Wednesday, April 4, 2012

A Response to a Jehovah Witness

I recently received a letter from Mr. Jones on behalf of the Jehovah Witnesses. This is my response to him.

Dear Mr. Mark P. Jones,
I recently received your letter and invitation in the mail. First I would like to thank you for taking the time to send me you letter and invitation. I hope you do not mind a response to some of the questions you posed to me on the invitation. To start, you asked me “would you like to know the truth?” This assumes that I do not know the truth and that you can enlighten me as to what the truth is. I know that your organization does not believe in the deity of Christ or the Holy Trinity, this is reflected in the question posed on your invitation to me that asks, “How do you view Jesus? As a newborn baby? A dying man? Or an exalted king?” These assume that Christ is only a man and not both fully man and fully God. This is an error to think of Christ as only a man. 

What man can die for man’s sin? Can sin pay the price for sin? This is essentially what you believe, no man is free from sin, no man can be made spotless and then become a sacrifice for all sin. Man is made spotless through Christ, who is God and took flesh, thereby uniting the flesh and divine. This is why St Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and man. Only Christ, full God and fully man, can unite God the Father and mankind through His perfect sacrifice. If Christ is man, then the sacrifice is blemished. You may assert that God made Christ perfect in some way, but then why did Christ have to die? If God can perfect us all without any sacrifice, then why not do that?

I fear that this error will keep you and all of Jehovah Witnesses apart from God. Even in the earliest of the Church, the disciples of the Apostles are witnesses to the deity of Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostles, states in his letter to the Smyrneans that: “ I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you; for I have perceived that ye are established in faith immovable, being as it were nailed on the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and firmly grounded in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, 1:2  truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we that is, of His most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all the ages through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His Church.” St. Ignatius is pretty clear, Christ is God. He then reinforces this in his epistle to the Ephesians when he says: “ For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.” And again in his epistle to the Romans, St. Ignatius once again states: “To the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is.” St. Ignatius was taught by the Apostles, wouldn’t his teachings reflect that of the Apostles? It seems logical, since St. Peter the Apostle ordained him as bishop of Antioch and in every one of his letters Ignatius reiterates this very same belief. To demean the judgment of the Apostles would be to demean the judgment of Christ Himself. Clement of Rome, a disciple of St. Peter the Apostle, writes, in his first letter to the Corinthians that: “Have we not one God and one Christ? Is not the Spirit of grace, which was poured out upon us, one? For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live.” 

St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, writes: “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” And in his dialogue with Trypho St. Justin states: “Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.” Why is St. Justin, St. Clement, and St. Ignatius, all of whom are well known, writing against what you believe? The epistles of Clement were actually considered part of biblical canon in the earliest of the Church and St. Clement is even mentioned by name in Phillipians 4:3 by St. Paul. 

Tatian the Syrian, in his address to the Greeks, writes: “We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man.” This is just another example, amongst many, that early Christians believed in the deity of Christ and not the teachings of Jehovah Witnesses. In fact, if I were to continue quoting them, this letter may look more like a book. I challenge you to find me an ante-nicean Christian writer who’s beliefs could be considered identical to the Jehovah Witnesses. This poses a problem for you because many of your beliefs are rather recent. For instance the rapture is derived dispensationalism, a 19th century invention of John Nelson Darby. I fear that you have only read what the watchtower tract society has published and not anything outside of it. This would be doing yourself a great disservice since this organizations roots go back to Charles Taze Russell, not the apostles.

Since the beginning of your church starts with Russell, how is it that you justify Mt. 16:18 where Christ states: “Upon this rock I will found My church, that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This means that the Church Christ founded should still be here today, and as a matter of scripture and historical fact, it should be able to prove its roots in Christ through the apostles. Not by erroneously interpreting scripture, but demonstrating your beliefs were prevalent throughout the early Christian writers. In fact, to say that early Christians did not believe in the deity of Christ or the Trinity is pure fiction. Early Christian writers, including the disciples of the Apostles, speak of the triune God. The word Trinty or “Trinitas” in latin was coined by Tertullian in the early second century. Prior to that, the Greek word “Triad” was used. Scripture does not use a word to define this but instead gives the definition of the Trinity. Christ says in Mt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The usage of the word name and not names is plainly obvious. Christ is referring to the Trinity while not actually using a specific name for the Trinity. This is eerily similar to the passage in Genesis 1:26, which has not been omitted from your new world translation, that states “Let Us make man in Our image.” Here again God is not referred to in the singular but plural, why is that? If God is not triune, then this passage, along with Mt. 28:19, are incorrect. 

So, according to what you believe, after Christ died, the Apostles wrote some books and then no Jehovah Witness either existed or wrote anything until Charles Taze Russell? I ask this because the fact of the matter is, there is no writing from anyone that could be considered Jehovah Witness prior to Charles Taze Russell. What I mean by that is that not one single person who holds to the same beliefs and practices as the Jehovah Witnesses today, existed in the early church or anytime prior to Charles Taze Russell’s foundation of zion’s watchtower tract society in 1881. This was founded after predictions of the rapture, by Russell and Nelson Barbour, did not come to fruition and the majority of his followers left him. This was not his only failed prediction.

How exactly do you justify this gap of 1,800 years in which not one Jehovah Witness existed? If there were Jehovah Witnesses that lived during this “gap” period, why is there no evidence to their existence. There are no ancient “kingdom halls” there exist no writings that attest to their beliefs, there is literally nothing to prove their existence prior to Russell. Why is it that we do find writings from the disciples of the Apostles and they are clearly not Jehovah Witnesses? Why do they speak of Christ as God and the triune God? Why do the early Christians practice liturgical worship and not the equivalent to townhall meetings? 

You asked me, “Do you want to know the truth?” I think it is evident, either your understanding of truth is perverted or you have been mislead by erroneous teachings and are fervently defending what you perceive to be truth. Either way, you are incorrect in your beliefs, I hope that my response is but a stepping stone for you, and possibly for others to rid yourself of this disease and come home to the true Apostolic Orthodox Church, founded by Christ our Lord God and Savior! 


  1. Since Russell preached against the use of any such sectarian and authoritarian organizatio as the Jehovah's Witnesses have, and since he preached against the kind of "Armageddon" message that the JWs preach, I believe is misleading to think of that the JW organization of was started by Charles Taze Russell. As late as 1915, he was still publishing his view that no "outward organization" is the true church, that the all of any denomination who truly belong to Christ is the true church.

  2. Russell founded the watchtower tract society which grew out of a bible study group that derived much of its theology from the book of Revelation. Russell made several "prophetic" predictions that never came true and was very armageddon oriented.

  3. Greetings

    Firstly, I am not a Jehovah's Witness.
    However, in answer to your question:
    What man can die for man’s sin?

    Please view:

    How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin?

    God CAN (and DID) choose a man to save us!

    When Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the mediator in 1 Tim 2.5;
    he clearly differentiates between ONE GOD and
    the man Christ Jesus; that is:
    ONE GOD and One man!
    Paul never speaks of full God and fully man; or any such talk.
    Rather to the early church:
    (1 Cor 8:4) ... that there is none other God but one.
    (1 Cor 8:6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, ...

    On the subject of the Trinity,
    I recommend this video:
    The Human Jesus

    Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you to reconsider "The Trinity"

    Yours In Messiah
    Adam Pastor

    1. Adam, the problem is here that you are trying to explain scripture to me using your own interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, why is it more correct than the other 40,000 denominations? Why is your view not reflected in the disciples of the apostles? Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostles, spoke of Christ as being God, he spoke of the Trinity, as did Clement of Rome, who is mentioned in Phil. 4:3.

      You are telling me your interpretation, albeit flawed interpretation, of scripture. It is not reflected in the writings of the early Christians anywhere, can you find for me ONE disciple of the apostles who DID say that Christ is not God or that the Trinity does NOT exist? No. Therefore you have perverted the scripture to fit what you want it to say.

      Man cannot die for mans sin. As the letter clearly indicates, and demonstrates with the full backing of the early Christians, that the perfect sacrafice is God in the flesh, who condescended by taking flesh and redeeming it where Adam failed. Without this there is no salvation because man is sinful and sin cannot erase sin. Flaw cannot fix flaw, therefore divinity is needed. If it can be done without God taking flesh, then there is no need for a sacrafice at all.

      I suggest that you trace the origins of your beliefs. I suggest you search the early Christian writings because you are comitting a grave error.

    2. "Man cannot die for mans sin."that the perfect sacrafice is God in the flesh"

      Well, seems like you missed Romans when you read the Bible or that you didn't even read the Bible. Looks like God and Scripture have no authority in your eyes but what sinners say does.

      Scripture very clearly says that a man died for sinners, who are man, to make them righteous. A man, the Son of God, died and not God.

      Romans 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

      Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
      Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
      Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

      Keep on listening to what man, sinners, tell you and see where it gets you...

  4. There is no way to justify the Jehovah Witness concept of the Trinity. Forget the philosophy of the matter for a moment here, and take a look of at the historical accounts as to what early Christians believe about Jesus, and His relation to the Godhead. To say that it is anything similar to the Jehovah's witness perspective on the matter is to use reasoning only known to the lowest strata of thinking creatures.

    That video is worse than garbage, and can be easily refuted at the first sight of historical truth. For example, the use of the Word "Kirios" which Paul uses in his epistles. IT is worth noting that Irenaeus of Lyons, writing a maximum of the year 195, reflects the early Christian beliefs that Jesus was God. Papias in his works shows that it was believed by the early Christians (who based their beliefs on the eyewitness accounts of Jesus)had worship Jesus as God. Titus Flavius Josephus speaks in context of Christian mentality saying that Jesus was God. Of course, he does not believe that, but in saying this, he embodies the view commonly held in the early days of Christianity.

    The Jehovah witness faith is a fabrication of the devil which will be destroyed, and all its followers will be dispersed. May God bring swift destruction upon the heads of those who would pervert his message. Arise O Lord, let your enemies be scattered, and let all them that hate your Holy name, flee from before your face. Arise O Lord, why do you sleep?! MARANATHA!

  5. And Adam,

    Your lack of understanding of the unity of the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ, as well as your lack of understanding of how no normal man could save us except for the God who made us, is exemplary of the type of lack of knowledge which needs to be cleaned up.

    I recommend: Athanasius on the Incarnation.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Scripture says the children of God are divine, does that make them God? No, it doesn't make them God; therefore, Jesus being divine doesn't mean that Jesus is God.

      Makes me wonder if you even read the Bible...

      Read the Bible and not what sinners wrote.

    3. Margarita, the fact is, the early Christians did not adhere to JW theology, as demonstrated in the original post. JW started with Charles Taze Russell, in fact, I challenge you to find me ONE person in the early church that adhered to the same theology of the JW. I challenge you to show me where ONE kingdom hall has been found dating back to the early church, or close to it. The fact remains, the Orthodox theology and interpretation of scripture has been consistent for the last 2,000 years. YOUR founder came alone 1,800 years after Christ preaching a different message. If I am wrong, prove it, dont give me your opinion.

    4. First of all, my post was in response to what Raymond wrote and not in response to the ORIGINAL POST. Second of all, Raymond's post shows that he puts what sinners wrote above Scripture which means he is not a man of God. Third of all, Raymond says that Adam lacks knowledge but Adam doesn't lack knowledge just because he didn't get it from what a sinner wrote. Fourth of all, in my response to Raymond I wanted to show him that Adam doesn't lack knowledge but obtained his knowledge from Scripture. Fifth of all, from what Raymond wrote it sounds like he believes that the only knowledge that is true and correct is that what the sinner wrote and that its above Scripture. Sixth of all, the knowledge that is obtained from Scripture is true and correct so there is no need to try and obtain knowledge from what a sinner wrote. Seventh of all, Raymond is the one who lacks true and correct knowledge yet he dares to say that the true and correct knowledge that Adam obtained from Scripture is a lack of knowledge. Eighth of all, I NEVER said that the early Christians adhered to JW theology so you are wrong to assume that I don't know that "the early Christians did not adhere to JW theology"; in fact, it is flat out rude to imply that I am unstudied. Nineth of all, take your challenges and direct them at those who think that the early Christians adhered to JW theology. Tenth of all, just because "the Orthodox theology and interpretation of scripture has been consistent for the last 2,000 years" that doesn't mean that it goes hand in hand with Scrupture! Eleventh of all, I am NOT a JW; where did you get that from??? If a person holds to Scripture and rejects anything and everything that doesn't go hand in hand with Scripture then there is no way that the person is a JW! Your logic is rotten. Twelfth of all, I feel stepped on by you, with your demeaning and assuming statements. Where is the love that Scripture teaches about? After that, can you call yourself a true follower of Christ? Thirteenth of all, instead of attacking me with GARBAGE, try to disprove my post that was in response to what you said to Adam. There is no way that you can disprove what I said because it clearly goes hand in hand with what Scripture says and I provided Scripture as proof so that you can see for yourself.

  6. "Read the Bible and not what sinners wrote." - This is assuming that the doctrine of sola scriptura is true. In fact you will not find it anywhere prior to the 16th century. Do we view scripture as authority? Of course! But, it is not the SOLE authority and was never viewed as such. Once again, the disciples of the apostles did NOT teach this, you are proven wrong once again.

    1. No, you are wrong to say "[t]his is assuming that the doctrine of sola criptura is true." It has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Why in the world would you read a sinner's opinion on the divine and human nature of Jesus and a sinner's opinion that only God can save?? Scripture is very clear on Jesus's natures and that a man can die for the sin's of man. You said,"the disciples of the apostles did NOT teach this"; why would I want the disciples of the apostales to teach me when I have Scripture to learn from?! You said, "you are proven wrong once again"; you didn't prove me wrong, not even once, because I DIDN'T say that the doctrine of sola sciptura is true nor did I even bring it up. What I said is that Scripture is what needs to be read; it needs to be read because it is perfect and won't lead to error. If what a sinner wrote contradicts with Scripture then don't accept his error as truth, plain and simple; though I believe that people shouldn't read what sinners wrote because people have Scripture. Also, if anything in tradition condtradicts with Scripture then don't accept the error as truth, plain and simple.

  7. Margarita, you are adhering to a belief that is maybe 200 years old. So you say, this has nothing to with sola scripture, then you discount the apostles disciples, and what they taught, for scripture alone. Sounds like sola scriptura to me. You go on about scripture, let me ask you, since you know what scripture says, who has the right interpretation? The people that have been here for 2,000 years and who canonized it? OR the people founded by Charles Taze? Yes, there are NO ancient kingdom halls in the holy land, or anywhere for that fact. Yet there are still ancient churches.

    Also, can you find IN scripture where it says scripture alone? In John 5:39 Christ accuses the pharisees of doing what you are teaching "you search the scripture because in them you think you have eternal life." You see, this doctrine was founded, not in the apostolic age, but in the 16th century by Martin Luther. THAT is a fact.

    So, do you think the church went awry as Luther did? Mt 16:18 clearly states this is false. Christ tells us that His church will NOT be overcome. Yet you HAVE to believe that for your church to have any validity, yet if you DO believe that, your church has no validity. So, who is in error again?

  8. Margarita,
    You'd do well to read about Athanasius and his relationship to the Bible, and his struggles against heretics. It was he that identified which books to be included in the NT!

  9. Good point Jason. The major difficulty in protestantism is that the majority of the adherents have little to no idea what happened in the early church. They have no idea that the disciples of the apostles believed and taught the deity of Christ, the Trinity, Sacraments, etc.

    Which is rather surprising to me that someone like Margarita even speaks on a subject she clearly knows little about, because she obviously has done little to no study on the subject. Hopefully she decides to address my last post point by point, including sources.