PDA

View Full Version : Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses



Pages : [1] 2

WeberHome
November 1st, 2015, 06:39 PM
-
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naïve, and thus
assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down the
driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with
a church 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 classes sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The instructor
(call him Pete) was an ex Witness who had been in the Watch Tower Society
system for near three decades and was a wide-area manager before
terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the ins and outs 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, rebuttal for rebuttal,
and refute for refute, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's
unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it can be easily
proven wrong.

1• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost, these people are
recruiters. Their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the
Watch Tower Society.

2• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of the meeting.

3• Don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately begin
introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation

4• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product-- you're
herald; viz: a messenger; that's all. The goal is to show missionaries that
the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the
Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo
ipso the right interpretations just because they say so.

5• Do not get embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas,
Christmas trees, blood transfusions, the design of the wooden device upon
which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that
sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

6• Force them to listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have
to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking.

7• Do not permit them to butt in and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly,
insist that they remain silent until you are finished speaking.

8• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted
Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with
missionaries because it is the one Bible that they cannot challenge; nor dare
to challenge. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled
Reasoning From The Scriptures.

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and
phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
Society-speak than what you'd expect. So your first challenge in dealing with
a Watch Tower missionary is to scale the semantics barrier; and that by
itself is an Herculean task.

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

CherubRam
November 1st, 2015, 06:51 PM
I have studied with, and spoken to Jehovah Witnesses; and I do not have a clue as to what you are saying. What they say and is also what other congregations say and do. Try giving some specifics.

musterion
November 1st, 2015, 07:17 PM
-
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naïve, and thus
assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down the
driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with
a church 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 classes sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The instructor
(call him Pete) was an ex Witness who had been in the Watch Tower Society
system for near three decades and was a wide-area manager before
terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the ins and outs 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, rebuttal for rebuttal,
and refute for refute, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's
unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it can be easily
proven wrong.

1• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost, these people are
recruiters. Their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the
Watch Tower Society.

2• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of the meeting.

3• Don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately begin
introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation

4• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product-- you're
herald; viz: a messenger; that's all. The goal is to show missionaries that
the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the
Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo
ipso the right interpretations just because they say so.

5• Do not get embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas,
Christmas trees, blood transfusions, the design of the wooden device upon
which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that
sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

6• Force them to listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have
to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking.

7• Do not permit them to butt in and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly,
insist that they remain silent until you are finished speaking.

8• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted
Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with
missionaries because it is the one Bible that they cannot challenge; nor dare
to challenge. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled
Reasoning From The Scriptures.

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and
phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
Society-speak than what you'd expect. So your first challenge in dealing with
a Watch Tower missionary is to scale the semantics barrier; and that by
itself is an Herculean task.

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

Is this your personal experience or something you copied from someone else?

WeberHome
November 1st, 2015, 07:25 PM
-
Watch Tower Society jargon creates a very serious language barrier. For
example; when a normal person hears the word "resurrection" they think of
Christ's crucified body returning to life. Not so in Watch Tower jargon. In its
"speak" resurrection indicates not Christ returning to life; but Michael the
arch angel returning to life.

As another example: when normal people hear the words "Jesus Christ" they
think of a man; but not so in Watch Tower jargon. In its "speak" Jesus Christ
identifies not a man; but an angel. As for Jesus Christ's so-called post
resurrection appearances: those are understood by Watch Tower
missionaries as an angel disguised in a human avatar.

The problem is: the Watch Tower Society uses all the common Christian
terminology; but it has re-defined the meanings of those terminologies thus
creating a semantic jungle.

Walter Martin, author of Kingdom Of The Cults, was asked on numerous
occasions: "Why is it that when I am talking with a cultist he seems to be in
full agreement with what I am saying; but when we are finished talking, I
am aware of a definite lack of communication, almost as though we were not
talking the same language?"

Well the answer to that is: their respective understanding of the words were
not always the same; ergo: they were saying the same things; but their
minds were not hearing the same things.

Dr. Laura often scolded her callers about interpreting her advice. It really
annoyed her on radio when callers would begin their responses with "in
other words you're saying". No; there were no other words-- the words she
spoke were adequate and she flat-footed, and sometimes angrily, demanded
that they not interpret her instructions but get out there and do exactly as
she says.

Watch Tower missionaries are just like that. As you are speaking, their
minds are interpreting your words into a context that their Society-trained
minds are accustomed to hearing. The result can be, and usually is, a
maddening lack of communication although the missionary is convinced in
their own mind that you and they are both on the same page.

Below is a real-life dialogue between me and a Jehovah's Witness. I started
off with this:

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

The Kingdom Interlinear translates "divine quality" as godship; which
Dictionary dot com defines as the rank, character, or condition of a god. The
actual Greek word is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which means: divinity; which
Webster's defines as the state of, and the qualities of, a god.

But godship and/or divinity are modified by the Greek definite article "ho".
So the question becomes: which of all godships and/or divinities is the
godship and/or the divinity?

Well; in my armchair estimation; Col 2:9 is saying that in him-- that is in
Christ --is not dwelling down all the rank, character, and condition of an
angel bodily, rather; all the fullness of the rank, character, and condition of
Jehovah bodily.

Here's the Witness's response:

"Your knowledge and reasoning are spot on up to this point. I agree and
have agreed all along that Jesus is divine. No problem there. He is "a god".
His godship and divinity ARE remanded to their rightful relationship with THE
god, as you say....THE god who is qualified by the article "ho" ("the"), when
we thoughtfully consider where this article is placed. That would be "the
god" WITH WHOM Jesus was, his Father, Jehovah."

Were the Witness and I on the same page? No; we weren't even in the same
book; though she was convinced in her own mind that we were "spot-on" in
agreement.

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

WeberHome
November 1st, 2015, 07:46 PM
-

Is this your personal experience or something you copied from someone
else?

If you're inquiring as to whether I've plagiarized, and/or am impersonating, the
original author of post #1, the answer is NO.

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

musterion
November 1st, 2015, 07:52 PM
Your posts so far say nothing about sharing with them the Gospel of the grace of God.

Why is that?

Bradley D
November 1st, 2015, 07:57 PM
They have JW here in the Philippines. The best defense against any cult is knowing your scripture. They were surprised that I knew the order of all the books of the Bible.

Danoh
November 1st, 2015, 08:23 PM
-
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naïve, and thus
assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down the
driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with
a church 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 classes sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The instructor
(call him Pete) was an ex Witness who had been in the Watch Tower Society
system for near three decades and was a wide-area manager before
terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the ins and outs 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, rebuttal for rebuttal,
and refute for refute, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's
unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it can be easily
proven wrong.

1• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost, these people are
recruiters. Their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the
Watch Tower Society.

2• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of the meeting.

3• Don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately begin
introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation

4• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product-- you're
herald; viz: a messenger; that's all. The goal is to show missionaries that
the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the
Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo
ipso the right interpretations just because they say so.

5• Do not get embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas,
Christmas trees, blood transfusions, the design of the wooden device upon
which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that
sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

6• Force them to listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have
to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking.

7• Do not permit them to butt in and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly,
insist that they remain silent until you are finished speaking.

8• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted
Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with
missionaries because it is the one Bible that they cannot challenge; nor dare
to challenge. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled
Reasoning From The Scriptures.

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and
phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
Society-speak than what you'd expect. So your first challenge in dealing with
a Watch Tower missionary is to scale the semantics barrier; and that by
itself is an Herculean task.

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

Having dealt with them to a good extent, I concur; yours are some most excellent points for the type of setting one needs to both attempt to take charge of, and or establish, as well as to attempt to maintain throughout, towards sharing the gospel of Christ

I've also applied a very similar format when simply sharing the Mystery of Christ with other believers. The above is a must even more so when the individual is a leader or pastor of some sort.

Even then, there is no guarantee, so one might as well not even go for it; simply hold the fort towards being able to present the gospel if that is the issue, or the Mystery when that is.

Once, I got all the way through Ephesians 2's Time Past, But Now, Ages to Come. When I then asked who they understood their Apostle was, they rattled off their pastor's name, lol.

Being that all kinds of "that's not for us" cult like groups are out there, one might as well just have fun with it all; enjoy the opportunity and challenge; that sort of a thing.

WeberHome
November 1st, 2015, 08:26 PM
-

Your posts so far say nothing about sharing with them the Gospel of the
grace of God. Why is that?

9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

aikido7
November 1st, 2015, 08:43 PM
-
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naïve, and thus
assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down the
driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with
a church 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 classes sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The instructor
(call him Pete) was an ex Witness who had been in the Watch Tower Society
system for near three decades and was a wide-area manager before
terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the ins and outs 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, rebuttal for rebuttal,
and refute for refute, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's
unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it can be easily
proven wrong.

1• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost, these people are
recruiters. Their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the
Watch Tower Society.

2• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of the meeting.

3• Don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately begin
introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation

4• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product-- you're
herald; viz: a messenger; that's all. The goal is to show missionaries that
the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the
Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo
ipso the right interpretations just because they say so.

5• Do not get embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas,
Christmas trees, blood transfusions, the design of the wooden device upon
which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that
sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

6• Force them to listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have
to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking.

7• Do not permit them to butt in and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly,
insist that they remain silent until you are finished speaking.

8• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted
Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with
missionaries because it is the one Bible that they cannot challenge; nor dare
to challenge. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled
Reasoning From The Scriptures.

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and
phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
Society-speak than what you'd expect. So your first challenge in dealing with
a Watch Tower missionary is to scale the semantics barrier; and that by
itself is an Herculean task.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=I used to get really cheesed at both them and Mormon missionaries interrupting my life! But for some reason, for the last 10 years, I often welcome them into my home, try to share some food or drink (they always refuse) and find out more about their theology, etc.

They are really polite and are almost too perfect about not putting down my own thinking and beliefs.

But I can hold my own. I learned to regard them as “different” from me, not more heretical from me. It keeps my nervous system on point.

Danoh
November 1st, 2015, 08:43 PM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

A big lol to that one - Ephesians 2 certainly qualifies - big time!

keypurr
November 1st, 2015, 11:09 PM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

Show me ANY church that is NOT CULT.

Every one thinks that only they have the true church, so every one else is wrong.

You have much to learn friend.

Can you even prove to me that the bible is God's word?

It took me years to cross my line of reason that it is indeed his word.

The JW's are no better or worse than main stream churches.

CherubRam
November 2nd, 2015, 02:22 AM
-
Watch Tower Society jargon creates a very serious language barrier. For
example; when a normal person hears the word "resurrection" they think of
Christ's crucified body returning to life. Not so in Watch Tower jargon. In its
"speak" resurrection indicates not Christ returning to life; but Michael the
arch angel returning to life.

As another example: when normal people hear the words "Jesus Christ" they
think of a man; but not so in Watch Tower jargon. In its "speak" Jesus Christ
identifies not a man; but an angel. As for Jesus Christ's so-called post
resurrection appearances: those are understood by Watch Tower
missionaries as an angel disguised in a human avatar.

The problem is: the Watch Tower Society uses all the common Christian
terminology; but it has re-defined the meanings of those terminologies thus
creating a semantic jungle.

Walter Martin, author of Kingdom Of The Cults, was asked on numerous
occasions: "Why is it that when I am talking with a cultist he seems to be in
full agreement with what I am saying; but when we are finished talking, I
am aware of a definite lack of communication, almost as though we were not
talking the same language?"

Well the answer to that is: their respective understanding of the words were
not always the same; ergo: they were saying the same things; but their
minds were not hearing the same things.

Dr. Laura often scolded her callers about interpreting her advice. It really
annoyed her on radio when callers would begin their responses with "in
other words you're saying". No; there were no other words-- the words she
spoke were adequate and she flat-footed, and sometimes angrily, demanded
that they not interpret her instructions but get out there and do exactly as
she says.

Watch Tower missionaries are just like that. As you are speaking, their
minds are interpreting your words into a context that their Society-trained
minds are accustomed to hearing. The result can be, and usually is, a
maddening lack of communication although the missionary is convinced in
their own mind that you and they are both on the same page.

Below is a real-life dialogue between me and a Jehovah's Witness. I started
off with this:

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

The Kingdom Interlinear translates "divine quality" as godship; which
Dictionary dot com defines as the rank, character, or condition of a god. The
actual Greek word is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which means: divinity; which
Webster's defines as the state of, and the qualities of, a god.

But godship and/or divinity are modified by the Greek definite article "ho".
So the question becomes: which of all godships and/or divinities is the
godship and/or the divinity?

Well; in my armchair estimation; Col 2:9 is saying that in him-- that is in
Christ --is not dwelling down all the rank, character, and condition of an
angel bodily, rather; all the fullness of the rank, character, and condition of
Jehovah bodily.

Here's the Witness's response:

"Your knowledge and reasoning are spot on up to this point. I agree and
have agreed all along that Jesus is divine. No problem there. He is "a god".
His godship and divinity ARE remanded to their rightful relationship with THE
god, as you say....THE god who is qualified by the article "ho" ("the"), when
we thoughtfully consider where this article is placed. That would be "the
god" WITH WHOM Jesus was, his Father, Jehovah."

Were the Witness and I on the same page? No; we weren't even in the same
book; though she was convinced in her own mind that we were "spot-on" in
agreement.

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

The fact that they think Michael is Christ is not very important. Before Christ was born into this world he was called "The (Angel / Messenger) of (the Lord / Yahwah.) He also is the messenger of the New Covenant. The correct Hebrew translation is "messenger," not "angel." Angels are from Paganism. Christ himself said he was (a god.) He never said that he was God the Father.

intojoy
November 2nd, 2015, 04:06 AM
I tell them to go to hell

musterion
November 2nd, 2015, 04:12 AM
Show me ANY church that is NOT CULT.

Every one thinks that only they have the true church, so every one else is wrong.

You have much to learn friend.

Can you even prove to me that the bible is God's word?

It took me years to cross my line of reason that it is indeed his word.

The JW's are no better or worse than main stream churches.

Wow, that sounds exactly like Meshak in smart mode.

1Way1Truth1Life
November 2nd, 2015, 04:50 AM
Your points are spot on. I once had a copy of Reasoning From the Scriptures to be able to understand how they twisted and distorted God's Word and to be able to show them it was not what God said from the Scripture. I also had a copy of their perverted translation to be able to show them that Jesus is God, not a god, nor Michael. It can be done right from Isiah. I had also learned to read and translated the Koine Greek for the same reasons. I've also read Kingdom of the Cults way back year ago. I would also suggest to challenge them to read the Bible by itself without reading any of their Watchtower interpretations, nor other people's material. Challenge them to allow God to be their teacher and interpreter as God Himself says that we do not need man to teach us because God is our Teacher. God and His Word says differently than what the Watchtower says.

musterion
November 2nd, 2015, 05:19 AM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

Where's the Gospel in that?

What is the Gospel by which we are saved? Can you tell us?

Timotheos
November 2nd, 2015, 05:37 AM
I tell them to go to hell

That's funny. How do they respond to that?

Desert Reign
November 2nd, 2015, 05:57 AM
I agree with a number of the points in the OP. But I think the OP is a little harsh.
I can't speak at all now, but when I could, my plan was firstly to let them talk. Once they've said their piece, they begin to be more relaxed. Then I ask them personal questions which I know they will not have been trained to answer. It is quite eye-opening to see how very insecure they are once outside their prepared spiel. But I try to make them feel relaxed about themselves. I never agree to do studies with them.
As soon as they mention the original Greek text (which they invariably do - as if it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about), I jump on them like a shot. Something like 'Oh do you know ancient Greek? I do and I have a Greek Bible here, let's look at it!' And then they have to admit that they have no knowledge of ancient Greek at all but were only parrotting. I can then dwell on this point and hopefully get them to realise that parrotting is 100% of what they are doing and that they have no personal experiences at all. And of course I would share my own personal experiences.
And yes, semantics is a big issue, which is why it is a good to be well prepared. In the beginning I wasn't well prepared but I soon learnt. I do believe that one lady who visited me subsequently became a major voice against the Watchtower movement. It's important to always be polite and loving. Try also to get them to come back. They might never get another chance to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I only partially agree with Keypurr. Whilst I believe with my whole heart that it is not correct doctrine that qualifies you for salvation, it just so happens that incorrect doctrine can prevent you from obtaining salvation. What a surprise! That is why the NT exhorts us in no uncertain terms to ensure that false teaching is eliminated from the church. These people need salvation, let's not be ambivalent about that.

heir
November 2nd, 2015, 06:41 AM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Why not show them by the scriptures? They've probably never been shown the gospel that is the power of God to save them. And if you did, just what would you preach as the gospel of their salvation?

iouae
November 2nd, 2015, 07:07 AM
Show me ANY church that is NOT CULT.

Every one thinks that only they have the true church, so every one else is wrong.

You have much to learn friend.

Can you even prove to me that the bible is God's word?

It took me years to cross my line of reason that it is indeed his word.

The JW's are no better or worse than main stream churches.

Nice post.

I quite like talking scripture with them.
If you know your Bible, you have nothing to fear.
I always wear them out to the point they don't come back.
Which is a pity because they seem such nice folks.

WeberHome
November 2nd, 2015, 08:09 AM
-
"YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit
truly dwells in YOU. (Rom 8:9, NWT)

That passage informs the Watch Tower Society's elite class of 144,000
anointed Witnesses that they are in harmony with the spirit; seeing as how
the anointed class has God's sprit truly dwelling in them.

At the same time; Rom 8:5-8 tells the non-anointed class of Witnesses that
they are in harmony, not with the spirit, but with the flesh; thus: they are
Jehovah's adversaries; unwilling to either please Him or comply with His
wishes. If John and Jane Doe non-anointed Witness don't know this; then all
I can say is: they've got some catching up to do.

There's more.

"And as for YOU, the anointing that YOU received from him remains in YOU,
and YOU do not need anyone to be teaching YOU; but, as the anointing from
him is teaching YOU about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it
has taught YOU, remain in union with him. (1John 2:27, NWT)

In a nutshell: the anointed class is able to remain in union with Christ on
their own by means of the one-on-one spiritual guidance that the anointing
provides them. Seeing as how the non-anointed class doesn't have access to
either the anointing or the anointing's one-on-one spiritual guidance; they
therefore are incapable of remaining in union with Christ on their own.

That, coupled with their resistance to God as per Rom 8:5-9, leaves John
and Jane Doe non-anointed Witness in a precarious spiritual condition; vz:
they are susceptible to deception by means of clever sophistry, semantic
double speak, and humanistic reasoning.

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

heir
November 2nd, 2015, 11:22 AM
There's more.What is the gospel of your salvation that you will show them by the scriptures is the gospel of their salvation?

Tambora
November 2nd, 2015, 11:23 AM
Wow, that sounds exactly like Meshak in smart mode.ROFL!

glorydaz
November 2nd, 2015, 11:27 AM
I agree with a number of the points in the OP. But I think the OP is a little harsh.
I can't speak at all now, but when I could, my plan was firstly to let them talk. Once they've said their piece, they begin to be more relaxed. Then I ask them personal questions which I know they will not have been trained to answer. It is quite eye-opening to see how very insecure they are once outside their prepared spiel. But I try to make them feel relaxed about themselves. I never agree to do studies with them.
As soon as they mention the original Greek text (which they invariably do - as if it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about), I jump on them like a shot. Something like 'Oh do you know ancient Greek? I do and I have a Greek Bible here, let's look at it!' And then they have to admit that they have no knowledge of ancient Greek at all but were only parrotting. I can then dwell on this point and hopefully get them to realise that parrotting is 100% of what they are doing and that they have no personal experiences at all. And of course I would share my own personal experiences.
And yes, semantics is a big issue, which is why it is a good to be well prepared. In the beginning I wasn't well prepared but I soon learnt. I do believe that one lady who visited me subsequently became a major voice against the Watchtower movement. It's important to always be polite and loving. Try also to get them to come back. They might never get another chance to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I only partially agree with Keypurr. Whilst I believe with my whole heart that it is not correct doctrine that qualifies you for salvation, it just so happens that incorrect doctrine can prevent you from obtaining salvation. What a surprise! That is why the NT exhorts us in no uncertain terms to ensure that false teaching is eliminated from the church. These people need salvation, let's not be ambivalent about that.

:first:

JonahofAkron
November 2nd, 2015, 12:00 PM
Wow, that sounds exactly like Meshak in smart mode.
:rotfl: :cheers:

JonahofAkron
November 2nd, 2015, 12:03 PM
I agree with a number of the points in the OP. But I think the OP is a little harsh.
I can't speak at all now, but when I could, my plan was firstly to let them talk. Once they've said their piece, they begin to be more relaxed. Then I ask them personal questions which I know they will not have been trained to answer. It is quite eye-opening to see how very insecure they are once outside their prepared spiel. But I try to make them feel relaxed about themselves. I never agree to do studies with them.
As soon as they mention the original Greek text (which they invariably do - as if it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about), I jump on them like a shot. Something like 'Oh do you know ancient Greek? I do and I have a Greek Bible here, let's look at it!' And then they have to admit that they have no knowledge of ancient Greek at all but were only parrotting. I can then dwell on this point and hopefully get them to realise that parrotting is 100% of what they are doing and that they have no personal experiences at all. And of course I would share my own personal experiences.
And yes, semantics is a big issue, which is why it is a good to be well prepared. In the beginning I wasn't well prepared but I soon learnt. I do believe that one lady who visited me subsequently became a major voice against the Watchtower movement. It's important to always be polite and loving. Try also to get them to come back. They might never get another chance to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I only partially agree with Keypurr. Whilst I believe with my whole heart that it is not correct doctrine that qualifies you for salvation, it just so happens that incorrect doctrine can prevent you from obtaining salvation. What a surprise! That is why the NT exhorts us in no uncertain terms to ensure that false teaching is eliminated from the church. These people need salvation, let's not be ambivalent about that.

Excellent post. I agree. My grandfather is a JW and I have very frank and loving conversations about his beliefs-he does live 1800 miles away so the conversations on the phone are a little harder to do, but I still agree with the way you handle these conversations. That's awesome.

WeberHome
November 2nd, 2015, 12:44 PM
-

What is the gospel of your salvation that you will show them by the
scriptures is the gospel of their salvation?

Perhaps you could start a thread for that topic because the topic of this
thread is not evangelizing Jehovah's Witness; but rather: standing up to
them.

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

heir
November 2nd, 2015, 12:47 PM
-


Perhaps you could start a thread for that topic because the topic of this
thread is not evangelizing Jehovah's Witness; but rather: standing up to
them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can't stand up to them unless there is a gospel by which you stand! If you're not set for the defence of the gospel, you are wasting their time and yours! Don't you want to help them the only way you can with the power of God?

keypurr
November 2nd, 2015, 08:55 PM
You can't stand up to them unless there is a gospel by which you stand! If you're not set for the defence of the gospel, you are wasting their time and yours! Don't you want to help them the only way you can with the power of God?


Amen, they stop by hear once a month. We chat, they scratch there head, and keep returning trying to help me. They are pleasant folks. Most are more knowledgeable than most mainstreamers. They have been trying to convert me for at least forty years.

intojoy
November 2nd, 2015, 09:34 PM
That's funny. How do they respond to that?

Well, I usually add a "have a magical day" to tone it down a little

iouae
November 2nd, 2015, 11:21 PM
The JW's come to your home with a pat argument.
The moment YOU get them talking about aspects of the Bible away from their sales pitch, they are vulnerable.

For instance if you start emphasising that ALL who believe in Jesus are His, so why do I need to join the JW's? They will then begin to list things exclusive to their beliefs which make them better than other churches. And these things will be ridiculous. I cannot remember from past meetings with them what these unique beliefs are, but they are generally quite easy to disprove.

I don't think it is hard to get rid of them if you don't want to talk. Just be pleasant and tell them you already know Jesus, so they would be better off going to your neighbours.

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 03:45 AM
Amen, they stop by hear once a month. We chat, they scratch there head, and keep returning trying to help me. They are pleasant folks. Most are more knowledgeable than most mainstreamers. They have been trying to convert me for at least forty years.

They're not hearing the saving Gospel from you. That's why they keep coming back.

heir
November 3rd, 2015, 07:32 AM
Amen, they stop by hear once a month. We chat, they scratch there head, and keep returning trying to help me. They are pleasant folks. Most are more knowledgeable than most mainstreamers. They have been trying to convert me for at least forty years.This says a lot about you. If you were testifying the gospel of the grace of God with them, they would mark you and never return.

heir
November 3rd, 2015, 07:33 AM
They're not hearing the saving Gospel from you. That's why they keep coming back.

"Exactamundo!"~Bro. SaulToPaul

WeberHome
November 3rd, 2015, 07:44 AM
-
†. 1 John 4:2-3 . . By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every
spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of
the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is
already in the world.

According to Watch Tower Society doctrine, it was not Jesus Christ who
came in the flesh, rather, it was an angel named Michael; which is an
interesting tale.

In Watch Tower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But the Society insists it is
impossible for someone to exist as a human being and a spirit being
simultaneously. So then, in order for Michael to come to the earth as a
human being, his existence as an angel had to be terminated.

However, according to the Society, Michael's life force survived his death;
and was transferred to Mary's womb where Michael was re-born as a human
being.

"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." (Watch Tower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

NOTE: The Watch Tower magazine speaks for itself as a trustworthy source
of Watch Tower Society theology. "Those who are convinced that The
Watchtower is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not
waste time in looking at it at all. Those who believe that God uses The
Watchtower as a means of communicating to his people, or of calling
attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower." (Watchtower,
Jan 1, 1942, page 5)

I am unaware at this time as to the Society's disposition of Michael's angel
corpse during the years on earth when he was existing as a human being.

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When God
"raised" Jesus from the dead, it was not actually Jesus who got raised from
the dead; it was Michael. Seeing as how Michael the angel had gone
completely out of existence when he became Jesus the human being; God
had to re-create Michael the angel from memory; in other words: in Society
theology, Michael the angel has undergone creation twice.

Bottom line: According to the Society; Jesus Christ's crucified body is still
dead; and his remains are squirreled away somewhere on earth in a
condition and a location known only to God.

The Society insists it was essential that Christ's crucified body not revive.
Their explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watch Tower 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."

Q: What about Jesus' alleged post resurrection appearances?

A: In order to show his friends that their savior was back from death,
Michael is alleged to have materialized a human body that was in all
respects just as physical, and just as functional as a real human body;
which we know from modern movie technology as an avatar. Michael never
once let on to his friends that he was an angel in disguise. He led them to
believe that the Jesus they all knew prior to his execution was back.

In most people's book that is nothing less than impersonation; which can be
defined as assuming a fake identity. In other words: pretending to be
someone you're not-- the crime of fraud, which in some jurisdictions is a
felony punishable by serving time in a state prison. If the Society is correct
about Michael, then the avatar wasn't an expedient, no, it was a deliberate
forgery.

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

keypurr
November 3rd, 2015, 01:46 PM
This says a lot about you. If you were testifying the gospel of the grace of God with them, they would mark you and never return.

I want them to return so I can learn and share. Maybe they will accept my thoughts.

Ben Masada
November 3rd, 2015, 02:00 PM
Hit and Caught Before Running

Last week I met in the street with a couple from the Christian faction of "Jehovah's Witnesses" who, after giving me a pamphlet from the Watch Tower, the following dialogue took place:

"J'W" - Do you know that the Jewish Divine election has been replaced by the "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Jew - I don't think so but, where is it written?

"J'W" - Isaiah 43:10.

Jew - Take the zero off and read Isaiah 43:1 and see who are the real Jehovah's Witnesses. The whole chapter is about Israel.

"J'W" - Better yet hear what John 3:16 says about Jesus: "Jehovah so loved the world as to give His only begotten son that whoever believes in him is saved." Notice that he said, "Only begotten son" which means that there is no other.

Jew - How about Exodus 4:23? Jehovah Himself said that, "Israel is My son; let My son go that he may serve Me."

"J'W" - Alas, that's Israel the people who has been replaced by us. But listen, although we have replaced you, Jews are very important to us. Here is our address; would you come to visit us at 1pm today and gave me their address.

Jew - Sorry but we are not supposed to be found within a non-Jewish house of worship.

"J'W" - What's the matter, are you afraid?

Jew - No it is not fear but a matter of Jewish culture.

"J'W" - Where is it written that you are not supposed to enter a non-Jewish house of worship ?

Jew - Naaman was the commander of the king of Aram and he was a leper. He had a Jewess servant who suggested to him to seek cure from Elisha in Israel. He came to Elisha and was told to immerse 7 times in the Jordan River, he did as he was bid and got cured. He converted to Judaism and asked Elisha to plead God to forgive him every time he had to help his master the king to enter the temple of Rimmon to worship. It is from this event that Jews acquired the custom not to enter a non-Jewish house of worship. That's in II Kings 5:1-18.

Conclusion - That was the end of the dialogue as they would neither speak nor remove their eyes from me. I had to say good bye and leave

Eric h
November 3rd, 2015, 03:47 PM
Amen, they stop by hear once a month. We chat, they scratch there head, and keep returning trying to help me. They are pleasant folks. Most are more knowledgeable than most mainstreamers. They have been trying to convert me for at least forty years.

Full marks for your perseverance, I have only had them knocking on my door for around ten years now. We have some good chats, I doubt if either of us will budge. My thoughts are towards Christian Unity and interfaith relations. As part of our local Street Pastor team, I regularly pray with Christians from several denominations, before we go out on the streets together. I have been inviting our JW friend along, but they don't do unity.

Angel4Truth
November 3rd, 2015, 06:39 PM
They're not hearing the saving Gospel from you. That's why they keep coming back.

Thats exactly right, we used to have JWS and Mormons knock at our doors a lot, once we invited a couple of them in (from each group as they came) and shared the truth with them including the gospel of salvation, they have never returned, not even different ones - weve yet to have another visit from either group.

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 06:41 PM
Thats exactly right, we used to have JWS and Mormons knock at our doors a lot, once we invited a couple of them in (from each group as they came) and shared the truth with them including the gospel of salvation, they have never returned, not even different ones - weve yet to have another visit from either group.

Yep, they put the big invisible X on your door. Or Satan did.

Danoh
November 3rd, 2015, 07:00 PM
Thats exactly right, we used to have JWS and Mormons knock at our doors a lot, once we invited a couple of them in (from each group as they came) and shared the truth with them including the gospel of salvation, they have never returned, not even different ones - weve yet to have another visit from either group.

Thats true - not even from another group. The Mormon ones, for example, went from "we'll paint your porch for you or shovel your snow," to...Never heard from again...

The OP's points as to how establish some standards for proceeding forward are very good ones.

Angel4Truth
November 3rd, 2015, 07:03 PM
Thats true - not even from another group. The Mormon ones, for example, went from "we'll paint your porch for you or shovel your snow," to...Never heard from again...

The OP's points as to how establish some standards for proceeding forward are very good ones.

Good ones, but leaves off the most important part, sharing the actual gospel of salvation. What a horrible opportunity to miss.

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 07:09 PM
Good ones, but leaves off the most important part, sharing the actual gospel of salvation. What a horrible opportunity to miss.

Yep, and it almost seems deliberate. :think:

Danoh
November 3rd, 2015, 07:28 PM
Yep, and it almost seems deliberate. :think:

Either the OP is building up to it in their presentation on here, or is to focused on getting along, or is too books based and all they end up going into but the crunch question "do you know for sure that if you were to die right now that you have a place in God's Heaven; what are you basing that on; and; if you were wrong, would you want to know about it, on the authority of God's Word?"

That right there puts whats really what on the table "without" as the Apostle Paul might have put it "controversy."

I'll wait the OP out; see where they are going with all this; such waiting out appears to be part of their point.

intojoy
November 3rd, 2015, 08:31 PM
Evangelizing jws at my door is a sin. But telling them they go to hell is permissible

Selah

WeberHome
November 4th, 2015, 01:01 PM
-
The Watch Tower Society insists that when Jesus Christ died; he ceased to
exist as a conscious, sentient being. Their belief of course assumes that
Christ's soul died during crucifixion right along with his body; which of
course it didn't because assassins can't kill souls.

"Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul;"
(Matt 10:28a)

In other words: the soul doesn't automatically perish along with the demise
of one's body. Not that it's impossible; it's just that only God can pull off
something like that.

"but rather be in fear of Him that can destroy both soul and body in
Gehenna." (Matt 10:28b)

For those seeking an alternative to the Watch Tower Society's resurrection
avatar (a.k.a. Christ's alleged materialized body) we offer the below.

Seeing as how 1Cor 15:50 clearly testifies that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, how then are we to explain Jesus Christ's resurrection?
Well; this is actually very easy to explain.

First off: it was essential that Christ's corpse be returned to life or otherwise
his prediction as per John 2:19-22 would've been easily proven false.
However, in its revived condition, the Lord's body was unsuitable for heaven.
So then, what are we do about that?

Some day all Christ's followers will be raised from the dead and taken up to
meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 3:14-17). On the way up, their bodies will
undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation. (1Cor 15:51-53). I think
it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's 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 followers' bodies will one day conform.

Though Jesus Christ's superhuman body isn't composed of flesh and blood as
we know it; he's still capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . And he said to them: I have greatly desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it
becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

And also capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this
product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the
kingdom of my Father.

Q: 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: Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, walked on water, calmed storms,
restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet, healed blindness and
leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water into wine, raised the
dead, withered a fig tree, levitated into the sky, etc. Come on now; what's
one more miracle more or less for a man like that?

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

keypurr
November 6th, 2015, 07:12 PM
Are most so insecure with their faith that they can not defend their faith?

WeberHome
November 6th, 2015, 08:47 PM
-
The Watch Tower Society asserts that Jesus Christ's resurrection was not a
resurrection as most people understand the process, but rather; Christ's
material body was left dead and he was re-created as a non material being:
specifically a spirit being. In other words; according to the Watch Tower
Society; Jesus Christ is no longer a man; he's an angel.

Of all the doctrines invented by the Watch Tower Society, I'd have to say
that is the most insidious because belief in Christ's resurrection is one of the
essential elements of the gospel that must be accepted if one is to have any
hope of escaping the wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:1-4 . . Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which
also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless
you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that
He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures

Paul goes on to say that if Christ did not revive, then Christians haven't a
prayer of escaping the wrath of God.

†. 1 Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you
are still in your sins.

But we know of course that the Society's assertion has a fatal flaw; and it's
this:

†. 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 Christ's material body had not been restored to life, his prediction
would be easily proven false.

Bottom line: The Society's version of Christ's resurrection is false; ergo: they
do not believe he actually rose from the dead; and I guess we all know what
that means.

Q: What and/or where are the scriptures about which Paul spoke?

A: There's at least two. One is the story of Jonah; which Christ appropriated
as a "sign" of his own resurrection. (Jonah 1:17, Matt 12:40)

Another is in the book of Psalms at 16:8-10 (cf. Acts 2:22-36)

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

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 10:03 PM
Are most so insecure with their faith that they can not defend their faith?

If you don't mind wasting a little time in a Bible discussion like being on this forum, then I totally agree with the above point. Talk to them. Or not if you are busy.

The last time JW's came around, I had the agenda of questioning them as to why they thought they were the only right church on earth. I was trying to point out that only cults think they are the only right church. It was a pleasant discussion.

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 11:06 PM
Jehovah's Witnesses say that only the Father is Jehovah God. Are they right?

The word "LORD" is Strong's H3068 and is transliterated "Jehovah" from the Hebrew letters YHWH. Some prefer Yahweh to Jehovah.

So who is Jehovah, Christ or the Father?

Gen 3

13 And the Lord (YHWH or Jehovah) God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Combine it with...

John 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

and....

John 6:46

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

So Jehovah God was speaking with Adam and Eve, and they could see Him.

Thus Christ is Jehovah.

But so is the Father.

The Bible uses the word YHWH God to differentiate Christ and the Father from the other "gods" or spirit beings. All spirit beings are "elohim" or "gods" but only Christ and the Father are YHWH elohim. They are the everlasting Gods as opposed to the created spirit beings.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only the Father is YHWH. Putting Gen 3:13 together with John 6:46 disproves this.

keypurr
November 6th, 2015, 11:08 PM
If you don't mind wasting a little time in a Bible discussion like being on this forum, then I totally agree with the above point. Talk to them. Or not if you are busy.

The last time JW's came around, I had the agenda of questioning them as to why they thought they were the only right church on earth. I was trying to point out that only cults think they are the only right church. It was a pleasant discussion.

Most think that they belong to the only true church. I find them no different from the mainstream churches except they know more. That's why most do not wish to engage the JW's.

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 05:29 AM
Most think that they belong to the only true church. I find them no different from the mainstream churches except they know more. That's why most do not wish to engage the JW's.

Yes the JW's are proud of some unique "truths" they embrace.
But the core message of the Gospel is really simple. Trust and obey Jesus. And most churches teach that. So I ask them why I must leave my church for theirs? For some esoteric "truths"? I also tell them straight that I don't want to go two by two knocking on doors and bothering folks.

dreadknought
November 7th, 2015, 05:37 AM
-
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naïve, and thus
assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down the
driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with
a church 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 classes sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The instructor
(call him Pete) was an ex Witness who had been in the Watch Tower Society
system for near three decades and was a wide-area manager before
terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the ins and outs 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, rebuttal for rebuttal,
and refute for refute, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's
unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it can be easily
proven wrong.

1• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever
assume they are your friends because first and foremost, these people are
recruiters. Their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the
Watch Tower Society.

2• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and
discuss it with you; thus taking control of the meeting.

3• Don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately begin
introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the
conversation

4• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product-- you're
herald; viz: a messenger; that's all. The goal is to show missionaries that
the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the
Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo
ipso the right interpretations just because they say so.

5• Do not get embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas,
Christmas trees, blood transfusions, the design of the wooden device upon
which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that
sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

6• Force them to listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have
to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your
voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor
get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking.

7• Do not permit them to butt in and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly,
insist that they remain silent until you are finished speaking.

8• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They
sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more
knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely
for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have
the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted
Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with
missionaries because it is the one Bible that they cannot challenge; nor dare
to challenge. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled
Reasoning From The Scriptures.

From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and
phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in
Society-speak than what you'd expect. So your first challenge in dealing with
a Watch Tower missionary is to scale the semantics barrier; and that by
itself is an Herculean task.

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


Did you share the gospel of grace while you were not debating heresy? James 5:20

WeberHome
November 7th, 2015, 07:05 AM
-

Did you share the gospel of grace

9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 08:12 AM
I am usually amused by such discussions, although I used to allow myself to get upset at times.

Who here is willing to define the term "cult"?

Let us see what the English dictionary states.

Webster's states "a particular ritual or system or system of worship; a subject of special study; devoted or extravagant homage or adoration"

Do those who push water baptism fit that description? Yes.

Do those who push Calvinism fit that description? Yes.

See I grew up in a cult. My father made us go to his "church" against our free will. This cult has a very evil past. There was a time that when a couple asked one of their officials to marry them, the official would marry them only if they agreed to let the official have sex with the woman first.

My dad also told me that when wars erupted where he grew up, the officials of both warring countries would tell their people that if they died in battle they would go to heaven. Yet they were fighting each other.

The leaders wear special clothing at all times, like the Hari Krishnas and other Eastern religions do, to signify how special they are, like the Pharisees of Jesus time did. All their actions were for show, again like the Pharisees. Their clothing was particularly significant during their weekly rituals in which they celebrated resacrificing their leader

Of course, they maintain that they are the only true church and that you are doomed to suffer in eternal hellfire if you disobeyed their rules and especially so if you left their organization, ie, their control.

They use the Bible, more as an ornament, than a source for their beliefs.

There was rumors floating about that the male officials and female officials were secretly having sex with each other though their vows forbade them from ever having sex or becoming married ever again.

They believe that dead people are actually alive, I wondered why then they would do all their particular rituals for "dead" people, if indeed they are actually alive, why not put these "dead" alive (or should I say alive dead ) people in chairs in their living rooms instead of burying them alive. After all they believed that the dead people could hear them and could answer their prayers from beyond the grave.

Seemed they have official rituals for everything.

One of their churches claimed to have the foreskin of Jesus Christ. They believed that in order for their meeting buildings to have any holiness about them, they had to have a icon from Bible times, like bones from the apostle Peter or as stated, the foreskin of Jesus Christ. It is a creepy thing to think that they would worship someone's foreskin instead of following the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

As I understood their doctrines, they believe that their official leader was the only official representative of Jesus Christ

They believed that only some of their alive dead people were saints and only after official review and counsel regarding what they determined what was worthy of sainthood. I wonder if they had instant replay of their holy people's lives or what?

Seemed like if someone actually got an answer to a prayer, especially if praying to a dead person, they would be considered for saint hood.

No one knew if they were actually saved or not, they denied the works of Jesus Christ, they believed they had to suffer to obtains salvation, as if the sufferings of Jesus Christ are a waste of their time.

Although, I will admit they did actually refer to scripture a times they did not take it very seriously.

They are more serious about their man made traditions than scripture.

Simple truths like Matthew 2:11 eluded them, they always portrayed three wise men showing up at the manger at the inn in Bethlehem instead of an showing up at a house to see a young child, not a newborn, and they claimed to have special knowledge that there were three wise men although, scripture does not say how many there were.

Neither can they count to three. Matthew 12:40. They celebrate the death of Jesus Christ and claim he died on Friday and got up by himself from the dead on Sunday morning. No one in their right mind can count three days and three nights from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

I could go on, but you get the picture. These were some bad, bad people.

Thank God my mother and her side of the family were Lutherans so I had some reasons to question my dad's (loosely speaking, he was not a fanatic about his) beliefs.

I escaped from that system of beliefs and was able to learn scriptures from people who take scripture seriously who do not claim to know everything there is to know about God and His son and scripture, but readily admit, they love to learn and are willing to teach what they have learned up to know.

Yes, I find the topics of "cults" most interesting having grown up in one.

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 08:16 AM
I find it interesting that Jesus and Peter and Paul were accused of heretical teachings in their lifetime.

The official religion of Jesus time plotted to kill, destroy, murder Jesus Christ because he did not conform to their system of beliefs.

They held a mock trial, actually two mock trials and had someone else do the dirty work of crucifying him because they did not want to get their hands dirty!

What a bunch of hypocrites!

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 08:25 AM
Jesus Christ was a humble man who marvelled at the believing of the centurion. He stated that he found no such believing amongst Israel.

Matthew 8

7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith [believing], no, not in Israel.

What an incredible believer that centurion must have been!

Does that record tell us if the centurion was an Israelite or a Gentile?

How did Jesus stand up to the religions of his time? By being faithful to God's words and sharing truth with people.

WeberHome
November 9th, 2015, 03:12 PM
-
The Watchtower Society's form of theology is 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 traditional Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods; the
Watch Tower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third category
of gods sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones".
The mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying
personages exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the
Ten Commandments. For example:

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

The gods referred to in that statement are human beings; which everybody
knows are not true deities; so in order to avoid stigmatizing human beings
as false gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

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

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

And another.

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

The neutral category was an invention of necessity. In other words: without
it, the Society would be forced to classify the Word and the only-begotten as
false gods seeing as how John 17:3, and a host of other passages, testify
that there is only one true god.

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

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 03:46 PM
1 - I find it interesting that Jesus and Peter and Paul were accused of heretical teachings in their lifetime.

2 - The official religion of Jesus time plotted to kill, destroy, murder Jesus Christ because he did not conform to their system of beliefs.

3 - They held a mock trial, actually two mock trials and had someone else do the dirty work of crucifying him because they did not want to get their hands dirty!

4 - What a bunch of hypocrites!

1 - Paul, I can see why for he used Jesus to teach about the Greek myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Acts 9:20) But Peter and Jesus, I wonder why because they were Jews whose Faith was Judaism.

2 - Nevertheless, Jesus declared loud and clear that he had come to confirm the Law and the Prophets down to the letter.(Mat. 5:17-19) Any one can see that the Hellenist who wrote that gospel was lying.

3 - The Romans crucified Jesus as a result of the acclamation of his disciples that Jesus was king of the Jews. (Luke 19:37-40) Hence, his verdict nailed by Pilate on the top of his cross:INRI.(John 19:19) The Jews in general had absolutely nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.

4 - What a bunch of liars, the Hellenists who wrote the gospels! The truth is rather that the Pharisees themselves tried twice to save Jesus from being arrested and condemned to the cross. If you think I am lying, read Luke 13:31 when the Pharisees saved Jesus from being arrested from Herod and, if you read Luke 19:37-40 the Pharisees tried to save Jesus at the entrance of Jerusalem by asking him to stop his disciples from acclaiming him king of the Jews and he, probably thinking it was too late, said he couldn't. The bottom line is that the accusation that the Jews had any fault in the death of Jesus is purely an anti-Semitic accusation.

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 04:17 PM
They believe that dead people are actually alive, I wondered why then they would do all their particular rituals for "dead" people, if indeed they are actually alive, why not put these "dead" alive (or should I say alive dead ) people in chairs in their living rooms instead of burying them alive. After all they believed that the dead people could hear them and could answer their prayers from beyond the grave.

Well, Oatmeal, I found your post a little too long for a proper reply just as long. So, I chose a very interesting paragraph to ask you a question about it. You say above that they, the cult members in which you grew up, believe that dead people are actually alive and, actually could hear them and answer their prayers.

Tell me please, don't you still believe yourself that Jesus is alive and hear your prayers? If I must remind you, he was a Jew whose Faith was Judaism and that in his Faith, one once dead and buried will never return from the grave if you read II Sam. 12:23; II Sam. 14:14; Isa. 26:14; and Job 10:21. You imply with that paragraph that Jesus is not alive but dead. But since you call yourself a Christian, I was wondering what is what. Can I hear from you on this?

Ben Masada
November 9th, 2015, 04:31 PM
Are most so insecure with their faith that they can not defend their faith?

How about you Keypurr, can you defend yours? Where was Joseph and Mary before they travelled down to Bethlehem where Jesus was born? Luke says they were in Nazareth of the Galilee but Matthew says that they were in Judea. What do you say they were or who of the two you believe is telling the truth?

keypurr
November 9th, 2015, 10:39 PM
How about you Keypurr, can you defend yours? Where was Joseph and Mary before they travelled down to Bethlehem where Jesus was born? Luke says they were in Nazareth of the Galilee but Matthew says that they were in Judea. What do you say they were or who of the two you believe is telling the truth?

Good question, I agree with Luke, Matthew only says that Jesus was born in Judea.

WeberHome
November 11th, 2015, 02:30 PM
-
†. Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god

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

I'm unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible labeled living gods.
Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god;
viz: all other gods are lifeless gods; including the gods in Psalm 82 of whom
it is said "You are gods". And if the Word of John 1:1 is a nondescript god,
then he too is a lifeless god; along with the only-begotten god of John 1:18.
If that's true, then it would be legitimate to paraphrase John 1:1 like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with the living God, and
the Word was a lifeless god."

And John 1:18 like this:

"No man has seen the living God at any time; the only-begotten lifeless god,
who is in the bosom position with the Father, is the one that has explained
him."

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word is a
god. The trick is: the Word isn't like the other gods; no, he's a living god.

"In him was life" (John 1:4, Kingdom Interlinear)

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

When God granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life
in Himself, things got a bit complicated; viz: unless Jehovah and the Word
are one and the same god; then there is now one too many living gods out
there.

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

jamie
November 11th, 2015, 04:11 PM
When God granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life in Himself, things got a bit complicated; viz: unless Jehovah and the Word are one and the same god; then there is now one too many living gods out there.


Why did God create humans?

Ben Masada
November 11th, 2015, 04:18 PM
-
†. Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god

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

I'm unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible labeled living gods.
Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god;
viz: all other gods are lifeless gods; including the gods in Psalm 82 of whom
it is said "You are gods". And if the Word of John 1:1 is a nondescript god,
then he too is a lifeless god; along with the only-begotten god of John 1:18.
If that's true, then it would be legitimate to paraphrase John 1:1 like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with the living God, and
the Word was a lifeless god."

And John 1:18 like this:

"No man has seen the living God at any time; the only-begotten lifeless god,
who is in the bosom position with the Father, is the one that has explained
him."

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word is a
god. The trick is: the Word isn't like the other gods; no, he's a living god.

"In him was life" (John 1:4, Kingdom Interlinear)

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

When God granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life
in Himself, things got a bit complicated; viz: unless Jehovah and the Word
are one and the same god; then there is now one too many living gods out
there.

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


The Absolute Oneness of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Ben Masada
November 11th, 2015, 04:27 PM
Good question, I agree with Luke, Matthew only says that Jesus was born in Judea.

Okay Keypurr, but that's not that easy! If you go for Luke and not Matthew, it means that there are contradictions in the NT. It also means that the NT was not inspired by the Spirit of God. Furthermore, it also means that none of the apostles of Jesus wrote a book in the NT. It means a lot more as for instance that the NT deserves no credibility of the kind of a sacred book. What do you say?

WeberHome
November 13th, 2015, 06:23 PM
-
It's both tragic and ironic that the Watch Tower Society's missionaries go
worldwide advertising a kingdom that they themselves will not be allowed to
enter. Here's why.

At John 3:3-12, Christ and a Jewish rabbi named Nicodemus discussed what
Christ labeled "earthly things". The primary earthly thing discussed was the
kingdom of God. The other earthly thing discussed was the spirit-birth
requirement to enter it. In other words: the kingdom of God on earth, and
the spirit-birth requirement to enter it, are joined at the hip.

John and Jane Doe Watch Tower Society missionary (a.k.a. the earthly
class) are not spirit-born now, nor do they ever expect to be— not in this
life, nor in the next; yet they hope to enter the kingdom of God on earth.
However, seeing as how the spirit-birth requirement to enter it is a must
rather than an option; then they will not succeed.

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

chrysostom
November 13th, 2015, 06:33 PM
I don't always have time to talk to them
but
when I do, I enjoy it
I admire their dedication

WeberHome
November 15th, 2015, 10:41 AM
-
†. Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation

The Watch Tower Society has appropriated that verse as evidence that the
Word of John 1:1-3 was the first thing that God ever created. However, the
New Testament Greek word for "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos which
the Watchtower Society has construed to mean "created first" but prototokos
never means created first; no, it always means born first; viz: the eldest
offspring. The correct Greek word for created first is protoktistos.

The average door-to-door Watch Tower Society missionary doesn't know
this; and no doubt would care little for it anyway. To them; born first and
created first are one and the same.

FYI: Though the birth order of the child born first is chronologically set in
concrete; its advantages are transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. Esau and
Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben and
Joseph. (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1)

There was a time when David held the rank of God's firstborn (Ps 89:20-27).
Anon, its advantages were transferred to one of David's sons. (Ps 110:1,
Dan 7:13-14, Mark 12:35-37, Php 2:9-11, Col 1:15)

OBJECTION: Jesus Christ being "born first," as stated at Colossians 1:15 is
evidence, from the scriptures, that Jesus Christ must have been created.
Why so? Because only created beings can be "born."

RESPONSE: The objector encumbered themselves with a humanistic axiom
that very effectively paralyzed their thinking; viz: apparently it had not yet
occurred to them that it just might be possible that God is able to reproduce.

However, "firstborn" is not restricted to birth-- it's primarily the title of a
position of superiority; and as such, is transferable.

Putting that in an Army chain of command context: there's the privates, the
sergeants, the officers, and ultimately the US President-- supreme
commander of all the armed forces. In rank, and in principle; Mr. Obama is
the firstborn of all the armed forces; but after the next election, the torch
may very well pass to Hillary Clinton and then she will be the firstborn of all
the armed forces.

But we're not done here yet. According to Col 1:16-17, God's son created all
things, and existed before all things: which means of course that God's son
not only created Adam but also that God's son preceded Adam. Well; it's
very easy to prove that Christ descended biologically from Adam. So the fact
of the matter is: God's son created Christ's biological progenitor.

I suspect the trinity's opponents get fouled up with Christ's origin because
they are unable to discern the difference between the Word of John 1:1-3
and the flesh that the Word became in John 1:14.

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

iouae
November 15th, 2015, 11:07 AM
"I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

The gods referred to in that statement are human beings; which everybody
knows are not true deities; so in order to avoid stigmatizing human beings
as false gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

Ps 82 is NOT speaking to humans, but to demon gods. This is a piece of scripture specifically to demon spirits, which is included in our Bible.

Here is Ps 82. See if it is not written to them, not us.

Psalm 82King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Right Divider
November 15th, 2015, 11:17 AM
-


9• It's very important to show them the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You keep showing this as if they are one in the same. They are not. I'm beginning to think that you're a poser.

WeberHome
November 15th, 2015, 11:55 AM
Post withdrawn.

truthjourney
November 15th, 2015, 01:00 PM
I think if JW's are going door to door telling people that their religion is the one true religion then they need to be able to answer some questions about that religion. But first of all they would need to be aware of some things that are hypocritical, dishonest and misleading in their religion's history. It is not the rank and file JW that I have a problem with but it is with the Watchtower Society. Here are just a few things that I ask them about.

"Throughout the decades, the United Nations has been vilified by the Watchtower, described as part of Satan's system deserving of destruction.
"No, the UN is not a blessing, even though the religious clergy of Christendom and the rabbis of Jewry pray heaven’s blessing upon that organization. It is really “the image of the wild beast,” the visible political, commercial organization of “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil. So the UN will soon be destroyed along with that beastly organization." Watchtower 1984 Sep 15 p.15 "

Watchtower's United Nations Association
"In 1992, the Watchtower became an Associate NGO with the United Nations. This was despite spending decades condemning the UN as the scarlet coloured wild beast of Revelation. As a result, many Jehovah's Witnesses severed ties with the Watchtower for what they consider a hypocritical and dishonest chapter of the religion's history."
In 1992, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York applied to be a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Associate Member of the United Nations Department of Public Information (UN DPI). This is the closest relationship an NGO can form with the UN. The application was renewed annually and is a matter of public record.
Watchtower remained an Associate Member until a few days after knowledge of this involvement became public through the release of breaking news in The Guardian on 8th October 2001."
...the Watchtower was an associated NGO and to become associated required the Watchtower to accept the following:
-that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;

In the 1960s, the Governing Body decreed that Malawian Witnesses were not to hold a political card in a one party state. This resulted in many thousands of deaths, rapes and displacements of innocent Witnesses between 1963 and 1992. (Yearbook 1999 pp.149-223) Whilst these atrocities were occurring to followers of Watchtower regulation, their headquarters were ignoring the same regulation by being politically affiliated with the United Nations. Watchtower leaders freely wield their power to disfellowship its constituents for associating with or working for organisations that are acting contrary to Watchtower principles, and praise followers who die upholding Organization regulation. Yet they violated their own principles; for library access. Never has there been an apology or admission of wrongdoing, rather there has been no more than a brief and dishonest attempt to make this indiscretion appear justifiable. Is it any wonder that Witnesses have left the Organization in disgust at such hypocrisy?

"Involvement in political affairs is considered being non-neutral. The Elder's manual listed such course of action by which a Witness as indicating they have disassociated themselves from the congregation.
"Jehovah's Witnesses maintain neutrality with regard to the political and military affairs of the nations. (John 17:16; rs pp. 269-76) ... Since true dedicated Christians are "no part of the world," if a member of the congregation unrepentantly pursues a course in violation of his Christian neutrality, he thereby disassociates himself from the neutral Christian congregation. (John 15:19; 17:14-16; w82 1/15 p. 31)" "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" p.140

Simple membership with a disapproved organisation, such as the YMCA, is considered apostasy and results in judicial action.
Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Mens Christian Association)?
Yes, that is so. We have long recognized that the YMCA, though not being a church as such, is definitely aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith.
In joining the YMCA as a member a person accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. … Membership means that one has become an integral part of this organization founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah's Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called Christian association would amount to apostasy." Watchtower 1979 Jan 1 pp.30-31 Questions from Readers
guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,565199,00.html
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/united-nations-association.php

Satanic, occultic and subliminals found in Watchtower magazines and books
"For several years, images, symbols, and figures drawn from witchcraft and Satanism have been surreptitiously incorporated into the Society's books and magazines. This claim may sound improbable, even bizarre, but it can be denied only if the evidence for it is ignored. The people most affected are those who look to the Watchtower Society for spiritual guidance.
http://www.jwbookstore.bravehost.com/books/darkness.html
http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/3subliminalimages.html

JW pedophiles protected.
http://www.silentlambs.org/

WeberHome
November 17th, 2015, 10:37 AM
-
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 the request for his resignation, and his
subsequent dis-fellowshipping, resulted from allegations of apostasy.

Following his departure, Franz wrote two books relating his personal
experiences with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and his views on
Jehovah's Witnesses teachings.

One of his books is called "Crisis Of Conscience". 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.

So; why am I recommending Franz's book? Because it is a helpful aid to
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.

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

WeberHome
November 19th, 2015, 06:29 PM
-
One day, a pair of Witnesses 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 modifiers that go to reinforcing it's line of thinking. For example:

Below are some passages taken word-for-word from a version of the Watch
Tower Society's proprietary Bible. Watch for the word in brackets: it's very
important.

Col 1:16a . . By means of him all [other] things were created.

Col 1:16b . . All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

Col 1:17 . . Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all
[other] things were made to exist.

I pointed out to the trainee that the word "other" is in brackets to indicate
that it's not in the New Testament's Greek manuscripts. I then proceeded to
have the trainee read the passages sans the bracketed word. Here they are
with [other] removed.

"By means of him all things were created"

"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 those passages reveal something quite different than what he
was led to believe.

The Watch Tower Society's editors took the liberty to pencil "other" into its
proprietary translation of the Greek manuscripts to support its assertion that
the Word of John 1:1-3 is a created being who, after God created him, was
assigned the task of creating everything else, including, but not limited to,
the current cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. If
perchance some of the Society's missionaries don't know that then all I can
say is they have a lot of catching up to do.

Now; as to tampering with Paul's teachings; 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.

Untaught people are oftentimes self-taught; and were modern Witnesses to
check into ol' Charles T. Russell's rather ignoble past; they'd find that "self
taught" pretty much describes the origin of the Society's theology.

Anyway, according to Peter; people who force Paul's letters to mean things
they don't say in writing have actually put a gun to their heads, so to speak,
and don't know it.

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

WeberHome
November 21st, 2015, 09:02 PM
-
Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only-begotten god;
while another translation of John 1:18 says Jesus is the only-begotten son.
Which translation is correct?

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the
very same thing. But for clarity's sake; let's assume that "only-begotten
god" is correct. What are the ramifications of that?

Well; according to John 17:3 it suggests that the only true god's offspring is
the only true god; otherwise he'd be a false god; which is about as possible
as my offspring being a false human. In other words; like always begets like.
If the only true god were to reproduce, His offspring would be more of His
own kind just as when I reproduce, my offspring is more of my own kind.
Get my drift?

John 1:18 implies that when the only true god begot a son, He begot more
of Himself; viz: He begot a god that's of the species the only true god. It's
either that or the only true god begot not a species of god of His own kind;
but a species of god of another kind; which would be like me begetting not a
species of human of my own kind, but a species of human of an alien kind.

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The
Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words;
that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept
discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore
the solar system came to the very same conclusion: they learned to
abandon their logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and
they encountered plenty.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and planetary
exploration, faith accepts what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it. I readily admit that the only true god multiplying to produce
another of Himself makes no sense whatsoever. But just as science admits
to many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And there's no shame in
that. The shame is in pretending to have complete understanding of a
supernatural religion that by its very nature defies reasoning and common
sense.

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

Ktoyou
November 21st, 2015, 09:29 PM
I have gone to standing down to them. Well, not really true because they do not come around here. They are not supposed to come around.

Elia
November 22nd, 2015, 05:55 AM
The JW's are no better or worse than main stream churches.

Bs"d

They are better than main stream churches, because they don't believe that their messiah is God or divine, so do they don't worship him, they only worship the one and only true God Y-H-W-H, and therefore they are not idol worshippers.


"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5

The above in green can apply to the J-H-V-H witnesses....

truthjourney
November 22nd, 2015, 06:17 AM
Bs"d

They are better than main stream churches, because they don't believe that their messiah is God or divine, so do they don't worship him, they only worship the one and only true God Y-H-W-H, and therefore they are not idol worshippers.


"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5

The above in green can apply to the J-H-V-H witnesses....
They believe Jesus is divine but they do not believe he is God.

chrysostom
November 22nd, 2015, 06:31 AM
They believe Jesus is divine but they do not believe he is God.

my wife and I were confronted by one at the gas station
my wife told her to talk to me
I was very nice
but
did say that
Jesus is God

Ben Masada
November 23rd, 2015, 05:51 PM
I have gone to standing down to them. Well, not really true because they do not come around here. They are not supposed to come around.

That reminds me of the couple that comes by Saturday in the afternoon. They say upfront that all I need to do is to listen to them. If I try to express my opinion, they stand and go. I asked for the meaning of this attitude and they told me they are not supposed to learn anything from another because they already have all the truth.

truthjourney
November 23rd, 2015, 05:59 PM
That reminds me of the couple that comes by Saturday in the afternoon. They say upfront that all I need to do is to listen to them. If I try to express my opinion, they stand and go. I asked for the meaning of this attitude and they told me they are not supposed to learn anything from another because they already have all the truth.
Oh yes indeed. That is what they say. :)

WeberHome
November 23rd, 2015, 06:50 PM
-
The Watch Tower Society insists that human life is entirely physical-- people
cease to exist when their bodies expire. The Society substantiates its
doctrine with some things that Solomon wrote in the book of Ecclesiastes.

Traditional Christianity insists that human life is more than physical-- people
continue to exist beyond the demise of their bodies. Traditional Christianity
substantiates its doctrine with some things that Jesus Christ spoke in the
New Testament.

Solomon was a very wise man and the brightest intellectual of his day. But
Christ claimed that his wisdom is superior to Solomon's.

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

Solomon's understanding was limited, but Christ's is exceedingly vast.

†. Col 2:3 . . In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Traditional Christianity casts its vote for Christ primarily because it believes
that no man could possibly know more about the afterlife than he; and also
because it is God's edict that people listen to His son.

†. Matt 17:5 . . While Peter was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My
beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him.

No doubt Solomon was inspired to put his world view in writing; but Christ
was more than inspired to say the things he spoke; the things he spoke
came directly from God.

†. John 3:34-35 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words; for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

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

†. John 8:28 . . I speak these things as the Father taught me.

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

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

In other words; people who take sides with Solomon against Jesus Christ
have taken sides against God; and the repercussions of their choice are
disastrous to say the least.

†. John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in His son is not condemned, but whoever
disbelieves stands condemned already

†. John 3:36 . . He that disbelieves the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abides on him.

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

WeberHome
November 26th, 2015, 12:10 PM
-
†. 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,
for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness

As every competent Bible student knows: though all scripture is inspired by
God, not all scripture is true. For example:

"At this the serpent said to the woman: You positively will not die." (Gen
3:4)

The serpent's statement is on record due to the inspiration of God: but the
serpent's statement is false.

Here's another:

"But as for eating of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden,
God has said: You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you
do not die." (Gen 3:3)

Though Eve's statement is in the record due to the inspiration of God, her
statement is not entirely true. He didn't say Adam must not touch the fruit.

Ecclesiastes is in the record due to the inspiration of God: and though it
contains many truisms, not all that it contains is true. Solomon (if that's who
actually wrote it) didn't record his observations from the perspective of a
spiritual man who's privy to special knowledge beyond the scope of empirical
evidence: but rather, he recorded his observations from the perspective of a
man under the sun: viz: a worldly intellectual whose perception of reality is
moderated by what he can see going on around him in the physical rather
than what he cannot see going on around him in the non-physical: and
that's pretty much why it's so easy to find material in Ecclesiastes contrary
to the doctrines of traditional Christianity.

Ecclesiastes is popular with agnostics and atheists because it agrees, to a
very large extent, with their own secular philosophies; viz: Solomon's
observations are primarily an evaluation of life on earth as seen from the
earth rather than an evaluation of life on earth as seen from heaven. In
other words: he spoke of life from the perspective of empirical evidence and
human experience.

Solomon spoke of death; but there's no textual evidence in the book of
Ecclesiastes indicating that he had ever seen beyond death for himself to
know what he was talking about. In contrast, there is an abundance of
textual evidence indicating that Jesus Christ not only spoke of death, but he
had seen beyond death for himself to know what he was talking about. (e.g.
John 3:13, John 3:31-32, John 6:33, John 6:38, and 1John 1:1-3)

So in my estimation, Christ's eye-witness reports carry far more weight than
Solomon's opinions. Solomon's perspective was pretty much limited to what
he could see for himself; while the traditional Christian perspective is
enhanced by things that Christ can see for himself.

Q: So then, in what way is Ecclesiastes beneficial for teaching, for reproving,
for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness?

A: It's very valuable for showing that life sans the divine perspective is
meaningless. Humankind needs to believe in something higher than itself
just to make sense of why people exist at all.

Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at
least a dozen honorary degrees; physicist Steven Weinberg (who views
religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes"
wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at
least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the
universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the
level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

Well of course Mr. Weinberg feels that way. How else could a thinking man
feel when he believes in nothing higher than himself?

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

andyc
November 28th, 2015, 03:47 AM
The big problem in talking with JWs is that they are humanists first, christians second. And so when they come round the doors they try to appeal to humanistic logic in their reasoning. "The world would be a better place if.........".
When the person on the doorstep agrees, the JW then goes on to explain how the world shall be refashioned into the kind of better place that appeals to humanistic ideologies.
JWs have no relationship with God, because they believe their day to day duties are earning them favor with God in order to win their future paradise resurrection.
Their view of God is from an old covenant perspective except for the Mosaic law. They look for a future resurrection as reward for an obedient life. The obedience is actually to the WBTS, not to God, but NT scripture demands obedience to faith.

Their minds are so immersed in humanism, that it makes very difficult to get them to see and understand the spiritual. For them it's a little bit like looking at a holiday brochure with pictures of a paradise location. The JW longs to inherit this paradise with all the materialistic hopes and dreams that go along with it. BUT the desire to be with Jesus and the Father is totally absent.

Paul said, "my desire is to depart and be with Christ", which was everything to him. But the JW doesn't want this at all. They want a paradise world away from God, because they believe that God is not approachable, and that man is meant to be vastly inferior, and the two should be apart.

And so if the JW is so consumed with humanistic ideologies, they'll have no desire to actually know the truth, because they do not want to know Christ. Only the benefits from acknowledging who he is from a watchtower perspective.

Crucible
November 28th, 2015, 02:22 PM
Yell mindlessly in their face and slam the door.

Crucible
November 28th, 2015, 04:25 PM
Yell mindlessly in their face and slam the door.

Someone's apparently butt hurt by this post, so let me elaborate.

You open the door. You give a big, giant yell directly at them mid swing between 'have a moment' and 'to talk about', and then slam the door at a swift horizontal angle.

Soliciting a religion in a neighborhood you know is predominantly Protestant, as is the country, is ridiculous. Find other methods that don't simply exist to rub it in people's faces.

WeberHome
November 29th, 2015, 06:06 AM
-
Fiction can be defined as stories about people and events that, though
untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

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

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

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

Now; if he had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese;
we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy;
but none of them are like that. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as
fiction; but never fantasy because none of them are so far removed from
normal reality that there is no possible chance of it ever being true.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is neither fiction nor fantasy: he's a real life
man; held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent
religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God
(2Chrn 20:27, Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man
famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say
something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about whom it's
said is one of his Father's buddies.

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

There is something else to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: Luke 16:27 reveals that people in the rich man's situation suffer
anxiety worrying about their relatives.

Can you just imagine the shock, the horror, and the terror that kicks
deceased Jehovah's Witnesses in the guts when they find themselves in the
same situation? Well; that's all they need to instantly realize that traditional
Christianity has been right about hell all along and the Watch Tower Society
is a Judas goat.

But that's not the worst of it. Just think of all the Jehovah's Witness parents
who have actually trained their own children to follow mom and dad down
there. How do people bear the torment of something like that on their
conscience?

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

WeberHome
December 2nd, 2015, 11:55 AM
-
The Watch Tower Society uses the passage below to substantiate its doctrine
that people go out of existence when they die.

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

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

Unfortunately, Ps 146:4 is the only place in the entire Old Testament where
'eshtonah appears so we can't compare its uses in other contexts. However,
according to Webster's the word "thinking" is an ambiguous word with quite
a variety of meanings to choose from; including, but not limited to:
concerns, anticipations, conceptions, opinions, imaginations, visualizations,
ideas, epiphanies, plans, schemes, fantasies, arguments, deliberations, and
the like.

For example: consider all those people who perished in the World Trade
Center, in the Japan and Indonesia tsunamis, and the Haiti earthquake.
None of them woke that day planning on it being their last on earth. No, on
the contrary; they had people to see, places to go, and things to do: but
before the day ended; whatever was on their minds lost its importance-
their priorities went right out the window and became no more significant
than green cheese on the moon. All their plans, their dreams, their
schedules, their schemes, their problems, their ambitions, their loves, and
their aspirations went right down the tubes as they were suddenly
confronted with a whole new reality to cope with.

So then, an alternative to the Watch Tower Society's theology is that people
don't go out of existence when they die. Their cognitive processes don't stop
working; no, Ps 146:4 only means that whatever was on their minds while
they were alive is now out of mind; viz: null and void.

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

When my eldest nephew was paroled from prison, he quit drinking, and
began going to college to become a counselor. For 2½ years all went well.
His parole officer was happy, and he was on track and getting good grades.
My nephew's future looked assured.

And then on the morning of Sept 25, 2015, he dropped dead to the floor.
My nephew's passing was a terrible disappointment to everybody; but
actually we all kind of expected it. He was grossly overweight, had high
blood pressure and high cholesterol, rarely exercised, and smoked. But the
point is; my nephew's dream ended just as abruptly as flipping a light
switch. And all of our hopes for his success ended the same way.

The "spirit goes out" refers to the breath of life that God blew into Adam's
nostrils in the book of Genesis. That breath (a.k.a. life force) served but one
purpose and that was to energize Adam's body (cf. Jas 2:26). But there is
much more to human life than a body.

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

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

One of the strongest proofs that people continue to exist beyond the demise
of their bodies is Jonah. While the prophet's corpse reposed in the tummy of
a fish, Jonah went to a place that he described as the bottoms of the
mountains. From thence he prayed for recovery; and was granted his
request.

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

intojoy
December 3rd, 2015, 01:22 AM
***The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

Ben Masada
December 3rd, 2015, 03:37 PM
***The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

You must be one of them to speak like that in their favor.

intojoy
December 3rd, 2015, 10:34 PM
You must be one of them to speak like that in their favor.


Ben please

The quote was from the "Watchtower Magazine"

patrick jane
December 3rd, 2015, 10:39 PM
Ben please

The quote was from the "Watchtower Magazine"

21028

intojoy
December 3rd, 2015, 10:41 PM
Thanks Jane. Fixed it

patrick jane
December 3rd, 2015, 10:47 PM
***The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

https://youtu.be/HyIlDPLDCP0

keypurr
December 3rd, 2015, 11:33 PM
-


Perhaps you could start a thread for that topic because the topic of this
thread is not evangelizing Jehovah's Witness; but rather: standing up to
them.

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

What is a better way to stand up to them?

keypurr
December 3rd, 2015, 11:43 PM
If you don't mind wasting a little time in a Bible discussion like being on this forum, then I totally agree with the above point. Talk to them. Or not if you are busy.

The last time JW's came around, I had the agenda of questioning them as to why they thought they were the only right church on earth. I was trying to point out that only cults think they are the only right church. It was a pleasant discussion.

It is never a waste of time to teach what you know about God.
The JWs are no worse than 99% of the churches that call themselves Christ followers.

keypurr
December 3rd, 2015, 11:52 PM
Okay Keypurr, but that's not that easy! If you go for Luke and not Matthew, it means that there are contradictions in the NT. It also means that the NT was not inspired by the Spirit of God. Furthermore, it also means that none of the apostles of Jesus wrote a book in the NT. It means a lot more as for instance that the NT deserves no credibility of the kind of a sacred book. What do you say?

Yes there are MANY contradictions in the Bible. Many of which are translation errors and changes. I would guess that is why we need to prove all things friend. The original ms were inspired, not so much the translations. That why I rely on many translations to find the content. This is true of both the OT and the NT.

Lazy afternoon
December 4th, 2015, 12:20 AM
If you don't mind wasting a little time in a Bible discussion like being on this forum, then I totally agree with the above point. Talk to them. Or not if you are busy.

The last time JW's came around, I had the agenda of questioning them as to why they thought they were the only right church on earth. I was trying to point out that only cults think they are the only right church. It was a pleasant discussion.

They seem to be like Madists,

they think the same way.

LA

WeberHome
December 4th, 2015, 10:21 AM
-
Q: Doesn't the wisdom of Solomon say there is no activity or planning or
knowledge or wisdom in sheol? (Eccl 9:10)

A: When studying the book of Ecclesiastes, it doesn't take long to catch on
that his philosophy is based upon what can be seen through the eyes of
empirical evidence and human experience. In other words: Ecclesiastes is a
worldly view rather than a spiritual view. So, in order to obtain a spiritual
view of reality, one must resort to the revelations of an inspired prophet
rather than the reflections of an educated intellectual.

Jonah 2:1-7 is very tricky. There are actually three prayers mentioned in it.
One was prayed from the belly of the fish, one was prayed from the belly of
sheol, and one was prayed at the point of Jonah's death. Very tricky.

Long story short, Jonah said that sheol is at the bottoms of the mountains.
(Jonah 2:6)

The bottoms of the mountains are not located in the tummy of a fish; they're
located in the depths of the earth.

He also said "As for the earth, its bars were upon me for time indefinite."
(Jonah 2:6)

The bars of a fish are its ribs, the bars of the earth are its mantle.

What I'm getting at is: although sheol probably includes one's grave, it's not
limited to that because while Jonah's body was on ice in the fish's tummy,
he was imprisoned at the bottoms of the mountains.

Christ likened his experience to that of Jonah's.

†. Matt 12:40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a
huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth.

Christ's corpse wasn't buried in the heart of the earth. It was interred on the
surface of the earth. In point of fact, his grave wasn't even located in the
earth's soil: it was above the soil in a rock-hewn tomb. So then:

Was Jonah in the belly of a fish three days and three nights?

Yes.

Was Jesus Christ in the belly of a tomb three days and three nights?

Yes.

Was Jonah at the bottoms of the mountains?

Yes.

Was Jesus Christ in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights?

Yes.

The only possible means by which all the above could be true for both Jonah
and Jesus Christ, is if the men and their bodies parted company and went
separate ways when they died.

How do I know that Jonah died? Easy.

"you proceeded to bring up my life" is the language of resurrection; but
there's more.

"But out of the pit you proceeded to bring up my life, O Jehovah my God."

The Hebrew word for "pit" sometimes indicates not only a literal hole in the
ground, but also the putrefaction that dead bodies undergo in the grave. For
example Psalm 16:10

"For you will not leave my soul in sheol. You will not allow your loyal one to
see the pit."

Peter applied that passage to Jesus Christ when he said:

"Moreover, even my flesh will reside in hope because you will not leave my
soul in hades, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption." (Acts
2:26-27)

According to the wisdom of Solomon, the dead are inactive in sheol and they
have neither knowledge nor wisdom; but Jonah had enough wits about him
in sheol to pray an intelligent prayer.

"I called out of my distress to Yhvh, and He answered me. I cried for help
from the depth of sheol; thou didst hear my voice." (Jonah 2:2)

The apparent contradiction between Solomon and Jonah is easy to resolve
when it's taken into consideration that the book of Ecclesiastes is inspired
philosophy, while the book of Jonah is inspired prophecy.

So then; people have a choice to make. Do they listen to Solomon the
philosopher or do they listen to Jonah the prophet? Abraham recommends
listening to the prophet. (Luke 16:27-31)

Q: You're saying Jonah went to hell?

A: Sheol/Hades essentially identify the afterlife world of the dead; both the
good dead and the bad dead. In point of fact, according to Luke 23:43
Christ's section of hades/sheol was a pleasant situation.

Q: People can pray their way out of sheol?

A: Jonah's circumstances were special. God commissioned him to go and
cry against Nineveh. Long story short, Jonah refused. However; God was
determined to change that man's mind even if He had to kill him to do it.
Well; again, long story short, God won and Jonah-- no doubt grumbling
every step of the way --finally marched off to Nineveh like he was supposed
to do in the first place. And best of all, Jonah's nautical experience became a
very valuable asset for people seriously interested in knowing what to expect
in the afterlife.

Q: So if New York City's sand hogs were to tunnel deep enough into the
earth they'd find sheol/hades?

A: The afterlife isn't physical; it's supernatural. So if the sand hogs were to
tunnel down to the bottoms of the mountains to find sheol/hades they would
fail because the supernatural world is non physical: viz: it cannot be
detected by sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. In other words: their
tunneling machine could pass right through the very heart of the
netherworld and not even know it.

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

intojoy
December 4th, 2015, 07:40 PM
Jonah went to paradise in Sheol which being interpreted means the grave.

lifeisgood
December 4th, 2015, 07:47 PM
They have JW here in the Philippines. The best defense against any cult is knowing your scripture. They were surprised that I knew the order of all the books of the Bible.

Bingo!

Lazy afternoon
December 5th, 2015, 02:14 AM
Well so far in this thread--

People are not going to help the JWs with using the same tools they use, and when it comes to personal cleanness of heart they rate that most important, whereas this boards MAD members mainly discount that as being unnecessary.


Tit 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
Tit 2:8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
Tit 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
Tit 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

LA

NWL
December 5th, 2015, 04:53 AM
Coming from a JW, the best way to "stand up" to us would be to know your bible and reason with us using scripture for each point and claim you make.

When I go out to preach I would like nothing more for someone to open their door to me, walk back into their study, pick up their bible and come back to the front door and try to reason from the scriptures with me. That's the only thing that keeps me going when it comes to the ministry that all Christians were commissioned.

Lazy afternoon
December 5th, 2015, 05:32 PM
You could ask them about their belief that all governments are of the devil,

and how come Daniel was in government.

and about levels of government.

Dan 2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Dan 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.




Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?
Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Here we go again. Weber keeps this little tirade word-for-word wherever he goes. He spouts non-truths non-stop. Why not aim your little fiery darts at Baptists or Catholics or Mormons? Oh no....Weber is all out to slam-dunk JWs. 'Tis a pity.

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:23 PM
I read "Thirty Years a WT Slave" myself many years ago. I found it to be the rantings of a frustrated power-seeker who was outraged that he wasn't given certain privileges. I got nothing out of his book but negativity and depression. A bunch of bunk. "Kingdom of the Cults" is very nasty also. It doesn't portray JWs fairly at all. To read this stuff is a complete waste of time. Why pay attention to that junk that makes a person feel really down? JWs spread the message of good things to come, with God's Kingdom, ruled by Christ Jesus, making the planet into a Paradise and completing Jehovah's plans for the earth.

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:29 PM
They have JW here in the Philippines. The best defense against any cult is knowing your scripture. They were surprised that I knew the order of all the books of the Bible.

Oh, wow. That's pretty good. Now, do you know what they say? And have you actually listened to a JW? You might be surprised at the message.

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:32 PM
Having dealt with them to a good extent, I concur; yours are some most excellent points for the type of setting one needs to both attempt to take charge of, and or establish, as well as to attempt to maintain throughout, towards sharing the gospel of Christ

I've also applied a very similar format when simply sharing the Mystery of Christ with other believers. The above is a must even more so when the individual is a leader or pastor of some sort.

Even then, there is no guarantee, so one might as well not even go for it; simply hold the fort towards being able to present the gospel if that is the issue, or the Mystery when that is.

Once, I got all the way through Ephesians 2's Time Past, But Now, Ages to Come. When I then asked who they understood their Apostle was, they rattled off their pastor's name, lol.

Being that all kinds of "that's not for us" cult like groups are out there, one might as well just have fun with it all; enjoy the opportunity and challenge; that sort of a thing.

So you say JWs don't present the Gospel. That's odd. That is our great commission---to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom throughout the earth. (Matthew 24:14)

What is the Gospel that YOU preach?

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:34 PM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

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

Oooo please tell me....what is there in the Bible that I've never imagined?

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:36 PM
A big lol to that one - Ephesians 2 certainly qualifies - big time!

I didn't understand at all what you were trying to say about Ephesians 2. You want to give me a try?

Bright Raven
December 5th, 2015, 06:37 PM
Oooo please tell me....what is there in the Bible that I've never imagined?
Why did JW's change John 1:1 from was God to was a God?

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:40 PM
I tell them to go to hell

Aren't you just the picture of a true Christian. Don't even want to try and help them reason on your viewpoint? How loving.:mmph:

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:47 PM
Your points are spot on. I once had a copy of Reasoning From the Scriptures to be able to understand how they twisted and distorted God's Word and to be able to show them it was not what God said from the Scripture. I also had a copy of their perverted translation to be able to show them that Jesus is God, not a god, nor Michael. It can be done right from Isiah. I had also learned to read and translated the Koine Greek for the same reasons. I've also read Kingdom of the Cults way back year ago. I would also suggest to challenge them to read the Bible by itself without reading any of their Watchtower interpretations, nor other people's material. Challenge them to allow God to be their teacher and interpreter as God Himself says that we do not need man to teach us because God is our Teacher. God and His Word says differently than what the Watchtower says.

OK hon. Show ME how JWs distort God's Word. The New World Translation is considered one of the best translations on the planet. You would agree if you did more study and research. Show me how Isaiah says that Jesus is God and that he is not Michael.

I have read the Bible by itself, from Genesis to Revelation, and I did it in a year. God and His Word do not say something different than what the WT says. They follow God's Word so closely they don't even get involved in the world's politics or wars! You can't say that, can you?

So show me how you can prove Jesus is God and Michael is not Jesus' pre-earthly name...from Isaiah no less.

Show me how JWs twist God's Word.

Bright Raven
December 5th, 2015, 06:52 PM
OK hon. Show ME how JWs distort God's Word. The New World Translation is considered one of the best translations on the planet. You would agree if you did more study and research. Show me how Isaiah says that Jesus is God and that he is not Michael.

I have read the Bible by itself, from Genesis to Revelation, and I did it in a year. God and His Word do not say something different than what the WT says. They follow God's Word so closely they don't even get involved in the world's politics or wars! You can't say that, can you?

So show me how you can prove Jesus is God and Michael is not Jesus' pre-earthly name...from Isaiah no less.

Show me how JWs twist God's Word.

Jesus is worshiped by ALL God's angels. No way He can be Michael.

Hebrews 1:5-6 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?[a]
And again:

“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?[b]
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[c]

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 06:55 PM
I agree with a number of the points in the OP. But I think the OP is a little harsh.
I can't speak at all now, but when I could, my plan was firstly to let them talk. Once they've said their piece, they begin to be more relaxed. Then I ask them personal questions which I know they will not have been trained to answer. It is quite eye-opening to see how very insecure they are once outside their prepared spiel. But I try to make them feel relaxed about themselves. I never agree to do studies with them.
As soon as they mention the original Greek text (which they invariably do - as if it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about), I jump on them like a shot. Something like 'Oh do you know ancient Greek? I do and I have a Greek Bible here, let's look at it!' And then they have to admit that they have no knowledge of ancient Greek at all but were only parrotting. I can then dwell on this point and hopefully get them to realise that parrotting is 100% of what they are doing and that they have no personal experiences at all. And of course I would share my own personal experiences.
And yes, semantics is a big issue, which is why it is a good to be well prepared. In the beginning I wasn't well prepared but I soon learnt. I do believe that one lady who visited me subsequently became a major voice against the Watchtower movement. It's important to always be polite and loving. Try also to get them to come back. They might never get another chance to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I only partially agree with Keypurr. Whilst I believe with my whole heart that it is not correct doctrine that qualifies you for salvation, it just so happens that incorrect doctrine can prevent you from obtaining salvation. What a surprise! That is why the NT exhorts us in no uncertain terms to ensure that false teaching is eliminated from the church. These people need salvation, let's not be ambivalent about that.

I don't know who you talked to, but I bet it was just one or two times, and the poor people at your door were probably newbies. The vast majority of JWs I know would be able to carry on an excellent Bible discussion with you, about any topic you preferred. I don't think anyone who has talked to us more than once would say we are "insecure."

And I would talk about your Greek knowledge, even though I don't know Greek. I would have you show me and explain to me why you believe that John 1:1 says that the Word is God when there is no article there. Even I can see there is no article there.

I do commend you for wanting to get us to come back. Your heart is kinder than the guy who tells us to go to hell.

Bright Raven
December 5th, 2015, 06:58 PM
I don't know who you talked to, but I bet it was just one or two times, and the poor people at your door were probably newbies. The vast majority of JWs I know would be able to carry on an excellent Bible discussion with you, about any topic you preferred. I don't think anyone who has talked to us more than once would say we are "insecure."

And I would talk about your Greek knowledge, even though I don't know Greek. I would have you show me and explain to me why you believe that John 1:1 says that the Word is God when there is no article there. Even I can see there is no article there.

I do commend you for wanting to get us to come back. Your heart is kinder than the guy who tells us to go to hell.

Your interpretation only leads to polytheism.

KingdomRose
December 5th, 2015, 07:01 PM
Why not show them by the scriptures? They've probably never been shown the gospel that is the power of God to save them. And if you did, just what would you preach as the gospel of their salvation?

What? We LIVE the Gospel! That is our message to people everywhere! Why do you say that we don't know the Gospel?

Jesus said: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations: and then shall the end come." (Matthew 24:14, KJV)

Can you tell me what he was talking about? What is "the gospel of the kingdom"?

OCTOBER23
December 5th, 2015, 07:06 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

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

Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

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

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

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

intojoy
December 5th, 2015, 08:21 PM
Aren't you just the picture of a true Christian. Don't even want to try and help them reason on your viewpoint? How loving.:mmph:


We are commanded to let them be untouchable by the scriptures.
If one asks me how to get right with God I will witness to them.

If they bring Satan I tell them to go to hell

intojoy
December 5th, 2015, 08:22 PM
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/05/3b3d31e7149917e016b6586f95ecd1cc.jpg

Lazy afternoon
December 5th, 2015, 09:56 PM
I have no problems with the JWs. if they are looking for the truth.

Most all of any persuasion want to be teachers. I just let them.

I am not confrontational.

LA

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 06:13 AM
Jesus is worshiped by ALL God's angels. No way He can be Michael.

Hebrews 1:5-6 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?[a]
And again:

“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[c]

How does Jesus being proskuneó by all the Angels disprove that he is Michael?

Just because Jesus is an Angelic being himself and the verse states that "all the angels" were to give him -the chief angel- obeisance, isn't a contradiction. The apparent contradiction being that according to us that Jesus/Michael should should be in the group "all the angels" in v6 of the chapter.

The reason is because when reading the text it goes without saying that Jesus isn't included in the "all the angels" even though he is an angelic being himself, it doesn't need to make it clear. You're simply reading into the verse too much and wrongly assuming "all the angels" literally means all the angels, when logic dictates that if Jesus is an angel then he obviously isn't included in the group in this instance.

An example of this can be found if you turn to the next chapter of Hebrews in Hebrews 2:7,8

(Hebrews 2:7, 8) "...You [God] made him [Adam] a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is [B]not subject to [Adam]..."

In the above verse we can see that God subject "all things" to Adam, the text goes on to say that by God subjecting all things to him, there was nothing that was not subject to Adam. Would that then imply that God was subject to Adam? Of course not! The reason why any christian doesn't get stumbled over this text is because it goes without saying that God didn't subject himself to Adam even though the scripture implies that he does. The expression "all things" being the English translation of the ancient text, isn't definite and shouldn't be taken literally.

The same applies for your argument of Hebrew 1:5-6, re-think your reasoning, it doesn't work.

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 06:26 AM
Why did JW's change John 1:1 from was God to was a God?

JW's didn't change John 1:1, we simply differ from the majority. It ridiculous to say JW's changed John 1:1 when we simply translated a language into English within the bounds of the grammar it was originally written in. You do realize that the NT was written in a language which was not English don't you :confused:

I'm sure you're well aware BR that John 1:1 translation of the word being "a god" instead of "God" was translated that way well before JW's were on the scene. Stop acting like we were the first.

Totton Linnet
December 6th, 2015, 06:50 AM
They have JW here in the Philippines. The best defense against any cult is knowing your scripture. They were surprised that I knew the order of all the books of the Bible.

Amen to that.

JWs do not understand scripture or the Author of them.


...all they know is brainwash

Totton Linnet
December 6th, 2015, 06:51 AM
I have studied with, and spoken to Jehovah Witnesses; and I do not have a clue as to what you are saying. What they say and is also what other congregations say and do. Try giving some specifics.

You are in deep trouble then

Totton Linnet
December 6th, 2015, 06:53 AM
Show me ANY church that is NOT CULT.

Every one thinks that only they have the true church, so every one else is wrong.

You have much to learn friend.

Can you even prove to me that the bible is God's word?

It took me years to cross my line of reason that it is indeed his word.

The JW's are no better or worse than main stream churches.

You don't have a relationship with Christ keeps....all you have is your puny reasoning

Totton Linnet
December 6th, 2015, 06:56 AM
I agree with a number of the points in the OP. But I think the OP is a little harsh.
I can't speak at all now, but when I could, my plan was firstly to let them talk. Once they've said their piece, they begin to be more relaxed. Then I ask them personal questions which I know they will not have been trained to answer. It is quite eye-opening to see how very insecure they are once outside their prepared spiel. But I try to make them feel relaxed about themselves. I never agree to do studies with them.
As soon as they mention the original Greek text (which they invariably do - as if it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about), I jump on them like a shot. Something like 'Oh do you know ancient Greek? I do and I have a Greek Bible here, let's look at it!' And then they have to admit that they have no knowledge of ancient Greek at all but were only parrotting. I can then dwell on this point and hopefully get them to realise that parrotting is 100% of what they are doing and that they have no personal experiences at all. And of course I would share my own personal experiences.
And yes, semantics is a big issue, which is why it is a good to be well prepared. In the beginning I wasn't well prepared but I soon learnt. I do believe that one lady who visited me subsequently became a major voice against the Watchtower movement. It's important to always be polite and loving. Try also to get them to come back. They might never get another chance to be in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I only partially agree with Keypurr. Whilst I believe with my whole heart that it is not correct doctrine that qualifies you for salvation, it just so happens that incorrect doctrine can prevent you from obtaining salvation. What a surprise! That is why the NT exhorts us in no uncertain terms to ensure that false teaching is eliminated from the church. These people need salvation, let's not be ambivalent about that.

Yes knowing Christ is everything.

WeberHome
December 6th, 2015, 08:25 AM
-
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. The actual word is
derived from kurios (koo'-ree-os) which basically means 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)

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

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 08:53 AM
-
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. The actual word is
derived from kurios (koo'-ree-os) which basically means 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.


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

It's good that you understand that proskuneo doesn't always mean worship as its understood in English.

As for your statement that "obeisance to Jesus Christ = obeisance to Michael = obeisance to a god; and that has some pretty serious ramifications" if understood the JW way, can be put straight by a single scripture, i'll be showing two however.

The fact is there is no ramification if proskuneo is given to Jesus even with him being a god. This is for the simple reason that God was the one who has commanded this to take place, proskuneo isn't given to Jesus because he deserves it without question, but only because God himself allows it be given him (Hebrew 1:6). Furthermore when proskuneo is given to Jesus he doesn't keep it for himself but rather passes all praise and proskuneo to his Father (Phil 2:9-11), thus there is no ramification.

(Hebrews 1:6) But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, [God] says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him [Jesus].”

(Philippians 2:9-11) "...For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father..."


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)

Nope. Actually if you read the context of all the instances that the Bible talks about not to give praise or worship to other gods its always in relation to false gods. Don't believe me? Then read every instance and you'll see that is exactly the case. Thus there is no problem with Jesus receiving proskuneo especially when it has been directed by the father and also since Jesus directs that proskuneo back to the Father and keeps none for himself.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 01:04 PM
Coming from a JW, the best way to "stand up" to us would be to know your bible and reason with us using scripture for each point and claim you make.

When I go out to preach I would like nothing more for someone to open their door to me, walk back into their study, pick up their bible and come back to the front door and try to reason from the scriptures with me. That's the only thing that keeps me going when it comes to the ministry that all Christians were commissioned.

Most assuredly, any sane person would not want to use the NWT (rendered by Liberal Arts majors) as a reference point with which to lead the discussion.

Any 'witness' can easily be hamstrung when confronted with simple Biblical exegesis of the original scriptures....which will cut like a knife through their propaganda and destroy it utterly.

intojoy
December 6th, 2015, 01:56 PM
That's right silenced!

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 02:13 PM
Most assuredly, any sane person would not want to use the NWT (rendered by Liberal Arts majors) as a reference point with which to lead the discussion.

Any 'witness' can easily be hamstrung when confronted with simple Biblical exegesis of the original scriptures....which will cut like a knife through their propaganda and destroy it utterly.

No mention has been made about a householder or a JW using the NWT to discuss or reason. As I've said before on this forum I don't particularly use the NWT when I go out preaching publically, as we all ought to do.

Thanks for your opinion brother.

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 02:14 PM
That's right silenced!

Who was this in reference to?

WeberHome
December 6th, 2015, 03:31 PM
-
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 traditional Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods; the
Watch Tower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third category
of gods sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones".
The mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying
personages exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the
Ten Commandments. For example:

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

The gods referred to in that statement are human beings in positions of
power; which everybody knows are not true deities; so in order to avoid
stigmatizing human beings as false gods, the Society classifies them as
mighty ones.

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

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

And another:

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

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

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

Ktoyou
December 6th, 2015, 03:37 PM
Interesting. Well, I leave them alone now.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 04:11 PM
No mention has been made about a householder or a JW using the NWT to discuss or reason. As I've said before on this forum I don't particularly use the NWT when I go out preaching publically, as we all ought to do.

Thanks for your opinion brother.

The NWT is the reference to which all other renderings are held to, according to witnesses, otherwise why have it in the first place...?

What witnesses do is bring in other renderings that agree with their theology....and then, on the difficult passages, then they turn to their NWT for 'clarification'...

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 06:18 PM
The NWT is the reference to which all other renderings are held to, according to witnesses, otherwise why have it in the first place...?

What witnesses do is bring in other renderings that agree with their theology....and then, on the difficult passages, then they turn to their NWT for 'clarification'...

Well...In our case bowman that certainly isn't true. I've never needed to rely on the NWT with our discussions even when you become stubborn.

The NWT translation is there because the vast majority of bibles have major errors. Most have removed the divine name, which makes most other translations vastly more inaccurate than the NWT straight away. Most insert words such as Holy Ghost, Cross, worship, crucify as well as others in all the wrong places, I'm sure you know where. Most other translations are written in old English which many people find hard to read or even understand. Words used in some older and even modern bibles don't even carry the same meaning or are even used in the modern day English vocabulary, the NWT does not suffer from such problems.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 06:37 PM
Well...In our case bowman that certainly isn't true. I've never needed to rely on the NWT with our discussions even when you become stubborn.

Jesus is God even in the NWT.






The NWT translation is there because the vast majority of bibles have major errors.

Show us...




Most have removed the divine name, which makes most other translations vastly more inaccurate than the NWT straight away.

Since when is Yahweh mentioned in the NWT?




Most insert words such as Holy Ghost, Cross, worship, crucify as well as others in all the wrong places, I'm sure you know where.

Where?




Most other translations are written in old English which many people find hard to read or even understand. Words used in some older and even modern bibles don't even carry the same meaning or are even used in the modern day English vocabulary, the NWT does not suffer from such problems.


So...

Now you just confirmed what I just said....you witnesses always revert back to your NWT as the supposed 'reference'...

Lazy afternoon
December 6th, 2015, 06:57 PM
JWs main error is that they deny Christ comes within, they changed it to with.

Not unlike many who say they believe Christ comes in, but still keep Him out.

LA

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 07:21 PM
Jesus is God even in the NWT.

Show us...

Since when is Yahweh mentioned in the NWT?

Where?

So...

Now you just confirmed what I just said....you witnesses always revert back to your NWT as the supposed 'reference'...

I've already stated the errors bowman. I'm sure you know your way around a bible, you can find them yourself.

As I've said, the majority of English translations leave out the divine name and insert words which have no basis in scripture apart from orthodox beliefs, refer to my previous post if you would like to study the examples I gave, which you obviously won't because you know exactly what I'm on about.

Oh, is Yahweh the correct translation of the divine name with 100% certainty bowman?

And no, we don't use Yahweh, we use the English version of the divine name Jehovah, much like you use the name Jesus instead of Yeshua.

Why ask questions you already know the answer to bowman, you trying to start an argument?

And no I didn't confirm what you said. You asked why JW's have their own version, the NWT. I answered that question with my initial post to you explain that the reason why is because other bibles have blatant errors. No translation is free from errors, I would be foolish to claim the NWT is an exception to this.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 07:34 PM
I've already stated the errors bowman. I'm sure you know your way around a bible, you can find them yourself.

Show us now...or recant your assertion.

Simple.




As I've said, the majority of English translations leave out the divine name and insert words which have no basis in scripture apart from orthodox beliefs, refer to my previous post if you would like to study the examples I gave, which you obviously won't because you know exactly what I'm on about.

But...the NWT 'corrects' all of those, and is held as your reference, right?




Oh, is Yahweh the correct translation of the divine name with 100% certainty bowman?

Yes.




And no, we don't use Yahweh, we use the English version of the divine name Jehovah, much like you use the name Jesus instead of Yeshua.

Who is 'we'...?

Are you saying that the NWT is somehow superior?





Why ask questions you already know the answer to bowman, you trying to start an argument?

Repetition is paramount with you witnesses, is it not?




And no I didn't confirm what you said. You asked why JW's have their own version, the NWT. I answered that question with my initial post to you explain that the reason why is because other bibles have blatant errors. No translation is free from errors, I would be foolish to claim the NWT is an exception to this.

Show us these supposed 'errors' and then demonstrate how the NWT 'corrects' them...

Otherwise recant your repeated lame polemic...

steko
December 6th, 2015, 07:45 PM
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.


The Lord Jesus is YHVH tsidkenu.

WeberHome
December 6th, 2015, 07:49 PM
-
The Watch Tower Society's New World Translation (a.k.a. NWT) is its
workhorse, but not the final say. Another of its Bibles called "The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" trumps the NWT; which in
some cases work against them.

For example; here's Colossians 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Kingdom
Interlinear © 1969.

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

Note that the word "other" is in brackets. The brackets alert readers that
"other" is not in the Greek manuscript; viz: the Kingdom Interlinear's editors
took the liberty to pencil it in; which gives the impression that the Word of
John 1:1-3 was God's first creation; and thereafter, the Word created
everything else.

One day, a pair of Watch Tower 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 it's line of
thinking.

I had him read Colossians 1:16-17 from the Interlinear 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 to the trainee that the
Society is inconsistent with its use of the word "other" by failing to pencil it
into John 1:3 so that it reads 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 writings, and forcing them to mean things
they don't say in Greek; 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.

Untaught people are oftentimes self-taught; and were the Society's
missionaries to check into ol' Charles T. Russell's rather ignoble past; they'd
find that "self-taught" pretty much describes the origin of their theology.
Caveat Lector.

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

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 08:10 PM
Show us now...or recant your assertion.

Simple.

But...the NWT 'corrects' all of those, and is held as your reference, right?

Yes.

Who is 'we'...?

Are you saying that the NWT is somehow superior?

Repetition is paramount with you witnesses, is it not?

Show us these supposed 'errors' and then demonstrate how the NWT 'corrects' them...

Otherwise recant your repeated lame polemic...

The NWT is not my reference no, the original languages are.

"We" refers the the group Jehovah's witnesses which I am a part of, as you already know.

Do I think the NWT is more superior? It depends on what aspect, is it more accurate in placing a translation for Gods name compared to most others? Yes. In not using the word Cross for the instrument for Jesus death? Yes. In not using other words some of which I wrote in my previous post? Yes. In using plain modern English? Yes. In other aspects? Not necessarily.

Bowman do mainstream English bibles have errors in them?

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 08:22 PM
The NWT is not my reference no, the original languages are.

Glad to hear it!

So...how do you explain when the original languages openly, and irrefutably, proclaim that Jesus is Theos....since you, yourself, as witness, deny it...?

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου






"We" refers the the group Jehovah's witnesses which I am a part of, as you already know.

Ok...



Do I think the NWT is more superior? It depends on what aspect, is it more accurate in placing a translation for Gods name compared to most others? Yes. In not using the word Cross for the instrument for Jesus death? Yes. In not using other words some of which I wrote in my previous post? Yes. In using plain modern English? Yes. In other aspects? Not necessarily.

And now we get into the game of semantics.

I doubt that you want to go there...you never have before...




Bowman do mainstream English bibles have errors in them?

You claim they do...so, show them...and show just how the NWT (rendered via Liberal Arts majors) 'corrects' them...

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 08:58 PM
That is quite interesting, Ben. My brother sounded a bit cocky the way you tell it. If he was, he'll learn eventually. I haven't heard anyone in the last 40 years that I've been a Witness ever say to someone, "Are you afraid?" How witless. And most of us KNOW that Jews aren't supposed to go into a Gentile house of worship. I would've given you the invitation and stopped talking. I get a little aggravated when someone who should know better acts like a child.

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 09:06 PM
To Eric H., Post #39: It is because there is no real unity in clumping together different belief systems. Are you really united with someone who doesn't believe what you do? There is already a division there and it will remain. It's kind of like you living next to a man who believes he must play his trumpet for 6 hours from 12 midnight to 6 AM every night. How long will you remain united in anything? Why do you think people with opposites in belief can be united?

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 09:11 PM
Thats exactly right, we used to have JWS and Mormons knock at our doors a lot, once we invited a couple of them in (from each group as they came) and shared the truth with them including the gospel of salvation, they have never returned, not even different ones - weve yet to have another visit from either group.

I'm really curious. Why do you think that we don't believe in the gospel of salvation?

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 09:14 PM
To Eric H., Post #39: It is because there is no real unity in clumping together different belief systems. Are you really united with someone who doesn't believe what you do? There is already a division there and it will remain. It's kind of like you living next to a man who believes he must play his trumpet for 6 hours from 12 midnight to 6 AM every night. How long will you remain united in anything? Why do you think people with opposites in belief can be united?


So...

I heard that if you are not a 'witness', you cannot enter Heaven.

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 09:19 PM
Either the OP is building up to it in their presentation on here, or is to focused on getting along, or is too books based and all they end up going into but the crunch question "do you know for sure that if you were to die right now that you have a place in God's Heaven; what are you basing that on; and; if you were wrong, would you want to know about it, on the authority of God's Word?"

That right there puts whats really what on the table "without" as the Apostle Paul might have put it "controversy."

I'll wait the OP out; see where they are going with all this; such waiting out appears to be part of their point.

Weber has put so much exaggeration and downright falsehoods out there about JWs that I really don't think anything is to be accomplished in the spirit of peace and truth.

Anyway, we wouldn't have any problem with your "crunch question." If we were to die right now, I know I would wake up in Paradise. Jesus would be ruling, and a clean-up of the planet would be underway. The dead would be being resurrected (as I was) and everything would be peaceful, joyful, and reconciled! Most of us don't want to be in heaven. Our hope is Paradise. I base that on the Bible, and I would show you all the verses that tell me I'm spot on.

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 09:30 PM
If you don't mind wasting a little time in a Bible discussion like being on this forum, then I totally agree with the above point. Talk to them. Or not if you are busy.

The last time JW's came around, I had the agenda of questioning them as to why they thought they were the only right church on earth. I was trying to point out that only cults think they are the only right church. It was a pleasant discussion.

Then you think the Catholic Church is a cult? I'm not being prissy. I always heard, as I was growing up, that the RCC stated unequivocably that it was the only Church. I always knew that. Popes might be wavering on that now, but there never used to be any wavering. And might I ask....if you don't think your church is the right one, why are you going to it?

If I thought that other religions were also right, why would I be a JW? It's EASIER to be something else. :Christine

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 09:30 PM
If we were to die right now, I know I would wake up in Paradise.

If you are a witness, and you were to die right now, then you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

If you deny the Triune God, then you most assuredly will be judged and spend some good quality time with Satan...

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 09:41 PM
Glad to hear it!

So...how do you explain when the original languages openly, and irrefutably, proclaim that Jesus is Theos....since you, yourself, as witness, deny it...?

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου

And now we get into the game of semantics.

I doubt that you want to go there...you never have before...

You claim they do...so, show them...and show just how the NWT (rendered via Liberal Arts majors) 'corrects' them...

I don't deny Jesus is Theos, I simply don't accept that he is almighty God, YHWH.

Rules in grammar aren't inherently rules in language. I find it incredibly implausible to believe that a man who never names Jesus as God once, but yet named the Father as God over 500 times, refer to Jesus as God in a single verse. Especially when this one instance rest on a rule which was formed in the late 17th CE by a man who wanted to promote the trinity doctrine.

I'd much rather stick with the previous chapter in Titus 1:4 and understand Titus 2:14 to be expressing Jesus and God to be referring to the same individuals mentioned in the said verse.

No, I claim that all bibles have errors. Im not going to waste my time arguing with someone who I'm quite sure shares the same belief as me. Hence the reason why o asked if you believe all bible contain errors, because if you do then what's the point in me proving something to you which you already believe.

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 09:43 PM
If you are a witness, and you were to die right now, then you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

If you deny the Triune God, then you most assuredly will be judged and spend some good quality time with Satan...

Good quality time with Satan In what aspect?

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 09:58 PM
I don't deny Jesus is Theos, I simply don't accept that he is almighty God, YHWH.

There is only one Theos.

If you agree that Jesus is Theos; then you must agree that Jesus is Yahweh.





Rules in grammar aren't inherently rules in language. I find it incredibly implausible to believe that a man who never names Jesus as God once, but yet named the Father as God over 500 times, refer to Jesus as God in a single verse. Especially when this one instance rest on a rule which was formed in the late 17th CE by a man who wanted to promote the trinity doctrine.

This is the best response that you could google, brother...?

TSKS is one of the most proven principles in Greek grammar.

If you like to deal with the original languages, like you said that you did, then you would not be shying away from it right now...




I'd much rather stick with the previous chapter in Titus 1:4 and understand Titus 2:14 to be expressing Jesus and God to be referring to the same individuals mentioned in the said verse.

Proceed with the original language....like you claimed to be a fan of...




No, I claim that all bibles have errors. Im not going to waste my time arguing with someone who I'm quite sure shares the same belief as me. Hence the reason why o asked if you believe all bible contain errors, because if you do then what's the point in me proving something to you which you already believe.

If you take the time to make a claim, then you must take the time to defend said claim....otherwise, recant.

How many people like me are you going to successfully witness to when I call your bluff...?

Answer.

Zero.

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 09:58 PM
To TruthJourney, post #74.....

Go to the real thing if you want to know about something. www.jw.org will tell you everything you want to know....what JWs believe and why. And really, 999 out of 1,000 baptized JWs will tell you what we believe and show you the Scriptures to back it up. Maybe 1 out of 1,000 would not be able to because they have dementia.

The websites you propose to be searched are false, unscrupulous, negative and nasty. There is nothing positive or up-building about them. What do they offer except hate for JWs?

I have been a JW for 40 years, and I am not easily led nor am I stupid. If I saw something going on that was against Scripture I would speak out immediately and I wouldn't care if I got thrown out. As it is, I have never seen anything contrary to Scripture going on. I have never been in a more loving, stable, unhypocritical religious organization in my life.

Before the individual who runs "Silent Lambs" was disfellowshipped, I listened to him on some show on TV. The guy was pointedly stirring up contention against the WT. He was depressing, negative, hateful and fallacious. I couldn't believe the junk he was saying. The moderator asked him if it was true that JWs considered HIM (the moderator) to be Satanic, and the ex-JW said Yes! What a lie. He was trying to stir up a whole lot of trouble. JWs believe that the system is corrupt and controlled by Satan (I John 5:19), but we do not say that about INDIVIDUALS. Only God can judge people.

You will be wasting your time if you go anywhere to learn about JWs except their own website, www.jw.org

There are awesome articles about Hell, for example. Upper right-hand corner, click on Search and type in "Hell." Then click on Search again.

There are beautiful short videos on a variety of subjects, appealing especially to children, and longer videos as well on subjects from the Creation to how the organization runs.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 10:01 PM
Good quality time with Satan In what aspect?

Meaning that all JW's will be judged and never make it to heaven.

You will be spending eternity with your real father, Satan.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 10:03 PM
I have been a JW for 40 years, and I am not easily led nor am I stupid.

You are, theologically.

KingdomRose
December 6th, 2015, 10:04 PM
Why did JW's change John 1:1 from was God to was a God?

Excellent question, thank you. I will answer that tomorrow. Got to get some sleep. :nightall:

WeberHome
December 6th, 2015, 10:24 PM
-
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 Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor
8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be
false gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he
is, by default, a false god.

The Society tries to squirm out of this dilemma by claiming that when theós
is unmodified by the article "ho" it refers not to deities; but to so-called
mighty ones. Well; were that so 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."

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.

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

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 10:27 PM
-
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 Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor
8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be
false gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he
is, by default, a false god.

The Society tries to squirm out of this dilemma by claiming that when theós
is unmodified by the article "ho" it refers not to deities; but to so-called
mighty ones. Well; were that so 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."

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.

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



:up:

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 10:28 PM
I have never been in a more loving, stable, unhypocritical religious organization in my life.



So says every Mormon that I have ever encountered.

Do you guys witness to Mormons?

Since you are both door-knockers....why not just meet each other in the street and witness away at one another...?

Exchange a BoM for a NWT.


:think:

intojoy
December 6th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Who was this in reference to?


Mohamed was a pedophile
There is no allah

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 10:58 PM
There is only one Theos.

If you agree that Jesus is Theos; then you must agree that Jesus is Yahweh.

This is the best response that you could google, brother...?

TSKS is one of the most proven principles in Greek grammar.

If you like to deal with the original languages, like you said that you did, then you would not be shying away from it right now...

Proceed with the original language....like you claimed to be a fan of...

If you take the time to make a claim, then you must take the time to defend said claim....otherwise, recant.

How many people like me are you going to successfully witness to when I call your bluff...?

Answer.

Zero.

You know what I believe.

It's the response I know brother, it's the reasoning behind my beliefs. Call it what you want.

The TSKS is the most proven principles in Greek grammar? By who's standards, yours? It seems strange that something so proven has been dismissed and rejected by some many scholars who are trinitarians themselves, at least when it comes to Titus 2. Ask and you'll receive.

The sad thing is you'd put more faith into a man made rule then the facts of the scripture itself.

Bowman you always do this, eventually you'll start claiming that you've answered my question and that I'm using the same old tactics again when I keep asking for an answer. Let me know if I'm being unreasonable with this. There is no point in arguing about something which we both agree on, I know you think all bibles are in error today to a certain degree, and you know I know. That being the case, of what use is it for me to show you what you already know. I'm not going to list every error all bibles. don't you realise how many different translations there are, truly an unreasonable demand for something so well known.

Asking the unreasonable and then acting surprised and robbed when you don't get an answer is an age old game of yours. One that I I'm not really keen to play.

Call my bluff? I'm being nothing but sincere. Not everyone in the world likes playing games like yourself bowman.

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 11:04 PM
If you are a witness, and you were to die right now, then you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

If you deny the Triune God, then you most assuredly will be judged and spend some good quality time with Satan...

In what sense would she be spending quality time with Satan. Can't you expand, or does your knowledge only go so far as talking about the trinity?

NWL
December 6th, 2015, 11:41 PM
Meaning that all JW's will be judged and never make it to heaven.

You will be spending eternity with your real father, Satan.

Spending time with Satan where? In a literal Hell? Gehenna?

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 11:46 PM
The TSKS is the most proven principles in Greek grammar? By who's standards, yours? It seems strange that something so proven has been dismissed and rejected by some many scholars who are trinitarians themselves, at least when it comes to Titus 2. Ask and you'll receive.

Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…



“…..there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 276



“…there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
pp. 276 - 277



Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…



“…these two passages are as secure as any in the canon when it comes to identifying Christ as θεός.”
Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 290







The sad thing is you'd put more faith into a man made rule then the facts of the scripture itself.

If you disagree, then exegetically show us why you differ...after all, you keep claiming that the original languages are where its at....and I keep calling your bluff...each...and every time that you show up for a few terse days, then disappear for another year...

:cigar:






Bowman you always do this, eventually you'll start claiming that you've answered my question and that I'm using the same old tactics again when I keep asking for an answer. Let me know if I'm being unreasonable with this. There is no point in arguing about something which we both agree on, I know you think all bibles are in error today to a certain degree, and you know I know. That being the case, of what use is it for me to show you what you already know. I'm not going to list every error all bibles. don't you realise how many different translations there are, truly an unreasonable demand for something so well known.

Asking the unreasonable and then acting surprised and robbed when you don't get an answer is an age old game of yours. One that I I'm not really keen to play.

Call my bluff? I'm being nothing but sincere. Not everyone in the world likes playing games like yourself bowman.

When you are finished projecting yourself on others...I would really like to see you actually reference the original languages like you said that you do.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 11:53 PM
In what sense would she be spending quality time with Satan. Can't you expand, or does your knowledge only go so far as talking about the trinity?

The Righteous are not judged.

JW's willfully deny God as HE has chosen to reveal Himself in scripture, and they will be judged...therefore, you can forget about being one of the 144K.

Apple7
December 6th, 2015, 11:54 PM
Spending time with Satan where? In a literal Hell? Gehenna?

JW's will suffer the Second Death.

NWL
December 7th, 2015, 12:25 AM
JW's will suffer the Second Death.

And what does the second death incur? Again is it a literal place, is it a place of torment?

truthjourney
December 7th, 2015, 02:27 AM
To TruthJourney, post #74.....
Go to the real thing if you want to know about something. www.jw.org will tell you everything you want to know....what JWs believe and why. And really, 999 out of 1,000 baptized JWs will tell you what we believe and show you the Scriptures to back it up. Maybe 1 out of 1,000 would not be able to because they have dementia.
Or they do know the truth about what I've posted and are in denial. Most JW's know that they are not allowed to question or disagree with the Watchtower Society, the governing body, or even the elders or they will find themselves in an elder's meeting to be reproved or disfellowshipped, and/or be told that they are apostate.

The websites you propose to be searched are false, unscrupulous, negative and nasty. There is nothing positive or up-building about them. What do they offer except hate for JWs?
Those websites are accurate on what I posted or I wouldn't have given a link to them. References and sources to verify the information was given and it's up to you to either deny the truth of it or research it yourself to see the truth in it. ...There is something positive about the truth.
Either way, when you go door to door, don't be surprised when someone brings these things up and asks questions about it. It would behoove you to research it so you will be prepared to answer their questions. There hasn't been one JW who has come to my door who has been able to answer my questions on these things, not one. They just say that it's not true. And they say that with a great deal of fear. Because they know that to doubt and question the authority of the Watchtower Society comes with certain repercussions.
It has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with the truth.

Apple7
December 7th, 2015, 08:10 AM
And what does the second death incur? Again is it a literal place, is it a place of torment?

It is a continuous spiritual state existing outside of Heaven in which the person is eternally separated from The Creator, and is referred to as torture.

WeberHome
December 7th, 2015, 08:30 AM
-
†. John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

"Lord" is from the Greek word kurios, and "God" is from the Greek word
theós

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

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

Well; personally it matters little to me whether Jesus Christ is an upper case
god or a lower case god just so long as we can all agree that he's at least a
god in accordance with the Society's version of John 1:1 and John 1:18. But
curiosity compels me to make further inquiry.

If Jesus Christ was Thomas the apostle's god, then why isn't he the Society's
god? I mean: if Thomas would speak to Jesus Christ and address him as "my
god" then why can't the Society speak to Jesus Christ and address him the
very same way? Isn't Jesus Christ their god too? If Jesus Christ was the
apostle Thomas' god, then shouldn't Jesus Christ be everybody's god?

Was Thomas out of line? Well if Thomas was out of line, then why didn't his
master correct him? I mean: addressing someone other than the one true
god as "my god" is a conduct that under normal circumstances would be
regarded as idolatry, and maybe even blaspheme. Those are some pretty
serious sins.

FYI: I think we can safely assume that Thomas was a Jew. As such he was
under contract with God in accordance with the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Thomas, therefore, was forbidden to have any other god but the one with
whom his people contracted.

†. Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

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

If Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that addressing
any other god but his people's covenanted god as "my god" would incur the
covenant's curse upon himself.

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

Note the grammatical tense of "cursed is". It's present tense rather than
future; indicating that the curse is instantaneous-- no delay and no waiting
period. So you can see there that if Jesus Christ isn't somehow the god of
the covenant, then Thomas might just as well have put a gun to his head as
address Jesus Christ as "my god".

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

Apple7
December 7th, 2015, 05:17 PM
Apple7: 'You stated that the original languages are your reference…..so, when can you witness to us with the original languages…?'

NWL: 'I can’t. I lied.'

Wick Stick
December 7th, 2015, 05:52 PM
-


9• It's very important to show JWs the Bible not in ways they've already
seen, but in ways they've never imagined.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have found that virtually all salesmanship boils down to letting the buyer choose between 2 options - both of which the seller has chosen, and both of which lead to a sale.

I therefore delight in answering the questions framed by salespeople either with 'secret option #3' - a thoughtful answer which the person framing the question has not provided as a potential solution, or with an explanation of how the question is built on faulty premises.

Not only does it keep them off balance, but in the case of the person who has 'bought his own bs' (pardon my french), it serves to illuminate how they fell into the trap in the first place.

Jarrod

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 08:14 AM
Interesting. Well, I leave them alone now.

He's not telling you the truth. His ideas are way out of line with what JWs are really about. He says we consider Jesus a "false god" and that is ridiculous.

Read my reply concerning John 1:1.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 08:18 AM
The NWT is the reference to which all other renderings are held to, according to witnesses, otherwise why have it in the first place...?

What witnesses do is bring in other renderings that agree with their theology....and then, on the difficult passages, then they turn to their NWT for 'clarification'...

Not fair. You are stating your uninformed opinion. The WT does research in every area, with every book they can get their hands on, not just the NWT. JWs can prove the doctrines we believe in by using ANY Bible. We used the KJV and the American Standard Bible for many years before the NWT was available!

The "difficult passages" are easily explained, using any Bible. A person has to be willing to let them explain, rather than cutting them off.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 08:22 AM
Not fair. You are stating your uninformed opinion. The WT does research in every area, with every book they can get their hands on, not just the NWT. JWs can prove the doctrines we believe in by using ANY Bible. We used the KJV and the American Standard Bible for many years before the NWT was available!

The "difficult passages" are easily explained, using any Bible. A person has to be willing to let them explain, rather than cutting them off.


So...

If the various English translations are in agreement....why is it witnesses still deny Jesus' deity?

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 08:29 AM
Jesus is God even in the NWT.







Show us...





Since when is Yahweh mentioned in the NWT?





Where?






So...

Now you just confirmed what I just said....you witnesses always revert back to your NWT as the supposed 'reference'...

Jesus is NOT God "even in the New Testament." Preposterous. And YHWH is not mentioned in the NT because he was taken out by early copyists, due to religious bias. Surely if it was because of the name not appearing at all, the copyists would have at LEAST kept it in the text when there were QUOTATIONS from the Old Testament. The many quotations that Jesus spoke, for example, were from OT verses that DID include the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This can be proven by consulting any Hebrew Tanakh that includes the English alongside. Why irradicate the name of God in THOSE instances?

A shortened version of God's name is used in "Hallelujah".....wherever you see that in the NT. So all remnants of His name have not been destroyed in the NT. (Rev.19:1,3,4,6) Hallelujah! PRAISE JEHOVAH.

It would be conducive to a meaningful discussion if you would CAREFULLY read the posts before making assertions that are far from true.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 08:40 AM
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.


The Lord Jesus is YHVH tsidkenu.

No he is not.

Jesus came as Jehovah's REPRESENTATIVE. How could the Creator of the universe come down to this speck of dust in one of the galaxies? He could not, as Solomon recognized at 2 Chronicles 6:18.

Jehovah sent His Son to carry out His will, as Jesus said many times. John 1:18 tells us that that is true, because "no one has seen God at any time," and it was told to Moses that "no one may see Me and live."

If Jesus is Jehovah, please explain PSALM 110:

"Jehovah said to my Lord the Messiah, 'Rule as my regent---I will subdue your enemies and make them bow low before you.'"

This is not from the NWT....it is from The Living Bible.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 08:42 AM
Jesus is NOT God "even in the New Testament." Preposterous.


Let’s review two verses from Revelation which will put your 'Jesus is not God/Christ is a created creature' assertion to rest...


λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν και παν κτισμα ο εν τω ουρανω και επι της γης και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης [εστιν] και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων

legontes phōnē megalē axion estin to arnion to esphagmenon labein tēn dynamin kai plouton kai sophian kai ischyn kai timēn kai doxan kai eulogian kai pan ktisma ho en tō ouranō kai epi tēs gēs kai hypokatō tēs gēs kai epi tēs thalassēs kai ta en autois panta ēkousa legontas tō kathēmenō epi tō thronō kai tō arniō hē eulogia kai hē timē kai hē doxa kai to kratos eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn

Saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb having been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing. And every created thing in Heaven, and upon the earth, and underneath the earth, and upon the sea, and the things in all of them, I heard saying: To Him sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the power forever and ever. Rev 5.12 - 13


These verses clearly show the separation between created things ‘ktisma’ and Jesus.

All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ in Heaven, on earth, under the earth, and upon the sea, and all things in them – thus, all created things in God’s creation, are shown to worship Jesus as God.


Jesus is not a created creature..

He is worshipped as the creator.

See the error of your ways?


Look at the doxology in Rev 5.12…

λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

The TSKS rule applies directly to this verse and mandates that this doxology is devoted entirely to Jesus.

This doxology includes:

• Power
• Wealth
• Wisdom
• Strength
• Honor
• Glory
• Blessing

This, then, imputes deity to Jesus.



Rev 5.13 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, as it once again uses the very same singular attributes and ascribes them to both Theos and Jesus at the same time, as thus:


• Singular eulogia (blessing)
• Singular timē (honor)
• Singular doxa (glory)
• Singular kratos (power)

Absolutely no distinction is made in deity between Theos and Jesus!

Both are listed, but are given singular praise.

This is even further born-out in Rev 5.14.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 08:48 AM
A shortened version of God's name is used in "Hallelujah".....wherever you see that in the NT. So all remnants of His name have not been destroyed in the NT. (Rev.19:1,3,4,6) Hallelujah! PRAISE JEHOVAH.



And after these things, I heard a great voice of a large multitude in Heaven, saying, Hallelujah! The salvation and the glory and the honor and the power of the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He judged the great harlot who defiled the earth with her fornication. And He avenged the blood of His slaves out of her hand. And a second time they said, Hallelujah! Also her smoke goes up to the ages of the ages. And the twenty four elders, and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God sitting on the throne, saying, Amen! Hallelujah! And a voice came out from the throne, saying, Praise our God, all His slaves, and the ones fearing Him, the small and the great. And I heard as a sound of a numerous crowd, and as a sound of many waters, and as a sound of strong thunders, saying, Hallelujah! Because the Lord God Almighty reigned. (Rev 19.1 – 6)

A close reading of the text informs the reader that the term ‘Hallelujah’ (i.e. Praise Yahweh) is proclaimed by the large multitude (i.e. the Righteous in Heaven), not once (Rev 19.1), not twice (Rev 19.3), but three separate times (Rev 19.6).

This is in keeping with the Three Person; One Being Triune God formula already established in scripture.

Now that the Father, Son and Spirit have been established and are worshiped by The Righteous; a separate confirmation of this singular truth is proclaimed by the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures (Rev 19.4).

Yet another Biblical proof that the One God is Triune and His Righteous worship Him as Triune.

Further, Rev 19 is about The Son, of which, can only mean that His name is Yahweh, as the Hallelujah is towards Him.

The doxology contained in Rev 19.1 – 2 pertains to Jesus, and, as we already know, these epithets have already been applied to Jesus numerous times in scripture.

steko
December 8th, 2015, 08:49 AM
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.


The Lord Jesus is YHVH tsidkenu.


No he is not.


[/U][/U]

Jeremiah says He is.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 08:50 AM
So...

I heard that if you are not a 'witness', you cannot enter Heaven.

Well, we believe that EVERYONE alive after Jesus' Millennial Reign will accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as His Son (the means by which Jehovah saves.)

We believe that the Bible says that. Everyone who does not accept God and His Son will find themselves being cast into the lake of fire---which SYMBOLIZES the second death from which no one will return....non-existence. Everyone who claims Jehovah and Jesus as their God and Messiah could be considered WITNESSES of them. Is that objectionable?

Those going to heaven surely claim to be witnesses of God and Christ. There are many who, in the early years of Christianity, were not called "Jehovah's Witnesses." Such as Peter, Paul, and all of the early Christians. (They are in heaven now.) But they honored and worshiped Jehovah as their God and believed that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. Christians were not called "Jehovah's Witnesses" until 1931, to distinguish us from the false religions of the world, particularly the denominations of Christendom.

So there are many who have lived who were not called "Jehovah's Witnesses" who are even now in heaven.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 08:54 AM
Everyone who does not accept God and His Son will find themselves being cast into the lake of fire---which SYMBOLIZES the second death from which no one will return....non-existence.

'Non-existence' of those separated from The Creator simply does not-exist in scripture.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:04 AM
If you are a witness, and you were to die right now, then you should be afraid.

Very afraid.

If you deny the Triune God, then you most assuredly will be judged and spend some good quality time with Satan...


Well, I'm not afraid at all. I don't believe in the spurious triune god, and I know that if I were to die right now, I'd be resurrected into the paradise earth that Jesus will rule over for a thousand years. The passing of time will not even be noticed by me.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:11 AM
I don't deny Jesus is Theos, I simply don't accept that he is almighty God, YHWH.

Rules in grammar aren't inherently rules in language. I find it incredibly implausible to believe that a man who never names Jesus as God once, but yet named the Father as God over 500 times, refer to Jesus as God in a single verse. Especially when this one instance rest on a rule which was formed in the late 17th CE by a man who wanted to promote the trinity doctrine.

No, I claim that all bibles have errors. Im not going to waste my time arguing with someone who I'm quite sure shares the same belief as me. Hence the reason why o asked if you believe all bible contain errors, because if you do then what's the point in me proving something to you which you already believe.

Jesus may have been called "theos" in John 1:1, but "theos" was not given the definite ARTICLE that must precede "theos" if he is to be thought of as Almighty God.

Rules for grammar in Greek are different from those of English. Greek has no indefinite articles, so to differentiate something or someone that is THE only one, a definite article is placed before the word referring to it.

"...the word was with [HO] theos, and the word was theos." There is no other way to say "the word was a god."

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:18 AM
Meaning that all JW's will be judged and never make it to heaven.

You will be spending eternity with your real father, Satan.

You know, I am reminded of a conversation that the Pharisees were having with Jesus. They accused HIM of having a demon!

"The Jews answered and said to him, 'Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?'" (John 8:48, New American Standard Bible)

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 09:21 AM
Well, I'm not afraid at all. I don't believe in the spurious triune god, and I know that if I were to die right now, I'd be resurrected into the paradise earth that Jesus will rule over for a thousand years. The passing of time will not even be noticed by me.

If you believe those unscriptural thoughts, then you are stone, cold dead.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:24 AM
So says every Mormon that I have ever encountered.

Do you guys witness to Mormons?

Since you are both door-knockers....why not just meet each other in the street and witness away at one another...?

Exchange a BoM for a NWT.


:think:

Mormons do say that, but most of them don't even know what their own religious leaders have written into doctrine over the last 150 years. JWs are familiar with all of the goings-on of our former leaders, and all the mistakes they made which have been straightened out. Mormons still believe that Smith "translated" golden plates with his face in a hat!

Anyway, I have had Mormons in my house and welcome them when they come to my door. Most of them can't keep up with a discussion on the Bible. They don't come back, either, even when they say they'll do research and come back.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 09:24 AM
I'd be resurrected into the paradise earth that Jesus will rule over for a thousand years.

We are in the 1K reigning period right now.

Your knowledge of scripture is simply abysmal...

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 09:25 AM
Mormons do say that, but most of them don't even know what their own religious leaders have written into doctrine over the last 150 years. JWs are familiar with all of the goings-on of our former leaders, and all the mistakes they made which have been straightened out. Mormons still believe that Smith "translated" golden plates with his face in a hat!

Anyway, I have had Mormons in my house and welcome them when they come to my door. Most of them can't keep up with a discussion on the Bible. They don't come back, either, even when they say they'll do research and come back.


You both have your cookie-cutter cultic replies.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:35 AM
So...

If the various English translations are in agreement....why is it witnesses still deny Jesus' deity?

Because, as I said, every Bible there is is agreeing on the fact that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son. The Trinity is taught in NO Bible, unless you want to take the errors of scribes or the bias of translators as evidence for the Trinity. Those few places that you cite are in abject CONTRADICTION to the rest of the Bible. This can be clearly seen if a person wants to really scrutinize what the Bible in its entirety has to say.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 09:38 AM
To Apple...in re. to posts #183,184......You are speaking with smoke and mirrors. If someone really concentrated on what you are saying they could see your precarious position. I'm not answering any more of your detritus this morning....though I probably will attempt it later on. I promised someone that I'd explain what we believe about John 1:1 and I intend to do that when I get back from a doctor's appointment. TTYL

WeberHome
December 8th, 2015, 10:05 AM
-
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.

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

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 01:40 PM
Because, as I said, every Bible there is is agreeing on the fact that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son. The Trinity is taught in NO Bible, unless you want to take the errors of scribes or the bias of translators as evidence for the Trinity. Those few places that you cite are in abject CONTRADICTION to the rest of the Bible. This can be clearly seen if a person wants to really scrutinize what the Bible in its entirety has to say.

The Trinity is taught all the way through the entire Holy Bible.

This is confirmed as fact in the original languages....something that you, as a witness, are unfamiliar with...

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 01:43 PM
To Apple...in re. to posts #183,184......You are speaking with smoke and mirrors. If someone really concentrated on what you are saying they could see your precarious position. I'm not answering any more of your detritus this morning....though I probably will attempt it later on. I promised someone that I'd explain what we believe about John 1:1 and I intend to do that when I get back from a doctor's appointment. TTYL

You are really going to need a doctor after you attempt a reply to these posts.

You will come up with some lame excuse, no doubt...

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 01:49 PM
The Trinity is taught in NO Bible,....


We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)


We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 04:45 PM
Why did JW's change John 1:1 from was God to was a God?

Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 04:50 PM
The Trinity is taught all the way through the entire Holy Bible.

This is confirmed as fact in the original languages....something that you, as a witness, are unfamiliar with...

It is not. It is even clearer that it is not taught in the Bible anywhere, when you read it in the original languages, which you obviously can't do.

KingdomRose
December 8th, 2015, 04:52 PM
Answering Apple's post #200: Interesting perceptions by you, Apple. Quite unique I'd say. And they don't hold water.

Bright Raven
December 8th, 2015, 05:09 PM
Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:Thank you for your response. However, I believe the scriptures attest Jesus to be one with/coequal with the Father. I believe that scripture confirms this fact,

Philippians 2:6 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

John 5:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 10:30 New King James Version (NKJV)

30 I and My Father are one.”

1 John 5:7 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Lazy afternoon
December 8th, 2015, 05:34 PM
We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)


We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

Bright Raven
December 8th, 2015, 05:38 PM
The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

You are blind to the truth of the Scriptures.

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 05:50 PM
Hi, Bright Raven. I appreciate your question. I hope you likewise appreciate my answer. :wave:

JWs didn't change anything. We notice that the original Greek says:

Word-for-word, according to an Interlinear by Benjamin Wilson (The Emphatic Diaglott)

"in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."

Now this was not gleaned from any Jehovah's Witness. This is by a scholar who was not aligned with the WT. Why did he translate this way? Because he knew that in the Greek there are no indefinite articles. Grammar rules aren't the same for Greek as for English. We in English have indefinite articles like "a" and "an." Not so in Greek. So they use DEFINITE articles to show when something is one of a kind.

When John 1:1 says, "the word was with God," there is the definite article "HO" before "God." That shows that we are speaking about the one almighty God. "Ho" indicates "the".....as in the one and only. The word "god" in the last instance---designating the Word---does not have any article, therefore we know to assign an indefinite article so that it can be translated into English.

The people of John's day were familiar with the usage of "god" to describe human judges, Caesars, angels, etc., so they would've understood what John meant to say. Not that the Word was God Almighty but that he was an important, powerful individual.


It's that simple. To understand it that way, we find that it harmonizes with the many scriptures that say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, God. For detailed understanding, there is an excellent book out by Jason BeDuhn called Truth in Translation.It is worth the money. He is not affiliated with any religion. I think you would enjoy this book.

:readthis:


What a complete and utter massacre of the understanding of Greek!

Of course, there would not be any references provided...

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 05:51 PM
It is not. It is even clearer that it is not taught in the Bible anywhere, when you read it in the original languages, which you obviously can't do.

Show us...:cigar:

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 05:52 PM
Answering Apple's post #200: Interesting perceptions by you, Apple. Quite unique I'd say. And they don't hold water.

What's the matter....subject matter outside of your training?

Apple7
December 8th, 2015, 05:54 PM
The Bible is full of references to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, but none of them teach what the RCC trinity doctrine says.

LA

Your unreferenced opinion means................nothing....

Lazy afternoon
December 9th, 2015, 02:03 AM
Your unreferenced opinion means................nothing....

So you agree with the RCC versions.

LA

Apple7
December 9th, 2015, 10:54 AM
So you agree with the RCC versions.

LA

3 Persons: 1 Being

Crucible
December 9th, 2015, 11:11 AM
Anti-Trinitarians could understand the Trinity, but they just don't want to. It's part of a rejection of the established, universal belief. Jews and Muslims will do the same thing.

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 06:22 AM
Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…

Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…

As I've already stated I personally do not find Wallace's rule correct in Titus 2:13. Be it down due to its lack of support from the trinitarian community -a thing which wallace himself stated- or Paul's lack of contextual agreement.


If you disagree, then exegetically show us why you differ...after all, you keep claiming that the original languages are where its at....and I keep calling your bluff...each...and every time that you show up for a few terse days, then disappear for another year...

As I've also stated before the reason why the original languages are my reference is because that's where English translations are derived from. I'm not trained nor even a layman in the field of ancient greek linguistics, but its 2015 my friend, a time when there anyone can study the writings from the oldest apologist to the most recent, with references to hundreds of translations, exegesis and variations of texts.

You whine like a child when I don't bow to your demand to give an exegesis on just about every statement, when you yourself don't do what you expect of others.

As quick as I did i offered an explanation to why I personally don't believe the tsks rule to be correct in relation to the Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter. There's no obligation on my part to offer a full blown greek exegesis as to why, especially when you'll simply complain that I've quoted your trinitarian brethren.

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 06:22 AM
The Righteous are not judged.

JW's willfully deny God as HE has chosen to reveal Himself in scripture, and they will be judged...therefore, you can forget about being one of the 144K.

JW's will suffer the Second Death.


And what does the second death incur? Again is it a literal place, is it a place of torment?

It is a continuous spiritual state existing outside of Heaven in which the person is eternally separated from The Creator, and is referred to as torture.

When you say "It is a continuous spiritual state" I presume you believe once you are in this state you're in it forever? Are people actually being tortured, as in do they feel pain as the word torture would imply?

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 06:24 AM
Let’s review two verses from Revelation which will put your 'Jesus is not God/Christ is a created creature' assertion to rest...


λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν και παν κτισμα ο εν τω ουρανω και επι της γης και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης [εστιν] και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων

legontes phōnē megalē axion estin to arnion to esphagmenon labein tēn dynamin kai plouton kai sophian kai ischyn kai timēn kai doxan kai eulogian kai pan ktisma ho en tō ouranō kai epi tēs gēs kai hypokatō tēs gēs kai epi tēs thalassēs kai ta en autois panta ēkousa legontas tō kathēmenō epi tō thronō kai tō arniō hē eulogia kai hē timē kai hē doxa kai to kratos eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn

Saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb having been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing. And every created thing in Heaven, and upon the earth, and underneath the earth, and upon the sea, and the things in all of them, I heard saying: To Him sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the power forever and ever. Rev 5.12 - 13


These verses clearly show the separation between created things ‘ktisma’ and Jesus.

All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ in Heaven, on earth, under the earth, and upon the sea, and all things in them – thus, all created things in God’s creation, are shown to worship Jesus as God.

Jesus is not a created creature..

All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ relates to the things which were created in Heaven, on the Earth, under the earth, and upon the sea. The heaven is a creation itself (Gen 1:1) which -from the JW perspective- Jesus was created before, thus there in no contradiction. Your reasoning here presents no problems for the JW.

Col 1:15 also begs to differ. Jesus is clearly shown as part of creation regardless of the meaning of prōtotokos in that verse. As every instance of firstborn of the NT and LXX will show, to be firstborn of a group demands that subject to be in that group.

Show us an example of someone/something in the bible which is firstborn of a group and yet not part of the same group of the thing they are firstborn of.


He is worshipped as the creator.

Where does it show Jesus is worshiped in the verses you've given?


Look at the doxology in Rev 5.12…

λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

The TSKS rule applies directly to this verse and mandates that this doxology is devoted entirely to Jesus.

This doxology includes:

• Power
• Wealth
• Wisdom
• Strength
• Honor
• Glory
• Blessing

This, then, imputes deity to Jesus.

Another assumption.


Rev 5.13 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, as it once again uses the very same singular attributes and ascribes them to both Theos and Jesus at the same time, as thus:


• Singular eulogia (blessing)
• Singular timē (honor)
• Singular doxa (glory)
• Singular kratos (power)

Absolutely no distinction is made in deity between Theos and Jesus!

Both are listed, but are given singular praise.

This is even further born-out in Rev 5.14.

Doesn't scripture explain that everything Jesus receives isn't for his himself but is only given to him so as to glorify God the Father?

(Phil 2:10,11) "...Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father..."

So because Jesus is given blessing, honor, glory and power the same as the Theos in Rev 5:13 -which no doubt are given to Jesus so he can glorify the Father as Phil 2:11 states- this makes him part of the trinity how? Doesn't the trinity include three and not two? How then is this a loud and clear declaration of the trinity if one person is missing, makes no mention about them being one or even Jesus being Thoes with Phil 2:11 explaining the purpose of Jesus receiving blessings, honor, glory and power.

Jude 1:27 reconfirms what I've stated above, that Jesus receives attributes through himself, which intern are to the glory of the only true God the Father. (Phil 1:11 NIV, Romans 16:27, 1 Peter 4:11 also refer)

(Jude 1:27) "...Now to God who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen..."

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 06:25 AM
And after these things, I heard a great voice of a large multitude in Heaven, saying, Hallelujah! The salvation and the glory and the honor and the power of the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He judged the great harlot who defiled the earth with her fornication. And He avenged the blood of His slaves out of her hand. And a second time they said, Hallelujah! Also her smoke goes up to the ages of the ages. And the twenty four elders, and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God sitting on the throne, saying, Amen! Hallelujah! And a voice came out from the throne, saying, Praise our God, all His slaves, and the ones fearing Him, the small and the great. And I heard as a sound of a numerous crowd, and as a sound of many waters, and as a sound of strong thunders, saying, Hallelujah! Because the Lord God Almighty reigned. (Rev 19.1 – 6)

A close reading of the text informs the reader that the term ‘Hallelujah’ (i.e. Praise Yahweh) is proclaimed by the large multitude (i.e. the Righteous in Heaven), not once (Rev 19.1), not twice (Rev 19.3), but three separate times (Rev 19.6).

This is in keeping with the Three Person; One Being Triune God formula already established in scripture.

Now that the Father, Son and Spirit have been established and are worshiped by The Righteous; a separate confirmation of this singular truth is proclaimed by the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures (Rev 19.4).

Yet another Biblical proof that the One God is Triune and His Righteous worship Him as Triune.

Further, Rev 19 is about The Son, of which, can only mean that His name is Yahweh, as the Hallelujah is towards Him.

The doxology contained in Rev 19.1 – 2 pertains to Jesus, and, as we already know, these epithets have already been applied to Jesus numerous times in scripture.

Show us where the Holy spirit is shown as sitting on Gods throne as you must suggest.

Show us where the Holy Spirit has the name YHWH.

Is it possible that these Hallelujahs were only in reference to the one "God who sits on the throne" at the end of v4?

WeberHome
December 10th, 2015, 07:12 AM
-
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 Watch Tower 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 the earthly class-- the hewers of wood and the haulers of
water, a.k.a. the great crowd --is accomplished on the coattails of the
144,000 anointed Witnesses; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party
mediator for the rank and file via the kindly patronage of 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 brokerage.

So then; when a member of the earthly class either defects or is dis
fellowshipped, it breaks the pipeline to the mediator that he enjoyed within
the Society's fold; and he right quick loses all contact with God; and finds
himself in grave danger of the Tribulation.

Bottom line: According to Watch Tower 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 as per 1Tim 2:5 is accomplished via a
hierarchy that begins with Christ's association with the anointed class; and
from thence to the rest of humanity. Removing the anointed class from the
chain of command; cuts humanity off from Christ.

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

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 09:08 AM
Anti-Trinitarians could understand the Trinity, but they just don't want to. It's part of a rejection of the established, universal belief. Jews and Muslims will do the same thing.

Agreed...

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 09:12 AM
As I've already stated I personally do not find Wallace's rule correct in Titus 2:13. Be it down due to its lack of support from the trinitarian community -a thing which wallace himself stated- or Paul's lack of contextual agreement.

As quick as I did i offered an explanation to why I personally don't believe the tsks rule to be correct in relation to the Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter. There's no obligation on my part to offer a full blown greek exegesis as to why, especially when you'll simply complain that I've quoted your trinitarian brethren.




You can't even state the rule to begin with, much less show any disagreement.

Therefore, the rule stands.




As I've also stated before the reason why the original languages are my reference is because that's where English translations are derived from. I'm not trained nor even a layman in the field of ancient greek linguistics, but its 2015 my friend, a time when there anyone can study the writings from the oldest apologist to the most recent, with references to hundreds of translations, exegesis and variations of texts.

You never use the original languages.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 09:15 AM
When you say "It is a continuous spiritual state" I presume you believe once you are in this state you're in it forever?

Judgment is final.




Are people actually being tortured, as in do they feel pain as the word torture would imply?

Eternal separation form The Creator is the worst possible torture that could ever be.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 09:22 AM
All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ relates to the things which were created in Heaven, on the Earth, under the earth, and upon the sea. The heaven is a creation itself (Gen 1:1) which -from the JW perspective- Jesus was created before, thus there in no contradiction. Your reasoning here presents no problems for the JW.

That is a JW invention.






Col 1:15 also begs to differ. Jesus is clearly shown as part of creation regardless of the meaning of prōtotokos in that verse. As every instance of firstborn of the NT and LXX will show, to be firstborn of a group demands that subject to be in that group.

Not even close.

ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως


Col 1.15 expresses subordination. The genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to, or under, the dominion of the head substantive. In this case, the creation is subordinate to Jesus.

Adding context, (Col 1.9 – 20), clearly and irrefutably demonstrates Jesus’ deity.

Further, Col 1.15 – 20 is a hymn…and, as we all know, hymns are sung to deity, not mortals.





Show us an example of someone/something in the bible which is firstborn of a group and yet not part of the same group of the thing they are firstborn of.

Show us the Greek word rendered as 'firstborn'.

:cigar:







Where does it show Jesus is worshiped in the verses you've given?

Already did...try not to ignore it this time...

λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 09:31 AM
Show us where the Holy spirit is shown as sitting on Gods throne [/B][/U][/SIZE][/COLOR]as you must suggest.

Thrice Halleluiah, as already shown.

Holy, Holy, Holy, as used in both the OT and NT, etc, etc, etc...




Show us where the Holy Spirit has the name YHWH.

The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)




Is it possible that these Hallelujahs were only in reference to the one "God who sits on the throne" at the end of v4?

The Trinity IS one God!!!

Come on....how many times do you have to expose your ignorance...?

You keep fighting a strawman of your own creation....

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 01:45 PM
Doesn't scripture explain that everything Jesus receives isn't for his himself but is only given to him so as to glorify God the Father?


οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

hoti en autō ektisthē ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tēs gēs ta horata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kyriotētes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai

For by Him all things were created; by that in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or rulers, or magistrates, or authorities; all things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1.16)


Three separate and distinct primary prepositions are used to describe Jesus’ creative power (i.e. ‘en’, ‘di’, & ‘eis’).

Three separate prepositions were used here to make it crystal clear that three separate modes of operation are in effect at the same time.

In each case, the preposition is flanked by the masculine singular, ‘auto’.

The first instance of ‘auto’ is in the dative singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is the object of the primary preposition, ‘en’, rendered as ‘by’.

The second instance of ‘auto’ is in the genitive singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is in direct possession of the creative act – i.e. He is in complete control of it – and is attached to the preposition ‘di’ rendered as, ‘through’.

The third instance of ‘auto’ is in the accusative singular masculine, again indicating that Jesus is the direct object of the preposition, ‘eis’, rendered as ‘for’.

Thus, from this Biblical verse alone, creation is By, Through, and For Jesus Christ all at the same time…indicating, yet, again, that He is the Triune creator God of the Universe.




Boom.

Ben Masada
December 10th, 2015, 01:56 PM
Anti-Trinitarians could understand the Trinity, but they just don't want to. It's part of a rejection of the established, universal belief. Jews and Muslims will do the same thing.

I do understand the Trinity as a Christian doctrine but not that Yahweh is composed of a Trinity.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 02:05 PM
(Phil 2:10,11) "...Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father..."
We have already been over this many times before - but you refuse to learn...

Jesus IS The Glory to begin with, even in the OT.

The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)






So because Jesus is given blessing, honor, glory and power the same as the Theos in Rev 5:13 -which no doubt are given to Jesus so he can glorify the Father as Phil 2:11 states- this makes him part of the trinity how? Doesn't the trinity include three and not two? How then is this a loud and clear declaration of the trinity if one person is missing, makes no mention about them being one or even Jesus being Thoes with Phil 2:11 explaining the purpose of Jesus receiving blessings, honor, glory and power.

Look before you leap.

Observe…

Rev 4.9 – 11

And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages, the twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.


So…

Please tell us exactly how it is that God, who sits upon the Throne, is ‘worthy’ to ‘receive’ the glory and the honor and the power?

What did God have to do to become worthy of being given and receiving something?

Your position is officially toast…


Boom.

Ben Masada
December 10th, 2015, 02:59 PM
We have already been over this many times before - but you refuse to learn...

Jesus IS The Glory to begin with, even in the OT.

The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)

Ezekiel 1:26 was a vision of Daniel when in exile by the river Chebar in Babylon. We are not to perceive in literal terms what is said to have been in a vision or dream. Every thing is possible in a vision or dream.

The point is that it had nothing to do with Jesus but only according to Christian preconceived notions.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 03:04 PM
Ezekiel 1:26 was a vision of Daniel when in exile by the river Chebar in Babylon. We are not to perceive in literal terms what is said to have been in a vision or dream. Every thing is possible in a vision or dream.

The point is that it had nothing to do with Jesus but only according to Christian preconceived notions.



You are a Jew.

What do you know about scripture...?

Nothing.

Ben Masada
December 10th, 2015, 03:20 PM
You are a Jew.

What do you know about scripture...?

Nothing.

The Scriptures aka the Tanach is Jewish. That's what Jesus always referred to as the Word of God. The NT, he never even dreamed would ever be written. You quoted the Tanach, one of the Jewish prophets. How can you say that a Jew knows nothing of his own Scriptures? You surely must be joking this time. What was that for, the laughs or the gags?

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 03:31 PM
The Scriptures aka the Tanach is Jewish. That's what Jesus always referred to as the Word of God. The NT, he never even dreamed would ever be written. You quoted the Tanach, one of the Jewish prophets. How can you say that a Jew knows nothing of his own Scriptures? You surely must be joking this time. What was that for, the laughs or the gags?

The Tanak is a veritable clinic on exactly how Jews improperly worshiped Yahweh!

Thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of verses, from prophet, after prophet, after prophet saying the same things...how Jews screwed-up royally- ALL the time, thousands of times over thousands of years.

So...

Tell us again how you supposedly KNOW scripture...?

Ben Masada
December 10th, 2015, 03:42 PM
The Tanak is a veritable clinic on exactly how Jews improperly worshiped Yahweh!

Thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of verses, from prophet, after prophet, after prophet saying the same things...how Jews screwed-up royally- ALL the time, thousands of times over thousands of years.

So...

Tell us again how you supposedly KNOW scripture...?

Because I study it two hours a day every day of my life. Only recently I have added the NT in order to be able to discuss with Christians.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 03:49 PM
Because I study it two hours a day every day of my life. Only recently I have added the NT in order to be able to discuss with Christians.

Thanks for NOT correcting my previous comment that your book of faith informs the reader that Jews incompetently worshiped Yahweh.

So...again...as a Jew means absolutely nothing.....to anyone....except pity for being a total and complete screw-up.

Period.

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 07:07 PM
All ‘pan’ created things ‘ktisma’ relates to the things which were created in Heaven, on the Earth, under the earth, and upon the sea. The heaven is a creation itself (Gen 1:1) which -from the JW perspective- Jesus was created before, thus there in no contradiction.Your reasoning here presents no problems for the JW. That is a JW invention.

Don't be a sore loser.



Col 1:15 also begs to differ. Jesus is clearly shown as part of creation regardless of the meaning of prōtotokos in that verse. As every instance of firstborn of the NT and LXX will show, to be firstborn of a group demands that subject to be in that group.

Show us an example of someone/something in the bible which is firstborn of a group and yet not part of the same group of the thing they are firstborn of.

Not even close.

ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως


Col 1.15 expresses subordination. The genitive substantive specifies that which is subordinated to, or under, the dominion of the head substantive. In this case, the creation is subordinate to Jesus.

Adding context, (Col 1.9 – 20), clearly and irrefutably demonstrates Jesus’ deity.

Further, Col 1.15 – 20 is a hymn…and, as we all know, hymns are sung to deity, not mortals.

Typical apple7, answer the question! Of course the text is saying creation is subordinate to Jesus, it doesn't change a thing to my question.

Is Jesus the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως? If so then give me and example where someone/something is prōtotokos (prōtotokos or equivalent variation) of something and not part of that group.


Show us the Greek word rendered as 'firstborn'.

Irrelevant.


Already did...try not to ignore it this time...

[Rev 5:12] λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

(Rev 5:12) In a loud voice they were saying: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Could you show me in the above verse where it directly says anything about worship, my ignorant self can't seem to find the word worship in there.

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 07:09 PM
Show us where the Holy spirit is shown as sitting on Gods throne as you must suggest.Thrice Halleluiah, as already shown.

Holy, Holy, Holy, as used in both the OT and NT, etc, etc, etc...

I asked where the Holy Spirit is seen as sitting on Gods throne. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but this in no way answers my question?



Show us where the Holy Spirit has the name YHWH.
The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)

(Eze 3:14) "...The Spirit then lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness and in the anger of my spirit, with the strong hand of the YHWH on me..."

(Eze 8:3) "...He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood..."

(Eze 37:1) "...The hand of the YHWH was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the YHWH and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones..."

Where exactly does it call the Holy spirit YHWH here? I understand you linking the "spirit of YHWH" and the "Hand of of YHWH" together, but where does it call the name or spirit here, YHWH? A poor example at best as far as I can see, please expand.

Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.

(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."

That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father :confused:.



Is it possible that these Hallelujahs were only in reference to the one "God who sits on the throne" at the end of v4?
The Trinity IS one God!!!

Come on....how many times do you have to expose your ignorance...?

You keep fighting a strawman of your own creation....

Then how does it make sense to praise the One God three times using the divine name? If there is only one YHWH then why proclaim it as if there are three YHWH's, unless your stating they're praising each person of the trinity -who each aren't YHWH but all together YHWH- individually by the divine name which, again, makes no sense, as there is only ONE YHWH. They, according to you, don't each posses the name YHWH but all share the name unitedly.

My fault in thinking has nothing to do with myself, but rather your poor excuse of a explanation. The text makes perfect sense when you simply understand it as three praises for emphasis!

Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 07:10 PM
Doesn't scripture explain that everything Jesus receives isn't for his himself but is only given to him so as to glorify God the Father?οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

hoti en autō ektisthē ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tēs gēs ta horata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kyriotētes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai

For by Him all things were created; by that in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or rulers, or magistrates, or authorities; all things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1.16)


Three separate and distinct primary prepositions are used to describe Jesus’ creative power (i.e. ‘en’, ‘di’, & ‘eis’).

Three separate prepositions were used here to make it crystal clear that three separate modes of operation are in effect at the same time.

In each case, the preposition is flanked by the masculine singular, ‘auto’.

The first instance of ‘auto’ is in the dative singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is the object of the primary preposition, ‘en’, rendered as ‘by’.

The second instance of ‘auto’ is in the genitive singular masculine, indicating that Jesus is in direct possession of the creative act – i.e. He is in complete control of it – and is attached to the preposition ‘di’ rendered as, ‘through’.

The third instance of ‘auto’ is in the accusative singular masculine, again indicating that Jesus is the direct object of the preposition, ‘eis’, rendered as ‘for’.

Thus, from this Biblical verse alone, creation is By, Through, and For Jesus Christ all at the same time…indicating, yet, again, that He is the Triune creator God of the Universe.

Boom.

Yes, and as we've talked about before many times you must use scripture to interpret scripture.

Jesus is subordinate to the father in creation. Scripture can speak of things being created by, through and for Jesus. Other verses like the below shed further light on the subject and shows clearly that the Father is the real active cause in creation, creating things through Jesus. (Heb 1:1-3,1 Cor 8:6) Yes yes I'm aware you reject the father being the Theos in Hebrews 1:1 because you know what implications it will bring.

Furthermore what does this have to do with what you quoted of me?

Was my rhetorical question/statement not an accurate portrayal of scripture? Does Jesus not do all things for the father? If you agree with me then why all the above writing on your part?

(John 5:30) "...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me..."

(1 Cor 15:28) "...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also subject himself unto him that put all things under him..."

(Matt 26:39) "...Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will..."

NWL
December 10th, 2015, 07:12 PM
We have already been over this many times before - but you refuse to learn...

Jesus IS The Glory to begin with, even in the OT.

The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)

No, just no. Your simple explanation that Jesus is always the one being spoken of when glory or truth is mentioned makes no sense. Scripture shows clear examples of glory being spoken of which cannot literally be talking about the person of Jesus. When I confronted you with these passages you never gave an explanation other than "Jesus is the subject", which did not explain how it were possible for Jesus himself to receive glory if he was glory along with numerous other contradictions.

I've still yet to find a single scholar or person even who shares the same ridiculous belief of you regarding that verse or the usage of the words glory or truth. Until you give some type of classification as to why glory always means Jesus, and truth always mean Jesus, apart from one of the usages of the Greek equivalent, then your point is dismissed as it holds no weight.

And so what if The Glory has the appearance of a Man? A few post ago you made reference to the spirit being a hand, does that mean the spirit is in a form of a hand? Poor skills.



So because Jesus is given blessing, honor, glory and power the same as the Theos in Rev 5:13 -which no doubt are given to Jesus so he can glorify the Father as Phil 2:11 states- this makes him part of the trinity how? Doesn't the trinity include three and not two? How then is this a loud and clear declaration of the trinity if one person is missing, makes no mention about them being one or even Jesus being Thoes with Phil 2:11 explaining the purpose of Jesus receiving blessings, honor, glory and power.
Look before you leap.

Observe…

Rev 4.9 – 11

And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages, the twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.


So…

Please tell us exactly how it is that God, who sits upon the Throne, is ‘worthy’ to ‘receive’ the glory and the honor and the power?

What did God have to do to become worthy of being given and receiving something?

Your position is officially toast… Boom.

What is this meant to disprove?

Where in the scripture does it state God has become worthy? I was fully aware of this verse before I made my statements.

Jesus is given the same epithets in Rev 5:12 as the person in Rev 4:9, so?

Maybe you can't remember, you were the one who stated "Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us" , I'm the one that spoke to the contrary.

The trinity is that GOD=Father/Son/HS, each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal. So looking at your statement that Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, I failed to see how this single scripture shows that GOD=Father/Son/HS, and that each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal and yet one in nature. All I can see is Jesus being called the sames thing as Theos is called, which comes to no surprise since Jesus is a charaktēr of the one God. (Hebrews 1:3)

My problem wasn't regarding what you were trying to express but rather a highly false statement that Rev 5:12 proves the trinity, as if you don't understand how big a statement that is, which why its so laughable.

I actually want you to ponder over those type of statements you make Bowman, which you make all the time. Imagine if I addressed you with a single scripture and stated this verse proves that there is one God who is the father, and that Jesus is created person and isn't part of a trinity and the holy spirit isn't a person but a force which God uses. Then when you read the verse you quickly realized it didn't even address a single one of the points which were mentioned, how stupid would you think that person was? Now you know how I feel.

Lon
December 10th, 2015, 07:39 PM
1) Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is not their a) Lord b) God c) Savior nor d )the historical Jesus Christ. This is the same against Mormonism as well.

A JW already understands your God and his/her is not the same. They do not pray to Jesus Christ.

2) They have no experts that 'can' rewrite the bible. I've had many in my home and not one can read then translate Greek. They changed John 1:1 willnilly. They are a sect of amateur laymen.

3) Be lights but also be diligent in shining against darkness. Pray for them when they leave: They are lost in ignorance and in desperate need of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. Unitarians who 'love their savior Jesus Christ' mean 'their' not 'our' Jesus Christ, or the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. (John W on TOL reminded me how important His incredible Name is, thanks John)

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 07:42 PM
Typical apple7, answer the question! Of course the text is saying creation is subordinate to Jesus, it doesn't change a thing to my question.

Then you have no choice but to agree on the deity of The Son.

Its not as if you can exegetically demonstrate otherwise....nor do you even attempt to...





Is Jesus the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως? If so then give me and example where someone/something is prōtotokos (prōtotokos or equivalent variation) of something and not part of that group.

και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων




Irrelevant.

The very word that you are arguing over is entirely relevant.

This verse mandates that Jesus was never created and that He is the singular, nominative archē (i.e. the origin; the active cause), the singular genitive creation, and the singular genitive God.





(Rev 5:12) In a loud voice they were saying: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Could you show me in the above verse where it directly says anything about worship, my ignorant self can't seem to find the word worship in there.


λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 07:50 PM
I asked where the Holy Spirit is seen as sitting on Gods throne. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but this in no way answers my question?

Where is He not, is a better question.

Revelation tells us that The Father sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21); that Jesus sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21; 7.17; 22.1 - 3), & that Theos sits upon the Throne (Rev 7.10 – 11; 7.15; 12.5; 14.5; 19.4; 22.1 - 3).




(Eze 3:14) "...The Spirit then lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness and in the anger of my spirit, with the strong hand of the YHWH on me..."

(Eze 8:3) "...He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood..."

(Eze 37:1) "...The hand of the YHWH was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the YHWH and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones..."

Where exactly does it call the Holy spirit YHWH here? I understand you linking the "spirit of YHWH" and the "Hand of of YHWH" together, but where does it call the name or spirit here, YHWH? A poor example at best as far as I can see, please expand.


Bringing it all together for you...

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)


We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 07:56 PM
Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.

(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."

That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father :confused:.

That would be your reasoning....and no wonder you are so confused.

This should clarify things for you...

And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves. Indeed, I tell you truly, the one believing into Me, the works which I do, that one shall do also, and greater than these he will do, because I go to My Father. (John 14.8 – 12)


Clearly, context comes to the rescue of the ignorant, as it declares that ‘abiding’ (menōn) has absolutely nothing to do with two persons being the same. The six other NT locations for ‘menōn’ plainly demonstrate that it was intended to be rendered as influence.

Further, if The Father and The Son were already each other, then there would be no need to ‘go to’ The Father…

Simple Biblical truth.

You could have figured this one out for yourself had you even tried...

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:04 PM
Then how does it make sense to praise the One God three times using the divine name? If there is only one YHWH then why proclaim it as if there are three YHWH's, unless your stating they're praising each person of the trinity -who each aren't YHWH but all together YHWH- individually by the divine name which, again, makes no sense, as there is only ONE YHWH. They, according to you, don't each posses the name YHWH but all share the name unitedly.

My fault in thinking has nothing to do with myself, but rather your poor excuse of a explanation. The text makes perfect sense when you simply understand it as three praises for emphasis!

Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?

'Emphasis' is added by repeating a word or phrase twice, such as Jesus repeatedly did by saying 'truly, truly I say to you...'

Repeating three times directs the readers attention to another area.

The Trinitarian formula, that Jesus mentioned, actually started way back in the OT...

Mat 28.19

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This passage contains arthrous substantives connected via kai which indicates distinction and separate referents.

However, while distinction is made between the referents, each has the same singular name.

Three Persons in one Being.

This same singular name of three persons’ baptism is the same as the Aaronic blessing in which the singular name of Yahweh is repeated three times (Num 6.22 – 27).

Separate and yet the same, The Trinity.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:15 PM
Yes, and as we've talked about before many times you must use scripture to interpret scripture.

Correction.

You MUST use the original languages to interpret scripture.

Something that you like to lip-sync...





Jesus is subordinate to the father in creation.

Nope.





Scripture can speak of things being created by, through and for Jesus. Other verses like the below shed further light on the subject and shows clearly that the Father is the real active cause in creation, creating things through Jesus. (Heb 1:1-3,1 Cor 8:6)

Fact is.....there are verses which state that The Father Creates...that The Son Creates....and that The Spirit Creates.

As a witness, you cherry-pick the scripture which best fits your jaded worldview.





Yes yes I'm aware you reject the father being the Theos in Hebrews 1:1 because you know what implications it will bring.

That would be your assertion, not mine.

But....look what you missed by adamantly refusing to look to the original languages...

Heb 1.1

πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

POLYMERŌS kai POLYTROPŌS palai ho theos lalēsas tois patrasin en tois prophētais

By many portions and in various forms, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets;


The Book of Hebrews is aptly named for the OT material of which it contains.

Heb 1.1 immediately informs the reader that the One God of the OT has always revealed Himself ‘by many portions’ (polymeros) and ‘in various forms’ (polytropos).

These two Greek terms are only used this one time/ea in the entirety of the Holy Bible, and lexically are defined as ‘One of the constituent parts of a whole; in a context where the whole and its parts are distinguished.’

A clear signal of the ONE Triune Creator God of the Universe.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:22 PM
Furthermore what does this have to do with what you quoted of me?

Was my rhetorical question/statement not an accurate portrayal of scripture? Does Jesus not do all things for the father? If you agree with me then why all the above writing on your part?

(John 5:30) "...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me..."

(1 Cor 15:28) "...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also subject himself unto him that put all things under him..."

(Matt 26:39) "...Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will..."

Look at your examples....all are truncations showing one side of the God-man.

Fact is, each Person proclaims each other.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:37 PM
No, just no. Your simple explanation that Jesus is always the one being spoken of when glory or truth is mentioned makes no sense. Scripture shows clear examples of glory being spoken of which cannot literally be talking about the person of Jesus. When I confronted you with these passages you never gave an explanation other than "Jesus is the subject", which did not explain how it were possible for Jesus himself to receive glory if he was glory along with numerous other contradictions.

I've still yet to find a single scholar or person even who shares the same ridiculous belief of you regarding that verse or the usage of the words glory or truth. Until you give some type of classification as to why glory always means Jesus, and truth always mean Jesus, apart from one of the usages of the Greek equivalent, then your point is dismissed as it holds no weight.

Then hand-pick one scriptural example that you feel does not fit, and exegete it for us...

BTW...That is a year-old offer...





And so what if The Glory has the appearance of a Man? A few post ago you made reference to the spirit being a hand, does that mean the spirit is in a form of a hand? Poor skills.

If The Glory is a man, then that inherently translates to The God-man....and people would have to deal with it.

As we can see, the Jews run from it.

Witnesses also run from it.





What is this meant to disprove?

Where in the scripture does it state God has become worthy? I was fully aware of this verse before I made my statements.

Jesus is given the same epithets in Rev 5:12 as the person in Rev 4:9, so?

As a Unitarian, your whole life's mission is to deny Jesus' deity.

You attempt to do this by making it appear that Jesus was a lesser entity and not actually God, Himself (besides your perverted version of The Trinity hang-up of thinking that He is The Father)....and that He must somehow be reliant upon receiving anything that comes His way.

Rev 4 completely blows apart your lame assertion, as you cannot deny that it pertains to Theos being 'worthy' and on the receiving end of things...

Boom.

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:48 PM
Maybe you can't remember, you were the one who stated "Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us" , I'm the one that spoke to the contrary.

The trinity is that GOD=Father/Son/HS, each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal. So looking at your statement that Rev 5:12 declares the Trinity loud and clear for us, I failed to see how this single scripture shows that GOD=Father/Son/HS, and that each person is separate, co-equal, co-eternal and yet one in nature. All I can see is Jesus being called the sames thing as Theos is called, which comes to no surprise since Jesus is a charaktēr of the one God. (Hebrews 1:3)

My problem wasn't regarding what you were trying to express but rather a highly false statement that Rev 5:12 proves the trinity, as if you don't understand how big a statement that is, which why its so laughable.

The doxology proves The Trinity for the simple fact that singular praise is provided to The Son and Theos.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Father.

As you already admitted, Theos refers to The Spirit.

5.13 informs the reader that The Son is also part of this doxology.

So now, you have Theos referring to The Son.

Simple Biblical Truth...

Apple7
December 10th, 2015, 08:53 PM
I actually want you to ponder over those type of statements you make Bowman, which you make all the time. Imagine if I addressed you with a single scripture and stated this verse proves that there is one God who is the father, and that Jesus is created person and isn't part of a trinity and the holy spirit isn't a person but a force which God uses. Then when you read the verse you quickly realized it didn't even address a single one of the points which were mentioned, how stupid would you think that person was? Now you know how I feel.

The difference is that I can exegetically defend my position with the original languages.

You cannot.

Simple.


:cigar::cigar::cigar:

NWL
December 11th, 2015, 08:00 AM
Is Jesus the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως? If so then give me and example where someone/something is prōtotokos (prōtotokos or equivalent variation) of something and not part of that group.[Rev 22:1,2] και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων


"...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations..." (Rev 22:1,2)

How is this an example of when someone/something is prōtotokos pasēs a group of things which they're not part of?

Stop stalling, not that I expect anything more from you.


The very word that you are arguing over is entirely relevant.

This verse mandates that Jesus was never created and that He is the singular, nominative archē (i.e. the origin; the active cause), the singular genitive creation, and the singular genitive God.

I beg to differ, my argument isn't that the verse is stating that Jesus was the firstborn of creation, which it seems to say on face value, but rather, that since Jesus is firstborn of something,he is then by default part of that group which he is firstborn in.

In Col 1:18 it states "he [Jesus] is the beginning and the prōtotokos from among the dead". I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing that since Jesus was labelled the "prōtotokos from among the dead" that one could conclude by that statement that Jesus surely died, otherwise, how could he be classed firstborn in that group, namely of the dead, if he wasn't himself in it. Likewise if Jesus is the firsborn of the group creation, he has to be in that group to be firstborn of it. If you disagree then show me an example in the bible where someone is firstborn of a group where they themselves aren't a part of that group they're firstborn over.



(Rev 5:12) In a loud voice they were saying: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Could you show me in the above verse where it directly says anything about worship, my ignorant self can't seem to find the word worship in there.λεγοντες φωνη μεγαλη αξιον εστιν το αρνιον το εσφαγμενον λαβειν την δυναμιν και πλουτον και σοφιαν και ισχυν και τιμην και δοξαν και ευλογιαν

This is your proof that Jesus was given worship here in Rev 5:12!? Because of the word ευλογιαν/blessing. :nono:

In Galations 3:14 ευλογιαν/blessing are to be given to Abraham, is that proof he is worshiped?

In Hebrews 6:7 the ground is spoken of as receiving blessing [eulogia] from God, is that proof the ground was worshiped by God?

The answer is going to of course be no. Blessings given to someone is no proof that they're worshiped, otherwise people would be committing blasphemy every time someone sneezed. My question has not be satisfactorily answered. Please expand.

NWL
December 11th, 2015, 08:00 AM
I asked where the Holy Spirit is seen as sitting on Gods throne. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but this in no way answers my question?Where is He not, is a better question.

Revelation tells us that The Father sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21); that Jesus sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21; 7.17; 22.1 - 3), & that Theos sits upon the Throne (Rev 7:10 – 11; 7:15; 12:5; 14:5; 19:4; 22:1 - 3).

How is Theos sitting on the throne an example of the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne. Unless you have the name Holy Spirit to it then how can you say that Rev 7:10 – 11; 7:15; 12:5; 14:5; 19:4; 22:1 - 3 are reference to the holy Spirit? This is purely your assumption :confused:


(Rev 7:10-11) "...And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb..."

(Rev 7:15) "...Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence..."

(Rev 12:5) "...She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne..."

(Rev 14:5) "...The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: "Amen, Hallelujah!"..."

(Rev 22:1-3) "...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him..."

Here are the verse you gave, show us where in them it refers to the unidentified Theos as the Holy Spirit, otherwise admit its an assumption.

After all this time your still using the same washed out reasoning. I know you yourself don't actually believe the above verses show what your trying to state to me, since when I asked for you to sow me an example of the HS being called YHWH you tried to show me three verse in Ezekiel -which didn't even show it- instead of producing the above Revelation 14:5, which still doesn't show it. If you actually believed that this verse shows the HS on the throne then why not use produce it when I asked, unless you actually know it isn't in reference to the HS.



Where exactly does it call the Holy spirit YHWH here? I understand you linking the "spirit of YHWH" and the "Hand of of YHWH" together, but where does it call the name or spirit here, YHWH? A poor example at best as far as I can see, please expand.
Bringing it all together for you...

We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (Eze 1.3)
• Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)


We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)

We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

Apple7, I'm asking the most simplest of tasks. Give me an example where the Holy Spirit is referred to as YHWH. As far as I can see none of these verses show it. Either give and example or admit there is not such verse.

NWL
December 11th, 2015, 08:01 AM
Jesus is the Word of God, with that God being the father. Thus it can be said that Jesus was the Word of the Father, as spokesman for him.

(John 12:49) "...For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken..."

That being said, Jesus according to your own reasoning is the Father :confused:.That would be your reasoning....and no wonder you are so confused.

This should clarify things for you...

And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves. Indeed, I tell you truly, the one believing into Me, the works which I do, that one shall do also, and greater than these he will do, because I go to My Father. (John 14.8 – 12)


Clearly, context comes to the rescue of the ignorant, as it declares that ‘abiding’ (menōn) has absolutely nothing to do with two persons being the same. The six other NT locations for ‘menōn’ plainly demonstrate that it was intended to be rendered as influence.

Further, if The Father and The Son were already each other, then there would be no need to ‘go to’ The Father…

Simple Biblical truth.

You could have figured this one out for yourself had you even tried...

I'm well aware that you don't believe Jesus and the Father are the same person and I'm sure you're aware that I don't actually think that's what you believe. My point I was trying to make that by using your deduction that the HS is called YHWH because scripture makes reference to the Hand of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH that one could make the same deduction that Jesus, the Word of God/Father, is the Father himself.

I understand you don't believe this, as it would contradict the trinity, but I merely showed it so you so others could see how you reasoning was in fact poor reasoning.



Apple7, is it possible the text simply praises Jah three times for emphasis?'Emphasis' is added by repeating a word or phrase twice, such as Jesus repeatedly did by saying 'truly, truly I say to you...'

Repeating three times directs the readers attention to another area.

The Trinitarian formula, that Jesus mentioned, actually started way back in the OT...

Mat 28.19

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This passage contains arthrous substantives connected via kai which indicates distinction and separate referents.

However, while distinction is made between the referents, each has the same singular name.

Three Persons in one Being.

This same singular name of three persons’ baptism is the same as the Aaronic blessing in which the singular name of Yahweh is repeated three times (Num 6.22 – 27).

Separate and yet the same, The Trinity.

Really!? There is no rule as to how many times someone says a word for emphasis. The fact that the word is used three times and you claim it is in reference to a trinity is an assumption, there is nothing in scripture which states this.

The fact remains, YHWH is one, not three. Thus it makes no sense to praise Jah three times, unless you want to say they praised the individuals the Father, Son and HS as Jah, three times, which would go against the trinity as there is one JAH.

Now I know you side stepped the question, so could you answer it plainly now. Remember, I'm not asking that you agree with me, I'm asking you is it possible, is there a chance that the words are said three times simply for emphasis? Yes or no.

NWL
December 11th, 2015, 08:03 AM
But....look what you missed by adamantly refusing to look to the original languages...

Heb 1.1

πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατου των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω

POLYMERŌS kai POLYTROPŌS palai ho theos lalēsas tois patrasin en tois prophētais

By many portions and in various forms, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets;


The Book of Hebrews is aptly named for the OT material of which it contains.

Heb 1.1 immediately informs the reader that the One God of the OT has always revealed Himself ‘by many portions’ (polymeros) and ‘in various forms’ (polytropos).

These two Greek terms are only used this one time/ea in the entirety of the Holy Bible, and lexically are defined as ‘One of the constituent parts of a whole; in a context where the whole and its parts are distinguished.’

A clear signal of the ONE Triune Creator God of the Universe

Can that One God , who you suggest is the Father/Son/HS, have a Son? Hebrews 1:1-2 states regarding the unidentified God that ethēken [he], appointed the Son. Did Jesus appoint himself, did the Holy Spirit appoint Jesus, or did the Father appoint Jesus? Did the Father/Son/HS create the world through the Son, implying the Son created the world through the Son? Is Jesus the charaktēr/copy/image of the trinity, namely Father/Son/HS or is Jesus a charaktēr of the person who he states is his father (John 14:9)? We all know the answer to the questions, we all understand the contradictory nature when we view the God of Hebrews 1:1-3 as a trinity, its simply you who refuses to admit defeat regarding it.

There is no problem of understanding the opening texts of Hebrews 1:1 as God speaking through representatives in the OT, you simply don't like the idea.


Then hand-pick one scriptural example that you feel does not fit, and exegete it for us...

BTW...That is a year-old offer...

As I said, give me something more than "Jesus is the subject" and I will. You've said regarding one of the greek variations of the words glory and/or truth that sometimes they aren't regarding to Jesus, why is this? Whats different regarding on usage of the word to another? How is it possible that people receive glory, the Father has glory, how comes glory and truth means Jesus but when you switch the words passages seemingly make no sense.

When you expand on your reasons, other than "Jesus is always the subject", so that I understand you position fully then I can answer you.


If The Glory is a man, then that inherently translates to The God-man....and people would have to deal with it.

As we can see, the Jews run from it.

Witnesses also run from it.


Yet when you use this reasoning on the bible in its entirety it becomes a laughing stock, in the same manner, is God the;

Cloud-God
Dove-God
Fire-God
Hand-God
Stone-God

The phrase God-man is ridiculous and has no basis in scripture.


As a Unitarian, your whole life's mission is to deny Jesus' deity.

You attempt to do this by making it appear that Jesus was a lesser entity and not actually God, Himself (besides your perverted version of The Trinity hang-up of thinking that He is The Father)....and that He must somehow be reliant upon receiving anything that comes His way.

Rev 4 completely blows apart your lame assertion, as you cannot deny that it pertains to Theos being 'worthy' and on the receiving end of things...

Boom.

He is reliant, he himself stated it regarding life "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father" (John 6:57)

Rev 4 in no way blows anything apart my friend. Jesus was the one who restored true worship for the Father, if it wasn't for him God wouldn't be receiving any true worship, that tagged along with the fact that Jesus is a copy/charaktēr of the Father makes complete sense for Jesus to receive those things, especially when he passes all worship through himself to the Father.