The Watchtower Society At Our Doors

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
MONOGENES

John 1:18 . . No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god
who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained
him.

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9 contain the
Greek word monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to parents' sole biological
child in the New Testament. If parents have two or more biological children,
none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a
monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.

Obviously then, an adopted child can never be monogenes because it
wouldn't be the parents' biological child. Examples of monogenes children
are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

So then, scientifically speaking, Christ is unique in that he is God's sole
biological offspring, while God's other sons are not; viz: they're placed as
sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:4-5)

Q: God literally fathered a child?

A: I think it's probably a bit more accurate to say that God literally co
fathered a child.

Q: How did he do it? Is there a Mrs. God? And who was the other father?

A: Jesus' conception, described at Luke 1:26-35, wasn't only miraculous, it
was a very unusual combination of human and divine.

David contributed the human component. (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom
1:1-3, and 2Tim 2:8)

God contributed the divine component. (Luke 1:35 and 1John 3:9)

Jesus then, is just as much God's progeny as he is David's; and just as much
David's progeny as he is God's.

Q: What about Heb 11:17 where Isaac is stated to be Abraham's monogenes
child? Wasn't Ishmael a biological child of his too?

A: Isaac is the only biological child that Abraham and Sarah produced
together; just as Jesus is the only biological child that God and Man
produced together.

To say that this is all very baffling, illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable
would be an understatement. In my mind's normal way of thinking, Christ's
rather odd case of mixed-species genetics is an outlandish fantasy that,
biologically, makes no sense at all. It's sort of like crossing an iguana with
an apricot to produce a reptilian fruit tree. But; the circumstances of Christ's
conception are in the Bible, so those of us who call ourselves Christians have
got to accept it.

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain)

Now, here's the inescapable ramification:

Like reproduces its like. In other words, when David reproduced, he fathered
a human being like himself in every way. When God reproduced, He fathered
a divine being like Himself in every way; ergo: Christ is just as much God as
God, in the same way that Christ is just as much David as David.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
THE SON's GOD

John 20:17 . . Be on your way to my brothers and say to them; "I am
ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."

Q: If Jesus is God Almighty, as classical Christianity insists, then how can
he have a god? Does God worship God?

A: I have yet to encounter the language of John 20:17 in reverse, viz: I
have yet to see a passage in the Bible where God refers to His son as
"my God".

In other words: there is a definite hierarchy in the divine relationship just as
there is a definite hierarchy in human relationships. Though all members of a
human family are equally human, they are not all equal in rank; some are
superior and some are subordinate.

For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of "God Almighty" as a species. In that
respect when God Almighty begot a son, He begat a God Almighty son
because that's the only kind of offspring that a God Almighty can engender;
just as when humans beget a son, they beget a human son because that's
the only kind of offspring that humans can engender.

Now, we can volley back and forth with the JWs, countering each other's
verses with more verses: verse upon verse; but I can just about guarantee
that us and they will both be chasing our tails and getting nowhere unless
we approach the Son's relationship to his Father from a biological
perspective; which is a perspective that just about anybody with even a
cursory knowledge of the birds and the bees can understand with ease.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
THOUGHT AND CONSCIOUSNESS

How does the human brain, a 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue,
produce the phenomena of memory, consciousness, individuality, and self
awareness? Why do humans have a sense of justice, of fair play, and a
desire for revenge? Why do humans prefer to be right rather than wrong?
Why be right and/or wrong at all? Why do humans want their lives to count
for something? From whence do humans get their feelings of guilt? Why
aren't humans amoral like the other creatures? Butterflies are free, why
aren't we?

Those kinds of questions cannot be answered on a physical level. There has
to be an element to human life that is above and beyond an organic
explanation.

The Watchtower Society interprets the passage below to substantiate its
doctrine that people cease to exist when they pass away.

Ps 146:4 . . His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his
thoughts do perish.

The Hebrew word for "thoughts" in that passage is 'eshtonah (esh-to naw')
which means: thinking.

Unfortunately, Ps 146:4 is the only place in the entire Old Testament where
'eshtonah appears so we can't compare its uses in other contexts.

According to Webster's the word "thinking" is ambiguous with quite a variety
of meanings to choose from; including, but not limited to: concerns,
anticipations, conceptions, opinions, imaginations, visualizations, ideas,
epiphanies, plans, schemes, fantasies, arguments, deliberations, and the
like.

For example: consider all those people who perished in the World Trade
Center, in the Japan and Indonesia tsunamis, and the Haiti earthquake.
None of them woke that day planning on it being their last on earth. No, on
the contrary; they had people to see, places to go, and things to do: but
before the day ended; whatever was on their minds lost its importance--
their priorities went right out the window and became no more significant
than green cheese on the moon.

All their plans, their dreams, their schedules, their appointments, their
schemes, their problems, their ambitions, their loves, and their aspirations
went right down the tubes as they were suddenly confronted with a whole
new reality to cope with.

So then, an alternative to the Watchtower Society's interpretation is that
people don't cease to exist when they die. Their cognitive processes don't
stop working; no, Ps 146:4 only means that whatever was on their minds
before they passed away is now null and void.

Take for example Michael Jackson. While working on a new world tour,
Jackson died in his sleep. As a result; his tour wrapped on the spot.

When my eldest nephew was paroled from prison, he quit drinking, and
began going to college with the goal towards becoming a counselor. For 2½
years all went well. His parole officer was happy, and he was on track and
getting good grades. My nephew's future looked assured. And then on the
morning of Sept 25, 2015, he dropped dead to the floor of natural causes.

My nephew's passing was a terrible disappointment to everybody; but
actually we all kind of expected it. He was grossly overweight, had high
blood pressure and high cholesterol, rarely exercised, and smoked. But the
point is; my nephew's dream ended just as abruptly as flipping a light
switch. And all of our hopes for his success ended the same way

"His spirit goes out" refers to the breath of life as per Gen 2:7. It's entrance
into a human body springs it to life (Jas 2:26). In other words: the breath of
life isn't just a life force; no, the breath of life is quite sentient: it's the core
of one's existence as a being; and it doesn't come from the dust of the
Earth; no, it comes from God; and when people die, their breath of life
returns to God. (Ecc 12:7)

As to what He does with it? well; that's the bone of contention between
classical Christianity and the Watchtower Society. In their mind's eye,
Solomon is the afterlife expert; while in classical Christianity's judgment,
Christ's savvy trumps Solomon.

Luke 11:31 . .The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment
with the men of this generation and will condemn them; because she came
from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look!
Something more than Solomon is here.

Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and
of knowledge.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
THE NAME OF JEHOVAH AS AN HONORARY TITLE

A common New Testament Greek word for "worship" basically means to do
obeisance; defined by Webster's as a movement of the body made in token
of respect or submission; i.e. to bow and/or prostrate one's self.

The difference between good worship and bad worship depends upon the
object. For example the wise men worshipped young Jesus. (Matt 2:2b, Matt
2:11)

That was a good kind of worship because they were paying their respects to
someone they believed to be a human potentate rather than to someone
they believed to be a human deity. (Matt 2:2a)

However, the worship of human deities isn't always a bad thing; for example:

“I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

That was spoken to political deities whom Peter says Christians are supposed
to treat with utmost respect (1Pet 2:13-17). So then, doing obeisance to
political deities is a good thing.

There are numerous incidents recorded in the gospels where people did
obeisance to Jesus; but it was harmless because most folks-- in fact just
about everybody --believed him to only be another of Israel's long line of
prophets rather than a divine being. Well; that underwent a radical change
with his resurrection.

Prior to his material existence as a human being, Jesus existed as a spirit
being who went by the name of "The Word" (a.k.a. Michael the arch angel).
In that capacity, he was a divine being. (John 1:1)

According to Watchtower teachings; Jesus' material existence as a human
being did not recover from crucifixion. It stayed dead so that The Word could
regain its spirit existence because in Watchtower theology, it is impossible
for someone to exist as a material being and a spirit being simultaneously.

So then, when people to obeisance to Jesus in his resurrected form, they are
no longer paying their respects to a prophet like they did before because
according to Philip 2:9-11, he's been elevated to the existence of a
divine being authorized to use Jehovah's name as its own name; which can
be a bit confusing because when people speak of Jehovah now-- without
clarification --we can't be sure which Jehovah they mean: the original
Jehovah or the honorary Jehovah; a.k.a. Michael the arch angel.

This is sort of a catch-22 for JWs because the very first of the Ten
Commandments forbids obeisance to any other divine being but the original
Jehovah; yet Philip 2:9-11 requires it. In point of fact, failure to do
obeisance to Michael the arch angel as Jehovah dishonors God.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega" says Jehovah God, “the One who is and
who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)

That right there would be Michael the arch angel speaking for himself as
Jehovah if the Society's theology is correct.

"I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but,
look! I am living forever and ever." (Rev 1:17-18)
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
CONNECTING WITH GOD THRU A HIGH PRIEST

Ps 110:4 . . Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): You are a
priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek

Melchizedek's only appearance in the Bible occurs at Gen 14:18-20. The
letter to Hebrews in the New Testament utilizes him as a "type" of Christ's
celestial priesthood.

The author of the letter to Hebrews was reluctant to discuss Melchizedek's
office, and how Christ's current high priest position relates to it, because the
recipients of the letter were so spiritually immature, and so disinterested in
Bible study, that he feared his comments would result in a ping. In other
words: a discussion of Melchizedek and how he relates to Jesus Christ isn't
everybody's cup of tea so I won't bother going into detail.

However; at least one of the salient features of Mel's priesthood should be
readily obvious to everybody regardless of their spiritual acumen: Mel was a
human being; just as all of God's high priests have always been human
beings-- no exceptions. In point of fact, the letter to Hebrews clearly states
that high priests are taken from among men (Heb 5:1). So that becomes the
#1 qualification for a Melchizedekian priest right out of the box and instantly
disqualifies angels.

Mel's jurisdiction was on the earth. But that was before Israel's covenanted
law established Aaron's priesthood. So when that happened; Mel's post was
temporarily suspended; and in point of fact, if Christ were on earth, he
would not be a priest because this is Aaron's domain.

However, though Mel's post was moved to heaven's temple, there were no
changes made to the nature of the person who holds the office. In other
words; a priest according to the manner of Melchizedek is a human being no
matter where he is. And since Ps 110:4 made Jesus Christ a priest to time
indefinite, then he will remain a human being to time indefinite; and in order
to be a human being, the Society says he has to have a human body
because in their theology; human existence is entirely physical.

1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, a man, Christ Jesus.

The words for "men" and "man" in that verse are derived from anthropos
(anth'-ro-pos) --a common koiné Greek word for human beings in the New
Testament; which is why that passage doesn't say there is one mediator
between God and men, an angel, Christ Michael. No it doesn't say an angel,
Christ Michael; no, it says a man, Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a
human being rather than an angel by the same name.

A search of the entire New Testament for the angel Michael turns up but two
references: Jude 1:9 and Rev 12:7. That angel is nowhere in the gospels,
nowhere in Acts, and nowhere in the epistles other than Jude. If that angel
is so all-fired important; then why is it so marginalized? Even the Society
itself is a bit perplexed as to why the name of an angel so highly revered in
their theology is nigh unto absent in the New Testament.

The Society claims that the names Jesus and Michael are interchangeable;
but that's the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges on record; not to
mention a very serious case of identity fraud. Even if an angel had once
existed as a human being named Jesus; it no longer does. Now it exists as
an angel being named Michael. The two names aren't interchangeable
because the one name denotes a human being and the other name denotes
a spirit being. Go ahead; search the New Testament and see how much luck
you have finding somebody's name hyphenated like this: Jesus-Michael
Christ. You won't because the Society's theology is an utter fantasy.

Oh what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

-- Sir Walter Scott --

That poem rings so true. Once Charles T. Russell and/or Joseph F.
Rutherford declared that Michael, the angel, and Jesus Christ the human are
the same person; they were faced with the Herculean task of forcing the
Bible to agree; and that was quite a challenge; which was accomplished by
means of clever amalgams of fiction, sophistry, half-truths, semantic double
speak, and humanistic reasoning.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
PASSPORT TO GOD'S KINGDOM ON EARTH

It's both tragic and ironic that the Watchtower Society's rank and file
missionaries go worldwide advertising a kingdom that they themselves will
never be allowed to enter. Here's why.

At John 3:3-12, Christ and a Jewish rabbi named Nicodemus discussed what
Christ labeled "earthly things".

The primary earthly thing discussed was the kingdom of God. The other
earthly thing discussed was a spirit-birth requirement to enter it. In other
words: God's kingdom on earth, and a spirit birth, are joined at the hip.

The Watchtower Society's earthly class (a.k.a. the hewers of wood and
haulers of water; viz: the non-anointed JWs) isn't spirit-born now, nor does
it ever expect to be-- not in this life, nor in the next --yet they hope to enter
God's kingdom on earth. However, seeing as how the spirit-birth
requirement is a must rather than an option; they will not succeed.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
MIGHTY ONES

The Watchtower Society's theology is a based on a version called
monolatrism, which basically alleges that all gods are actual deities; though
not all deities are deemed worthy of worship. This is not quite the same as
polytheism where numerous gods are all considered worthy of worship.

Monolatrism is distinguished from monotheism (asserts the existence of only
one god) and distinguished from henotheism (a religious system in which the
believer worships one god alone without denying that others may worship
different gods of equal value)

While classical Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods; the
Watchtower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third
sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones". The
mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying personages
exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the Ten
Commandments. For example:

"I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

The gods referred to in that passage are humans in positions of judicial
authority; which everybody should know are only imitation deities rather
than the genuine article; so in order to avoid stigmatizing humans as
fake gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

This gets kind of humorous when we plug "mighty one" into various
locations. For example:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one." (John 1:1)

And another:

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten mighty one who is in
the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." (John
1:18)

The "mighty one" category was an invention of necessity. In other words:
without it, the Society would be forced to classify the only-begotten (John
1:18) and the Word (John 1:1) as a false god seeing as how Deut 6:4, John
17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 testify that there is only one true god.


OBJECTION: Jesus verified the authenticity of Ps 82:6 in a discussion
recorded at John 10:34-36. If the word of God cannot be nullified, then
those gods have to be real gods.


RESPONSE: They're real alright, no doubt about it; however: true gods are
immortal; they're impervious to death. The gods in Psalm 82 are not
impervious to death. In other words: they're real gods but they are not true
gods because according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 there is only
one true god. If the gods of Psalm 82 were true gods, then Deut 6:4, John
17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 would be invalidated.

So then, what does all this say about God's son? Well; if God's son is only a
mighty one, as the Watchtower Society alleges; then he's a fake god and his
divinity is no more divine than a totem pole or a statuette of Shiva.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
SPIRIT BODY VS SPIRITUAL BODY

1Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If
there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.

Watch as I misquote that passage because the difference, though subtle. Is
significant.

"It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spirit body. If there is a physical
body, there is also a spirit one."

No; it doesn't say spirit body but nevertheless that's what some people have
decided it ought to say.

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily
refer to the characteristics of a body with the consistency of thin air. Below
is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to
the bodily chemistry of an angel or a demon.

Spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual counselors (Gal 6:1)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

I'm inclined to believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in
no way composed of a gaseous substance. Of what material it is composed I
don't know; but I do know at least four things about it.

1• The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's glorified body.

Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to
bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body.

2• The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

3• The spiritual body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

4• The spiritual body is capable of being seen by the naked eye.

Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This
Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the
same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
CHRIST'S PARABLES

Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that,
though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are
not only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while
a story about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio
and the autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while
the other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- banquets,
stewards, weddings, farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets,
women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the
wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.

Now; if Christ had told one that alleged the moon was made of green
cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was
fantasy; but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the
ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction;
but never fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal
round of human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life
man; the father of the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least
three of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
And he's also the friend of God (Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus
Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and
integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man;
especially about one of his Father's buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the
commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No,
it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro
managed.

John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as
the Father taught me.

John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory
slanders God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who
can't be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own
friends, which is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that
God cannot lie.

God's impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more
terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative
was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based
upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where
people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them; which brings to mind the
survivors of the Titanic watching their loved ones go to Davy Jones while
utterly helpless to do anything about it.

People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought up their
children to walk in mom and dad's ideological footsteps. How do people in
hell bear up under something like that on their conscience?
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
THE LIVING GOD(S)

Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god.

The Hebrew word for "living" in that passage is chay (khah'-ee) which first
appears in the Bible at Gen 1:20 where it speaks of aqua life and winged life.
Then it appears at Gen 1:24 where it speaks of life on land. It appears again
at Gen 2:7 where it speaks of human life.

Vegetation is never spoken of as chay. So I think we can limit the kind of
life spoken of by chay as conscious life; viz: sentient existence.

Jehovah is called the living god something like fifteen times in the Old
Testament, and fifteen more times in the New Testament.

I'm unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible identified as living gods;
not even the gods of Psalm 82 to whom God said "You are gods".

Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god.
In other words: labeling Jehovah as the living god is a way of saying He is
the only god that's actually eternal, i.e. always was, always is, and always
shall be. This has some serious ramifications.

Speaking of Christ:

Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

The Greek word for "divine quality" is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which means:
divinity

Seeing as how theotes is modified by the Greek definite article "ho" then
what we're looking at here in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity, but rather
the divinity. In other words: we're looking at the fullness of the divinity of
the living god.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken
of at John 1:1 is a god. However: the Word isn't just any god; no, the
fullness of the divinity of the living god dwells in the Word; viz: the Word is
a living god, i.e. the life that's in the Word always was, always is, and
always shall be.

"For just as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted also to the Son
to have life in himself." (John 5:26, New World Translation)

When the Father granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father
has life in Himself, things got a bit complicated because unless Jehovah and
the Word are different names for the same personage; there is now one too
many living gods out there.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
HO THEÓS

Q: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as a
god in lower case instead of God in upper case?

A: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's modified by the little
Greek definite article ho the Society translates theós in upper case, viz: in
the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true God,
while theós by itself is somewhat flexible, for example John 1:18 and John
20:17 where theós is translated in upper case though it isn't modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs
in John1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated
by a strict rule of Greek grammar.

The Society prefers "a god" because lower case is agreeable with their
opinion of Christ's celestial status.

But no matter whether the Word is an upper case god or a lower case god,
he is still a god; which presents a bit of a problem for the Watchtower
Society.

There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false.
There is no middle ground. Now according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3 and 1Cor
8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be
false gods; which Webster's defines as not real or genuine; viz: imitations.

The Watchtower Society has resolved this dilemma for itself by inventing an
intermediate category of gods sandwiched between the true and the false
called "mighty ones".

The mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying
personages exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the
Ten Commandments. For example:

"I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

The gods referred to in that passage are humans in positions of judicial
authority; which everybody should know are only imitation deities rather
than the genuine article; so in order to avoid stigmatizing humans as fake
gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

This gets kind of humorous when we plug "mighty one" into various
locations. For example:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one." (John 1:1)

And another:

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten mighty one who is in
the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." (John
1:18)

The "mighty one" category was an invention of necessity. In other words:
without it, the Society would be forced to classify the only-begotten (John
1:18) and the Word (John 1:1) as a false god seeing as how Deut 6:4, John
17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 testify that there is only one true god.


POSIT: Jesus verified the authenticity of Ps 82:6 in a discussion recorded at
John 10:34-36. If the word of God cannot be nullified, then those gods have
to be real gods.


RESPONSE: They're real alright, no doubt about it; however: true gods are
immortal; they're impervious to death. The gods in Psalm 82 are not
impervious to death. In other words: they're real gods but they are not true
gods because according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 there is only
one true god. If the gods of Psalm 82 were true gods, then Deut 6:4, John
17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 would be invalidated.

So then, what does all this say about God's son? Well; if God's son is only a
mighty one, as the Watchtower Society alleges; then he's an imitation god,
and his divinity is no more divine in reality than a totem pole or a statue of
Shiva.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE

Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For
example they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in
Halloween, serve in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.

Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of
Romans so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.

Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages
below.

Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.
As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its
soul-- its blood --you must not eat.

Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell,
whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul
must be cut off from his people.

Lev 17:10-As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident
who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall
certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall
indeed cut him off from among his people.

Acts 15:19-20 . . Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the
nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain . . from blood.

The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all
the same as eating blood.

Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its
interpretation of those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is
not to win a debate; only to offer a second opinion.

The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath
violators. (Ex 31:14-15)

Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number
of occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that
human life, safety, and welfare trump strict observance of religious law.

One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon
showing a man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge
landslide boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family,
and the family dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the
legalist calmly points out that he can't move the car until the light turns
green.

Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating
circumstances, which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the
seriousness or extent of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.

Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill
to crush the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an
acceptable excuse to go before the light turns green. In those kinds of
cases; human life, safety, and welfare trump strict conformity to the law.

Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order
to save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the
sin of lying? No, on the contrary; He overlooked their dishonesty and instead
rewarded the midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact,
their actions were adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)

Should someone reading this post chance to discuss blood transfusions with
a JW from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the
utmost in civility because this is an emotional issue. Should your JW
audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake,
they will be overwhelmed with guilt, disappointment, and humiliation; not to
mention fearing the organizational tsunami that'll come their way should
they dare to question the Society's stance on blood transfusions.

So please; don't rub it in. Most, if not all, the JWs you'll encounter are
sincere. Mocking their errors is, in my opinion, an act of cruelty that only an
insensitive clod would even think of.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
FAIL SAFE

According to John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22; Jesus
committed no sins of his own.

The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that Christ didn't sin because he
"chose" not to sin. In other words: he could have failed, he could have
sinned.

That's what they say; but it's not what the Bible says. The fact of the matter
is; Christ's divine genetics make it impossible for him to sin.

1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin,
because His [reproductive] seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice
sin, because he has been born from God. (NWT)

That translation makes it look as though one born of God's reproductive
seed sins now and then but not all the time; viz: doesn't make a habit of sin.
But the text on the Greek side of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear reads like
this:

"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been generated."

There's more:

Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily. (NWT)

The Greek word translated "divine quality" is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which
means divinity; defined by Webster's as the quality or state of being divine.

I don't mean to split hairs but the order of those two words in a sentence
makes a difference: divine quality and the quality of being divine are not the
same. For example: patience is a divine quality, but people capable of
patience aren't eo ipso divine. So let's get that straightened out right from
the get-go.

Anyway; what we're looking at in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity; rather,
"the" divinity; viz: we're looking at God's divinity; which I think pretty safe
to assume is impeccable. I seriously doubt even the Devil himself could fail
and/or sin were he brimming with not just a percentage; but with all the
fullness of God's divinity.

Q: If it was impossible for Christ to either sin or fail; then what practical
purpose did his temptation serve?

A: Christ testified "I always do the things pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). The
Devil's failure to break Christ certifies the truth of his statement. In other
words: Christ was proof-tested to demonstrate that he contains no flaws.

No doubt the Devil expected that after forty days in the outback without
food, Christ would be worn down to the point where he would no longer care
whether he sinned or not. But it made no difference. Christ was still just as
incapable of sin after forty days in the outback as he was during the first
thirty years of his life in Nazareth because Christ's innocence doesn't depend
upon his resolve; rather, upon his genetics so to speak; viz: upon God's
[reproductive] seed. (1John 3:9)

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the
JWs' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a better
response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as impossible
for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about it. If God's
progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically sinless nature of God's
reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that the source of that seed
would be unable to sin too.

Jas 1:13 . . For with evil things God cannot be tried. (NWT)


NOTE: The Watchtower Society religion is a bit of an odd duck in the world
of Christianity. While most, if not all, of the other denominations seek to
glorify Christ; it seems the Society's primary purpose in life is to ruin him.

A very common Greek word in the New Testament for the Devil is diabolos
(dee-ab'-ol-os) which refers to traducers; defined by Webster's as someone
who exposes others to shame or blame by means of falsehood and
misrepresentation; i.e. slander
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
UNDESERVED KINDNESS

John 1:14 . . So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we
had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten
son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

The ancient Greek word from which "undeserved kindness" is derived is
charitos; which itself is derived from charis.

"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of the word charis; it's actually the
Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they think that word ought to
mean. It's literal meaning is graciousness.

John Q and Jane Doe Witness are being deprived of viewing some very
pleasant aspects of the only-begotten son's personality by interpreting charis
to mean undeserved kindness because graciousness says some wonderful
things about not only the flesh that the Word became; but also about the
father from whom the Word came.

To begin with; Webster's defines "graciousness" as; kind, courteous, inclined
to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate,
thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive,
considerate, and tactful.

Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness

Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals

Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz:
magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving

Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz:
benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.

Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others;
viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels
good to do so.

Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain
good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary
conflict.

Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation
committee had the decency to let charis speak for itself instead of butting in
to tell people what they think it ought to mean.

"Keep on teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, praises to
God, spiritual songs with graciousness" (Col 3:16)

"Let your utterance be always with graciousness." (Col 4:6)


BTW: The claim that kindness and/or anything else that's in the only
begotten son is "undeserved" is of course 110% false.

Phil 2:8-11 . . When he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.

. . . For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and
kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 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 Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Q: What is the name that is above every other name?

A: Jehovah

Q: Is that why Christ is superior to David? (Matt 22:41-45)

A: Yes.
_
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
THOMAS' GOD(S)

John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

"God" is from the Greek word theós

Many moons ago; I asked some door-to-door missionaries to explain
to me why the Society translated theós with an upper case G in Thomas'
statement seeing as how in Watchtower Society theology; only Jehovah
should be referred to with capital letters. Well; they were too inexperienced
to explain and my question left them stumped.

The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use
an upper case G because it is their practice that whenever theós is modified
by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is required.

For argument's sake; let's remove the upper cases and translate the
passage like this:

Thomas said to him: "my lord and my god!"

We could tolerate a lower case lord because that was a common way to
address just about any superior back in those days, whether divine or
otherwise; for example 1Pet 3:6.

However; we would have difficulty with a lower case god because Thomas'
statement is possessive. In other words: the apostle Thomas didn't just
declare that Jesus was a god. No, Thomas clearly declared that Jesus was
his god.

The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with Jehovah in the books of
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy forbids them to possess more
than one god.

"And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am Jehovah your
God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face." (Ex 20:1-30

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

If the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that
possessing any other god but Jehovah would incur the covenant's curse
upon himself.

Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant
to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then John Q and Jane Doe Witnesses need to ask around
and find out why it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he
isn't the Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's divine status
when Thomas actually associated with Christ and was one of his close
personal friends.
_
 
Last edited:

BrotherIan

Member
Sep 23, 2018
25
38
13
50
Northern NSW
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
All that matters Brother is there having a Go at being a Christian.
I recently had a Heart attack, and when i returned home from Hospital,
they arrived at my house mysteriously, in which was located hidden up a bush track.
That, very day i had been frantically searching through box's of papers
looking for there church times that i just may find on a watchtower
i had received at another dwelling, 18months prior.
I had never been to a Kingdom Hall in my life.
I believe this was not coincidence, them appearing,
i really needed some sort of comfort from my health scare and
being in a new town, and my Prayers were answered.
They since, have shown true Christianity through there actions
and showed there compassion and mercy through what Jesus taught,
and 8 weeks ago, i tore my ACL in my knee.
I Telephoned them, they came with a pair of crutches they had collected
from a friend of there's, 30km away brought them to me, then took me to Hospital,
waited with me.
Drove me back to the country side, after i had been to the Chemist etc.
Then Would Kindly say, if you need anything ian, we are only a Phone call away.
So yes a week later, i was out of Supplies, they arranged for someone to pick me up
drove me to town, and whilst a Gentleman waited in the hot sun in his Car,
i grabbed a couple of things from a store.
Then my knee improved, i was able to drive my vehicle, but realized, i had not enough Diesel to drive to town.
I only had $10 on me, and rang them to deliver 9 litres of fuel.
They arrived with 40 litres of fuel, and would not take the $10 off me.
So with all respect Webbershome, we could cross examine all we want,
other religions, and you could cross examine my life, i could do the same to yours,
you could cross examine my Faith, i could examine yours,
but that is not Christianity as far as my Heart tells me.
What really matters is how we Treat our Brothers and Sisters,
during our time on Earth, then God shall Judge.
So with my Experience on JW, they do try to walk the walk.
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
GHOST RIDERS IN THE SKY

1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and
those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a
point.

"with the archangel's voice"

No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says an archangel's voice;
so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to
the archangel Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 when, in point of fact, according
to Dan 10:13, there's more than one archangel.

Archangels are very high ranking, but there is another personage even
higher in rank than they spoken of in Josh 5:13-15; a being whose rank is
described as captain of Jehovah's forces; and in the captain's presence,
Joshua was required to remove his shoes; same as Moses at the burning
bush. (Ex 3:1-5)


NOTE: The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the
Lord himself spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17 will be an h.sapiens rather than a
spirit being.
_
 
Last edited:
D

Dave L

Guest
I had a discussion with a JW elder a few years back. And what they like to do is drag you into their stomping ground. They have all the set topics and all the pat answers. But if you hit them with anything they are not prepared for, they fall apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Nowadays they go door to door with tablets, thus taking control of the
interview by getting people to watch one of the Watchtower Society's videos.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and
as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare
grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body
just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is
another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the
heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.
The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and
the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So
also is the resurrection of the dead.

The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which
basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the
fifteenth chapter calls the dead a physical body.

I need to empathize that the Watchtower Society sincerely and honestly
believes that-- other than the breath of life (Gen 2:7) --humans are entirely
physical; meaning that death completely terminates people's existence.

According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken
of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing
a corpse with the breath of life in order to bring people back into existence.
No, because if a corpse were re-energized with the breath of life, it would be
barred from the kingdom of God.

1Cor 15:50 . . This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
God’s kingdom,

So then the original form of the people has to remain a corpse so that God
can re-create the people in a form suitable for the kingdom.

In some ways; the Watchtower Society's resurrection doctrine resembles
Buddhism's reincarnation.

But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53). They're not
discarded. On the contrary; they have to be restored to life so they can
undergo remodeling together with the bodies of those who are alive at the
time of the Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)

Q: What about the remains of people whose bodies are no longer intact such
as those eaten and digested by critters, burned to ashes, and/or blown to
smithereens in war?

A: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return
to the dust from whence they're made (Gen 3:19).

Q: What if some of the atoms that made my body go into making another
person's body after I'm dead? How will God fully restore both our bodies to
life seeing as how He will have need of the atoms of each to do so?

A: Specific atoms are all the same; it's not as if there are no two alike; viz:
if God needs some carbon atoms to reconstruct your body, He could utilize
carbon atoms from a Sequoia cactus and they would work just fine without
the slightest need for adjustment because every carbon atom is a precise
duplicate of every other carbon atom; viz: all carbon atoms are just one kind
of carbon atom.

So it isn't necessary for God to locate all your original carbon atoms in order
to reconstruct your original body; He just needs carbon atoms; and they are
very plentiful in nature: same with iron atoms, calcium, phosphorus, sodium,
hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
_
 
Last edited: