1. 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!

Analyzing Jehovah's Witnesses

Discussion in 'Unorthodox Doctrine Forum' started by Webers_Home, Feb 6, 2020.

  1. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.
  2. Windmillcharge

    Windmillcharge Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    United Kingdom
    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.
    Nancy likes this.
  3. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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
  4. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.
  5. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.


    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.
  6. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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

    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

    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.
  7. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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
  8. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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.
  9. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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

    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.
  10. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.
  11. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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

    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
  12. Preacher4Truth

    Preacher4Truth Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.
    Nancy likes this.
  13. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    United States
    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".
    Windmillcharge likes this.
  14. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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.
  15. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

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

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

    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.
  16. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.
  17. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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

    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

    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
  18. Webers_Home

    Webers_Home Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    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.