[yqpY4iw6]

Thank you for the nice welcome!!

I was banned for a month. They said I was guilty of "inciting" members here.

Go figure??

(southern redneck expression)

Your welcome.

Akhi, not trying to be corny here, but I missed you.

You have to understand that this forum is extremely strict, so please, do try not to get banned again.

[Gypejeva]

You have to understand that this forum is extremely strict, so please, do try not to get banned again.

LOL, I wasn't trying to get banned the last time.

So yes, I will try to be on my best behavior and adab.

I hope you and your family are well? Inshallah

[allachakb]

The place where I worked had several JW's

So I spent many hours talking with them.

They are extremely indoctrinated and trained in something that can only be described as a cult.

[KatoabamyHant]

Just read this on wikipedia.

The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number Christian groups and denominations.

So non-trinitarianism was the orginigal orthodox belief of the Church? But it eventually got replaced with the idea of trinity? Can anyone explain this?

[lisualsethelp]

So non-trinitarianism was the orginigal orthodox belief of the Church? But it eventually got replaced with the idea of trinity? Can anyone explain this?

Basically, there was a theological battle between the two doctrines that went on for several centuries.

And eventually the pro Trinity scholars won the dispute.

[Xodvbooj]

So non-trinitarianism was the orginigal orthodox belief of the Church? But it eventually got replaced with the idea of trinity? Can anyone explain this?

I have some knowledge of this.

The trinity wasn't truly accepted until Constantine, a "christian" roman emperor, added it to the faith. Constantine added many pagan things to Christianity i.e. praying to dead people, worshiping Idols, etc etc. These things included the trinity. The trinity was already a pagan belief in roman paganism as well as celtic, nordic, and other European folk religions

[r7rGOhvd]

And it's great they deny the trinity.

But that doesn't make them "closer to the bible" In fact they re wrote the bible. The edited and already edited book. So if you're saying that a man made book is closer to the True Book of Allah.....

I never said they were "closer to the Bible", although in respects they are.

And they didn't rewrite the Bible. Their Bible is the same Bible, they just translate the word YHWH (a Hebrew name for God) as "Jehovah" (the traditional English rendering of that word, since J and V are not distinguished from Y and W in Hebrew) instead of "The Lord", and they translate verses which are usually translated (by Trinitarian Christians) to imply that Isa (alayhis salaam) is God in alternate ways that diminish the implication of Godhood. They didn't rewrite the Bible, they just use an alternate translation rather than the multitude of other translations used by other denominations.

[diundasmink]

Let us say there is an informal gathering of 2 hours with a Jehova Witness. Which subject do you touch? About which issues do you talk about? What are the best tactics in a discussion?

I don't mean to be rude, but the simple answer is don't go. Jehova Witnesses are inherently irrational in their beliefs. This is evidenced by the fact that their religion imposes a strict limit on the number of people who will be allowed into heaven, which is far less than the number of Jehova Witnesses alive - ie, if they really believe in their religion, then they must believe they are going to hell, as heaven would already be full.

Here in Cambodia they have been banned from going door-to-door, as they were running a campaign to scare local Buddhists into joining their religion. They even handed out comic books to children which depicted Jehova's Witnesses going to heaven while the Buddhists burned in hell. As if this country really needs something new to fight about.....

[BonjGopu]

I never said they were "closer to the Bible".

This isn't correct. Jehovah's Witnesses are closer to the Bible than almost any contemporary Christian sect.

Sorry I mixed these two up

And they didn't rewrite the Bible..................

Yes they did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wor...oly_Scriptures

They didn't rewrite the Bible, they just use an alternate translation rather than the multitude of other translations used by other denominations.

An alternate translation that they wrote
i.e. changed the Bible

[Lhtfajba]

Sorry I mixed these two up


Yes they did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wor...oly_Scriptures



An alternate translation that they wrote
i.e. changed the Bible

I don't think you know what "translation" means. They didn't rewrite the Bible anymore than the people who did the Living Bible, or the Amplified Bible, or the New International, or the Jerusalem Bible, or any other Bible translation did. They just have a translation of the Bible they translated and which they prefer. The Catholics prefer the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Douay-Rheims translation. Are those "re-written" in comparison to the more popular KJV and NIV versions preferred by Protestants?

I have some knowledge of this.

The trinity wasn't truly accepted until Constantine, a "christian" roman emperor, added it to the faith. Constantine added many pagan things to Christianity i.e. praying to dead people, worshiping Idols, etc etc. These things included the trinity. The trinity was already a pagan belief in roman paganism as well as celtic, nordic, and other European folk religions

Constantine didn't add the doctrine of the trinity, as it had existed before him (though it didn't really take its present form until generations after Constantine's death), and the pagan origin of the trinity is a very tenuous claim. The trinity was invented as a way to explain the concept of the Incarnation (which IS a pagan concept) but there isn't really anything analogous to the trinity in known pagan religions. That was a common claim by nineteenth century freethinkers, but it's been debunked very thoroughly. The trinity is a uniquely Christian form of stupidity.

Also, Constantine had exactly zero to do with introducing the veneration of the dead or the use of ikons in worship, as those things also did not become popular until after his death and there is no evidence he promoted or instituted them. Constantine is given far too much credit for Christianity, because the evidence shows that he was mostly a blockhead who had no knowledge of Christian issues and simply allowed priests (who had already corrupted Christianity thoroughly) to run rampant.

[lrUyiva1]

I'm sorry I disagree

There is no "closest" Christian sect to the Bible. Either you have the true Gospel that Isa عليه السلام taught or you don't

The true Gospel is not with us so when we refer to the Bible, the current, corrupted book is what is being referred. The only people who are closest to the true Bible are the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah of the Muslims, of course.

Even then, I still think that the Jehovah's Witnesses are closest because they don't accept the Trinity. The fundamental of all divine religions has been staunch monotheism, from the religion of Adam to Nuh to Ibraheem, to Musa, to Isa عليهم الصلاة السلام, and finally to Muhammad . Even the corrupted Bible of today does not mention the trinity or proposes the belief that Christ was God or one form of God or one face of God, etc. The earlier Christian sects were extremely divided on the kayfiyyah of Christ's uniqueness. Some made him the same as God, some made him an aspect of God, some made him unique from God but a God himself (explicitly polytheistic), but there were some that saw him as a prophet only.

In the 4th century, Constantine I, ordered the codification of what would become the official belief of the Christians (according to him). This was the Nicene Creed. A person was considered a Christian if he believed in all aspects of the Nicene Creed. Anyone who disagreed was deemed a heretic and many sects were then deemed heretics, were routed, and killed - and this continued on for centuries. A lot of books, including gospels, were burned and destroyed during this era, especially those that contradicted this official belief. Any Christian group that thus rejects this perversion of monotheism is closer to the message of the Bible, even in its corrupt form.

[allachakb]

Constantine didn't add the doctrine of the trinity, as it had existed before him (though it didn't really take its present form until generations after Constantine's death), and the pagan origin of the trinity is a very tenuous claim. The trinity was invented as a way to explain the concept of the Incarnation (which IS a pagan concept) but there isn't really anything analogous to the trinity in known pagan religions. That was a common claim by nineteenth century freethinkers, but it's been debunked very thoroughly. The trinity is a uniquely Christian form of stupidity.

Also, Constantine had exactly zero to do with introducing the veneration of the dead or the use of ikons in worship, as those things also did not become popular until after his death and there is no evidence he promoted or instituted them. Constantine is given far too much credit for Christianity, because the evidence shows that he was mostly a blockhead who had no knowledge of Christian issues and simply allowed priests (who had already corrupted Christianity thoroughly) to run rampant.

Constantine may not have introduced any of these concepts (after all, he was no scholar), but he popularized all these strange ideas and quelled any dissenting ones. Under him is when Trinitarian Christianity saw great growth and those who rejected the trinity were eliminated. Once the Trinitarians had a stronghold on the empire, they would go on to destroy all heretics and also any literature that would try to debunk this idiocy, including gospels.

[illerlytoindy]

Constantine may not have introduced any of these concepts (after all, he was no scholar), but he popularized all these strange ideas and quelled any dissenting ones. Under him is when Trinitarian Christianity saw great growth and those who rejected the trinity were eliminated. Once the Trinitarians had a stronghold on the empire, they would go on to destroy all heretics and also any literature that would try to debunk this idiocy, including gospels.

What I dont understand is where this idea of trinity originated in the first place. As far as my knowledge of the Bible, im pretty sure the word "trinity" does not exist in the Bible. So who exactly introduced this idea into the originally monotheistic Christian world? Is there any historical record for it?

[uwJzsM8t]

I think brother ismail_abdalhaqq is correct when he says that the JW's didn't actually write their own Bible, rather they manipulated the translation to agree with their beliefs.

Doesn't this also happen with Qur'anic translations? I remember in one post brother abdulwahhab mentioning that the Urdu translation of the Qur'an by Ahmed Raza Barelvi is unreliable because it was translated to support barelvi aqeedah.

[glasscollector]

What I dont understand is where this idea of trinity originated in the first place. As far as my knowledge of the Bible, im pretty sure the word "trinity" does not exist in the Bible. So who exactly introduced this idea into the originally monotheistic Christian world? Is there any historical record for it?

The first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early third century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

[k1ePRlda]

In the 4th century, Constantine I, ordered the codification of what would become the official belief of the Christians (according to him). This was the Nicene Creed. A person was considered a Christian if he believed in all aspects of the Nicene Creed. Anyone who disagreed was deemed a heretic and many sects were then deemed heretics, were routed, and killed - and this continued on for centuries. A lot of books, including gospels, were burned and destroyed during this era, especially those that contradicted this official belief. Any Christian group that thus rejects this perversion of monotheism is closer to the message of the Bible, even in its corrupt form.

I know the creed and it's history I was am an ex-catholic


There were many Gospels the four that made it were just approved by the catholic clergy

[nushentelve]

I know the creed and it's history I was am an ex-catholic


There were many Gospels the four that made it were just approved by the catholic clergy

are you serious? The Church was that corrupt? wow

[Mehntswx]

I don't mean to be rude, but the simple answer is don't go. Jehova Witnesses are inherently irrational in their beliefs. This is evidenced by the fact that their religion imposes a strict limit on the number of people who will be allowed into heaven, which is far less than the number of Jehova Witnesses alive - ie, if they really believe in their religion, then they must believe they are going to hell, as heaven would already be full.

Here in Cambodia they have been banned from going door-to-door, as they were running a campaign to scare local Buddhists into joining their religion. They even handed out comic books to children which depicted Jehova's Witnesses going to heaven while the Buddhists burned in hell. As if this country really needs something new to fight about.....

It seems they don't believe the hellfire really exists.

I was thinking of a whole new approach to these people. Perhaps talking about their claim that they are not guilty of shirk while this is clearly shown in their works. Or perhaps about the founder and the fact it is a new sect.

[hs6KnlcW]

It seems they don't believe the hellfire really exists.

I was thinking of a whole new approach to these people. Perhaps talking about their claim that they are not guilty of shirk while this is clearly shown in their works. Or perhaps about the founder and the fact it is a new sect.

That's fair enough, there are lots of valid things about their religion that you could bring up. My point was less about where to start, than it was to not start in the first place. I had a couple of reasons for saying that:

- Their religion is so clearly illogical on so many levels that it would be almost unimaginable that logical arguments would change the way they see anything. Efforts to make them see sense through logic would be futile.

- On another thread in the "new Muslims" section, someone (I think it was Acacia) made a very valid point (albeit in a very different context) about whether it's worth guiding someone to Allah (swt) if they don't want to be guided, especially when there are so many people out there who are actively seeking such guidance. Wouldn't it be better to spend your time and energy guiding someone who's smart enough to realize that they need guidance?

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know whether the Qu'ran encourages such debate or not, but from my uneducated perspective, it just seems like it would be futile and serve no great purpose.

[Kitdowstyhodo]

That's fair enough, there are lots of valid things about their religion that you could bring up. My point was less about where to start, than it was to not start in the first place. I had a couple of reasons for saying that:

- Their religion is so clearly illogical on so many levels that it would be almost unimaginable that logical arguments would change the way they see anything. Efforts to make them see sense through logic would be futile.

- On another thread in the "new Muslims" section, someone (I think it was Acacia) made a very valid point (albeit in a very different context) about whether it's worth guiding someone to Allah (swt) if they don't want to be guided, especially when there are so many people out there who are actively seeking such guidance. Wouldn't it be better to spend your time and energy guiding someone who's smart enough to realize that they need guidance?

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know whether the Qu'ran encourages such debate or not, but from my uneducated perspective, it just seems like it would be futile and serve no great purpose.

ive noticed you have very good manners. may you learn a lot from this forum. your good manners will aid in that tremendously.