Jehovah's Witnesses or not?

2. Has the Society made false prophecies?

* 2A. Does the Society claim to be a true prophet of God, and does it ask that we examine its prophecy record?

Yes. The Society states this explicitly when it says: "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help ... and to declare things to come? 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...known... as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses..." It should be noted that even from its earliest beginnings the Society considered itself to be a true prophet of God. The Society does not expect others to just trust that it is a true prophet: "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. What does it show?"

Watchtower, April 1, 1972
* 2B. Has the Society predicted that 1914 A.D. would mark the end of earthly rulership?

Yes. The Society made such a prediction in 1908: " ..the 'Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced" (i.e., it began before 1908).

The Time is at Hand, 1908 ed, p.101
* 2C. Has the Society declared that the earthly arrival of King Jesus took place in October, 1874?

Yes. "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present since October, 1874, A.D."

Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. IV, p.621
* 2D. Has the Society declared that the Millennium?-the 1,000-year reign of Christ?-began in 1873?

Yes. "The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great thousand-year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that great Seventh Day, the thousand years of Christ's reign, began in 1873."

The Time is at Hand, 1916 ed., p.ii
* 2E. Has the Society predicted that the visible, physical return to earth of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would take place in 1925?

Yes. "...Since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful ones of old ... we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."

Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.89
* 2F. How certain, in the minds of the Society, was the 1925 resurrection date?

As certain as any date could be. This is evident by various statements including the following:

1) "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel."

Watchtower, Sept 1, 1922, p.262

2) "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures, marking the end of the typical jubilees."

Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106
* 2G. When 1925 arrived did the Society begin to back down on its prophecies about the significance of that year?

Yes. "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 the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time, God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them to do."

Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p.3
* 2H. As the year 1925 progressed, did the Society indicate even more doubt about 1925 being the resurrection year?-the year the new order begins?

Yes. Rather than suggest that a mistake was made or that God changed His mind, the Society subtly began to back down even further: Typical of this erosion process is the following:

"It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an end of the work, and that therefore it would be needless for them to do more."

Watchtower, 1925, p.262
* 2I. Was there disappointment among the Society members because of the failures concerning the predicted dates?

Yes. Most definitely and so much so that public admissions were printed: "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918 and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time."

Vindication, Vol. I, p.338
* 2J. Did the Society attempt to deflect criticism by clinging to the dates even though the prophecies concerning them went unfulfilled?

Yes. Basically the Society clung to the position that the dates were valid in spite of the lack of fulfillment: "Later the faithful learned that those dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures . . . "

Vindication, Vol. I, p. 338-339
* 2K. Did the Society indicate that as a result of disappointments it had decided to quit setting dates?

Yes. They seemed ready to give up the practice of fixing dates: "...they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date, but to rely (and they do rely) upon the Word of God as to the events that must come to pass."

Vindication, Vol. I, p. 339
* 2L. Did the Society, nevertheless, continue to imply that certain times and years were scheduled for Armageddon?

Yes. This was done with great care but the implication was always clear: Armageddon was only "months away," that is, less than a year. A typical example of the subtlety of these suggestions is seen in the following report: "Receiving the sift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon."

Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1942, p.288
* 2M. Does the Society admit that such prior date setting activities amounted to false prophesying?

Yes. In its own literature it reveals its attitude toward such activities: "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?

"Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them."

Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.23
* 2N. Has the Society concluded its date-setting activities or has it prophesied other dates such as 1975?

It continues submitting new dates. A classic example is an entire article devoted to a prophecy concerning the year, 1975. This was calculated to be the year of the end of this present age. Its title: "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?"

Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p.494
* 2O. Has the Society confirmed the 1975 date as accurate?

Yes. "According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E."

Life Everlasting?-In Freedom of the Sons of God, p.28
* 2P. What did the Society members believe about the 1975 date? Would it be the end of the present system of things?

Yes. According to Erroll Burton, spokesman for the Paradise Valley Unit of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Arizona, the 1975 date would mean "'A change in the political system of things,' when 'all presently existing influences must be eliminated. After 6,000 years of the deterioration of mankind, there will be 1,000 years of refining mankind...' 'At the end of that period, man will be perfect, as Adam and Eve were before the fall.'"

The Society clearly has instructed its followers that 1975 represents "...the end of the world as we have known it," and it predicts that the "...thousand-year reign of Christ will begin."

The Arizona Republic (newspaper), Aug. 24, 1969
* 2Q. Did the Society members begin to get rid of their possessions and make special sacrifices in order to prepare for 1975? Did the Society condone this activity?

Yes. In various ways this information was reported and evaluated. The Society's attitude is revealed in the following: "Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end."

Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p.3

3. Has the Society admitted to and covered up false prophecies?

* 3A. First, does the Society believe that a false prophet could. exist today, and, does it believe that such a prophet coud be an organization rather than just an individual?

Yes. It has gone into some detail in describing the false prophet's activities and purpose: "Similarly, the 'false prophet' is not a person, but is a system or an organization. A 'prophet' claims to have inspired information for the direction of others. A 'false prophet' would mislead others, to turn them away from God and toward false worship."

Watchtower, June 15, 1974, p.381
* 3B. Does the Society believe that God will reveal false prophets? If so, how will he do this?

Yes. The Society expects God to uncover the true character of false prophets. He "will put all false prophets to shame either by not fulfilling the false prediction of such self assuming prophets or by having His own prophecies fulfilled in a way opposite to that predicted by the false prophets."

Paradise Restored to Mankind, pp. 353-354
* 3C. How does the Society anticipate false prophets to react to exposure?

"False prophets will try to hide their reason for feeling shame by denying who they really are. They will try to avoid . . . being pronounced spiritually dead by Jehovah's loyal worshipers."

Paradise Restored to Mankind, p. 354
* 3D. Has the Society admitted to making false prophecies?

Yes. They admitted to looking "forward to 1914 with joyful expectation. When that time came and passed there was much disappointment." In other words, their predicted date concerning the end of the age had come and gone without fulfillment (see II.B. above). They became the subject of criticism "because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their 'prophecies' had not been fulfilled."

Here we have an example of the Society stating categorically that it had delivered a prophecy that time and circumstance demonstrated to be false.

Light, (A Society publication), Book I, p.194
* 3E. Is the admission of making false prophecies an isolated item, or has a Society leader?-under oath in court?-ever admitted that the Society made such prophecies?

H.C. Covington, the then Vice President of the Society was on the witness stand in Scotland in 1954. When asked if the Society had "promulgated (i.e., set forth or taught publically) a false prophecy," Covington said "I agree to that." He was then asked if this false prophecy "had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses," to which he replied, "That is correct."

Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov. 1954, pp. 340-343
* 3F. Has the Society tried to reverse itself (on its well-established claim to be a true prophet) since its 1975 prophecy failure?

Yes. The Society now teaches that "Jehovah's Witnesses as modern-day Christians are working hard to get this good news preached to every individual. They do not claim infallibility or perfection. Neither are they inspired prophets."

This is an amazing reversal! For almost 100 years the Society has claimed to be a "true prophet of God" and now they reveal that they are not inspired-leaving us to conclude that their many prophecies have not come from God.

Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p.297

4. Has the Society altered any of its chronological calculations over the years?

* [Note: We must realize that the society has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on chronology during the century of its existence. Precise calculations of the dates of certain events?-especially of those related to the beginnings of mankind?-have been the basis for many of the Society's predictions. The creation date of Adam and the creation date of Eve have been the subject of particular attention because they relate?-according to past Society literature?-to the calculation of the beginning of the Millennium, or 1,000-year reign of Christ.]

* 4A. According to the Society, is the creation date of Eve important for calculating the date of the Millennium?

Yes. The exact date of Eve's creation was the beginning of God's "rest day" because (logically) Eve was God's last creation.

Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.519
* 4B. Does the Society know when Eve was created?

No. According to the Society, the biblical record "shows a time lapse between the creation of Adam and that of his wife, Eve." Why was there a time lapse? What, for example, was going on? "During that time, God had Adam name the animals? Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years we do not know?" No date can be established?-even approximately?-for Eve's creation date?

Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.579
* 4C. Has the Society ever given a date for Eve's creation?

Yes. "According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E"

Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.14
* 4D. Has the Society been able to predict a date for Eve's creation in spite of the reports of Adam's activities before her creation? On what basis do they do this?

Yes. The Society reasoned that ". . .it is logical that He (God) would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E."

Watchtower, May 1, 1968, p.271
* 4E. Has the Society tried to explain the obvious contradiction between an unknown creation date and a 4026 B.C.E. creation date for Eve in its authoritative Bible study aid?

No. The study aid only confirms the impossible: it says that Society knows Eve's creation date!

1. At 130 years Eve gave birth to Seth.

Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.533

2. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born?

Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.333
* [Note: Before the 1975 prediction date of Christ's return, the society authoritatively supports a specific creation date for Eve. Afterwords they conveniently back down on their calculation.]

5. Has the society distorted the record of any of its past activities?

* [Note: Beth-Sarim, which means "House of Princes" in the Hebrew language, was a handsome estate built in San Diego in 1930 by the Watchtower Society. Its history is variously represented by the Society.]

* 5A. What was the purpose of the construction of Beth-Sarim?

Beth-Sarim was, according to a recent Society yearbook, built as a home for one of the Society's presidents: "...a direct contribution was made for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use."

1975 Yearbook, p.194
* 5B. Did the Society, at an earlier date, give an entirely different purpose for constructing Beth-Sarim?

Yes. "...the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today ... who believe that faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth."

Salvation, p.311
* 5C. Did the Society actually believe that certain resurrected Old Testament saints would come back and live in Beth-Sarim?

Yes. "...those faithful men of old may be expected back from the dead any day now...in this expectation the house was built... it is now held in trust for the occupancy of those princes on their return."

The New World, p.104
* 5D. Does the deed to the Beth-Sarim property reveal the Society's original purpose for the estate?

Yes. While it is true that Rutherford was to have "exclusive possession" of the house during his lifetime, it was also true that that possession was to be relinquished upon the soon anticipated arrival of "David," "Joseph," "Samuel," etc. to the earth "for the express purpose of being used by those who are servants of Jehovah God."

Page iii of the deed indicates other Society members could equally make use of the property "until the same be taken possession of by David or some of the other men herein named [from Hebrews chapter eleven] and this property and premises being dedicated to Jehovah and the use of his kingdom it shall be used as such forever."

It is interesting to note that the Society later sold the house.

Deed to Beth-Sarim, Dec. 24, 1929

6. Has the Society distorted or misquoted various reference sources in an attempt to support its position on the Trinity?

* 6A. Did the Society misquote and misrepresent well-known Greek scholars H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey?

Yes. The Society quotes Dana and Mantey out of context by asserting that their grammar (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) supports the translation "the word was a god" at John 1:1.

Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1158

In a letter to the Society authored by Mantey himself we read: "...Because you have been quoting me out of context, I...request you not to quote the Manual Grammar... again, which you have been quoting for 24 years." He also asked them to "publicly and immediately apologize" for their misrepresentation.

Mantey Letter, p.3

Why was Mantey so disturbed? His conclusion (found both in his Grammar and his letter) is that John 1:1 should be translated either "the word was deity" or "the word was God," not "the word was a god." Mantey estimates the evidence "to be 99% against" the Society's translation.

Mantey Letter, p. 2
* [Note: A word about John 1:1 is appropriate here. In this passage an important principle of Greek grammar is evident which has been a source of confusion for English readers.

* Note first the order of the Greek words as seen in the Greek text (consult The Emphatic Diaglott or The Kingdom Interlinear, both Society publications):

* KAI THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS
* And God Was The Word

* In Greek there is no written indefinite article ("A" or "AN")?-just the definite article ("the"). The indefinite article is often implied before a noun even though nothing is actually written down to tell the reader it is there. But this is not always the case. The word theos standing alone without the definite article might be translated "a god" if it were not for another principle of grammar. That principle is discussed in Mantey's letter to the Society.

Mantey Letter, p.1, 2
* And what does that principle mean? E. C. Colwell discovered that when a predicate noun (in this case theos) is in the nominative case (that is, in the same case as the subject of the sentence?-the subject being logos) and is placed before the verb (instead of after the verb as is usually the case), it has no article?-even when it is needed. In fact, Colwell also discovered that it is indefinite (i.e., with "a" or "an") only when the context demands it. (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LII (1933) pp. 12-21 from which Mantey quotes.)

* Harner (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XCII (1973)) went on to discover that in 53 passages in John's Gospel, the Apostle John used this type of word arrangement to "express the nature of [the] character of the subject." Thus Mantey is right when he suggests the translation "the word was diety" or "the word was God" which stresses nature.

* The translation "a god" inserts an indefinite article that is unwarranted by either grammar or context. The translation "a god" makes Jesus another God, makes John the Apostle a polytheist, and makes a mockery of Deuteronomy 32:39 which reads "there is no other god with me"?-that would make Jesus a god against the Father!"]

* 6B. Did the Society quote the famous Bible translator Westcott out of context?

Yes. The Society gives the impression that Westcott supports the concept that John 1:1 should be translated "the Word was a god" (note the small "g").

Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1975, p.63

But as can be seen, Westcott holds to an entirely different view based on the grammar:The Word was God "...simply affirms the true deity of the Word." He held to the triunity of God, not the polytheism of "the word was a god."

The Gospel According to St. John, p.3
* [Note: A consultation with virtually any commentary on John 1:1 or any Koine Greek grammar on the use of the article in the New Testament will lead to the same conclusion reached by Westcott: The statement "simply affirms the true deity of the Word."]

* 6C. Did the Society misrepresent the New Catholic Encyclopedia on its position concerning the trinity?

Yes. The Society suggests that the New Catholic Encylopedia denies the historic trinity: It teaches that ..this doctrine was unknown to the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles ... it also admits that the doctrine must be dated as from about three hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ."

The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 22

A simple reading of page 306 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, will demonstrate that both conclusions by the Society were erroneous. Clearly, Paul and the Gospels taught the triunity of God and the Catholics hold to this belief.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 306
* 6D. Does the Bible actually teach the doctrine of the trinity?-a doctrine the Society strongly denies?

Yes. The trinity is the only explanation for the relationship given in Scripture between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity

7. Does the Society deny the Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship?

* 7A. Does the Society teach that Jesus rejects worship?

Yes. "Do not erroneously conclude that Christians are to worship Christ; that is not what he taught."

Watchtower, July 15, 1959, p.421
* 7B. Does the Bible reveal the worship of Christ as an appropriate and acceptable activity?

Yes. No one is rebuked for worshipping Christ in Scripture.

The Bible
* 7C. Does the Society attempt to cover up the worship of Christ in Scripture in order to deny this teaching?

Yes. The word proskuneo is translated as worship (when used with reference to Jehovah) 22 times in the Society's New World Translation. The same word when used with reference to Christ is translated "obedience," "reverence," and "homage." The Bible clearly teaches the worship of Jesus, but the Society in an effort to obscure this fact has avoided the ususal and normal translation of proskuneo.
* 7D. Has the Society ever contradicted its position by encouraging Jesus worship?

Yes. "Christ (is) to be worshipped as a glorious spirit, victorious over death on the torture stake."

Make Sure of All Things, p. 85

8. Is the name "Jehovah" actually the name of God?

* 8A. Does the Society believe that "Jehovah" is the name of God?

Yes. They have used it for more than 50 years and state categorically that it is "a translation of God's name, in Hebrew YHWH."

Make Sure of All Things, 1953, p.188
* 8B. God's name?

No. They hold that "there is no such name as Jehovah." The name of God as it appears in Scripture is without appropriate vowels so, "no Hebrew can pronounce it today."

Letter, Michael Esses
* 8C. Where did the mistranslation "Jehovah" come from?

"'Jehovah' is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X's confessor, Peter Galatin."

The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 88

"'Jehovah' is a mispronunciation... almost entirely disregarded by the Jews ... of the Hebrew 'YHWH' the... name of God... this pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels...of 'Adonay' (the Lord) ...with the consonants of ' YHWH. "

The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 87
* 8D. Is there any basis for the Society using "Jehovah" as the name for God?

No. "The pronunciation Jehovah has no authority at all and appeared only in late medieval times; it is an attempt to vocalize the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) usinq the vowels written under it by the scribes, which vowels however were never intended to be combined with the four consonants of this word."

Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334
* 8E. If "Jehovah" is incorrect and not the name of God, what is the correct name?

It is Yahweh. "That the pronunciation in ancient times was Yahweh is concluded from transcriptions in the early Christian fathers."

Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334

9. Has the Society altered the Scriptures to suit its own particular needs?

* 9A. Where has the Society altered the text?

Take any Greek text or modern translation and compare it with the New World Translation (a Society publication) at:

John 1:1 (Note the added "a")

Colossians 1:15, 17 (Note the inserted "other")

Colossians 2:9 (Note the change from "deity" to "divine quality")

Titus 2:13 (Note the change from "God our Savior" to "God and our Savior")

Revelation 3:14 (Note how "of" is changed to "by")

These are just a few examples of the alterations.

The Bible
* 9B. To what can we attribute the mistranslations by the Society?

In court and under oath F. W. Franz, current president of the Society and one of the admitted translators of the New World Translation, lied about his ability to translate Scripture. He admitted he could not translate "a Bible verse." Lack of integrity and preparation, along with a marked theological bias has led to a number of outrageous errors in translation.

Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov., 1954

10. Does the Society err in its teaching about the cross of Christ?

* 10A. According to the Society, how did Jesus die?

The Society claims that Jesus was impaled on an upright, single-pieced "torture stake."

Kingdom Interlinear, pp. 1,155, 1,156
* 10B. How does the Society support its claim that Jesus died on a "torture stake" instead of a "cross"?

The Society quotes 16th century writer Justus Lipsius in his De Cruce Liber Primus.

Kingdom Interlinear, p. 102 & 103
* 10C. What does Justus Lipsius say is the method of Christ's death?

While it is true the Lipsius pictures the death of a man on a tree, he points out rather emphatically and in considerable detail that this was not the way Jesus died. In fact, he even includes a picture of Christ's death on the cross a few pages later. Reading from his text we find: "In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the cross-bar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above." The Society has completely misrepresented Lipsius' drawing and findings.

De Cruce Liber Primus, p. 19, 46, 47
* 1OD. Does the Bible teach that Jesus died on a cross?

Yes, without any doubt. Consult the Bible at John 20:25; 21:18, 19, Matt. 27:37, Mark 15:27, etc.

The Bible

11. Has the Society ever altered its publications without notice to suit its changing prophecies?

* Yes. Quietly the Society shifts its position when an embarrassing prophecy is made and then remains unfulfilled. For example, a crucial change was made in the 1923 version of Studies in Scriptures in order to bring it into line with the Society's changing prophecies. The earlier version has:

"...the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest..."
* The 1923 version has:

"...must take place very soon after 1914 is manifest..."

Studies in Scriptures

12. Given the strange twists and contradictions of the Society over the years, is there any relationship between the Society and mental illness?

* Yes, unfortunately. Members of the Society, according to an Australian study are "three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk."

* Why? Either the Society "tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis. Possibly both of these factors may operate together."

John Spencer, The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses

13. If Jehovah's Witnesses are not the truth, then what is?

* The truth is found in the Bible and not in the Watchtower Society (as has already been demonstrated.) Two steps must be taken:

* First, Jesus Christ must be given rightful Lordship in our life.

For instructions, CLICK HERE
* Second, the Society member must break his ties with the Watchtower Society, as has the author of this Exposé

Resignation Letter

*For purposes of clarification and brevity, the name, "Watchtower Society" has been shortened to "Society" throughout this outline.

Trinity

The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society:
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. They believe God is almighty, Jesus is a mighty God, and the Holy Spirit is God's active force.

What the Bible Says about THE TRINITY The Doctrine of the Trinity is implied in the Old Testament (Genesis 1:26, ect.) and revealed in the New Testament (Matthew 3:16, 17, ect.). The Trinity of God (sometimes and more properly designated "Triunity" of God) means his tri-personality exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in three distinct persons in one God. Each is distinct in their personal characteristics, being clearly distinguished from the other, but equal in power, glory and being [ie, nature].

1. There Is Only One God:

The Lord our God is one Lord Deu 6:4
There is no other god with Me, ie, as far as there being a god, I am the only one in the heaven Deu 32:39
No God was formed before me or after me Isa 43:10
There is no other God Isa 44:6

2. Yet Each Is Called GOD:
Father Eph 4:6; Jhn 6:27
Son Hbr 1:8; Tts 2:13; Jhn 1:1; 20:28, 29; 1Jo 5:20
Holy Spirit Act 5:3, 4

3. Yet Each Is Described As CREATOR:
Father Isa 44:24
Son Jhn 1:1-3
Holy Spirit Job 33:4; 26:13

4. Yet Each Is Described As ETERNAL:
Father Psa 93:2
Son Mic 5:2; Hbr 1:8
Holy Spirit Hbr 9:14

5. Yet Each Is Described As INSPIRED:
Father 2Ti 3:16
Son 1Pe 1:10-11
Holy Spirit 2Pe 1:21

6. Yet Each Is Described As OMNIPRESENT:
Father Jer 23:24
Son Mat 28:20
Holy Spirit Psa 139:7-10

7. Yet Each Is Described As OMISCIENT:
Father Jer 17:10
Son Jhn 2:24
Holy Spirit 1Cr 2:10-12

8. Yet Each Is Described As OMNIPOTENT:
Father Mat 19:26
Son Hbr 1:3
Holy Spirit Rom 15:19

9. Yet Each Is Described As HOLY:
Father Hab 1:12
Son Act 3:14
Holy Spirit Jhn 14:26

10. Yet Each Is Described As RESURRECTED:
Father 1Th 1:10
Son Jhn 2:19-21
Holy Spirit Rom 8:11

11. Yet Each Is Described As TRUTH:
Father 1Th 1:9
Son Jhn 14:6
Holy Spirit Jhn 14:17

12. Yet Each Is Described As SANCTIFYING the Believer:
Father Jhn 10:29
Son Hbr 2:11
Holy Spirit 1Cr 6:11

13. Yet Each Is Described As PRESERVING the Believer to Salvation:
Father Jhn 10:29
Son Jhn 10:28
Holy Spirit Eph 4:30

14. Yet Each Is Described As Being An INDWELLING PRESENCE:
Father Eph 4:6; 2Cr 6:16; Jhn 14:23
Son Col 1:27; Jhn 14:20, 23
Holy Spirit 1Cr 6:19; Jhn 14:17

15. Yet Each Is Described As LEADING Believers:
Father Deu 32:12
Son 1Cr 10:1-4
Holy Spirit Isa 63:11-14

16. Yet Each DRAWS People To Themselves:
Father Jhn 6:44
Son 1Cr 12:3
Holy Spirit Jhn 12:32

17. The Bible Presents Jesus As "Jehovah" [Yahweh] Of The Old Testament:

A. In Reference To A Prepared Way
Yahweh Clear up the pathway of Yahweh Isa 40:3
Jesus Prepare ye the way of the Lord Mat 3:3

B. In Reference To Their Worship
Yahweh Every knee will bow (to Yahweh) Isa 45:23
Jesus At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow Phl 2:10

C. In Reference To Their Title
Yahweh I AM (ehyeh in Hebrew) is Yahweh Exd 3:14
Jesus I AM (ego-eimi in Greek) is Jesus Jhn 18:5, 8; 8:58

18. Who Is Coming? -- Who is "The First And The Last"?:
Jehovah is First and Last Isa 44:6
Jesus is coming and is Alpha and Omega Rev 22:12-16
Jehovah is coming and is Alpha and Omega (New World Translation) Rev 1:8

NOTE: It should be pointed out the Society is guilty of a serious act of reductionism in the way they represent the Trinity of God. Their logic goes something like this: they teach that the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit should somehow be understood by man. Since the Trinity cannot be understood by man, then it cannot explain the relationship within the Godhead. Of course this is the point exactly: God's nature is past finding out; His ways are unsearchable; etc. The nature of God is beyond the full comprehension of man and that is why He is God! (See Romans 11:33-36)

My husbands mom was a JW....1 of the only 2 in town.

he said when people saw them together, no one would come to the door...

"oh jeez, it's clara and pearl...let's go to the back of the house for 5 minutes"

Is the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian?

The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.
Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:

* Taking verses out of their immediate context.
* Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
* Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
* Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
* Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
* Changing the meanings of words.
* Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
* Adding to the Word of God.

Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. For confirmation of this, please read Does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking?
The Witnesses are told they will be persecuted when they go door to door teaching their doctrines. They are further told that this is simply the enemy fighting against God's organization because they are in "the truth." So, when someone disagrees with them, they are conditioned to reflect on what the Watchtower has told them. They then feel confirmed in being in God's true organization on earth (like all cults claim). They are strongly encouraged to have friends and acquaintances that are only JW's, thereby keeping outside examination to a minimum. They are told to shun those who leave their group, that way, there is no way to see why someone has left and no way to find out that they are in error from those who have found the truth in Christ. They are conditioned to shy away from any real biblically knowledgeable person. An example of this is frequently found on the Internet. I was once banned from a Jehovah's Witness chat room after I not only answered their objections to the Trinity and deity of Christ, but challenged them in return. Subsequently, my name was passed around to all other Jehovah's Witness rooms where I was banned from them as well. This is a frequent occurrence on the Internet where the Jehovah's Witnesses are alive and well. It is obvious that critical examination of their doctrines is not encouraged by the Watchtower Organization.
The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from looking into Jehovah's Witness history or old Watchtower literature which is replete with contradictions, altered doctrines, and false prophecies. Instead, they are indoctrinated repeatedly against basic Christian doctrines (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc) and into the notion that they alone are the true servants of God and that all others are either in "Christendom" or simply unbelievers.
Primarily, the Jehovah's Witness organization is a mind control organization that uses its people to pass out literature and send in "donations" to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587.


The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, sell a multitudinous amount of literature, and expand its grip into the lives of its members and their families.
It is a non-Christian cult.

Clara still bought x-mas trees cause the kids liked them.

When she saw her son (my husband) smoking a cig....she'd tell him "Smoking is as sinful as adultery"

he say "Mom, it ain't even close"

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god." The New World Translation

This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.
The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.
The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.

* Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."
* Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."

We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.
Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?
But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God."

* "Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).
* "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).

Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).
John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

1. "In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
* A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
2. "and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
* This same Word was with God.
3. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
* This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.
In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).

I asked my husband if his father had a religion...

he said "oh yeah...he belonged to the Lodge"

Is that somehow worse than a Christian cult....or for that matter, any religious group? The same basic principles apply to them all....ever heard of a Catholic hoping their kids would marry a Muslim or a Jew?

The Masonic Lodge is indeed a religion Chai Tea...as I found out when they tried to recruit me until they realised I was an atheist. You worship the Great Architect apparently.

I myself am a member of the Church of Existential Machinism. We worship the Master Cog.

Wasn't masonic....elks or beavers or sumpin'

he went there to get away from clara and have a snort.

Remember "Master Cylinder" on Felix the cat?

ah right !

Yeah, I wondered about that which is why I got specific. Actually, I could use a lodge like that myself !!

well, he like clara well enough I suppose...they did have 11 kids.

...which may indeed justify his need for a few quiet moments to himself