: Studies consistently demonstrate that timely blood transfusions reduce mortality rates in patients with severe hemorrhages. A 2020 study in Critical Care Medicine found that early administration of red blood cells improved survival in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock compared to alternatives. Obstetric Emergencies: Severe postpartum hemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Blood transfusions remain the gold standard for saving lives in these situations, particularly in low-resource settings. In such scenarios, relying exclusively on bloodless techniques, such as saline or erythropoietin, can lead to delays or inadequate oxygenation, increasing the risk of organ failure and death.
Multiple studies have demonstrated the life-saving benefits of blood transfusions. A 2017 study in The Lancet Haematology reported that among patients with severe anemia, blood transfusions significantly reduced mortality rates. A meta-analysis published in Critical Care Medicine in 2016 found that patients who received transfusions during critical surgeries had better survival outcomes than those who did not, particularly in cases of severe blood loss. While bloodless medicine has advanced significantly, it is not a universal substitute for transfusions. A systematic review published in Anesthesia & Analgesia (2021) concluded that while bloodless techniques can reduce the need for transfusions in certain elective surgeries, they are not sufficient in emergencies involving acute hemorrhage. These studies provide robust evidence that blood transfusions remain a vital tool in modern medicine, particularly in life-threatening situations.
DeleteThe accusation that Catholics or critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses' stance on blood are spreading “lies” is unfounded. The criticism of bloodless medicine is not a denial of its usefulness in certain cases but a recognition of its limitations in saving lives in emergencies. Furthermore, it is misleading to suggest that opposing the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on blood transfusions is an act of dishonesty or malice. Ethical concerns about this doctrine arise not from propaganda but from documented cases where lives were unnecessarily lost because patients refused life-saving blood transfusions due to Watchtower policies.
Jehovah’s Witnesses cite biblical texts to justify their stance, but as explained earlier, these passages refer to dietary laws, not medical treatments. The application of these texts to blood transfusions is a misinterpretation that unnecessarily endangers lives. The Watchtower’s policies exert significant pressure on members to refuse blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations. The fear of being disfellowshipped or shunned creates a coercive environment where members may feel compelled to refuse treatment against their better judgment. The refusal of blood transfusions for minors raises serious ethical concerns. Courts have repeatedly intervened to save the lives of children whose parents, under Watchtower influence, sought to deny them life-saving transfusions. These cases highlight the potential harm of rigidly adhering to a doctrine that prioritizes organizational loyalty over human life.
Your ‘ad hominem’ attacks (e.g., “Catholic stupidity,” “brain damaged”) undermine your credibility and ignore the intellectual rigor of Catholic theology. The Catholic Church’s teachings on faith, morality, and the sacraments have been consistent for 2,000 years, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. In contrast, the Watchtower Society has repeatedly changed its teachings (e.g., the nature of Christ’s return, the identity of the “generation” of 1914), raising questions about its claim to represent “truth.” You also conflate individual failings with the Church’s divine mission. The Church calls all its members to holiness while acknowledging human sin. Failures among clergy or laity are a call to repentance, not evidence of institutional corruption. Jesus promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church (Matthew 16:18). Despite challenges, the Catholic Church has endured for two millennia, proclaiming the Gospel and administering the sacraments.
DeleteIn conclusion, your arguments rely on misinterpretations of Scripture, historical inaccuracies, and emotional rhetoric. The Catholic Church remains holy and faithful to its mission despite the failings of individual members. Its teachings on morality, peace, and justice are consistent with Scripture and Tradition. In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses face significant theological, historical, and ethical challenges, including doctrinal inconsistencies and a misrepresentation of biblical teachings. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ and sustained by the Holy Spirit, provides a coherent and enduring witness to the truth of the Gospel.
The claim that bloodless medicine is universally safer than blood transfusions is not supported by evidence. While bloodless techniques can be effective in specific contexts, they cannot replace transfusions in emergencies or cases of severe blood loss. Criticizing the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on blood transfusions is not an act of dishonesty but a defense of life and medical ethics.
The Catholic Church, in affirming the sanctity of life, supports the use of all ethical and effective medical treatments to preserve life. Refusing blood transfusions based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and organizational pressure contradicts both reason and compassion. True respect for life involves using the best available means to save and protect it, as Jesus himself demonstrated through his acts of healing and mercy.
It's a failed excuse jesus has got his people to live in peace without coercion it is the Catholic Church thbat has attempted to coerce compliance with its norms not JWs JEHOVAH makes it clear that the church needs to do what it can to keep out unrepentant wrongdoers see 1CORINTHIANS ch.5:12,13 while JEHOVAH Judges thise outside we judge those claiming to be in a dedicated relationship with JEHOVAH through Jesus christ.wisdom is priced righteous by it's fruit any who are impressed by wisdom that only has mass thuggery and immorality at even lower level than those who profess no relationship to Christ and his God to show as fruit will not be impressed by true wisdom,so their credulity or incredulity is of no consequence. What evidence present this evidence that shows that bloodless surgery is less safe than transfusions or retract this lie that you keep repeating, put up or shut up.
DeleteIt's a failed excuse jesus has got his people to live in peace without coercion it is the Catholic Church thbat has attempted to coerce compliance with its norms not JWs JEHOVAH makes it clear that the church needs to do what it can to keep out unrepentant wrongdoers see 1CORINTHIANS ch.5:12,13 while JEHOVAH Judges thise outside we judge those claiming to be in a dedicated relationship with JEHOVAH through Jesus christ.wisdom is priced righteous by it's fruit any who are impressed by wisdom that only has mass thuggery and immorality at even lower level than those who profess no relationship to Christ and his God to show as fruit will not be impressed by true wisdom,so their credulity or incredulity is of no consequence. What evidence present this evidence that shows that bloodless surgery is less safe than transfusions or retract this lie that you keep repeating, put up or shut up.
DeleteWhy no link to this study so that we can assess it our selves I suspect that this does not address the issue of bloodless techniques and there efficacy, that is what the issue is about,also
ReplyDeleteBloodless techniques lead to lower post operative complications. If you had evidence that bloodless techniques were less effective at saving lives we would have seen it by now there would be multiple links dealing specifically with bloodless surgery and it's lack of efficacy, but we both know that no such evidence exists liar.
My arguments rely on real world results ,results are all that matters your three headed demon God is not getting the results one should expect from the God of the Bible peace ,moral and religious purity while the Lord JEHOVAH is that is how true wisdom is known results not not confirmation from any discredited authority
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church does not "coerce" belief. True faith cannot be imposed but must be freely chosen, as demonstrated in the Church's teachings on human dignity (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1730). Even in periods where state and Church authority overlapped, coercion was the exception, not the rule. Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves practice coercion through disfellowshipping, which isolates individuals from their families and community, pressuring them to conform. The Watchtower Society enforces strict control over its members through practices such as shunning and disfellowshipping. This is arguably more coercive than anything the Catholic Church does today. By ostracizing individuals who dissent, Jehovah’s Witnesses use psychological and social pressure to enforce compliance, contradicting their claim to promote voluntary obedience.
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 5:12-13 speak to the need for church discipline, which the Catholic Church practices. The Church follows the biblical mandate for discipline. Canon Law provides for the excommunication of unrepentant sinners (Canon 915), and councils like Trent and Vatican II have addressed issues of reform and moral integrity. The Church takes sin seriously but also emphasizes repentance and reconciliation, as seen in the sacrament of Confession. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of this passage often leads to harsh, absolute practices, like shunning family members. This extreme approach to discipline overlooks the balance of justice and mercy emphasized in Scripture (e.g., John 8:1-11, where Jesus forgives the adulterous woman but calls her to repentance).
"Wisdom is proved righteous by its fruits." - This argument equates Jehovah’s Witnesses' organizational purity with wisdom while accusing the Catholic Church of mass immorality. However, this reasoning is flawed. If "wisdom is proved by its fruits" (Matthew 11:19), then the Catholic Church's vast contributions to education, healthcare, charity, and theology are undeniable fruits of its divine mission. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, operating countless hospitals, orphanages, and schools. The Watchtower Society's "fruits" include failed prophecies (1914, 1925, 1975), harmful medical policies (e.g., prohibiting blood transfusions), and scandals, such as the mishandling of child abuse cases. These "fruits" undermine their claim to moral superiority.
Blood transfusions remain the gold standard for managing acute blood loss, especially in emergencies. Numerous studies confirm this. A study in Critical Care Medicine (2020) found that early transfusion significantly reduces mortality in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. In obstetric emergencies, blood transfusions save thousands of lives annually by preventing death from postpartum hemorrhage. The bloodless techniques, while effective in controlled settings (e.g., elective surgeries), bloodless techniques cannot replace transfusions in emergencies. This is not a "lie" but a medical reality. The refusal of life-saving blood transfusions based on Watchtower doctrine has led to unnecessary deaths, including among children. This raises serious ethical questions about prioritizing doctrine over human life.
The assertion that results alone determine truth ignores important theological and moral considerations. Christianity is not a competition of "results" but a faith grounded in truth. While Jehovah’s Witnesses focus on outward metrics like "unity" or "purity," Jesus emphasized the inner transformation of the heart (Matthew 23:27-28). True holiness comes from God’s grace, not external conformity.: By your own standard of "results," the Catholic Church surpasses the Watchtower Society. It has endured for over 2,000 years, preserved Scripture, and led billions to Christ through its sacraments, teachings, and charitable works. In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses, founded in the 19th century, have repeatedly revised their doctrines and faced significant controversies.
DeleteThe Trinity is not a "three-headed demon" but the mystery of one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine is rooted in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, John 14:16-17) and affirmed by the early Church. Calling the Trinity a "demon" is blasphemous and reflects a profound lack of understanding. Ironically, Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Jesus’ deity aligns more closely with the heresies condemned by the early Church than with biblical Christianity.
In conclusion, your arguments rely on misunderstandings of history, Scripture, and theology, combined with inflammatory rhetoric. A reasoned response exposes the weaknesses in their position:
1. The Catholic Church does not coerce belief but promotes free will and reconciliation, while Jehovah’s Witnesses enforce conformity through shunning.
2. Discipline within the Catholic Church is biblical and merciful, unlike the harsh practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
3. The Catholic Church’s vast contributions to humanity reflect its divine mission, while the Watchtower Society’s "fruits" include failed prophecies and harmful doctrines.
4. Medical evidence supports the use of blood transfusions, especially in emergencies, highlighting the dangers of Jehovah’s Witnesses' prohibition.
5. The Trinity is a core Christian doctrine rooted in Scripture, not a "demon God."
Ultimately, the Catholic Church's enduring mission, global impact, and doctrinal consistency affirm its foundation in Christ. Your opponent's arguments, while passionate, fail to provide substantive evidence against the Church’s divine origin.
What utter nonsense, JEHOVAH us honored by results ,results are the only reliable way to separate wisdom from folly ,any "theology" that ignores results is clearly not from the God of the Bible he challenges his people to test him by the results he produces, you keep mentioning evidence that transfusions are superior to bloodless medicine but this evidence is yet to be produced what manner wisdom is this that cares nothing for evidence or results. We reject your evidence free results free wisdom.
DeleteJohn ch.15:8NIV"This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."
Results prove individual and collective discipleship, devotion
What utter nonsense, JEHOVAH us honored by results ,results are the only reliable way to separate wisdom from folly ,any "theology" that ignores results is clearly not from the God of the Bible he challenges his people to test him by the results he produces, you keep mentioning evidence that transfusions are superior to bloodless medicine but this evidence is yet to be produced what manner wisdom is this that cares nothing for evidence or results. We reject your evidence free results free wisdom.
DeleteJohn ch.15:8NIV"This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."
Results prove individual and collective discipleship, devotion
It must be clear what you are freely choosing an absolute dedication to JEHOVAH'S Cause,luke ch.14:26N8V"“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
ReplyDeleteRevelation ch.2:10NIV"Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown".
Even my own life is forfeit in JEHOVAH'S Cause,Only when you reach that level of conviction are you ready for baptism
Nice censorship :)
DeleteNo spamming I can't comment on your channel at all so remove the straw nincsnevem
DeleteI have no channel, no blog.
DeleteThe argument claims that Luke 7:35 (“But wisdom is justified by all her children”) means that the success or failure of an institution must be judged purely by its results. However, this passage refers to how divine wisdom is ultimately vindicated through God's plan, not through immediate human success or failure. For example, the life of Christ, judged by earthly results (e.g., His crucifixion), might seem like failure to a skeptic. Yet, in God's wisdom, His death brought salvation to the world. John 15:8, cited in the argument, emphasizes bearing spiritual fruit, such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and faithfulness (Galatians 5:22–23). The Catholic Church has borne this fruit in its contributions to theology, education, charity, and the preservation of Scripture. While the Church has faced failures due to human imperfection, these cannot invalidate its divine mission.
ReplyDeleteThe argument insists that "results" determine the truth of theology, but this approach has significant problems. The Bible is filled with examples of God's work through fallible individuals and institutions. King David committed grave sins, yet he remained a man after God’s heart (1 Samuel 13:14). The Apostle Peter denied Christ three times, yet he became the rock upon which Christ built His Church (Matthew 16:18). Imperfection does not invalidate God’s work. Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves have poor “results” by this standard: The Watchtower Society has made false prophecies (e.g., predicting the world would end in 1914, 1925, and 1975). By their own logic, these repeated failures disqualify them as a faithful organization.
The argument equates “Christendom” with “mass murder and gross immorality,” ignoring the complexity of history and oversimplifying the Church’s role. While individuals and institutions within Christendom have committed wrongs, these actions do not represent the teaching or mission of the Church. For example, the Crusades and the Inquisition are often cited out of context or exaggerated to tarnish the Church. However, the Church has also condemned such abuses and sought reform. The Catholic Church has made immense contributions to society, including founding hospitals, universities, and charities. It has preserved and disseminated Scripture, developed Western law, and defended human dignity through its teachings on the sanctity of life and justice.
Jesus Himself ate with sinners and called them to conversion (Luke 5:32). The Church follows this example, seeking to reform sinners rather than immediately excluding them. The sacraments, particularly Confession, are available for this purpose. Accountability exists in the Church: Catholic canon law and pastoral practice include measures to address public sin and scandal. Clergy and teachers who defy Church teaching are subject to discipline and removal, as has been demonstrated in many cases.
Decades of scientific research demonstrate the life-saving efficacy of blood transfusions in surgery, trauma, and critical care. The Watchtower Society’s prohibition of transfusions has led to unnecessary suffering and death. The Bible does not prohibit blood transfusions: Jehovah’s Witnesses misinterpret passages like Acts 15:20, which forbids eating blood, to apply to transfusions. However, this prohibition was dietary and ritualistic, not medical. Transfusions are not equivalent to consuming blood.
Revelation 1:6 speaks of believers as “a kingdom and priests to serve His God and Father.” This does not mean that every individual can interpret Scripture independently or set up their own theological standards. Christ established the Church’s authority: Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles to teach, govern, and sanctify (Matthew 16:18–19; Matthew 18:18). The Catholic Church, as the apostolic Church, continues this mission under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower Society, claiming to be God’s sole organization, disregards historical Christianity and creates its own interpretations, leading to doctrinal errors and contradictions.
No spamming you are flirting with a ban nincsnevem.
DeleteGod not the institution promises results,and it us only proper that we expect the results that he himself promised
John ch.13:35NIV"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
This love is not the result of human effort but evidence of the grace of JEHOVAH True Jesus christ it is irrational to claim that Satan is able to achieve the results JEHOVAH Promised through his son and Satan can't
It is your church that claims infallibility and practices necromancy by receiving communication from dead people not us the fact remains that it is you who meet the Bible standard of false prophet, so this is more of you attempting to remove the straw of clumsy exegesis while ignoring the plank of necromancy and biblically defined false prophesy. Remove the plank from your eye first ,thr pkanknof mass murder and toleration of gross sin including necromancy is not to be compared to the straw of clumsy exegesis and human imperfection,the martyrs of the Church are cancelled out by the fact that the church has given at least as good as she has gotten. Eating with sinners is fine we don't judge those outside but once you've taken the vow of dedication you cannot simply go back to your vomit without consequences
Ecclesiastical ch.5:4-6NIV"When you make a vow to God, do not delay to fulfill it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5It is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it. 6Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, “My vow was a mistake.” Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands? "
it is better to not vow than to vow and not pay you just keep repeating your evidence free assertion that bloodless medicine is less safe than transfusions it rings more and more hollow each time because we know how desperate you are for actual evidence and that it is only because your search keeps coming up empty that you have not produced any.
The citation of Ecclesiastes 5:4-6 is misapplied to accuse Catholics of breaking vows to God. However, the Church upholds the sanctity of vows, such as baptismal promises, marriage vows, and religious consecration. It teaches that these vows must be fulfilled faithfully, in line with the Scripture passage cited. Jehovah’s Witnesses demand strict loyalty to their organization, even to the point of requiring members to break ties with baptized Christians who leave. This practice contradicts the Christian call to love and reconciliation, as seen in Luke 15 (the parable of the prodigal son).
DeleteYour claim that my criticisms of the Watchtower’s ban on blood transfusions are “evidence-free” is incorrect. Blood transfusions are a life-saving medical treatment with a well-established safety record. The Watchtower’s alternative treatments, while effective in some cases, cannot replace transfusions in severe trauma, surgery, or certain medical conditions. The Watchtower misinterprets Acts 15:29, which prohibits eating blood, to justify its ban on transfusions. However, eating blood (a dietary act) is not equivalent to receiving a blood transfusion, which preserves life. The biblical principle of preserving life (e.g., Mark 3:4) outweighs the misapplied prohibition.
You employ Donatist reasoning, which argues that the Church’s failures disqualify it as the true Church. This reasoning is flawed. The Catholic Church is not based on the sinlessness of its members but on Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” The Church readily admits that its members, including clergy, are sinners in need of grace. This does not invalidate its divine mission or teachings.
In conclusion, your arguments rely on a mix of misrepresentations, false accusations, and logical fallacies. The Catholic Church's teachings and practices are firmly rooted in Scripture and tradition, while the Watchtower Society’s doctrines often deviate from biblical truth and rely on selective interpretations. Far from meeting the standard of false prophecy, the Catholic Church continues to faithfully transmit the Gospel, as promised by Christ.
This has nothing to do with any body but us we understand baptism as a public declaration of ones intent to live a dedicated it seems that for the churches of christendom it is just a rite of passage,the numbers do not support your unsupported claim that bloodless medicine is less safe the fact that you can produce no numbers at all not even ill considered numbers that someone might mistake as supporting your claim speaks volume.the Bible promises fruit that glorifies JEHOVAH from those who truly are disciples of the risen christ ,clear evidence that his God and Father has indeed resurrected him.
ReplyDelete