ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

JW Misquotes

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses misquote their own sources?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Cults Bible Quiz
 ---Warwick on 4/6/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



"Marc, hopes that we haven't noticed what he quoted from the same...lengthy articles." Scott/Marc

Yes. Marc casts his usual vitriol claiming selective citation. And yet his response was to selectively cite, what he believes, is an opposing view. Is that irony or hypocrisy? I'll leave that for others to decide.

'Dishonest...evasive...without exception."- Marc

Once again, this is my comment in full that Marc rails against. Decide for yourselves if he has described it accurately.

"While the stand that Witnesses take on blood is a religious one, (Acts 15:20, 29, etc.), many others seem to be unaware of the genuine health risks associated with transfused blood."

That's it.
---scott on 4/15/13


Warwick, Professor Morenz is clear in his conclusion the trinity you worship and are indoctrinated into has "direct links" with ancient pagan Egyptian trinities. Your brand of cult worship is un-Biblical.

Regardless of Fortman's personal religious belief's concluded the trinity is not an OT teaching. Its a simple point of fact he admits. JW's accurately and correctly quote Fortman's views.

Thankfully, the deception has been all yours. Trinities and triads have been and remain the hallmark of many false religions and cults not just of Egypt but also Babylon. Christendoms trinity is no exception.
---David8318 on 4/12/13


'Perhaps does not mean No'- Ruben.

It doesn't mean yes either.

Plurality does not mean multiple gods either. It can simply be emplyed in language to denote greatness or majesty.

Of course, we all know what you mean by 'plurality'. You have already expressed a polytheist bent stating previously 'Jehova and Jesus'- "they" are the same in nature as Almighty God! You like Warwick have a multi-Almighty God philosophy.

Maybe or perhaps you should try understanding what Fortman was expressing- 'trinity' is not an OT teaching. In fact 'trinity' is not a Bible word- it is a man-made word to describe a man-made dogma. Its a fact you need to come to terms with.
---David8318 on 4/12/13


francis, your answers are wrong. If you ever did allow your children to die when you could have done something, you are not worthy for the kingdom of God. You say to me,

"Witnesses have something that you lack: Intergrity"

I suppose you have integrity because you would let your children die. Some integrity you have. I don't want integrity if it takes me to hell. I rather not have it. Good people do not go to heaven, those who are born of the Spirit enter heaven. All witnesses and your goods deeds without Christ add's more sins to their list. None would ever give a cup of water to a person in the name of the biblical Jesus Christ, they have the wrong jesus the brother of satan.
---Mark_V. on 4/12/13


I still prefer the part trinitarians obviously find awkward- 'Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was concievable'.

It is a Big "Perhaps". Fortman concludes the trinity is not part of OT writings, which is what JW's accurately quote.
---David8318 on 4/11/13

David,

Perhaps does not mean No, as David which it did. Perhaps(No pun intended) he should had said in no way. But notice what he did say 'However' -nevertheless, yet, on the other hand, These writers ( OT) 'do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity!!!!

And it is a bigger 'However':)
---Ruben on 4/12/13




trinitarian Ruben would like to start selective quoting Fortmans comments.

Which ever way you try to cut it Ruben, Fortman concludes the trinity is not part of OT writings, which is what JW's accurately quote.
---David8318 on 4/11/13

Really:


"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [ Trinity ] within the Godhead." -(The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)

This is what he really said :

There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead.
---Ruben on 4/12/13


"Blood and meat"- Mark_V

What Mark_V fails to appreciate is that the prohibition against the use of blood did not include a prohibition against the use of meat, properly bled, for food.

See Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29.

So if Jehovah's Witnesses and others are hypocrites because they eat meat (if they desire) that is properly bled, than so were God's chosen people.

Certainly God, in his wisdom, would have prohibited meat from the Jewish diet if he was concerned about, whatever trace amount would be left in meat that under his law was appropriately bled.

Were the Jews hypocrites in this regard?
---scott on 4/12/13


ites. Witnesses are not vegetarians yet they permit their love ones to die refusing blood. ---Mark_V. on 4/12/13

Witnesses have something that you lack: Intergrity

Where have you ever read in the bible that God has made it ok to eat what he called unclean?

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation, but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
---francis on 4/12/13


francis, you say to me:
Mark_V. on 4/11/13
To save your life you would violate God's laws and eat blood?"

You are blind francis and very dumb to ask me if I would eat blood. You eat blood every time you eat a steak. Have you been able to remove the blood from a steak? I don't think so. As the meat is cooking so is the blood. You can eat the steak rare or well done, it is still blood. You and the Jehovah Witnesses are hypocrites. Witnesses are not vegetarians yet they permit their love ones to die refusing blood. You would rather let you children die, while you eat your steaks. A great father God gave your children. What God has cleanse you still refuse to it, which tells me you are still under the law.
---Mark_V. on 4/12/13


David that you are essentially devious is more and more obvious. It seems that deviousness 101 is well taught by the watchtower. Fortman is a Trinitarian but the WTS would have us believe he argues against the Trinity. What next will you have Joe Stalin arguing for love, peace and democracy? I truly believe the WTS could pull it off.

In the real world Ruben's comments ably demonstrate the WTS has distorted what Fortman wrote by dishonest selective quoting. Rather than trying to wriggle your way out of your error you should hang your head in shame.
---Warwick on 4/11/13




Warwick, I will have to re ask the questions in a new thread, this one is running out!
---1st_cliff on 4/11/13


'maybe I should had just wrote'- Ruben.

So Ruben can partially quote Fortman and its OK!?

Recognising his blunder and complete hash of his post 4/9/13, trinitarian Ruben would like to start selective quoting Fortmans comments.

I still prefer the part trinitarians obviously find awkward- 'Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was concievable'.

It is a Big "Perhaps".

Which ever way you try to cut it Ruben, Fortman concludes the trinity is not part of OT writings, which is what JW's accurately quote.
---David8318 on 4/11/13


"Grrrrrr"- Marc

Come on, admit it. You're sitting alone in a room turning the light switch off and on...off and on...off and on.

Checking my stove-top for rabbit stew now =)
---scott on 4/11/13


Scott wrote :"Poor Marc, hopes that we haven't noticed what he quoted from the same comprehensive and lengthy articles."

It seems that dishonesty and evasiveness is second nature to you. Even when clearly wrong you'll avoid admitting this because that would look bad for God's ONLY earthly mouthpiece.

BTW, yesterday, while picking up my son from school, I met a Chinese immigrant who had been a JW for only a month. He was so upset when I told him about your blood policy he came with me to a nearby church and received a real Bible. It's so wonderful to know the truth, isn't it Scott!
---Marc on 4/11/13


Scott it is quite sad that you are forbidden to allow a dying loved one a blood transfusion even when doctors say your loved one will die without it.This prohibition is based upon the false premise that injecting blood into a vein is eating blood (e.g.Deuteronomy 12:23).After the flood Noah was told he could eat flesh but not with the blood still in it-Genesis 9:4. As you follow Deuteronomy 12:23 and obviously therefore Genesis 9:4 does the meat JW's eat have every trace of blood removed? Or is near enough good enough?
---Warwick on 4/11/13


"Are you going to, once again, ignore me?" Marc

Is it just me or does this remind anyone else of Glenn Close's famous line from Fatal Attraction: "I will not be ignored?"
---scott on 4/11/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


David8318 * Rubens additional quote from Fortman (4/9/13) reveals his view of the trinity in he NT- and it is a "Perhaps". Either Ruben doesn't know the difference been the OT & NT, or he is completely stupid.

Ok so I am stupid maybe I should had just wrote :

" However , these writers( Speaking about the OT writers) definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament.The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
---Ruben on 4/11/13


"You ONLY quote the bad side effects of transfusion." Marc

Poor Marc, hopes that we haven't noticed what he quoted from the same comprehensive and lengthy articles.

"Physician (or perhaps Hematologist) heal thyself."
---scott on 4/11/13


Mark_V. on 4/11/13
To save your life you would violate God's laws and eat blood?

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Acts 15:29 abstain from blood,

Daniel 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

Daniel 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods,

Daniel 1:8 Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank:
---francis on 4/11/13


francis, you say,
"I do not eat swine
I would starve to death, and watch my children starve to death if swine was all that was available to eat. It is called taking a stance for what you believe"
Your beliefs, kill your own children. You would watch your children starve to death for what God has already cleansed? Lets hope that day never comes. God said,
".... "What God has cleanse you must not call common." (Acts 10:15) which means you oppose God.

Then say:
"So let me ask you, if blood was all that was available to eat would you eat or die?" I love steaks and all steaks have blood, I would sure eat it. Unless you are a vegetarian, you are a also a hypocrite.
---Mark_V. on 4/11/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Cliff you mentioned this before and I searched for your question without success. I commented about this and you wrote "I'm not suggesting that you evaded my question" but now you seem to be saying I have! Which one is it? Please repeat it and I will do my best to answer.
---Warwick on 4/11/13


Scott,

You [mis]quoted from academic journals to back up your erroneous Bible belief over the taking of blood. Why else would you ONLY quote the bad side effects of transfusion?

Can you be honest enough to now admit that blood transfusion does have some beneficial use as stated in the same journal you took quotes from or are you going to, once again, ignore me?
---Marc on 4/11/13


David8318://Trinitarians believe Jesus was resurrected in the flesh- "physically"- and remains in the flesh to this day. Is Jesus still in the 'flesh' or is he a 'spirit'?// Are you trying to say that the Holy Bible is wrong. As predicted in Psalms, the Lord Jesus' body did not see corruption(decay). HE resurrected & appeared with the human flesh to the disciples & ate with them. HE ascended into heaven with His body, if it was transformed in the sky I cannot say. In Matt.17 the same body was transformed to heavenly body & back to human body. When you are beaten in 1 argument you run and pick another, why?
---Adetunji on 4/11/13


David8318:#2 The Lord Jesus Christ is the God of miracles. In John 20: 19+, you will find that HE entered the room with shut doors & presented Himself in human body to the disciples. No human decides for God on what HE has planned to do & had done. Asking Christians to explain how His body functions is totally absurd. Angels appear to people as humans & disappears at will, now you query how the Lord over angels' body functions.
---Adetunji on 4/11/13


Send a Free Inspirational Ecard


Trinitarians believe Jesus was resurrected in the flesh- "physically"- and remains in the flesh to this day. Is Jesus still in the 'flesh' or is he a 'spirit'?

---David8318 on 4/10/13

1 Timothy 2:5"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30

You tell us???
---Ruben on 4/10/13


Warwick, **David,you answer my question and I will happily answer yours**
When will you happily answer mine???
---1st_cliff on 4/10/13


Genesis 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.

BIRTH PLACE OF PAGANISM:
---francis on 4/10/13


Shira, you have misunderstood me. I am well aware the only reason Jesus came to die physically and rise again as a historical fact is that Adam truly, in history, disobeyed God bringing sin and consequent death into the world. And that Christianity owes nothing to any pagan notions. And being based in Genesis, the beginning of everything, Christianity is before any pagan notions.

I have given quotes from people whom the Watchtower uses in its antiTrinitarian fervour. Those they quote say the Trinity is of pagan origin, which is nonsense. What the Watchtower gurus don't reveal is that those they quote are antichristian who believe the essence of Christianity is pagan, so they obviously don't believe the Biblical Trinity is a reality.
---Warwick on 4/10/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


David, you compound your deception. Fortman "As a Catholic and a firm believer in the Triune God" and you use him against the Trinity!

Fortman continues "Convinced that this doctrine (Trinity)is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation."

Fortman considers OT and NT writings "sacred writings." But the WT quotes Fortman's comments regarding the OT as though he refers to the NT as well!

The WT also leaves out Fortman's comments "But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated", i.e Scripture contains the elements from which the Trinity doctrine may be formulated.
---Warwick on 4/10/13


David regarding Fortman the WTS has also quoted him as saying "The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power.

But in the next sentence Fortman continues "But in a few passages the sacred writers leave a vivid impression that for them He was someone distinct from both Father and Son with a distinct personal existence."

Again deception by selective quoting. To avoid telling the truth is as much a lie as telling an untruth!
---Warwick on 4/10/13


warwick, Christianity started back in genesis. Egypt is a type of sin. no one wants to go to Egypt. the wilderness. I hope you don't truly believe Christianity started in Egypt.
---shira4368 on 4/10/13


David, you answer my question and I will happily answer yours.

Morenz says the events covered in the Scriptures I gave (e.g Luke 16-poor man rich man, Romans 12:20, 2 Timothy 2:20, and 4:8, and James 1:12) are of pagan origin. Surely that is not too hard to understand?

Re Christs pre-existence see (Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz, p254-257) For example see "The Trinity is not the only subject- matter at issue here. Also Christology, which is closely linked to it - the doctrine concerning the nature of Christ and especially his pre-existence before the creation and time - revolves around questions which had been posed earlier by Egyptian theologians and which they solved in a strikingly similar way."
---Warwick on 4/10/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


As Ruben and Warwick are bereft of any analytical aptitude, I will not address them directly as it will be a waste of time.

JW's quote Fortman in 'Should You Believe The Trinity' booklet under the section 'testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures' p.6, to show the trinity was not taught n the OT. Fortman was quoted accurately when he wrote, 'The Old Testament ... tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God.'

Rubens additional quote from Fortman (4/9/13) reveals his view of the trinity in he NT- and it is a "Perhaps". Either Ruben doesn't know the difference been the OT & NT, or he is completely stupid.

Whatever the case, Ruben and Warwick appear to treat idiocy as though it were a virtue!
---David8318 on 4/10/13


"Christianity did not destroy paganism, it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." ("Will Durant", quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower booklet)

Durant did write this but believes the following are also of Egyptian pagan origin "the Last Judgment, and ...reward and punishment" (The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Part III, 1944, p. 595) Durant also says the resurrection idea was borrowed from Syria along with "the dying and saving god."

Durant trashes the whole of Christianity not just the Trinity. Why do the JW's who claim to be Christian selectively quote from so many antiChristian people? Have a guess!
---Warwick on 4/10/13


'who is Creator, God or Jesus?'- Warwick.

Perhaps you could try answering my question I've been asking trinitarians.

Trinitarians believe Jesus was resurrected in the flesh- "physically"- and remains in the flesh to this day. Is Jesus still in the 'flesh' or is he a 'spirit'?

Can you give me the page reference where Morenz 'trashes' JW belief in Jesus' pre-human existence. I can't find it.

What specifically do you mean 'Luke 16-poor man rich man... are of pagan origin'. Are you saying Morenz believes Luke, the apostle Paul, Timothy and James are of pagan origin?
---David8318 on 4/10/13


Its difficult for me to understand why JWs like to hide under (1) what some ungodly learned men said in the past (2)medicine & science(that changes with time), as if the Lord Jesus Christ (that the JWs try so much to be-little) is not greater than all their references?
---Adetunji on 4/10/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Ruben, you have done it now. If you keep on with such to the point blogs you will confuse David with facts!
---Warwick on 4/9/13


--Mark_V. on 4/9/13

first of all: What have you seen me teach on blood?

Second of all, if the JW conviction is that they must not take blood, then they must live and die by that belief.

i do not eat swine
I would starve to death, and watch my children starve to death if swine was all that was available to eat. It is called taking a stance for what you believe

So let me ask you, if blood was all that was available to eat would you eat or die?
---francis on 4/9/13


The reason JW's use Fortman is precisely to show the Trinity is not an OT teaching! Warwick grossly misrepresents JW's through lies and subterfuge.
---David8318 on 4/7/13

Really:

Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
---Ruben on 4/9/13


David, anyone who has researched Siegfried Morenz knows that he believes Christianity is of pagan origin. For example he believes Luke 16-poor man rich man, Romans 12:20, 2 Timothy 2:20, and 4:8, and James 1:12 etc, are of pagan origin.

Pertinently for JW's he also trashes the JW's view of Jesus pre-existence before creation, but you support him?

You wrote "JW's properly and correctly quote Morenz on the matter of Christendoms trinity origins" of course JW's have correctly quoted Morenz, the Bible trasher, on the Trinity but avoided telling us He trashes Christianity! That is dishonest, selective quoting!
---Warwick on 4/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


David while you are around how about answering a question?

Genesis ch. 1 shows us God spoke Creation into existence-"And God said...." However Colossians 1:16 says Jesus is Creator, so there is a serious contradiction for the JW here. In JW terms who is Creator, God or Jesus? This is no problem for the Trinitarian as they are one and the same God. However JWs claim God spoke Creation into existence through Jesus. But Scott says it was Jesus speaking, ( And Jesus said) just as a prophet speaks the words of God for Him. But this leaves you with both God directly speaking Creation into existence and Jesus likewise speaking Creation into existence.

Who dunnit, who spoke the words, God or Jesus?
---Warwick on 4/9/13


francis, the point is that you are a very ignorant person who teaches that the limitations of the blood issue are ok, when you have never lost a love one because of the issue of blood the J. Witnesses teach, yet you teach the law and do not do what you preach. The point is that you are a hypocrite, that is the point.
---Mark_V. on 4/9/13


Did you not know the limitations on the blood issue did not come to the witnesses until the Watchtower brought it to their members on July 1, 1945. ---Mark_V. on 4/9/13

Righteousness by faith eluded christians for 100's of years until Luther

what is your point?
---francis on 4/9/13


'Bible trasher Morenz'- Warwick.

How does Warwick know Morenz was a 'Bible trasher'? Where is it quoted that Morenz trashed or disliked the Bible? As an Egyptologist, perhaps Morenz enjoyed the idea the trinity (he believed was Biblical) had "direct links" with his beloved Egypt.

Regardless of what Morenz liked or disliked, the fact remains that JW's properly and correctly quote Morenz on the matter of Christendoms trinity origins.

The deceit is all Warwick's. Can anyone imagine Warwick warning anyone in his cult C & MA outfit about the origin of his trinity dogma being firmly rooted in pagan Egyptian mythology!? Hardly!

Warwick would be kicked out of his trinitarian pentecostal cult.
---David8318 on 4/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


You respect and understand their position. Why? ---Mark_V. on 4/9/13

First of all any reasonable human being can respect and understand another persons position. you do not have to agree with it to understand it, and respect it

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain.. from blood.

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,

He has choosen to totally abstain from blood, I respect and understand that.

I do not agree that blood transfusion and eating blood are the same, yet the text says nothing about eating blood, just abstaining from blood
---francis on 4/9/13


Scott,

You [mis]quoted from academic journals to back up your misunderstood Bible belief over the taking of blood. Why else would you ONLY quote the bad side effects of transfusion?

Can you be honest enough to now admit that blood transfusion does have some beneficial use as stated in the same journal you took quotes from or are you going to, once again, ignore me?
---Marc on 4/9/13


'Morenz trashes the whole of Christianity'- Warwick.

No, Morenz "trashes" the trinity. As 'trinity' is not a Bible word, how can Morenz conclusions mean he is trashing the Bible? True Christianity does not contain the non-Biblical trinity, neither the hellfire doctrine both of which Morenz show stem from pagan Egypt.

But again, the fact that Morenz "trashes" the trinity and other false doctrines which Warwick has been indoctrinated into does not negate the fact that JW's correctly quote what Morenz concluded- Christendoms trinity has "direct links" with Egyptian trinities.

To say JW's hide what Morenz wrote is pathetic. Morenz writings are for all to see and read!
---David8318 on 4/9/13


Scott, the truth of the matter is that your WTS masters demand you refrain from allowing a life-saving blood transfusion, forcing people to watch a loved-one die unnecessarily.

Having experience in medical research I know there are times when a blood-transfusion is contraindicated. Also there are times when a blood-transfusion is indicated, and will save lives.

Sadly interesting is that this prohibition comes from an organization which once called organ donations "cannibalism." But now God has apparently changed His mind (the WTS speaks for God doesn't it?) and it is cannibalism no more. Donated organs have donors blood contained therein. How come the ingestion of this blood isn't prohibited?
---Warwick on 4/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


francis, for a person who speaks of the law, you sure know how to break it everyday when you answering me. You give evidence of someone who knows nothing about the law.
You said:
"I do not agree with that position, but I will never mock it, and I can understand it and respect it
You respect and understand their position. Why? because you have never had one person in your family die because of the blood issue. Did you not know the limitations on the blood issue did not come to the witnesses until the Watchtower brought it to their members on July 1, 1945. That many before had taken blood transfusions before that time. The organization was already over fifty years old before a new revelation was given to the witnesses?
---Mark_V. on 4/9/13


David you wrote "As Warwick is keen to demonstrate- JW's have not misquoted Prof.Morenz." JW's have misled by selective quoting of the Bible trasher Morenz. They have selectively quoted Morenz so as to hide the fact Morenz believes the Christian Trinity "is of course Biblical."

Of course he thinks there are links between Egyptian and other pagan religions and Christianity, not just the Trinity.

BTW the Egyptian trinity which Morenz likens to the Christian Trinity consists of a falcon-headed Bait, a frog-headed Hathor and a winged serpent by the name of Akori!
---Warwick on 4/8/13


Warwick, I'm not suggesting that you evaded my question (the thread ran out)
The blog "What are Jehovh's Witnesses" 4/1/13 "God raised him.." was part of my question!
---1st_cliff on 4/8/13


David that you are impressed with Morenz seeing links between Egyptian trinity and the Christian trinity means you agree with a Bible trasher. What do you expect such a man to say? Do you imagine he would defend Biblical theology?

Morenz also believes (for example) that Luke 16-poor man rich man is also of Egyptian origin. Also Romans 12:20, 2 Timothy 2:20, and 4:8, and James 1:12 etc.

It is deceitful for the WT to use Morenz to trash the Trinity, while at the same time not telling their readers that Morenz trashes the whole of Christianity, not just the Trinity doctrine. But then your organization is not really Christian is it?

Morenz also trashes the JW's view of Jesus pre-existence before creation, but you support him?
---Warwick on 4/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Warwick- Bible trasher or not, Morenz believes the trinity had "direct links" with Egyptian trinities which is what JW's correctly quote.

Nothing you say has negated or contradicted what Morenz stated to be his conclusions regarding Egyptian religion: 'Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology'- Siegfried Morenz, 'Egyptian Religion'.

I my view, as "trinity" is not a Bible word thus not a Biblical teaching, Morenz in fact successfully and single handedly trashes the trinity. But what he trashes is immaterial to the fact that JW's correctly quote what Morenz wrote.
---David8318 on 4/8/13


Siegfried Morenz was a renound Professor of Egyptology, thought by many to be a leading figure in ancient Egyptian religions. It's not surprising JW's would use a quote or 2 from Professor Morenz.

As Warwick is keen to demonstrate- JW's have not misquoted Prof.Morenz.

Whether Morenz believed the trinity or not, his conclusion the trinity was "Biblical" does not alter the fact that Morenz also concluded Christendoms trinity has "direct links" with Egyptian trinities.

In bringing to the fore the fact the trinity has direct links with paganism, it is to be expected cult followers of this false dogma (ie.Warwick) will lie and use subterfuge against those who speak out against this pagan trinity doctrine.
---David8318 on 4/8/13


David the point you evade is that Morenz is a Bible trasher. And that secondly he says "we must at once emphasize that the substance of the (unique-my word) Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Your witness has turned into a hostile witness!

That Morenz considers there is a link between the Egyptian and Christian trinity is only consistent with his claims that much of the NT is originally of Egyptian pagan origin. This is his theme as a man who rejects the Truth of the Bible. So why would any Christian give any value to his antiGod ramblings? But the Watchtower does, interesting, and revealing!
---Warwick on 4/8/13


Transfusions- Marc

This was my full comment:

"While the stand that Witnesses take on blood is a religious one, (Acts 15:20, 29, etc.), many others seem to be unaware of the genuine health risks associated with transfused blood." scott

That's it. Beginning to end.

To which Marc responds with his usual charm:

"Scott argues Watchtower's anti-blood principle's biblical, scientific and without exception." Marc

Really? It's fascinating to watch Marc demonstrate his fondness for the "strawman" argument- create a position that was never there to begin with, argue against it, sprinkle with a heavy dose of vitriol, and serve hot.

I still stand by my original statement.
---scott on 4/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


---Mark_V. on 4/8/13
Hey IDIOT read my post closer

To you maybe it is not the same. But to a JW it does not matter how the blood gets into your body, be it eaten, or taken by transfusion

I do not agree with that position, but I will never mock it, and I can understand it and respect it
---francis on 4/7/13
Now can you tell me what I just said.
Do i agree with the JW position or not?
---francis on 4/8/13


\...And if it was God who "draws" the man, he is deemed a "robot with no alternative"? On the contrary, I call that God's love acting out in mercy and grace on the sinner making him blessed.\-christan on 4/6/13
This is part of the first post.
Let us see if it stays there and who gets the last post in.
You will know them by their fruits.
---micha9344 on 4/8/13


Warwick: The founder of JW intentionally changed many things maybe to derail some people from the truth. He changed "do not eat blood" to "do not take blood" which in meaning can be the same but he used this to introduce refusal of blood transfusion to the sect. His members did not confront him with the fact that there was no modern day blood transfusion then, so where does he get his translation from?
---Adetunji on 4/8/13


Cliff, I am not sure which thread you are speaking of. I could not find one called "God raised him" where I failed to answer your question.
---Warwick on 4/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


'Morenz quote'- Warwick.

Morenz shows where trinity has its roots- in pagan Egypt. Which is why Warwick calls him a Bibliosceptic. The fact Morenz incorrectly concluded the trinity is "Biblical" does not alter the truth the trinity is from pagan Egypt. JW's correctly quote Morenz.

It is amusing therefore that the Morenz quote Warwick provides does not negate the quote JW's use in showing where trinitarian cults get their trinity dogma from- ie. pagan Egypt.

Afterall- the trinity does lead its adherents into Bibloisceptcism, for many reason not just because the trinity is from ancient pagan Egypt.

Warwick is too perfidious and dumb not to notice there is no contradiction in what Morenz is saying!
---David8318 on 4/8/13


1.Scott: "However, voluminous evidence is available to establish [transfusions] as "genuine health risks"".
So what? ALL medical procedures entail risk, including vaccination, organ transplant and ingrown toenail. Transfusion is no different. (Hey, didn't the Watchtower previously prohibit the first two?)

2. Scott: "I never suggested that infusing blood always results in disastrous consequences."
Scott now tacitly admits transfusion can do some good, as per the missing quotes I provided from his tendentiously cited academic articles. Question: If transfusion is a sin (Acts 15), just like murder and theft, how can something good (i.e. saving a person's life) directly arise from this "evil"?
---Marc on 4/8/13


francis, you say you would not be against it but have you had a son, sister, father, mother or daughter die because they were told not to take a blood transfusion? I bet you haven't. You can talk all you want, but unless you have had someone who was sick and needed a transfusion in order to go through surgery, then you would know the Truth of their fallacy. I have had one sister and my uncle both die because they were told by their elders not to take it. To be witnesses for the rest of the witnesses of their faith. I know if you had a two or three year old, you would do anything to save him. Otherwise you are your own sons murderer.
---Mark_V. on 4/8/13


We answer to God. If Jehovah's Witnesses misquote their own sources, I don't know each one personally. So, I can't say why each one does what he or she does. But not all do, I would say, since there are ones on their way to Jesus and they are getting wise to things.

I know that when I have been wrong, I thought I was being smart.
---willie_c: on 4/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Of course transfusions and drinking blood are totally not the same. \
---Shira4368 on 4/7/13

To you maybe it is not the same. But to a JW it does not matter how the blood gets into your body, be it eaten, or taken by transfusion

I do not agree with that position, but I will never mock it, and I can understand it and respect it
---francis on 4/7/13


Jehovah's Witnesses would refuse transfused blood based on scriptural grounds.
---scott on 4/7/13

So JW look at blood transfusion the same as eating blood?
---francis on 4/7/13


'The watchtower quoted Edmund Fortman'- Warwick.

From 'Should You Believe The Trinity' brochure (p.6, subheading 'Hebrew Scriptures'):

'The Old Testament ... tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. ... Even to see in [the 'Old Testament'] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.'- E.Fortman, 'The Triune God'.

The reason JW's use Fortman is precisely to show the Trinity is not an OT teaching! Warwick grossly misrepresents JW's through lies and subterfuge.
---David8318 on 4/7/13


France's I have had blood transfusions one time but I ain't gonna drink no ones blood. Of course transfusions and drinking blood are totally not the same. Have u ever eaten a steak? That is cooked blood .
---Shira4368 on 4/7/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Warwick, On the surface your statement sounds reasonable,but obviously the "sacred writers" were not identified .
To me old testement writers "are" the only ones we could call "sacred writers" as Jesus confirmed!
Not that I'm attempting to come to the defence of JWs,but as a doubter of "trinity" (other denominations also doubt)because of Deut.6.4!
BTW you never answered me in the other blog (You know "God raised him...")
---1st_cliff on 4/7/13


Cliff JW's quote Morenz "trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. ... three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology"

But Morenz (a Bibliosceptic) actually went on to say "In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons."

By leaving the above out the JW' give the false idea that the Trinity is Egyptian, not Biblical. This is deceit.
---Warwick on 4/7/13


"The risks of infection is not the primary reason why JW do not allow blodd transfusion..." francis

To put a sharper point on your comment, It's not the reason at all.

Even if there were no risks, the blood supply was guaranteed (in all parts of the world) free of both known and yet to be discovered disease, the immunological suppression issue had been solved, etc., etc., Jehovah's Witnesses would refuse transfused blood based on scriptural grounds.

But the inherent risks do exist, which is a contributing factor to the increase of (non-Witness) bloodless programs that are being developed in hospitals around the world, and that are utilized by people of all faiths and cultures.
---scott on 4/7/13


Now lets all be honest
whether or not you are in favour of blod transfusion, there are risk involed, so even if the JW quote the 2% risks, there are risk. I personally know people who have contracted HIV via blood transfusions

That veing said, the risks of infection is not the primary reason why JW do not allow blodd transfusion, it is because they beliove that we should not eat blood, which we should not

Question is: Is a blood transfusion the same as eating blood? Are the results of blood transusion the same as eating blood?
---francis on 4/6/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Cliff, another example of selective quoting. The watchtower quoted Edmund Fortman "There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead." This falsely leads the reader to believe Fortman was writing about both OT and NT sacred writers. This is not true, Fortman was only writing of OT writers! This selective quoting is deceit by evasion.
---Warwick on 4/7/13


"Scott argues Watchtower's anti-blood principle's biblical, scientific and without exception." Marc

Here's a good "misquote", to start with. Where have I said the above?

What I did say to Mark_V was:

"While the stand that Witnesses take on blood is a religious one, (Acts 15:20, 29, etc.), many others seem to be unaware of the genuine health risks associated with transfused blood."

I stand by this statement. I never suggested that infusing blood always results in disastrous consequences...can you say Lance Armstrong?

However, voluminous evidence is available to establish what I have simply described as "genuine health risks".

You can quote me on that.
---scott on 4/7/13


Scott argues Watchtower's anti-blood principle's biblical, scientific and without exception.

Scott: "Blood transfusion therapy is associated with many risks." Scott omits "Blood transfusion may result in immunologic changes that are beneficial in some patients but harmful in others."

Scott: "Several studies report that allogeneic blood transfusion increases the incidence of postoperative infection." Missing is: "Five reports failed to demonstrate an increased rate of postoperative infection after transfusion."

Scott, AGAIN, dishonestly reduces academic papers to a few carefully crafted quotes. Watchtower quotes from academia must be read in full context to understand the authors.
---Marc on 4/6/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.