I need help *Sharing * Jesus with a Jehovah's Witness coworker*

[Laish]

Lalsh,

Don't let them interrupt you. Insist on making your points. Also, just something to remember:

QEOS is the Greek word translated "God" in the NT. To say that it needs an article before it in order to refer to God instead of god is simply wrong. When an article is used with nouns in the NT it focuses on identifying. When it isn't used, it focuses on describing... It's referred to as anarthrous. The quality is the focus.

In John 1:1 there is no article before QEOS there in the last phrase. But the next 3 or 4 times in the following context where it is clearly referring to the Father, an article is not used there also.

If you go to bible.org and look up the Next Bible (or NET Bible) in John 1:1c, they explain this in some detail.

BD

Hello BadDog thank you for the advice and the heads up on the NET Bible's notes concerning the translation of John 1:1.
Blessings
Your brother in Christ
Bill

[Sawyer]

I have for the past few months or so ben sharing the gospel with a friend at work .

I will call him Joe (not his real name ) .Joe actually started the whole conservation . He noticed that I read my Bible on my break , an asked me if I was a Christian ,I sad yes . His quickly asked questions concerning the Trinity . I answered him with biblical answers which he said that he would need to check out . A few days later ,after complete silence on the subject , Joe returned to the conservation . He said that he had something for me to read . He gave me a photocopied handout with excerpts from a booklet called Should you believe the Trinity . I took it an said I needed some time to read it . I went thru the copies an researched some unreferenced quotes an out of context Bible verses an told him about misquotes an the out of context Bible verses ,and where the booklet had it wrong or where it was outright dishonest . The next few days I was not ignored , but Joe did not talk about anything concerning God . Joe was soon his old self an invited me to do a Bible study . I had to decline . I just did not have the time . So we only talk at work .Many times when we talk he seems to have questions in mind before hand . I answer him an he will ether ask for time to read up or changes the subject . To make a note here Joe has not once after given time to check something out come back with a answer . I have come to the conclusion that no amount of scripture quoting will help . I am thinking that if I am to make any headway I will need to show where the Watchtower society has it wrong now an in the past . I would appreciate any input on reaching my friend . If any of you have had any success in reaching a Jehovah's Witness please share your success, an if you did not get anywhere please share too Anything could help . I truly like Joe an hope that he my see the light .
Your Brother in Christ
Bill

This book called " Jehovah's Witnesses Answered" By David A Reed.
Helped me a lot in that it gives a biblical answer for ever scripture J.W's use. I was the pet target of my Aunt. She'd preach JW stuff every time I saw her. It's too bad I never knew when I was a kid, what to say. She is gone now it's way too late for her. I hope to see her son one daysoon.
Sawyer

[Nebulous]

Hello Laish,
I can recommend two things to you when discussing the gospel with Jehovah's Witnesses:

1. It was Jehovah Himself who descended and became incarnate. The human form which He took is the Son of God. The spirit which emanates from Him is the Holy Spirit. If you insist on a definition of a trinity of three persons, you will not get anywhere.
2. The origin of the angels: if you learn that all angels were once human, and that is why angels have a human form, you will immediately get through to Jehovah's witnesses. Because they think that Jesus was some sort of Angel created by God before all of creation. When people understand the true origin of angels, the entire theology of the Jehovah's witnesses falls apart.

The above two arguments are something most Christians will miss, and not use, because a) they follow the Nicene Creed of the fourth century, and b) most assume angels were somehow spontaneously created in heaven without having lived as a human.

I was once on a forum, arguing against the Nicene definition of the Trinity of the fourth century A.D., and naturally that attracted several Jehovah's Witnesses who then tried to "convert" me. One looked like a top level theologian in the JW hierarchy. And believe me, they were experts in scripture, and using passages to support their doctrine. I had never seen such a command of scripture, so for several days, it went back and forth, each of us using scripture to support our arguments.

So after this going back and forth, with no end in sight, I realized that their doctrine blinds them when discussing scripture. I decided to question the assumption everyone takes concerning the origin of the angels. And when I started to show them, that angels were probably not "spontaneously" created some time before creation, but once lived as human before they became an angel...then I started to break through. I think I made quite a few of them upset, because once the origin of the angels is known, their entire theology falls apart.

However, I think I may have taken things too far too quickly...because everyone holds the religion they grew up with as very dear to them, and everyone assumes that they know the truth and everyone else does not. When someone sees that the religion they grew up with is false, it can create a personal crisis with the person. So at that point I decided to withdraw from the argument, and let them think it over privately.

[Duggars19fan]

When arguing with the JW on their date setting they may tell you that God didn't destroy Assyria as He promise in the Book of Jonah (Jonah 3:4), but remind then that Jonah ran away from this assignment because he knew of God's forgiveness (Jonah 4:1-2). For Jeremiah tells us that if God announces judgment on a nation and they repent, that God will spare that nation (Jeremiah 18:7-8). So this does not violate the principle in Deuteronomy 18:22.