Determining the author of Hebrews is a matter of internal and historical evidence. The book, All Scriptures is Inspired of God and Beneficial (1990), published by Jehovah's Witnesses, says this about the evidence of Paul's authorship of the book of Hebrews: The internal evidence of the book is all in support of Paul’s writership. The writer was in Italy and was associated with Timothy. These facts fit Paul. (Heb. 13:23, 24) Furthermore, the doctrine is typical of Paul, though the arguments are presented from a Jewish viewpoint, designed to appeal to the strictly Hebrew congregation to which the letter was addressed. On this point Clarke’s Commentary, Volume 6, page 681, says concerning Hebrews: “That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this ep...

Note: The following article is written in a rare second person delivery toward the reader. That is because I wish to directly address individuals from the religions of the world who specifically target Jehovah's Witnesses so that I may rouse their thinking abilities. Do you claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to think? That we are instructed to think only thoughts approved by the Watchtower? That is what our detractors like to claim. But does that claim have merit? On what do you base such a claim? Jehovah's Witness Publications Support Free Thinking Consider the fourth study article in the September 2013 Watchtower. Its title is " Make Personal Decisions Wisely ". If someone has been taught by their pastor that we are only allowed to think Watchtower approved thoughts, they would think that an article with this title is telling us what to think. A question like the one in the third paragraph of the article would seem to support that view: ...

Many claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to question or do independent research outside the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. But is this true? Following are statements made in the Bible and in the publication Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education that demonstrate that Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed taught to use every tool at their disposal, including questioning others in the congregation and reviewing secular texts. (In fact, all who attend the Theocratic Ministry School are expected to familiarize themselves with the latter book and which we have studied in the meeting. Each member studies the assigned Bible reading and has a chance to discuss portions of the Bible in the school each week and are given opportunities to express their thoughts on those scriptures and their research on them.) Afterward are quotes from other publications that further encourage careful independent research, questioning and using their critical thinking. Beside...

Many claim that Jehovah's Witnesses have made up the date of 607 B.C.E. as the date of when the Jews began serving Babylon to fit with their own convenient chronology, but is that true? Well, most biblical historians agree that Babylon fell in 539 BCE and the captives were released a couple of years later according to the Cyrus Cylinder. 70 years prior to 537 BCE is 607 BCE. But where do we get the date from? Secular historians and secular history? No. We get it from the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible to be infallible. So what does the Bible say? At Jeremiah 29:10, Jehovah says, "When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place [Jerusalem]." However, the NIV translates this as "70 years for Babylon," suggesting that the 70 years applies to Babylon rather than to Jerusalem. But is this correct? Judge for yourself. At Daniel 9:2, Daniel wrote: "...

Warning: The following subject matter may be considered objectionable to some readers. Many sexual themes are discussed and a commonly accepted claim regarding homosexuality is refuted. Every effort has been made in this blog post to treat gay men and women with respect as equals to heterosexuals while opposing the viewpoint that they are controlled by a "gay gene". Whether gay couples can love each other the same way as heterosexual couples or whether they deserve the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples is not at question here. The reader will find no intentional insults, derogatory remarks or condemnation here. Only the facts. Notes: In this article, no distinction is made between "homosexual" and "gay". Such distinction, based on the "'homo' means 'man'" argument is misguided and has no bearing upon a mature discussion. (In fact, "homo" does not mean "man", but means "self", im...