Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses

oatmeal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

keypurr said:

Are most so insecure with their faith that they can not defend their faith?

Click to expand...

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?

Ben Masada said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

-
†. 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.

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

WeberHome said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why did God create humans?

WeberHome said:

-
†. 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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

keypurr said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

-
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.

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

I don't always have time to talk to them
but
when I do, I enjoy it
I admire their dedication

-
†. 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.

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

WeberHome said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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.

WeberHome said:

-


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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Post withdrawn.

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/

-
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.

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

-
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.

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

-
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.

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

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.

keypurr said:

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

Click to expand...

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....

Elia said:

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....

Click to expand...

They believe Jesus is divine but they do not believe he is God.