Main reasons why Jehovah's Witnessism is false

Here is a list of the main reasons why I consider Jehovah's Witnessism to be false, which is based on my final comment on

[Above: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Brooklyn, New York: Wikipedia]

Shazoolo's YouTube channel under his video, A Brief Summary of the Trinity.

I may add to these other main reasons why I consider Jehovah's Witnessism to be false. I intend to eventually post a separate page on each of these main reasons, which will be hyperlinked back to this page, making it a main index of reasons why I consider Jehovah's Witnessism to be false. This is a counterpart to my Main reasons why Mormonism is false.

---

MAIN REASONS WHY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSISM IS FALSE

1. Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), Jehovah's Witnessism's founder, was a proven liar, fraudster, perjurer, occultist, and false prophet, having falsely prophesied the world would end in 1914.

2. The organization Russell founded, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, is also a false prophet, having falsely predicted the end of world in 1925 and 1975; and that the 1914 generation would not pass away.

3. The very name "Jehovah's Witnesses" shows it is non-Christian because Jesus said Christians are to be His witnesses (Acts 1:8 NWT).

4. The Watchtower Society's claim that it is the "faithful and discreet slave" (Mt 24:45 NWT) and the only true religion is both unbiblical and false.

5. The Watchtower's `trinity' of two gods: Jehovah and Michael the archangel, plus an "active force," is unbiblical. The true Biblical Trinity is one God in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2).

6. Each person of the Trinity is Jehovah: Father (Isa 63:16), Son (Jn 8:58 NASB) and Holy Spirit (2Cor 3:17). In particular, Jesus is Jehovah: "I AM" (Jn 8:58 NASB. Gk. ego eimi, "I am" - no "he"). But Jehovah is "I AM" (Gk. ego eimi in LXX of Ex 3:14; Isa 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6; Dt 32:39). All, including Jehovah's Witnesses) who don't accept that Jesus is I AM (Jehovah) will die in their sins (Jn 8:24).

7. The Watchtower's New World Translation (NWT) imposes its false doctrines on the Bible, including that Christ is merely a god (Jn 1:1 NWT), thus making Jehovah's Witnessism polytheist. If the NWT was consistent in replacing Gk. kurios "Lord" with "Jehovah," especially when it is a quote from the OT, then Php 2:10-11 NWT, which is a quote of Isa 45:23, should read:

so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH to the glory of God the Father.

8. The Watchtower's salvation by works contradicts the Bible's salvation by grace through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), leaving Jehovah's Witnesses condemned to slavery for the Watchtower, never able to know if they are saved.

9. The Watchtower's doctrine of annihilation, denies the Bible's clear teaching of eternal punishment (Mt 25:46; 2Th 1:9; Rev 20:10) of the sins of those who reject God's offer of salvation through the death of His Son Jesus.

10. The Watchtower's unbiblical two-tier final state of only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in heaven being the only one's born again, with all other millions of Jehovah's Witnesses in the `great crowd' on earth, leaves the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses unable to be born again (Jn 3:3,7) and therefore unsaved.

11. There never was a total apostasy from Christianity as Jehovah's Witnessism falsely claims. Therefore Jehovah's Witnessism is not a restoration of Christianity, but a counterfeit attempted replacement of it.

12. Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross, not a single stake as the Watchtower falsely claims.

13. The Watchtower's unbiblical blood transfusion policy is responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, including of children.

14. The Watchtower's heartless policy of disfellowshipping and shunning its members is responsible for countless family break-ups, misery, despair and suicides.

See quotes below (emphasis italics original; emphasis bold mine), on some of these reasons why Jehovah's Witnessism is false, from Anthony Hoekema's "Jehovah's Witnesses" (1974).

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"In Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose it is said that during the years 1909-1914 Russell's sermons were sent out weekly to about 3,000 newspapers in the United States, Canada, and Europe (p. 50). Martin and Klann, however, in their Jehovah of the Watchtower, give documentary evidence to prove that in many cases these sermons were never delivered, as reported, in the places claimed. From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of February 19, 1912, the authors quote a news story affirming that a sermon allegedly delivered by Russell in Honolulu on a certain date was never preached. [Martin, W.R. & Klann, N.H., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1959, pp.15-17] On a later page the authors reproduce a photostatic copy of a letter sent to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle by a Honolulu editor stating that on the designated day Russell had stopped in Honolulu for a few hours, but had made no public address. [Ibid., opposite p.30]" (Hoekema, A.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, p.12).

"Martin and Klann also tell how Russell's periodical once advertised so-called `Miracle Wheat' for one dollar a pound, claiming that it would grow five times as fast as any other brand. After the Brooklyn Daily Eagle had published a cartoon ridiculing the `Pastor' and his `miracle wheat,' Russell sued the newspaper for libel. When this wheat was investigated by government departments, however, it was found to be, not five times as good as, but slightly inferior to, ordinary wheat. Needless to say, the Eagle won the suit. [Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 1, 1916, in Martin & Klann, 1959, p.14]" (Hoekema, 1972, pp.12-13).

"It should be mentioned at this point that Russell was married in 1879 to Maria Frances Ackley. No children were born of this union. For many years Mrs. Russell was active in the Watchtower Society, serving as the first secretary-treasurer of the society and for many years as associate editor of the Watch Tower. In 1897, however, she and Russell separated. In 1913 Mrs. Russell sued her husband for divorce on the grounds of `his conceit, egotism, domination, and improper conduct in relation to other women.' [Metzger, B.M., "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today, April, 1953, pp.65-66]" (Hoekema, 1972, pp.12-13).

"Russell's appalling egotism is evident from a comment made by him about his Scripture Studies series: `... Not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the `Scripture Studies' aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the `Scripture Studies' with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.' [Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, p. 298, in Martin & Klann, 1959, p.24] Russell, in other words, considered his books so indispensable for the proper understanding of Scripture that without them one would simply remain in spiritual darkness."(Hoekema, 1972, p.13).

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross, pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell entitled Some Facts about the Self-styled `Pastor,' Charles T. Russell. [Martin & Klann, 1959, p.18] Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him, he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language. [Ibid., p.20] Russell, furthermore, had previously claimed to have been ordained by a recognized religious body. Staunton also pressed him on this point, finally asking him point-blank, `Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council, or any body of men living?' Russell answered, after a long pause, `I never was.' [Ibid., p.22] In this trial, therefore, Russell's deliberate perjury was established beyond doubt, and the real character of the man looked up to by his followers as an inspired religious teacher was clearly revealed." (Hoekema, 1972, pp.13-14).

"Essentially, the Jehovah-Witness view of the person of Christ is a revival of the Arian heresy of the fourth century A.D. Arius (who lived from approximately A.D. 280 to 336) and his followers (called Arians) taught that the Son, whom they also called the Logos or Word, had a beginning, that the term beget when applied to the generation of the Son meant to make, and that therefore the Son was not of the same substance as the Father but was a creature who had been called into existence by the Father. [Kelly, J.N.D., "Early Christian Doctrines," Adam & Chas. Black: London, 1958, pp.227-228] The Arians taught that there was a time when God was alone and was not yet a Father. [Seeberg, R., "Textbook of the History of Doctrines," Hay, C., trans., Baker: Grand Rapids, 1954, p.I:203] Arius went on to ascribe to Christ only a subordinate, secondary, created divinity. [Schaff, D.S., "Arianism," in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religions Knowledge," Baker: Grand Rapids, 1960, p.I:281] He asserted that such titles as God or Son of God when applied to Christ were mere courtesy titles: `Even if He is called God,' wrote Arius, `He is not God truly, but ... is called God in name only.' [Kelly, p.229]" (Hoekema, 1972, pp.122-123).

"On the basic question ... of the equality of the Son to the Father, the Witnesses take the Arian position: the Son is not equal to the Father but was created by the Father at a point in time. As is well known, the church rejected the Arian position at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed, drafted by this council and accepted universally by Christians today, made the following affirmation about the deity of Christ: `We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father ... begotten not made, of one substance with the Father...' [Kelly, J.N.D., "Early Christian Doctrines," Adam & Chas. Black: London, 1958, p.232] Specifically directed against the Arians was the closing statement: But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different ... substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic [that is, universal] Church anathematizes. [Ibid.] By assuming once again the Arian position on the person of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses have separated themselves from historic Christianity." (Hoekema, 1972, pp.123-124).

"We proceed next to examine some of the more important Watchtower interpretations of Scripture passages bearing on the person of Christ. It will be remembered that the Witnesses claim to be guided only by the Word of God and not at all by the opinions of men. Let us see whether their use of Scripture in connection with the alleged creatureliness of Christ supports their claim. Old Testament Passages. Beginning with Old Testament passages, let us look first at a text to which Jehovah's Witnesses appeal as teaching that Christ was a created being, Proverbs 8:22. In What Has Religion Done for Mankind? this passage is quoted in Moffatt's translation, `The Eternal formed me first of his creation, first of all his works in days of old'; previous to this quotation the comment is made: `In the proverbs of wisdom he [Jehovah's only-begotten son] speaks of himself as wisdom and calls attention to his being a creation of the eternal heavenly Father.' [p.37. Cf. The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 43] It is interesting to observe that the ancient Arians also used this passage to support their views of the person of Christ, utilizing the Septuagint translation of the verse, `The Lord created me (ektise) ... [Kelly, J.N.D., "Early Christian Doctrines," 1958, p.230] ... Though Proverbs 8:22 figured largely in the Christological controversies of the early centuries, most modern interpreters agree that the purpose of the author of Proverbs here was not to give a dogmatic description of the `origin' of the Second Person of the Trinity, but rather to set forth the value of wisdom as a guide to be followed by believers. In pursuit of this purpose, the author presents a poetic personification of wisdom. By this personified wisdom the statement is made, `Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.' [Pr 8:22 ASV] The point of the passage is that wisdom is older than creation and therefore deserves to be followed by all. To use Proverbs 8:22 as ground for a denial of the eternity of the Son - a doctrine clearly taught in the rest of Scripture - is to use the passage in an unwarranted manner. [Delitzsch, F., "Commentary on Proverbs," 1952, pp.133-34; Kantzer, K.S., "Wisdom," in "Baker's Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids, 1960, p.554]" (Hoekema, 1972, pp.126-127).