My Jehovah Witness Experience

Charles Taze Russell  (February 16, 1852 – October 31, 1916)
(Source of image: Wikipedia)

The following account was written by Miguel Angel Torres between April 30 and May 2, 2017.

1) Background:

I am primarily a seeker of Christian Truth. In this context, I am partial to the goals of Restorationism or Christian Primitivism, the belief that Christian theology and practices should be restored along the lines of what is known about the Apostolic Early Church; the Christian Church as it functioned during the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 A.D. until the death of John the Apostle in Anatolia circa. 100 A.D. One source of information that I researched in context of understanding what is known about Apostolic times is the Early Christian Writings website. For a discussion of the content of early Christians’ beliefs see: HERE. One reason I became interested in Jehovah Witnesses, was that the founder of the movement, Charles Taze Russell ( 1852 – 1916) was a Christian restorationist minister, dedicated to the goal of restoring Christianity to the purity of its first century. I was impressed by the fact that Russel based his teachings on a systematic study of the Bible and that premised on this he came to reject the doctrines of the Trinity and of the existence of Hell. I am aware that many Church leaders and scholars in his day considered Russel to be a heretic. Pyramidological aberrations and Eschatological errors aside, I believe that Russell was an honest seeker of truth.

I came across Jehovah Witnesses in April 2014 while a group of them was doing witnessing work at the public library in Karlstad, Sweden. After a conversation about my interest in Restorationism I agreed to participate in a Free Bible Study. I was put in contact with an elder in order to facilitate this. That day I also acquired a copy of the brochure "Should You Believe in the Trinity", this was the first item of Jehovah Witness literature that I read. The brochure makes the argument that the doctrine of the trinity is not a product of the earliest Christian period. 

My experience with Jehovah Witnesses was as a Bible student and observer during the period April 2014 to May 2017. In the course of three years I regularly attended weekly meetings (Thursdays and Sundays) at the Karlstad, Sweden Kingdom Hall. I also attended a number meetings and Assemblies in Swedish, English and Spanish in Stockholm, Örebro, and various other (smaller) towns in the province of Värmland, Sweden. I attended the Memorial observance for three consecutive years. During the time I was involved with the Witnesses I completed two Bible Studies utilizing the texts "What Does the Bible Really Teach" and  "What Can the Bible Teach Us". For the purpose of the studies I was given a copy of the 2013 edition of the New World Translation of the Bible free of charge. The Studies where conducted in English and Spanish. These consisted of reading and discussion of the doctrines enumerated in the study books along with Biblical consultation. In addition to the studies, I watched all the JW Broadcasting episodes since they were introduced in the Autumn of 2014 thru May 2017.

Overall my personal experience as an observer was positive. The Witnesses I met at the Karlstad, Sweden Kingdom Hall where always friendly and welcoming. In context of the studies, I always was candid about my views both when I agreed with the teachings and when I had doubts about aspects of Jehovah Witness doctrine. The Elder I studied with was always respectful of my views and responded to my questions in a satisfactory manner explaining the Biblical basis (as they interpret it) of Jehovah Witness teachings.

In order to maintain objectivity, during the period April 2014 to May 2017 I also viewed material posted on ex-JW channels on YouTube; specifically the John Cedars channel (specially his JW episode rebuttals), and lately the Kameron Fader and Coach Rod channels. I was never baptized, so I never became a member of the organisation. My experience of the Witnesses is limited in scope and for this reason I limit this post to discussion of theological issues. My differences with the Jehovah Witnesses are basically over historicity issues that have soteriological and theological implications. Discussion of other policy related issues is beyond the scope of this blog posting.

Issues beyond the scope of this blog posting about which I am aware, but choose not to discuss at lenght:

* Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of "Adonai". The earliest available Latin text to use a vocalization similar to "Jehovah" dates from the 13th century. The pronunciation "Jehovah" was unknown in English until 1520. The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)  at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The actual vocalization of the Tetragrammaton is lost to History. There is no positive or direct evidence to support the  claim made by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus used the name "Jehovah". To me the claim makes no sense because the word "Jehovah" did not exist in the Palestine of  Jesus' time. 

* I am aware of the issue of allegations of child abuse inside the organisation (See: John Cedars channel documentary Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Abuse - Is there a problem? ). The Jehova Witnesses maintain that the organisation educates the public about the dangers of child abuse (See: Jehovah’s Witnesses Educate Parents and Children to Protect Against Sexual Predators). When I talked about the child abuse allegations issue to the Elder from the Karlstad congregation that conducted my studies, he replied that the allegations are lies perpetrated by apostates -in league with Satan- to discredit the organisation. To be honest, my impression of the state of the children who attend the Karlstad, Sweden Kingdom Hall is that they are happy, well adjusted and loved. But this is only my own subjective impression. 

* I have also reviewed material on the issue of blood transfusions. Jehovah Witnesses maintain that the Old and New Testaments clearly command them to abstain from blood. They point to Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; and Acts 15:28, 29 as scriptural evidence for their position. Ex-JWs on the other hand say that a large number of Jehovah Witness members, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions. I have read both the Jehova Witness perspective and viewed material explaining the Ex-JW perspective (See: Blood Transfusions an Unanswered Question on the Kameron Fader YouTube channel). My conclusion is that I tend to agree with the idea that saving human life is more important than upholding a theological doctrine. Jesus and the writers of the Bible could not have pronounced themselves on the issue of Blood Transfusions because this particular medical procedure did not exist in their times. Also, I am not sure that the concept of "Eating Blood" is synonymous with the concept of "Blood Transfusion". 

* On the issue of the Russian Ban, I tend to agree with John Cedars that it is a violation of the Human Rights of Jehovah Witnesses.(See: John Cedars; Why it's wrong to ban Jehovah's Witnesses  and Kameron Fader; Should Jehovah's Witnesses be Banned in Russia?). I understand that - in context of discussion of the Russian ban - many in the Ex-JW community argue that the Jehovah Witness organisation also violates the Human Rights of disassociated members (people who choose to leave) by subjecting them to shunning in the same manner as the disfellowshiped (people who are expelled from the organisation). Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very clear in defining the issues: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

2) Theological and Doctrinal issues:
 

2.1) Jehovah Witness Doctrines that I agree with:

I agree that Jehovah Witnesses have partially accomplished the goal of restoration of early Christian beliefs. This does not mean that I believe Jehovah Witness beliefs today constitute "The Truth", as I am aware that other Christian denominations - such as the Oness Pentecostals, for example - have also partially restored early Christian beliefs. 

A. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is False. My rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity predates my involvement with Jehova Witnesses. The primary reason I doubted this doctrine is because it simply did not make any sense to me. If "Jesus is God" and he died on the cross, then that implies that God also died. This is not possible because God can not die given His essential nature. The formal definition of  the Trinity doctrine (that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases —the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons"), took place in AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively. The Trinitarian dogma is a late fourth-century invention. The concept of a Trinity was not a part of early Christian beliefs. My initial rejection of the Trinity doctrine led me to explore and research the anti-Trinitarian tendency within Reformation Christianity. Specifically, I researched the ideas of Spanish theologian Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511 –1553). Servetus participated in the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation, and in context of his activities developed a nontrinitarian Christology. His views where condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, consequently he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the city's Calvinist dominated governing council. In his writings; De trinitatis erroribus, Dialogues on the Trinity and De Iustitia Regni Christi, Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek philosophy, and advocated instead a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that he believed pre-dated the development of Nicene trinitarianism. To my understanding, modern Jehovah Witnesses represent a continuation into our times of the anti-Trinitarian tendency within Christianity represented by Servetus. The Witnesses correctly point out that the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. They correctly state that neither the word “Trinity” nor the concept of a triune God is found in the Bible. They reject the idea that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation or a requirement for a person to be considered Christian. I tend to agree. 

B. That Jesus is not the same person as God. My rejection of the idea that "Jesus is God" stems from my rejection of the Trinity doctrine. The prevailing Orthodox dogma is that Jesus is both "man and God" at the same time (the Dyophysite position adopted at the Council of Chalcedon AD 451), and consequently a large number of Christians worship Jesus as the "incarnation of God". The creeds associated with the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) assert that Jesus is of "one substance with the Father". A primary reason why I reject the doctrine that Jesus was the "incarnation of God" is that there are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the alleged dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human. For me then the question became, What was the nature of Jesus when He was on earth ? In order to answer this question I explored and researched a variety of alternative Christologies. I read material on Docetism ("From the Greek dokeĩn -to seem- dókēsis -apparition, phantom; the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion")*, Nestorianism ("a Christological doctrine that emphasizes a distinction between the human and divine persons of Jesus. It was advanced by Nestorius 386–450 A.D.")*, Monophysitism ("From the Greek monos -"only, single" and physis "nature" - is the Christological position that, after the union of the divine and the human in the historical Incarnation, Jesus Christ, as the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word (Logos) of God, had only a single "nature" which was either divine or a synthesis of divine and human")*, and Arianism ( "a Christological concept that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to the Father. Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius - AD 250–336")*. I concluded that Arianism is the most logical Christology because it emphasizes that the Father is Greater than The Son and that Jesus is a messiah to be followed and not a man to be worshipped; this perspective is congruent with anti-Trinitarianism. There exists in our times an Arian Catholic Church (See: The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism), they consider Trinitarianism to be a heresy. I find the Jehovah Witness rejection of the idea that Jesus is the same person as God  to be correct; they correctly point out that Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3). Jesus referred to himself as “God’s Son” or “the Son of God.” Jesus never identified himself as God. In fact He said “the Father is greater than I,” (Jn 14:28). Jesus directed His prayers to God; in Matthew 6:9–13 He stated "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name" and in  Luke 11:2–4 He stated "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come." I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament; and agree with Jehovah Witnesses that Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity because He was a perfect man who never sinned. 

*(Term definition quotes are from Wikipedia)

C. That the Doctrine of Hell is false. According to most Christian denominations a Hell of Fire is the final destiny of those who are judged not worthy after the resurrection and last judgment,where they will be eternally punished for sin and permanently separated from God. The theology of Hell and the popular notions associated with Hell today date from the 5th century and are a distinct development of the Western European Middle Ages. (For a discussion of the theology of Hell in context of Early Christian History see: HERE) It is true that The Apocalypse of Peter (or Revelation of Peter), an early Christian text of the 2nd century that describes a vision of Hell, was widely circulated; but in general early Christians did not have an explicit doctrine or theology of Hell.  In philosophy, The problem of Hell is an ethical problem in religion in which the existence of a Hell of Fire for the eternal punishment of souls is regarded as inconsistent with the notion of a just, moral, and benevolent God. I tend to agree with this perspective. I agree that the existence of Hell is incompatible with justice and incompatible with God's mercy. I believe that the ethical ideal of Christianity as articulated by Jesus is mercy. In this regard I tend to agree with Jehovah Witness teachings that the idea of Hell contradicts the Bible because Death, not torment in a fiery hell, is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:7), and Eternal torment would violate God’s justice (Deuteronomy 32:4) .

References:

Is God a Trinity?

Must You Believe in the Trinity to Be a Christian?

Is Jesus God?

Is God’s Name Jesus?

What Is Hell? Is It a Place of Eternal Torment?

2.2) Jehovah Witness Doctrines that I doubt:

A disturbing trend with Jehovah Witnesses is that when Scientific, Archaeological or Historical information and evidence contradicts their doctrines, they resort to falsification. I do not believe this is a deliberate attempt by the Witnesses to deceive, rather I believe this tendency to falsify results from; (1) the fundamentalist adherence to a methodology of literal exegesis, and (2) the systematic suppression of critical thinking inside the organisation. 

A. I am not sure Adam and Eve existed. There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with the science of human evolutionary genetics (i.e. if all humans descended from two individuals that lived six thousand years ago, the observed genetic variation today would require a much higher  mutation rate.) The scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed. Genetic data show no evidence tracing human origins to a sample pool of two people. The reason Jehovah Witness apologetics defend the alleged historicity of Adam and Eve is because the myth provides much of the scriptural basis for the doctrines of the "fall of man" and  "original sin" that are important beliefs in Christianity. These doctrines are the basis for the interpretation of Paul’s teachings linking "the fall" of Adam with "redemption" through Christ's ransom sacrifice. Without a historical Adam, Jehovah Witness soteriology (salvation from "original sin" and its alleged consequences) simply falls apart. The fact that there is no physical evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve also calls into question literal exegesis of the Book of Genesis. My approach to the Book of Genesis and the Creation Myth is informed by Scientific evidence and information. In this context I tend to agree with attempts to harmonize Science and Biblical Faith with the goal of achieving "an evolutionary understanding of God's creation". I am not scared of Science, I do not believe that Science threatens my Faith. My doubts about the Doctrine of Original Sin have led me of late into an exploration of the theology associated with Pelagius (354–420 or 440). Pelagianism "is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work."* 

*(Definition quote from Wikipedia)

Because I do not believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, I do not believe in the doctrine of original sin. Although I agree that in my life I have sinned, I believe that I am only responsible for my own sins and not those of anyone else. I do not believe that I "inherit" sin. I believe that sin results from the misuse of free will. I believe that ultimately I will be judged (by Jesus Christ) according to actions I have taken on the premise of choices made. 

B. I am not sure about the 607BCE/1914/1919 doctrines. The Jehovah Witnesses claim that Jerusalem was destroyed, by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, in 607 B.C.E. A major teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that Bible prophecy had pointed to the year 1914 as the end of the "Gentile Times" of Luke chapter twenty-one, verse 24, and that in that year Christ Jesus actively took up his Kingdom power and began to rule invisibly to human eyes. Jehovah Witnesses further claim that in 1919 Jesus designated the Bible Students as the true religion. This is the basis for Jehovah Witness claims that their beliefs constitute "the truth" and the basis for the theological authority of the organisation. In Daniel chapter four, references to a period of "seven times" were the foundation for the chronology.These "seven times" were translated into a period of 2520 years beginning in 607 B.C.E. and ending in 1914 C.E. The 607 B.C.E. date is disputed by Archaeological evidence. There is no positive evidence for the 607 B.C.E. date. The consensus of Archeologists, Historians and Biblical Scholars agree that Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in 586-587 B.C.E. Confirmation of the 586-587 B.C.E. date is found in the following Archaeological evidence : Ptolemy's Canon, the Nabonidus Harran Stele (found in 1956 and agrees with Ptolemy's Canon), and Thousands of cuneiform tablets held in the store-rooms of the British Museum. There is also archeological evidence found in Israel; The Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, page 274, under the heading: JUDAH states: "Archaeological evidence for the destruction of the kingdom in 586 B.C. comes from Jerusalem, Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim, and other sites."

The case of Carl Olof Jonsson: In 1977, one of Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden, named Carl Olof Jonsson, sent to the Brooklyn headquarters a massive amount of research he had done in Biblically related chronology disputing the 607 BCE date. Jonsson was an elder and had been actively associated with Jehovah's Witnesses for some twenty years. Mr.Jonsson had substantiated that Jerusalem fell in 587-586 B.C.E. and not in 607 B.C.E.  For his efforts, Mr. Jonsson was eventually disfellowshipped in 1982. Subsequently, Carl Olof Jonsson made his scholarly findings public by publishing the book titled "The Gentile Times Reconsidered".  In 2011 the Jehovah Witneses published two apologetics articles in The Watchtower magazine defending the 607 B.C.E. doctrine (I provide links to the two articles in the References section below); Carl Olof Jonsson's critical response to the two Watchtower articles can be read HERE and HERE. 

Because I do not believe in the historicity of the 607 BCE date, I do not believe Jehovah Witness claims that Jesus "returned invisibly" in 1914 and that in 1919 He designated the Bible Students as the only true religion; consequently I do not believe that Jehovah Witness doctrines necessarily constitute "the truth".  

C. I am not sure about the "torture stake" doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Christ was not crucified; they say that instead he was nailed to a pole or a torture stake. Jehovah's Witnesses view the cross as a pagan symbol, an identifier of false Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses base their claim mainly on one Greek word used in the New Testament: σταυρος [stauros] (pronounced 'stow' – 'ross'). They say that this means a pole or a stake. In their 'New World Translation' of the Bible, the Jehovah's Witnesses insert the words 'torture stake' wherever the Greek has the word σταυρος [stauros]. The word 'torture' is not in the original Greek text. Jehovah's Witnesses publish pictures in which they show Jesus nailed to a pole with one long nail driven into two hands together straight above his head. Yet this use of one nail is contradicted by the words of Scripture. In John 20:25 we read the words of the Apostle Thomas: "unless I see in his hands the print of the NAILS and stick my finger into the print of the NAILS and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe". The word 'nails' is unambiguously plural. There were two nails, one in each hand, because the hands were not placed one on top of each other above Christ's head, as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, but stretched out, one on each side of him, with one nail through each hand or wrist, not on a vertical stake but on a cross. Matthew 27:37 also supports the idea of a cross rather than a stake when it says; "Above his HEAD they had put the charge against him in writing: 'THIS IS JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS'". In the traditional picture of the crucifixion the plaque is above Jesus head, whereas in the Jehovah Witness representation it is necessarily above his hands. If Jesus were impaled on a stake it would be stated that the Titulus was placed above his hands, not his head. The Ante-Nicene Fathers clearly believed Jesus had been crucified. According to Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.); "For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn." This indicates that Justin himself believed that  Jesus died on a cross. Justin Martyr was born at the time John is said to have written the account of Jesus death and wrote his apologies around 155 A.D. His descriptions of the death of Jesus identify that a cross was used. It shows  that the cross was not "introduced to Christianity 300 years after Jesus death by Constantine" (as Jehovah Witnesses claim), but was already used as early as the second century. Irenaeus (130 - 200 A.D.) wrote that the implement of Jesus death had five ends: two longitudinal, two latitudinal and a fifth to support the weight of the victim. ("Fines et summitates habet quinque, duas in longitudine, duas in latitudine, unam in medio." Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) Longitudinal and  latitudinal ends refer to a cross. The fifth was the sedile or sedulum, a piece of wood placed below the victims feet so that they could raise the body to relieve pressure off the chest and hence prolong the time taken to die. Archaeological finds also show that the cross was a means of death at the time of Jesus. The first century catacomb uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives contains inscriptions clearly indicating the use of the symbol of the cross, 'by the very first Christians in Jerusalem.' A "head stone", found near the entrance to the aforementioned first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross. Archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written. See: "Jerusalem Christian Review, Volume 9, Internet Edition, Issue 2 "Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Names, Testimonies of First Christians" Jean Gilman.(as of 2nd Jan 2015).

Biblical passages, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and Archaeology all identify that Jesus died on a cross. It is  untrue to say that "crucifixion was introduced 300 years after Christ by Constantine". For these reasons I disagree strongly with Jehovah Witness teachings about Christ being nailed to a "torture stake".   

References:
----------

*Non-JW Perspectives:

The Hard Evidence Against A Literal Adam And Eve

Were Adam and Eve historical figures?

607 B.C. or 587 B.C.?

[See also: 607 BCE and 1914: Why these dates matter to Jehovah's Witnesses]

Did Jesus Die on a Cross or Stake?


*Jehovah Witness Perspectives:

Adam and Eve—Were They Real People?

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two

Why Jesus Had to Die on a Stake