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
Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
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
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
Most all of any persuasion want to be teachers. I just let them.
I am not confrontational.
LA
NWL
Active member
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 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.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
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
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.
Amen to that.
JWs do not understand scripture or the Author of them.
...all they know is brainwash
You are in deep trouble then
You don't have a relationship with Christ keeps....all you have is your puny reasoning
Yes knowing Christ is everything.
WeberHome
New member
-
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)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
Active member
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..."
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
New member
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.
NWL
Active member
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
Active member
Who was this in reference to?
WeberHome
New member
-
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Apple7
New member
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
Active member
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.