Analyzing Jehovah's Witnesses

  • 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
.
For a home-spun, Bible-based religion whose origin is relatively recent, the
Watchtower Society has done pretty well for itself. Beginning with one man
shortly after the American Civil War, it currently numbers approximately 8.2
million active members spread out in approximately 118,000 congregations
worldwide. (Congregations have been displaced and consolidated in recent
years due to the Society liquidating a number of Kingdom Halls in order to
settle its legal obligations.)

My first encounter with a Watchtower Society agent (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and inexperienced; and
thus assumed that the missionary coming down my dad's driveway was a
typical Christian.

But when I talked this over with an elder; he became alarmed; and urged
me to read a little book titled "30 Years A Watchtower Slave" by William J.
Schnell; whom the Society at one time demonized as an agent of Satan. I
would not be surprised if it still does.

After getting my eyes opened by Mr. Schnell's book, I was afterwards
steered towards another book titled "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter
Martin. No doubt the Society demonizes Mr. Martin too.

Around late 1980, my wife and I attended a series of lectures sponsored by
a local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The speaker
(call him Pete) was an ex JW who had been in the Watchtower Society
system for near three decades before terminating his involvement; so he
knew the twists and turns of its doctrines pretty good.

Pete didn't train us to hammer the Society's missionaries in a discussion
because even if you best them scripture for scripture, they will not give up
on the Society. Their mind's unflinching premise is that the Society is right
even when it appears to be totally wrong. They are thoroughly convinced
that the Society is the voice of God, while your voice has no more validity
than that of a squeaky little gerbil.

Later on, I read a book titled "Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted
Dencher. I also read the Society's little brown book titled "Reasoning From
The Scriptures
".

(This was all before the internet and the ready volume of information
available online, e.g. YouTube.)

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of normal Christianity's standard terms
and phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
the JW mind than what you'd expect because the Society has re-defined the
meanings of those terminologies.

So your first challenge with Jehovah's Witness teachings is to scale the
language barrier. That by itself is an Herculean task because you'll not only
be up against a tangle of semantics, but also a Jumanji of twisted scriptures,
double speak, humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, and clever sophistry.
_
 
  • Like
Reactions: marksman

Windmillcharge

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2017
2,934
1,823
113
68
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Beginning with one man
I haven't studied it's history in detail but Russell belonged and led various fringe Christian groups before founding the watch tower tract and bible society. He would have had plenty of gullible follower to lead into his new light.

That isn't the main reason for writing.

When witnessing to me one must know what one is talking about, but the chief aim isn't to score points but to sow seeds, seeds of doubt in the watch tower teaching, and then to move on.

Those who leave the is do so because they have started to question the dogmatic teachings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Raymond Victor Franz was a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's
Witnesses from October 20, 1971 until his removal on May 22, 1980, and
served at the organization's world headquarters for fifteen years, from 1965
until 1980.

Mr. Franz resigned, and stated that the request for his resignation, and his
subsequent dis-fellowshipping, resulted from allegations of apostasy.

Following his departure, Mr. Franz wrote a book titled "Crisis Of Conscience"
relating his personal experiences with the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, and his views on Jehovah's Witness teachings. It's a bit expensive in
print form, but as of the date of this writing could be heard audibly for free
on YouTube and/or as a free pdf download.

Mr. Franz's book, and his interviews, are helpful aids for people wondering if
they made the right decision leaving the Society's fold. It's also helpful for
people thinking about becoming a Jehovah's Witness but not too sure
whether they'd be making a really big, life-changing mistake not easily
corrected.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.

The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored
to life as per John 2:19-22.

"Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will
you raise it up in three days? But he was talking about the temple of his
body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to
mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the
saying that Jesus said."

You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word.
" (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His
life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum
of the virgin girl, Mary.
" (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his
human form passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God
transferred Michael's life force back into his angel form thus restoring him to
his former spirit existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a
permanent state of decease.


NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.


FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar.
"

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Acts 1:1-3 . .The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the
things Jesus started both to do and to teach, until the day that he was taken
up, after he had given commandment through holy spirit to the apostles
whom he chose. To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself
alive after he had suffered.

The Watchtower Society's version of those "positive proofs" is interesting.

In order to show his friends that their savior was back from death, the arch
angel Michael is alleged to have materialized an artificial Jesus that was in all
respects just as physical, and just as functional, as the real Jesus.

However:

1• The New Testament never even one time, on any occasion, nor under any
circumstances, nor in any situation, either attests, alleges, alludes, or states
that an angel named Michael appeared to Christ's disciples cloaked in a
human avatar.

2• The Society's Michael never once let on to his friends that he was an
angel in disguise. He led them to believe that his avatar was the actual Jesus
Christ they all knew prior to his crucifixion.

3• Passing one's self off in the guise of a dead man is the lowest form of
identity theft imaginable. It's what I expect from human beings, but that is
not the kind of behavior I have a right to expect from an arch angel.

4• A so-called materialized body is not a real person.

5• Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor James, nor Jude, ever even one
single instance in any of their writings identify Jesus Christ as an angel
named Michael: not once. You'd think that if Jesus Christ is currently an
angel who goes by the name of Michael, those men would have said so
because that would be a really big deal.


FAQ: Why make an issue of the nature of Christ's resurrection?

A: Were I the Devil, I would do my utmost best to disprove the resurrection
of Jesus Christ's crucified dead body because his crucifixion is only half
enough to protect people from the wrath of God. Though his physical body's
death obtains forgiveness for people's sins, its death doesn't gain
exoneration for them.

Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered up for the sake of our trespasses, and was
raised up for the sake of declaring us righteous.

The Greek word translated "righteous" is dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which
means acquittal; defined as an adjudication of innocence.

People merely forgiven still carry a load of guilt; viz: they have a criminal
record. Christ's physical resurrection deletes their record so that on the
books, it's as though they've never been anything but 100% innocent.

This clearing of one's guilt that I'm talking about is obtained via the kindness
and generosity of God through belief in the resurrection of Christ's crucified
dead body. If the Devil can succeed in convincing people that Jesus' crucified
body is still dead or, even better yet, make them question whether the man
even existed at all; then they will fail to obtain an acquittal, and
consequently end up put to death in brimstone because records are to be
reviewed when people stand to face justice at the Great White Throne event
depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Of all the doctrines invented by the Watchtower Society, I'd have to say that
their resurrection story is the most insidious because belief in the recovery
of Christ's crucified dead body is one of the essential elements of the gospel
that must be accepted if one is to have any chance at all of escaping the
sum of all fears.

1Cor 15:17 . . Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is
useless; you are yet in your sins.


NOTE: According to 1Cor 15:34, people that disbelieve Jesus Christ's
crucified body is alive aren't fully conscious; viz: they're like someone in a
stupor; i.e. dazed.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
FAQ: 1Cor 15:50 clearly testifies that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God. Wouldn't that fact alone preclude the possibility of Christ's
crucified dead body returning to life?


A: According to John 3:3-12, the kingdom of God is primarily an earthly
venue so we're not talking about Heaven in 1Cor 15:50.

Also, the Greek word translated "inherit" is kleronomeo (klay-ron-om-eh'-o)
which speaks of heirs; roughly defined by Webster's as someone who is
entitled to receive something from an ancestor. In other words: in order to
obtain a place and/or a possession in the kingdom of God, one must first and
foremost be Jehovah's legitimate kin-- for real, either by birth or by
adoption.

Anyway; it was essential that Christ's crucified dead body be returned to life
or otherwise his prediction as per John 2:19-22, and the Scriptures as per Ps
16:10, Luke 24:44-46, and Acts 2:24-32 would be easily proven false.

However, as 1Cor 15:50 implies: his body's original materials were
unsuitable for a place and/or a possession in the kingdom God, which is
pretty serious seeing as Jesus in on track to dominate it while seated on
David's throne in Jerusalem. So then, the chemistry of his body had to be
reformulated.

God is very creative so I seriously doubt that natual flesh and blood are the only
materials that He has to work with. I also seriously doubt that spirit material
is the default material when natural flesh and blood are not an option; I mean, after
all, if God was able to design the human body in its original form, so I see no
reason why He would not be able to redesign it.


FAQ: When would Christ's body have undergone this redesign?

A: Someday all of Christ's believing followers will be physically resurrected
and taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 4:13-17). On the way up,
their natural bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation
(1Cor 15:51-53). They'll become superhuman; viz: deathless and ageless.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's crucified body underwent a
similar transformation while on the way up to heaven as per Acts 1:9 so that
today his body is no longer a normal human body; but instead, a
superhuman body to which all his believing followers' bodies will one day
conform. (Phil 4:20-21)


NOTE: Although the organic aspects of Christ's body have been
reformulated; it's still capable of dining upon ordinary foods and beverages.
(Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16-18)


FAQ: If Jesus Christ's corpse really did return to life; then how did he get it
into a room without opening the door? (John 20:19)


A: Christ walked on water, restored withered limbs, cured people born blind,
healed serious diseases like leprosy, restored dead bodies to life, controlled
the weather, multiplied fish and bread, turned water into wine, and
levitated. Plus; he once said that rocks could be made to speak. (Luke
19:40)

What's one more miracle, more or less? Walking through walls?
Disappearing and reappearing? How hard could any of that really be for a
man with the powers of God at his disposal?

It's curious how people can say they believe in miracles, yet cannot believe
that God has sufficient control over the laws of nature to make a physical
human body pass through solid objects. What defines miracles anyway?
Aren't they acts of God that defy reason? Mark Twain once remarked that
faith is believin' what you know ain't so. I would add that faith is believing
what's revealed rather than only what makes sense.


FAQ: Well; if Jehovah has enough control over the laws of nature to pass a
physical human body through closed doors, then couldn't He pass the arch
angel Michael through the door as a spirit and then materialize him on the
other side as a human in order to communicate with his friends?


A: That would be acceptable if only there were some record of it in the New
Testament. But it is an irrefutable fact that the New Testament not even one
time, on any occasion, nor under any circumstances, nor in any situation,
either attests, alleges, alludes, or states that an angel named Michael
appeared to Christ's friends cloaked in a human avatar. That doctrine
doesn't come from the New Testament. It's a humanistic fantasy.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Watch for the deliberate misquote in the passage below.

1Cor 15:42-44 . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised
up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. 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.

Catch the misquote? Well; there is no mention of a spirit body in that
passage. The actual word is "spiritual".

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily
refer to the characteristics 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)

It's apparently been decided, and chipped in stone, by a number of
theologians that the spiritual body has to be composed of spirit because of
the passage below.

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

But spirit isn't necessarily the default material when flesh and blood are
ruled out.

In my opinion if God was intelligent enough, and creative enough, to invent
all the natural atomic elements on the periodic table with which to fabricate
the current cosmos with all of its natural forms of life, matter, and energy;
then it shouldn't be all that difficult for Him to produce yet another set of
atomic elements with which to fabricate unnatural bodies composed of
materials heretofore unknown by the likes of Albert Einstein, J.Robert
Oppenheimer, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking.

There are some other things in addition to immortality that are known about
the spiritual body.

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 fully human.

Heb 2:5-8 . . For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited
earth to come,d about which we are speaking. But a certain witness has
given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or
the son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than
angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the
works of your hands. All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he
subjected all things to him God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now,
though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him;

Heb 5:1-6 . . For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in
behalf of men over the things pertaining to God

3) The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods and
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.

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.

Luke 22:28-29 . . However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in
my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a
covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in
my kingdom,

4) The spiritual body is visible to 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.

1John 3:2 . .We shall see him just as he is.

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
.
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

Heb 5:10-11 . . He has been specifically called by God a high priest
according to the manner of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to
say and hard to be explained, since you all have become dull in your
hearing.

Though the author of the letter to Hebrews was no doubt duty-bound and
inspired by God to write it, I can sense reluctance in his tone-- not because
his audience lacked enough spiritual acumen to keep up. No, nothing like
that. The Greek word for "dull" primarily means sluggish, i.e. lazy, slow,
and/or indifferent, i.e. a lack of interest. In other words, he knew that the
recipients of his letter would likely be bored to tears by his discussion of
Jesus Christ's association with the high priest order of Melchizedek, and
would resist making an honest effort to understand it, i.e. 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.

Melchizedek's only personal 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 high priesthood.

However; at least one of the salient features of Mel's priesthood should be
readily obvious to everybody regardless of their IQ: 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 No.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 an active priest because this is Aaron's district.

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 Greek for both "men" and "man" in that verse is the same. It's derived
from anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) --a common word for h.sapiens 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; rather, it says a man Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to
be an h.sapiens 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 a
spirit 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.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
On page 1129 of the Watchtower publication "Aid To Bible Understanding" a
mediator is defined as one who interposes between two parties at variance
to reconcile them: an intercessor.

Here's a question that someone wrote in to the "Questions From Readers"
section of the April 01, 1976 issue of Watchtower magazine, asking:

Is Jesus the mediator only for anointed Christians? (a.k.a. the 144,000)

The answer given in the magazine is YES.

The magazine's answer is corroborated on page 1130 of "Aid To Bible
Understanding" where it says that the 144,000 are the only ones who have
the mediator; a.k.a. Jesus Christ. (1John 2:1)

Intercession for non anointed Witnesses is accomplished on the coattails of
the 144,000; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party mediator for the
rank and file via their affiliation with the Watchtower Society.

It's sort of like buying insurance from Allstate. The company doesn't sell
direct; its business is conducted through brokers. In essence, that's what the
Society presumes itself: Jesus Christ's mediation brokerage.

So then; when a Jehovah's Witness either defects or is disfellowshipped, it
breaks the pipeline to the mediator that they enjoyed within the Society's
fold; right quick losing all contact with God, and placing themselves in grave
danger of the calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.

Bottom line: According to Watchtower Society theology; it is impossible for
non-anointed people to be on peaceful terms with God apart from affiliation
with the Society's anointed class, a.k.a. the faithful and wise steward.

In other words: Christ's mediation for rank and file JWs as per 1Tim 2:5 is
accomplished via a chain of communication that begins with Christ's
association with the faithful and wise steward; and from thence to the rest of
humanity. Removing the faithful and wise steward from the chain cuts
humanity off from Christ; thus leaving them with no way to reconcile with
God.


NOTE: I've had JWs tell me that the Watchtower magazine isn't an authority
in matters of faith and practice. But the Jan 1, 1942 issue of the magazine,
on page 5, speaks for itself as a trustworthy source of Watchtower Society
theology by saying:

"Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or
expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all. Those who
believe that God uses the Watchtower as a means of communicating to his
people, or of calling attention to his prophecies, should study The
Watchtower.
"

In other words: the haulers of water and the hewers of wood-- viz: the rank
and file --are not only expected to know what's in the Watchtower magazine,
but they're also required to accept it as the God's truth.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation

The New Testament's Greek word for "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos,
which never means created first; no, it always means born first. The correct
Greek word for created first is protoktistos.

The average JW probably doesn't know the difference between prototokos
and protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway. To some;
born first and created first are essentially one and the same.

The thing to note is that "firstborn" doesn't always refer to birth order. The
term also refers to pay grade, so to speak, and as such is transferrable from
an elder sibling to a younger, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh to
Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1).

There was a time when David was God's firstborn (Ps 89:20-27). The
position was later transferred to one of David's sons. You'd think that the
Jews' religious experts of Jesus' day would have known about this.

Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus
asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They
said to him: “David’s" He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by
inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right
hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet” ’? If, therefore, David calls
him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?”

Jesus was referring to Psalm 110:1, wherein we will find two very different
Hebrew words for "Lord"'

The first is Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw') a.k.a. Jehovah, Yhvh, and Yahweh; which
is a name reserved for the one true God only and no other.

The second is 'adown (aw-done'); a very common title of respect for one's
superiors in the Old Testament. Sarah revered her husband Abraham as
'adown (Gen 18:12) Rachel revered her dad Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:5)
and Jacob revered his brother Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). So then; Psalm
110:1 can be translated like this:

"The utterance of Jehovah to my superior: Sit at my right hand until I place
your enemies as a stool for your feet."

David is the paterfamilias of his own line of royalty, making him superior to
all of his male progeny; none of them outrank him, all are his subordinates.
But Ps 110:1 speaks of one of David's male progeny who somehow breaks
the rules; and the Jews' religious experts were utterly baffled by it.

Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

The Jews' religious experts were no doubt aware, by means of their Old
Testament studies, that the rank of firstborn can be moved around among
siblings, but nobody even dreamed that a father's supremacy could be taken
from him and given to one of his children; in effect making the child superior
to its parents.

This was something strange to their Jewish way of thinking; yet there it is in
black and white in their own scriptures. They had somehow failed to catch
the significance of Ps 110:1 until Jesus drew their attention to it.

Now; the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy does not permit children to be
superior to their parents.

Ex 20:12 . . Honor your father and your mother

So then, Christ would have to outrank his father David by another route
than family; and he does.

Renaming is fairly common in the Bible, e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to
Israel, Ben-oni to Benjamin, Simon to Cephas, and Rev 2:17. But with
Christ, we encounter an astonishing renaming.

Phil 2:8-11 . . 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. (cf. Eph 1:20-21)


FAQ: What is "the name" that is above every other name?

A: Jehovah

FAQ: Is that the reason why Jesus outranks his father David?

A: Yes. Jesus has the God-given right to use Jehovah's name as his own
name; which allows him all the respect and reverence that the name
deserves; viz: failure to revere Jesus as Jehovah dishonors the name of God
the Father.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower
Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.

"Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens
and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All
[other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before
all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to
exist."

The word "other" is in brackets. This alert readers that "other" is not in the
Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to pencil it
in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation; and
thereafter, the Son created everything else.


NOTE: I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added "other"
because that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't say so
in writing. In other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an
interpretation rather than a translation.

One day, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my door consisting of
an experienced worker and a trainee. I immediately began subjecting the
trainee to a line of questioning that homed in on the Society's rather
dishonest habit of penciling in words that go to reinforcing its line of
thinking.

I had him read the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that
the word "other" is in brackets to alert him to the fact that "other" is not in
the Greek manuscript. The experienced worker corroborated my statement.

I then proceeded to have the trainee read the passage sans "other". It
comes out like this:

"By means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means
of him all things were made to exist."

The trainee's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to
discover that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he
was led to believe.

Had I pressed the attack; I would have pointed out that the Society is
inconsistent with its use of the word "other" by failing to pencil it into John
1:3 in order to make it read like this:

"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not
even one [other] thing came into existence."

Now; as to tampering with Paul's letters, and forcing them to mean things
they don't say in writing; this is what Peter has to say about that.

2Pet 3:15-16 . . Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as
salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given
him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his
letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the
untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction.


NOTE: The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits
brackets around the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen
from the Watchtower Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures that "other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text. Caveat
Lector.
_
 

Preacher4Truth

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
2,252
2,861
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It appears as if @Webers_Home is like a bot or trolling. He posts but doesn't interact with those who comment. Well, not that I've seen. Others have made the same observation. It is really quite odd to be honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r1xlx and Nancy

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,761
25,324
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I haven't studied it's history in detail but Russell belonged and led various fringe Christian groups before founding the watch tower tract and bible society. He would have had plenty of gullible follower to lead into his new light.

That isn't the main reason for writing.

When witnessing to me one must know what one is talking about, but the chief aim isn't to score points but to sow seeds, seeds of doubt in the watch tower teaching, and then to move on.

Those who leave the is do so because they have started to question the dogmatic teachings.

You won't find any communication here Wind. I think WebersHome should be blogging??

And yes, I agree - plant the seeds if approached by them...or any man made "religion".
 

Webers_Home

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

The Greek word for "only-begotten" in that verse is monogenes (mon-og
en-ace') which is also found in John 1:14, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John
4:9. It's 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)


FAQ: God literally fathered a child?

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


FAQ: 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 mysterious collaboration 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.


FAQ: 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.
_
 

Webers_Home

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

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

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

I'm unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible identified as living gods;
not even the people 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 because when 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 theótes (theh-ot'-ace) which means:
divinity

Seeing as how theótes 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.

John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted
also to the Son to have life in himself.

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 somehow 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
.
The Watchtower Society will never accept classical Christianity's teaching
that Jesus Christ is Jehovah incognito simply because the Society's undying
premise is that it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a
human being simultaneously.

According to the premise: Jehovah's spirit existence would have to be
terminated before He could become a human existence; and I can easily
guarantee that nobody is ever going to convince the Society otherwise
unless they first prove that the Word of John 1:1-4 is impervious to death.
In other words; in order to prove to the Society that it's possible for a spirit
being to exist as a human being simultaneously, it is necessary to prove to
the Society that the Word is an everlasting life; which is a kind of life that
cannot die. Fortunately it's very easy to do because the apostle John did that
part for us in his first epistle.

1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed attentively and
our hands felt, concerning the word of life, (yes, the life was made manifest,
and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the
everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,)

The Greek word for "everlasting" in that passage is aionios (ahee-o'-nee-os)
which essentially means perpetual; viz: without interruption.

The Word's human existence as per John 1:14 was as a mortal life and thus
easily interrupted; but seeing as how the Word's spirit existence as per
1John 1:1-2 is an everlasting life, then it's impossible for the Word's spirit
existence to be interrupted.

Jehovah cannot interrupt His existence as God because Jehovah is an
everlasting life (Gen 21:33, Rom 16:26). In the same manner, the Word
cannot interrupt his existence as the Word because the Word is an
everlasting life too. (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2)

The Word may have temporarily divested himself of his glory when he came
to the earth to live and die as a human being, but he did not, and could not,
divest himself of his spirit existence because in order to do that, he would
have to die; which is an impossibility for everlasting life. If that were not so,
then it would be possible to assassinate Jehovah. In point of fact, it would
even be possible for Jehovah to commit suicide.


NOTE: According to chapter 1, verse 1, of John's gospel, the Word is a god.
Well; seeing as how the Word is an everlasting life, then he's obviously an
everlasting god too; viz: the Watchtower Society's religion has two
everlasting gods in it, and both of those everlasting gods are credited with
the creation of the cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy.

Precisely how an everlasting being can exist simultaneously as a created
being is one of the mysteries of classical Christianity that has to be taken on
faith rather than reason because the 3-pound lump of fatty, flabby organic
tissue housed in a man's bony little skull, and sufficing for a mind, is just too
limited to get it; and not even all three of those pounds are devoted to
cognitive processes.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
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 true
and the false, viz: the authentic and the imitation, the intrinsic and the
artificial; 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; 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 authority 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: Oh; they're real alright: real imitations because according to
Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 there is only one true god. Therefore
the gods in Ps 82 are artificial gods. True gods don't die; viz: they're
immortal, impervious to death. The gods in Psalm 82 are not immortal.

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 artificial god--
i.e. a false god --and his divinity is no more divine in reality than a totem
pole or a statue of Shiva.


POSIT: If true gods don't die, then Jesus is not a true god because he was
mortal.


RESPONSE: If Christ's origin had begun only with Adam, then that
conclusion would be 100% correct. However, I know from John 1:1-14 and
Heb 3:3-5 that Christ's origin is an eternal being who not only pre-existed
the first man, but also got him started.

I have thus far been unable to comprehend how it's possible for the eternal
being who created the first man to then biologically descend from that very
same man. It's easy to say that Christ is fully God and fully Man, but not so
easy to make sense of it. It's just as difficult for regular Christians as it is for
JWs.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
FAQ: 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 (theh'-os). 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 the Society translates theós in upper case though it
be not 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. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho
can be either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs
in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than
dictated by a strict rule of Greek grammar. Of course the Society prefers
that the Word be a lower case god because it's agreeable with their version
of Christ's divinity.
_
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,612
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

God and/or gods, is from the Greek word theós (theh'-os).

Many moons ago; I asked some Watchtower Society missionaries to explain to me why their Bible translated theós in upper case in Thomas' statement seeing as how in Watchtower theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled with an upper case G. 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 upper case 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 the passage is possessive. In other words: the apostle Thomas didn't just declare that Jesus was a god. No, Thomas clearly declared that Jesus was "my" 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.

Ex 20:1-3 . . 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.

"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 JWs 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 Jesus and was one of his close personal friends.
_
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Webers_Home, post: 696318, member: 4792"].

"FAQ: 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 (theh'-os). 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 the Society translates theós in upper case though it
be not modified by ho.

[Theos is the nominative case for 'God/god.' John 1:1 has only one such use of theos (John1:1c) which is what we are concerned with. The other cases (theon, theou, theo, thee) are not as reliable in article usage and are not what is being examined for the correct translation of John 1:1c. The society translates only one word as 'God' in 1:18 (theon); theos there is without the article and is translated as 'god.' John 20:17 has the anarthrous theos translated as God for 2 reasons. First, they are modified by a genitive noun which makes the use or non-use of the article uncertain according to Robertson (and many other Trinitarian grammarians). Second it is in a series of nouns which is headed by the definite article ('the Father' and grammarians tell us the following nouns in that series may also be understood to have the article.]

"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. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho
can be either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

"So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs
in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than
dictated by a strict rule of Greek grammar. Of course the Society prefers
that the Word be a lower case god because it's agreeable with their version
of Christ's divinity."

[Furthermore, John (as well as the other Gospel writers) ALWAYS used the article with theos when it clearly meant 'God.' - see http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-4-end-notes.html end note #5.]