Countering 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!

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Have you ever considered writing a book on this? You certainly have enough posts on the subject matter to do it. :p I'm not disagreeing with you here. Its actually quite impressive. lol
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Born_Again said:
Have you ever considered writing a book on this?
Writing a book about Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society
would be redundant as I haven't really posted anything new and/or unusual.
And besides, most everything about the cult's beliefs and practices is
available for free on the internet.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. (Rom 6:23)

Let's say somebody tells 50 lies in their lifetime. That's 50 counts of
dishonesty; each one punishable by death.

In order to satisfy justice for each of those 50 lies, it would be necessary for
the liar to undergo death 50 times. But in order to do, he would also have to
be raised from the dead 50 times.

Well; according to Dan 12:2 and John 5:28-29, there's only one resurrection
allotted per person. So the serial liar will be stuck with a pretty large balance
of lies on the books for which he has no lives remaining to settle his debts
because he will use up his one allotted resurrection in order to face justice.

Death is the ideal justice for liars: it's quick, and it's over, and done with.
But seeing as how that's not possible for serial liars, then the only other
option is perpetual death.

Human existence is thought by some to be entirely organic. It's not. There's
an element to human existence called the breath of life.

†. Gen 2:7a . . And Yhvh God formed a man's body

Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children
or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny
--humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by
craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly
sand for their base material.

†. Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground

The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to
powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or
rubbish.

A major ingredient in man's construction is water, without which his "dust'
wouldn't coalesce. Water is essential to complex organisms; which is why
scientists get really excited when they discover it out in in the universe.

†. Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life

The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among
other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire)
burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4)
to animate.

Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the
order to start their engines.

The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul,
spirit, blast, and inspiration.

What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the
regular kind because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of
a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried.

However, there's abundant evidence in the Bible, starting here in Genesis,
indicating that it's possible to pump life into a corpse. But in order to do
that, one first needs a source of life just as in regular artificial respiration
one first needs a source of air.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by
him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was
life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

That says pretty much the same thing as Gen 2:7, and then adds the fact
that God himself is the source of life from which He drew the life He used to
fire up the man's body.

†. Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living soul.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its first appearance is at
Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at
Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts;
and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.

In other words: Gen 2:7 is saying that humans are souls rather than saying
they have souls. The same is true of aqua creatures, winged, creatures, and
terra creatures. So "soul" distinguishes fauna life from flora life.

The breath of life makes it possible for fauna life to exist as individuals.
Webster's defines an individual as existing as a distinct entity.

Individuality-- which can be roughly defined as a sense of self; viz: a sense
of personal identity --is one of science's unsolved mysteries.

Creatures within whom is the breath of life are perishable; but I have yet to
encounter a passage in the Bible clearly stating that the breath of life is
perishable. In point of fact, I think it is very easy to prove that the human
creature's breath of life is not only a permanent feature of their existence;
but also keeps them in existence.

For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31
passed away, they all left their organic bodies behind, yet on the other side
they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.

I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one
thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have
they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus,
and the rich man is still the rich man; and that has to be because they
retained their breath of life when they crossed over to the other side.

Q: Christ said that it's possible for people to lose their soul (Mark 8:36). I
assume he was referring to the hell fire about which he spoke at Matt 10:28.
Seeing as how soul, relative to people, refers to their humanness, then what
kind of creatures do they become without it?

A: That is a very, very disturbing question because it suggests the prospect
that when people lose their humanness in the hell fire depicted at Rev
20:10-15, they will undergo a transition into something quite different than
human; viz: something inhuman.

I'm guessing, just guessing mind you, that their humanness will be replaced
with something demonic because according to Matt 25:41, hell fire was
constructed especially for the Devil and his allies.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Kind of tough on the JW's Weber? They are the same as any other denomination with their own doctrines and beliefs..they do not believe in blood transfusions based on ACTS 15 prohibiting the consumption of blood, and the three others items mentioned there...but like all of mainstream christianity the follow the pagan based Roman day of the first day of the week (sunday)...they seem to fit right in with mainstream "christianity and all it's thousands of denominations and man made doctrines
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
A common Greek word translated "worship" in the New Testament is
proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) which means, essentially, to kiss like a dog
licking its master's hand. It also means to fawn or crouch to; viz: to prostate
oneself in homage; i.e, to do reverence and/or to adore.

In other words; proskuneo is an ambiguous word with more than one
meaning; and it's peppered all through the New Testament in a variety of
applications; for example:

†. Matt 21-2 . . After Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days
of Herod the king, look! astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem,
saying: Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when
we were in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance.

Webster's defines "obeisance" as 1) a movement of the body made in token
of respect or submission; e.g. bow, and 2) acknowledgment of another's
superiority or importance. Here it is again:

†. Matt 2:11 . . And when they went into the house they saw the young child
with Mary its mother, and, falling down, they did obeisance to it.

I think it's worthwhile noting that those men didn't fall down and do
obeisance to the infant as a god; but as a king; which was an acceptable
practice in the politics of that day and it typically had like zero religious
significance. There's been exceptions of course, but by and large, potentates
aren't usually revered as gods.

Below is an example of obeisance to a god.

†. Matt 4:10 . . Then Jesus said to him: Go away, Satan! For it is written: It
is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to Him alone you must
render sacred service.

NOTE
: The word "Jehovah" is nowhere in the New Testament's Greek text

The Watch Tower Society's translators penciled it in as a substitute for the
actual word. In reality a translation with words penciled in like that is an
interpretation rather than a translation.

The actual word is kurios (koo'-ree-os) which basically means superior
and/or supreme in authority. The Hebrew equivalent is 'adown (aw-done')
and/or the shortened 'adon (aw-done') which mean: sovereign: either
human or divine.

'Adown, like kurios, is an ambiguous word often used as a courteous
title of respect for elders and/or superiors; for example Sarah used the very
same word of her husband at Gen 18:12, Rachel addressed her dad by it at
Gen 31:5, and Jacob addressed his brother Esau by 'adown at Gen 33:8.

At this juncture; I should point out that according to Watch Tower Society
theology, "Jesus Christ" is another name for Michael the arch angel; and it's
also another name for the Word of John 1:1, which means of course that
according to John 1:1 and John 1:18, the Watch Tower Society's Michael is a
god. So then, putting two and two together; it's readily seen that obeisance
to Jesus Christ = obeisance to Michael = obeisance to a god; and that has
some pretty serious ramifications.

†. Ex 20:2-5 . . I am Jehovah your God. You must not have any other gods
against my face. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve
them.

This is a bit of a catch-22 for the Watch Tower Society's missionaries
because according to Ex 20:2-5, it is a sin to do obeisance to any other god
but Jehovah, while at the same time Php 2:9-11 requires it. In point of fact,
as per Society-think: failure to bow down to the god Michael dishonors
Jehovah. (Php 2:11)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
†. Matt 4:10 . .Then Jesus said to him: Go away, Satan! For it is written: It
is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to Him alone you must
render sacred service.

Whom to give sacred service might seem like a silly question with an
obvious answer; but: What exactly is sacred service? Well; if the covenant
that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy can be used as a basis for answering that question; I
would say that sacred service can be defined as compliance with the
commandments of a divine being; viz: a god.

Putting two and two together here's what I came up with. According to John
1:1 and John 1:18 Jesus Christ is a god. And according to John 14:15, John
14:21, and John 15:14; it is Jesus Christ's wishes that people obey his
commandments; and according to John 3:35-36, people who refuse to obey
Jesus Christ's commandments have already been assigned the wrath of "the"
god. That's how serious it is to disobey Jesus Christ's commandments.

So then, if Jesus Christ is another name for Michael the arch angel; then
obeying Jesus Christ's commandments = obeying Michael the arch angel's
commandments= obeying a god's commandments = rendering sacred
service to a god other than the one true god.

This situation presents no difficulty for traditional Christians who believe that
Jesus Christ is a manifestation of the one true god in human flesh. But non
traditional Christians, the ones who don't believe Jesus Christ is a
manifestation of the one true god in human flesh, have got a problem
because according to Matt 4:10 rendering sacred service to a god other than
the one true god is forbidden.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

According to Jesus Christ's God-given message as per John 3:3-8, a physical
man is defined as the product of natural human birth. This is far more
serious than the typical non spirit-born Watch Tower Society missionary is
capable of realizing.

According to Paul the apostle's teachings at 1Cor 2:14, the physical man
cannot relate to God, cannot perceive God's thoughts, and cannot accept the
things of the spirit of God because to the physical man, the things of the
Spirit are absurd and he cannot get to know them because they are
examined spiritually as opposed to examined soulically.

The soulical man is therefore, not in harmony with God, rather, according to
Rom 8:5-9, the soulical man is quite at enmity with God.

Bottom line: The Watch Tower missionaries that come to your door are
thoroughly incapable of representing Jehovah.

OBJECTION
: One thing you fail to realize is that a person need not be spirit
born to be spiritual. There are a large number of references to this
throughout the Bible, including Moses, Joshua, David, and many others who
were spiritual and about whom it is never said they underwent spirit birth.

RESPONSE
: Well; quite obviously that ship has sailed and it's time to wake
up and get your bearings. People today are not in the Old Testament era.
They're in the New; and there's no going back; so everyone now is pretty
much stuck with the God-given words spoken by Jesus Christ and the
inspired teachings of the apostle Paul.

So then, even if John 3:3-8 and 1Cor 2:14 wasn't applicable back in the Old
Testament's day, it sure is now; and all the clever sophistry, semantic
double speak, and humanistic reasoning and rationalizing in the world is not
going invalidate those passages.

Now, we should address the Society's objection that "it is never said they
underwent spirit birth".

The Watch Tower Society's objection is called an argument from silence;
which is essentially a kind of logic that concludes if something isn't clearly
stated, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state.

However, I'm pretty sure it's safe to infer from the God-given words spoken
by Jesus Christ, and from Paul the apostle's inspired teachings, that the Old
Testament's luminaries were all spirit-born to a man regardless of the Bible
not explicitly saying so.

Don't you see? The spirit birth about which Jesus Christ spoke was not a new
thing. In point of fact, Nicodemus was supposed to know all about it without
Jesus having to explain it.

†. John 3:10 . . Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not know these
things?

The Watch Tower Society's missionaries have a decision to make: Did Jesus
Christ and Paul the apostle know what they were talking about or not? And if
they did; then why are the Society's missionaries listening to the Watch
Tower Society instead of listening to Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle?

Well; I'll tell you why. It's because Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle spoke
for the things of the Spirit of God; therefore their teachings are
unreasonable to Watch Tower Society missionaries by the simple fact that
they are products of human birth instead of spirit birth.

†. John 6:6-7 . . What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has
been born from the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel because I said you people
must be born again.

Well; it's no marvel to me. I mean, how else are people with a physical mind
ever going to relate to God on a meaningful level? With the 3-pound lump of
flabby organic tissue housed within their bony little skulls? HAW! Especially
when 60% of that tissue is fat?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
The Watch Tower Society's NWT translates a portion of John 4:24 like this:

"God is a Spirit"

The Watch Tower Society spelled "Spirit" upper case; but not all translators
do. For example the NIV, the NAS, and the NASB spell "spirit" lower case.

Anyway, the NWT has Christ moving on to say:

"and those worshiping him must worship with spirit"

The Kingdom Interlinear doesn't translate the Greek word έv as the English
word "with" rather, as the word "in".

Seeing as how the Interlinear trumps the NWT; then we should plug "in" into
Christ's statement, so that it looks like this:

"and those worshiping him must worship in spirit"

It looks to me that Christ was saying that his Father wants people to worship
Him spirit to spirit; which is a bit problematic for Jehovah's Witnesses
because according to Watch Tower Society theology, humans are entirely
physical. So then; if humans lack a spirit component to their existence, then
in their natural-born, totally organic condition, they are incapable of
worshipping God as He would like.

This is a crucial issue because according to Christ, spirit-to-spirit worship
of God isn't optional; no, it's a must.

The answer to this dilemma is of course the water of life about which Christ
spoke with the Samaritan woman in the fourth chapter of John. That water
provides people with a spirit component to their existence in which they can
worship God as He would like.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Q: Why does the Watch Tower Society refer to the Word in John 1:1 as a
god in lower case rather than a god in upper case?

A: The Watch Tower Society's doctrine is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's modified by the little
Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós with an upper case G.
But when the article is absent, they translate theós with a lower case g. In
other words: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the
one true God, while theós by itself pertains to nondescript gods; unless the
context dictates otherwise.

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. Bottom line? A translator's
choice whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John1:1 or not to
capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary. So an alternate translation of John 1:1
could look like this:

"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with god, and god was
the Word."

Or:

"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and God was
the Word."

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

There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false.
There is no middle ground. Now according to John 17:3 and 1Cor 8:5-6,
there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be false
gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he is, by
default, a false god.

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

By placing Christ in the mighty-one category, the Society's version of Jesus
can be an actual god without being either a true god or a false god. But of
course it doesn't take a Th.D. degree in English to see right off how that kind
of thinking amounts to little more than clever sophistry combined with
semantic double speak.

Q: Well then; why don't they translate John 1:1 like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one."

A: They can't translate it that way because in order to do so they would have to
adulterate the Greek. So instead of translating theόs as a mighty one; they
simply interpret it that way. In other words: they spin it; which can be
defined as twisting something around to favor a particular point of view.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Marilyn C

Active Member
Mar 16, 2016
492
161
43
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hi Webers_home,

Pleased to meet you. I have appreciated what I have read. Thank you. I am on holidays is sunny Queensland & while walking along board walk I met these people with religious material. I knew they were JW`s & had a chat. I zeroed in on asking them questions & especially concerning their heart. Your comments are most helpful & I will go back again tomorrow praying that the one I was talking to will be receptive, challenged, by the Holy Spirit.

Now I did appreciate you comments here as many people are being tricked, deceived into believing that our inheritance is earthly.


`A glorious body is an heavenly body.

†. Php 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
.`
All the best, Marilyn.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Depending upon one's translation of choice; Jesus Christ is described in John
1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, and John 3:18, as the only-begotten god and/or
the only-begotten son of God. Either way, the koiné Greek word for "only
begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.

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

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

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child in the New Testament. If a parent has two or three 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 in the home because it wouldn't be
the home's biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

OBJECTION
: I would submit that the monogenes is also used in the context
of "one of a kind" viz: a child who is unequalled when compared to others.
For example, it is found in Hebrew 11:17 of Isaac being Abraham's "only
begotten son." But Isaac's older brother Ishmael was also Abraham's
biological son.

RESPONSE: The objector's objection isn't a translation, rather, it's an
interpretation.

To start with, three New Testament examples of monogenes are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38, and in all three examples it refers not
to a special child, but to a parent's sole biological child.

Next I'll go to the Old Testament.

The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn son. However, there was a clause in the
laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery
biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all
claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

†. Gen 21:14 . . So Abraham got up early in the morning and took bread
and a skin water bottle and gave it to Hagar, setting it upon her shoulder,
and the child, and then dismissed her.

The phrase "dismissed her" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a word used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves. In
other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was
set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if
Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have
retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest biological son.

Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.

†. Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.

†. Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do
nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from Me.

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons
(Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was
dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.

But aside from all that: if the Word of John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, and
John 3:18 is really and truly God's biological offspring (so to speak) then the
Watch Tower Society has a serious problem with its Christology; because if
God were to reproduce He would give birth to God; viz: more of Himself;
just was when humans reproduce they give birth to humans; viz: more of
themselves.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Were you to ask John Q. and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary 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
you and they would not be on the same page 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 standard Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ died as a physical human being
and he came back as a physical human being.

Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) didn't believe in that kind of return to life.
He taught reincarnation; which is very different because it doesn't eo ipso
indicate people coming back as human beings, nor as even as themselves;
but rather, as rearranged karma; which means Buddhists could conceivably
come back as someone else, and even a different gender: or a sea urchin, or
a termite, or a fruit bat.

The Watchtower Society's resurrection theory is just as loopy as
Siddhartha's. According to its proprietary way of seeing things; Christ didn't
return from death physically at all; and here's why.

In Watch Tower 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 being seeing as how in
Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a
human being simultaneously. Thus when Michael's so-called "life force" was
transferred to flesh and given the name Jesus; he became not only a
different species of life, but a whole other person too; viz: except for his so
called "life force" Michael the angel ceased to exist.

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

There is a really, really big hole in the Society's theology; and that's the
dead man's corpse. In order to confirm that Jesus stayed dead, the Society
is going to have produce his remains. A piece of evidence of that significance
can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if it makes no
difference

†. 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.

Did Jesus really show himself alive by many positive proofs after he had
suffered? Not according to the Watch Tower Society. In their theology,
Michael the angel showed himself alive by means of a materialized body that
resembled his alter ego in every way-- nail prints and spear wound to boot
--because Michael's human body had to stay dead in order for him to regain

his angel body.

There are some seriously fatal flaws in that theory.

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 in Christ's human form cloaked in a
materialized body.

2• Michael the angel never once identities himself as Michael the angel when
allegedly appearing in a materialized body.

3• Passing one's self off in the guise of a dead man is the lowest form of
identity theft imaginable. People do it all the time; and 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; it's an avatar.

5• Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor James, nor Jude, ever even one
single time in any of their writings correlate Jesus Christ with Michael the
angel: not once. You'd think that if Michael the angel was Jesus Christ, that
those men would have said so because that would be a really big deal.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
†. John 2:19-22 . . Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three
days. 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.

Now I should think that anybody with even a sixth grader's level of reading
comprehension would easily see that Christ was speaking of a physical
resurrection for himself rather than a spirit resurrection.

Watchtower Society missionaries have informed me that, instead of restoring
Jesus Christ's corpse to life, God dismantled it into a zillion teensy little
microscopic pieces and scattered them to the four winds. However, even if
the missionaries' affirmation was actually stated in the Bible record; Christ's
remains wouldn't have remained in a microscopic condition for longer than
three days or people would have good reason to believe he told a big
whopper at John 2:19-22 --not just about that; but about other things he
said too.

The Society's resurrection doctrine perpetuates a version of the lie that
guards were bribed to say Jesus Christ's corpse was stolen away so that his
disciples could claim a resurrection took place when none had; except the
Society's version says it was Yhvh who stole Christ's corpse instead of his
disciples; insinuating that God is a grave robber.

According to Heb 6:1-2, resurrection is an elementary subject; in other
words: it's for beginners. Well; think about it. If the Watchtower Society's
resurrection doctrine is faulty; just think how much more faulty its advanced
doctrines must be.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
The Watchtower Society argues that the account of the metemorphe
(transfiguration) found at Matt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form,
proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh?

According to the Society's own doctrines, it is impossible to exist as a spirit
being and a human being simultaneously. Now this is important because in
order for Jesus to exist in human form, his angel form had to be terminated.
So at the time of the transfiguration, Jesus' human form was his true form.
In words: if anything, the transfiguration would not prove his ability to
materialize himself as a human, but rather, as an angel.

Had Jesus Christ undergone a change of nature in the transfiguration scene,
he would have also undergone a change of name, but at no time during the
event was he ever referred to as Michael; instead, throughout the event
continued to be referred to as Jesus; which is his human name.

During the event, a voice from heaven identified Jesus as "my beloved son".
According to the first chapter of the letter to Hebrews, God has never taken
an angel as either His son or His heir.

All three of the synoptic gospels report the transfiguration event as a
preview of the future kingdom; which, according to Heb 2:5-8 will be ruled,
managed, and supervised by human beings rather than by angel beings.

Ergo: in order for Jesus to rule the kingdom as a human being, his human
body would have to be restored to life because a materialized human body is
not a human; it's an avatar.

This presents a knotty problem for the Society because according to its
teachings, Jesus' body cannot be restored to life. It has to stay dead and
cached away somewhere on the earth in order to remain an effective
sacrifice for the sins of the world.

The Watch Tower Society's rather curious claim is located on page 237 of the
April 15, 1963 issue of the Watch Tower magazine; which reads: "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."

I'm a fan of a very bright woman named Marilyn vos Savant. She pens a
weekly column in the Sunday paper's Parade Magazine. Her tested IQ is
somewhere in the 200 range. Marilyn received a question that goes like this:

QUESTION:
Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a
statement, and another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?

MARILYN'S ANSWER: Usually the person who makes an affirmative
statement (defined as a statement that asserts a fact, makes an allegation,
or favors an action; etc) has the burden of proof. America's justice system is
an example. The prosecution (or the plaintiff, as the case may be) rather
than the defense, must prove its case to the jury. Failure to prove it's case,
requires that the defense be exonerated.

In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of
the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watch Tower magazine; it has a moral
obligation to substantiate it because it is not incumbent upon the Society's
opponents to prove its claims are false; no, it is incumbent upon the Society
to prove it's claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to
do it with humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever
sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in
scripture. If their claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture,
then rational jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as
spurious fiction.

The fact of the matter is that had Jesus morphed into an angel; the sacred
text would say so; but it doesn't; indicating that the Society has gone and
done something very common with cultists like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker
Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, David Koresh, and Jim Jones: it has forced the
Bible to mean things that it does not say in writing. According to 2Pet 3:15,
people might just as well put a gun to their heads when they do that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
†. 1Cor 15:45-50 . . It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a
living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Nevertheless, the first
is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which
is spiritual. The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second
man is out of heaven.

I think what that passage essentially does is identify Christ as the Word of
John 1:1-4 and John 1:14

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into
existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into
existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life,"

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us,"

So then: Christ didn't become a life-giving spirit after his resurrection: no,
he was a life-giving spirit all along; even before the construction of the
cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy.

Another thing 1Cor 15:45-50 does is prove that it's possible for someone to
exist as a human being and as a spirit being simultaneously. The reason I
say that is because the kind of life that's in the Word is the very same kind
of life that's in God.

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

The kind of life that's in the Father is eternal life; which is impervious to
death. So then: when the Word became flesh, his spirit existence wasn't
terminated in order to make it possible for him to do so. No, the Word
continued to exist as spirit all the while he existed as flesh.

The Watch Tower Society insists that human life is entirely organic. Well;
Christ wasn't entirely organic. Within him was not just human life; but also
the life of God.

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

Surely at least a portion of the divine quality is the power to both give and
to sustain all manner of life. So even had Christ not been a life-giving spirit,
he was at the very least a life-giving man.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
†. Rom 5:18-19 . . Just as through one transgression condemnation came
upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just
as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so
through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

In other words: Adam's imperfection made his progeny imperfect. In
contrast, Christ's perfection makes his progeny perfect.

Q: Christ has progeny?

A: Yes; in point of fact, Jesus' progeny was predicted something like 700
years before he was born.

†. Isa 53:10 . . If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his
descendants in a long life

Q: What's the secret? How do people go about transferring from Adam's
progeny to Christ's?

A: Well; I think it's reasonable to assume that they become Christ's progeny
in a manner similar to the way they became Adam's-- by birth.

Q: So; how would somebody initiate this birth?

A: Well; according to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in the third chapter of
John; here's where the process begins:

†. John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story
short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every
meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine
benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational;
angrily demanding better accommodations.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh
sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking
people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged
Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image
of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying
from venom could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the
people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church
attendance, not missionary work, not scapulars, not confession, not holy
days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not
Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not
the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers.
The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.

In other words then: Christ's crucifixion is the one and only God-given
doorway to a life as his progeny. Failure to accept that it's the only God-
given doorway leaves the disbeliever stuck in Adam; and deprives him of the
righteousness and the acquittal spoken of in Rom 5:18-19 because Adam's
progeny is a condemned progeny.

†. John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in
the name of God's one and only Son.

His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=