Training To Understand JWs

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
She will not celebrate birthdays
In the JW mind, making someone's birthday special has to do with dark arts, superstition, and paganism. Some have told me that celebrating birthdays is also an act of idolatrous worship; which to them is a violation of the very first of the Ten Commandments.


she will not go into a church building.
The JWs believe that all Christian denominations other than theirs are false religions. Thus in their mind's eye, churches are pagan temples.

Personally I don't begrudge the Witnesses for their feelings about either of those two issues because they're actually matters of conscience; which all Christians, regardless of their denominational affiliation, are supposed to treat with respect; viz: there are times when it's wise to take Han Solo's advice and "Let the Wookie win one." (Rom 14:1-23)
_
 

OutWest

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

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9 contain the Greek word 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 parents' sole biological child in the New Testament. If parents have two or more biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.

Obviously then, an adopted child can never be monogenes because it wouldn't be the parents' biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

So then, scientifically speaking, Christ is unique in that he is God's sole biological offspring, while God's other sons are not; viz: they're placed as sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:4-5)

Q: God literally fathered a child?

A: I think it's probably a bit more accurate to say that God literally co-fathered a child.

Q: How did he do it? Is there a Mrs. God? And who was the other father?

A: Jesus' conception, described at Luke 1:26-35, wasn't only miraculous, it was a very unusual combination of human and divine.

David contributed the human component. (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:1-3, and 2Tim 2:8)

God contributed the divine component. (Luke 1:35 and 1John 3:9)

Jesus then, is just as much God's progeny as he is David's; and just as much David's progeny as he is God's.

Q: What about Heb 11:17 where Isaac is stated to be Abraham's monogenes child? Wasn't Ishmael a biological child of his too?

A: Isaac is the only biological child that Abraham and Sarah produced together; just as Jesus is the only biological child that God and Man produced together.

To say that this is all very baffling, illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable would be an understatement. In my mind's normal way of thinking, Christ's rather odd case of mixed-species genetics is an outlandish fantasy that, biologically, makes no sense at all. It's sort of like crossing an iguana with an apricot to produce a reptilian fruit tree. But; the circumstances of Christ's conception are in the Bible, so those of us who call ourselves Christians have got to accept it.

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain)

Now, here's the inescapable ramification:

Like reproduces its like. In other words, when David reproduced, he fathered a human being like himself in every way. When God reproduced, He fathered a divine being like Himself in every way; ergo: Christ is just as much God as God, in the same way that Christ is just as much David as David.
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
According to John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22; Jesus committed no sins of his own.

The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that Christ didn't sin because he "chose" not to sin. In other words: he could have failed, he could have sinned.

That's what they say; but it's not what the Bible says. The fact of the matter is; Christ's divine genetics make it impossible for him to sin.

1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin, because His [reproductive] seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, because he has been born from God. (NWT)

That translation makes it look as though one born of God's reproductive seed sins now and then but not all the time; viz: doesn't make a habit of sin. But the text on the Greek side of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear reads like this:

"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been generated."

There's more:

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

The Greek word translated "divine quality" is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which means divinity; defined by Webster's as the quality or state of being divine.

I don't mean to split hairs but the order of those words in a sentence makes a difference: divine quality and the quality of being divine are not the same. For example: patience is a divine quality, but people capable of patience aren't eo ipso divine. So let's get that straightened out right from the get-go.

Anyway; what we're looking at in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity; rather, "the" divinity; viz: we're looking at God's divinity; which I think pretty safe to assume is impeccable. I seriously doubt even the Devil himself could fail and/or sin were he brimming with not just a percentage; but with all the fullness of God's divinity.

Q: If it was impossible for Christ to either sin or fail; then what practical purpose did his temptation serve?

A: Christ testified "I always do the things pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). The Devil's failure to break Christ certifies the truth of his statement. In other words: Christ was proof-tested to demonstrate that he contains no flaws.

No doubt the Devil expected that after forty days in the outback without food, Christ would be worn down to the point where he would no longer care whether he sinned or not. But it made no difference. Christ was still just as incapable of sin after forty days in the outback as he was during the first thirty years of his life in Nazareth because Christ's innocence doesn't depend upon his resolve; rather, upon his genetics so to speak; viz: upon God's [reproductive] seed. (1John 3:9)

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the JWs' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a better response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as impossible for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically sinless nature of God's reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that the source of that seed would be unable to sin too.

Jas 1:13 . . For with evil things God cannot be tried. (NWT)

NOTE: The Watchtower Society religion is a bit of an odd duck in the world of Christianity. While most, if not all, of the other denominations seek to glorify Christ; it seems the Society's primary mission in life is to tear him down.


A very common Greek word in the New Testament for the Devil is diabolos (dee-ab'-ol-os) which refers to traducers; defined by Webster's as someone who exposes others to shame or blame by means of falsehood and misrepresentation; i.e. slander.
_
 
Last edited:

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

God and/or gods, is from the Greek word theós

Many moons ago; I asked some Watchtower Society missionaries to explain to me why their Bible translated theós in upper case in Thomas' statement seeing as how in Watchtower theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled with an upper case G. 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 upper case because it is their practice that whenever theós is modified by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is required.

For argument's sake; let's remove the upper cases and translate the passage like this:

Thomas said to him: "my lord and my god!"

We could tolerate a lower case lord because that was a common way to address just about any superior back in those days, whether divine or otherwise; for example 1Pet 3:6.

However; we would have difficulty with a lower case god because the passage is possessive. In other words: the apostle Thomas didn't just declare that Jesus was a god. No, Thomas declared that Jesus was "my" god.

The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with Jehovah in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy forbids them to possess more than one god.

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." (NWT)

"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 the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that possessing any other god but Jehovah 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. (NWT)

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, then John Q and Jane Doe JWs need to ask around and find out why it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's divine status when Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal friends.
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
These are awesome! Thank you for this interesting teaching!
I truly appreciate your enthusiasm, and I'm really glad you're finding my material worth the reading. It's taken me quite a few years to accumulate the information and arrange it all in an orderly format.

I started writing about JW teachings for myself with paper and pencil back in the early 1990s, never dreaming that I would one day go worldwide with it. That was before we purchased our first computer; which wasn't even internet-capable; just a 25mhz IBM with a measly 175mb hard drive, Windows 3.1, and floppy discs. Though feeble-minded compared to the gigahertz PCs available these days, the word processor that came with our first computer was a huge improvement over pencil and paper.
_
 
Last edited:

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
John 20:17 . . Be on your way to my brothers and say to them; "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

Q: If Jesus is God, as classical Christianity claims, then how can he have a god? Does God worship Himself?

A: I have yet to encounter the language of John 20:17 in reverse, viz: I have yet to see a passage in the Bible where the Father refers to His son as "my God". The reason for that is very simple.

Ex 20:12 . . Honor your father

John 8:49 . . Jesus answered: I honor my Father

There is a hierarchy in the divine relationship just as there is a hierarchy in human relationships. Though all members of a human family are equally human, they are not all equal in rank and privilege; some are superior and some are subordinate. (cf. John 14:28, 1Cor 15:28)

The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society calls Jesus "the only-begotten son from a Father" (John 1:14, NWT). Don't let that mislead you. The Society dare not accept Christ's status as God's literal progeny because the ramifications would force them to revise their theology.

The Society also calls Jesus "the only-begotten god" (John 1:18, NWT). Well; If the true God were to beget a god, wouldn't that god be a true God like its father?

For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of the true God as a species; viz: if indeed the true God were to beget a child, He would beget a child of like species; i.e. the true God would beget a true God like Himself because that's the only kind of offspring that the true God could engender; just as when a true human begets a child, they beget a child of like species i.e. they beget a true human being like themselves because that's the only kind of offspring that a true human can engender.

Now, we can volley back and forth with JWs, countering each other's verses with more verses: verse upon verse; but I can just about guarantee that us and they will both be chasing our tails and getting nowhere until they agree to approach the Son's relationship to his Father from a biological perspective; which is a perspective that just about anybody with even a cursory knowledge of the birds and the bees can understand with ease.

Q: How can there be two Gods out there when the Bible plainly declares there is only one?

A: The Bible also declares that there is only one Man.

In the beginning, when God created the Man species, He created it male and female; i.e. two persons. But the two persons do not represent two Mans. There is only one Man though the species can be spoken of with a plural pronoun.

Gen 1:27 . . And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image He created him; male and female He created them. (NWT)

ASIDE: There is a growing number of people in the world calling themselves non binary. I don't know what their problem is with identifying themselves as male or female, but it would be very odd indeed for some of them to go about as Christians while refusing to accept the Genesis explanation of Man's origin.

_
 
Last edited:

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
The passage below from the NWT is deliberately misquoted. Watch for it.

Ps 146:3-4 . . Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day he loses awareness.

The actual passage says "his thoughts do perish" and it's one of the Watchtower Society's proof texts to support their teaching that people cease to exist when they pass away.

The Hebrew word for "thoughts" in that passage 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.

According to Webster's the word "thinking" has a pretty wide variety of meanings to choose from; including, but not limited to: concerns, anticipations, conceptions, opinions, imaginations, visualizations, ideas, epiphanies, plans, schemes, fantasies, arguments, aspirations, deliberations, and the like.

For the rich man in Jesus' parable at Luke 12:16-20; I would choose ideas, plans, and schemes.

For example: consider all those people who perished in the World Trade Center, and 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 itinerary 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 appointments, 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 Watchtower Society's interpretation is that people don't cease to exist when they die; no, Ps 146:3-4 only means that whatever was on their minds before they passed away is now 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 with the goal towards becoming 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 of natural causes.

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, viz: our thoughts perished right along with his.

Death is the mortal enemy of human ambitions. It often casts its long shadow when they set about planning their lives. The Scottish poet Robert Burns noticed that life sometimes throws a curve ball that makes all your careful preparations strike out instead of getting you on base.

He was working one day plowing in the field and uprooted a mouse's underground nest who was all set for the oncoming winter. The mouse had picked a fallow field as the site for its winter retreat thinking it would be safe and snug; unmolested during the cold. But it didn't (or maybe we should say it couldn't) know the workings of powers higher than itself-- in this case, farmers and their machinery.

Mousie, you are not alone in proving foresight may be vain.
The best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew,
And leave us naught but grief and pain for promised joy.
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
Some of Solomon's remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes appear to conflict with Christ's teachings in the New Testament. Well; the answer to that is actually pretty simple.

According to 2Tim 3:16, Solomon was inspired to write Ecclesiastes, but the catch is: his comments essentially represent a world view-- a philosophy of life under the sun --rather than a book of either history, revelation, or prophecy.

In other words: Solomon's observations are limited to the scope of empirical evidence and human experience; a perception of reality moderated by what we can see for ourselves going on around us in the physical universe rather than the spiritual-- which is at least one of the reasons why Ecclesiastes appeals to cultists, atheists, and agnostics, et al.

Solomon's world view is punctuated with pessimism; which is basically a mindset inclined to dwell on the negative in human experience rather than the positive. For example:

"You only go around once, so do it with all the gusto you can get!"

That was a Schlitz beer slogan some years ago. It's worldly wisdom thru and thru rather than Christ's. Compare it to a couple of Solomon's remarks:

Ecc 9:5 . . The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all (NWT)

Ecc 9:10 . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going. (NWT)

That wisdom reflects Schlitz beer wisdom, i.e. it's earthly wisdom rather than the wisdom that comes from above.

Solomon was a very wise man; in point of fact, he was the brightest intellectual of his day. But Solomon's knowledge and experience were limited. He didn't know everything there is to know, nor had he seen everything there is to see, nor been everywhere there is to go. Whereas Christ's knowledge is extremely vast.

Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge. (NWT)

Christ, in his capacity as the Word, created everything existing in the current cosmos.

John 1:3 . . All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. (NWT)

So then, it only stands to reason that Christ would know more about the afterlife than Solomon because the Word has actually seen it for himself, whereas Solomon didn't see anything beyond the grave when he penned Ecclesiastes.

A good rule of thumb to apply when the teachings of Solomon and Jesus contradict each other, is to keep in mind that Jesus' teachings trump Solomon's.

Matt 12:42 . .The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than Solomon is here. (NWT)

John 3:31 . . He that comes from above is over all others. (NWT)

And Jesus comes highly recommended too.

Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him. (NWT)

So then, when encountering remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes that are out of step with Jesus' teachings in the New Testament; my unsolicited spiritual counseling is to ignore the Jehovah's Witness take on Ecclesiastes and go with the wisdom of "my Son".

John 8:12 . . I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life. (NWT)
_
 
Last edited:

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
John 14:16-17 . . I will request the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you. (NWT)

John 14:26 . .The helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you. (NWT)

Rank and file JWs are taught to believe that God's spirit is alongside assisting them to identify, and to understand, the correct interpretations of the Bible. However, they are also taught that only a special guild of 144,000 JWs actually have the spirit "in" them rather than only alongside. The special guild are known as the anointed class; a label taken from 1John 2:27

The non-anointed spiritual condition is very serious. Here's why:

Rom 8:9 . .You are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's spirit truly dwells in you. (NWT)

Seeing as how God's spirit does not truly dwell in non-anointed JWs, then they are, by default, in harmony with the flesh. That only makes things worse.

Rom 8:5-8 . . For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those in accord with the spirit on the things of the spirit. For the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and peace; because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God. (NWT)

The non-anointed situation is just too ironic for words. They displease God, and He displeases them; yet they go door-to-door sincerely believing themselves Jehovah's friends and allies.
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
1John 2:26-27 . .These things I write you about those who are trying to mislead you. 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. (NWT)

The anointing provides people with some valuable advantages to which people who lack it of course have no access.

1• Protects people from deception

2• Enables people to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants them grasped

3• Makes it possible for people to remain in union with him.

According to Watchtower Society theology, only 144,000 special Jehovah's Witnesses have the anointing. There aren't that many living who have the anointing though because when anointed JWs die, their passing doesn't create vacancies.

What that means is: the vast majority of today's living JWs don't have the anointing. We're talking about some serious numbers here. Currently, there are approximately 8.2 million living Witnesses. Even if all 144,000 anointed JWs were alive today, that would leave 8,056,000 roaming the earth in our day who 1) have no protection from deception, 2) are unable to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants them grasped, and 3) not in union with him.

Doubtless there are numbers of ordinary JWs who sincerely believe that their association with the Watchtower Society keeps them in union with Jesus Christ; but according to 1John 2:26-27, union with Jesus Christ isn't accomplished on the coattails of an organization; it's accomplished by means of the anointing.

Watchtower Society missionaries sincerely believing themselves in union with Jesus Christ without the anointing are each themselves "one of those who are trying to mislead you".
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
The Watchtower Society argues that the account of the metemorphe (transfiguration) found at Matt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form, proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Watchtower Society's rather curious claim is located on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; which reads: "If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

NOTE: All the first covenant's sacrifices were removed from the altar, none were allowed to remain, not even their ashes. And besides, "God's altar" wasn't the earth; it was the cross, from which Jesus' body was removed the very afternoon of his death.


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

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


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


In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; it has a moral obligation to substantiate it because it is not incumbent upon the Society's opponents to prove its claims are false.

No, it is incumbent upon the Society to prove it's claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to do it by rationalizing, nor by humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in scripture. They claim that Jesus' crucified body is still deceased. If that claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture, then sensible jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as spurious fiction.

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

Goodboy

Well-Known Member
We believe that the combination of the Holy Spirit (God) and Mary (human) created Jesus the God/man. JW's believe that God's Spirit force (the Holy Spirit) and Mary created Jesus. Yet they believe that Jesus was the angel Michael in the past. Well how the heck did the angel Micheal slip in when he was not mentioned in the creation of Jesus? Also, does the angel Michael still exist, or is he now Jesus?

Just like most of their doctrine, it does not make any sense. :calvin
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
Yet they believe that Jesus was the angel Michael in the past. Well how the heck did the angel Micheal slip in when he was not mentioned in the creation of Jesus? Also, does the angel Michael still exist, or is he now Jesus?
You might find some answers in post No.7
_
 

Goodboy

Well-Known Member
You might find some answers in post No.7 _
Thanks Outwest!
Sorry, but I don't normally have the patience to read through your long, but very educational posts. :)

Post No. 7 is even crazier than what I posted. They seem to just say any dribble as long as it's not the truth.
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
JWs have a couple of interesting objections to Christianity's standard belief that people's physical bodies will be restored to life in the coming resurrection.

Q: What about the remains of people whose bodies are no longer intact such as those eaten and digested by critters, burned to ashes, and/or blown to smithereens in war?

A: The absence of a corpse is not an issue seeing as how it was God's wishes way back in the beginning that everyone's body return to the dust from whence He made man (Gen 3:19). Having a corpse to work with would be nice; but not essential.

Q: What if some of the atoms that made my body go into making another person's body after I'm dead? How will God fully restore both our bodies to life seeing as how He will have need of the atoms of each to do so?

A: Specific atoms are all the same; it's not as if there are no two alike; viz: if God needs some carbon atoms to reconstruct your body, He could utilize carbon atoms from a Sequoia cactus and they would work just fine without the slightest need for adjustment because every carbon atom is a precise duplicate of every other carbon atom; viz: all carbon atoms are just one kind of carbon atom.

So it isn't necessary for God to locate all your original carbon atoms in order to reconstruct your original body; He just needs carbon atoms; and they are very plentiful in nature: same with iron atoms, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
_
 

OutWest

Well-Known Member
.
So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take for example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 7:1-8 wherein is listed a specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

The Society claims that those aren't biological sons of Israel; but rather "spiritual" sons-- referring of course to the Society's elite cadre of 144,000 Witnesses who have supposedly undergone a spirit birth as per Christ's instruction at John 3:3-8; and the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27.

The Society's claim is premised upon its observation that there never was a tribe of Joseph; when in reality Joseph is listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28, Ezek 48:31-34). So that portion of the Society's reasoning is clearly a false premise.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its observation that Ephraim and Dan are missing from the list of tribes at Rev 7:4-8. However, what the Society's theologians have somehow overlooked in the Old Testament is that it doesn't matter whose names are chosen to represent the twelve tribes of Israel just so long as there are twelve names. Are there twelve in Rev 7:4-8? Yes. Well then that's good enough. I realize that makes no sense but then the Lord's apostles were still referred to as "the twelve" even with Judas out of the picture. So that premise in the Society's reasoning is spurious too.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its reasoning that Levi isn't a valid tribe based upon the fact that the Levites are exempt from warfare. However, Levi is clearly listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28, Ezek 48:31-34) which is a good many years after Num 1:1-54. So that premise is bogus too.

The Watchtower Society not wanting the 144,000 to be biological Hebrews is one thing; but I would just like to know from whence Charles T. Russell's and Joseph F. Rutherford's followers got the idea that their people constitute the 144,000. That's a pretty serious claim. How do they validate it? I don't know; but I can just about guarantee that their explanation is an outlandish stretch of the imagination consisting of humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, spiritualizing, clever sophistry, and semantic double-speak.

NOTE: According to Rev 14:1-4, the 144,000 are supposed to all be males, and none have ever slept with a woman. That, if true, would of course disqualify married JWs.
_
 

Mikedexion

Well-Known Member
My sister is a Jehovah's Witness and for a number of years I use to debate with her until I finally realized what she was doing. As example, when I would present a bible verse that states salvation is a free gift and ask her what does that mean. She would not answer the question and just present some other verse that was more favorable to her beliefs. I then realized that she was not really hearing me, but just waiting for me to stop talking so she could continue trying to convert me.

Another thing she would do is bombard me with JW publications, but any time I sent her anything she would say it got lost, destroyed or some other excuse. The dumbest excuse she used when I sent her a copy of Left Behind, was that someone stole it. Yeah right, I'm sure that was the most valuable thing in her possession.
My Aunt and Uncle is a JW also. I have had the same experience they debate me on points of doctrine and they pull strawman's out of thin air and quickly change subjects. Other times my Aunt will literally hear something I never said. The level of spiritual blindness is EXTREME with the JW's Its very sad. The level of fear that is in the back of their minds is horrible. Only divine intervention can save them most of the time.
 

Goodboy

Well-Known Member
it's kind of strange when you try to bring context to scriptures with these people, they bring more and more people from their church to try get their beliefs across to you.
I thought I was having a pretty good conversation via E-Mail with my JW nephew. We went back and forth for about 5 or 6 E-Mails and I was becoming hopeful, as he had no good answers for the things I brought out from the Bible.

Well all of a sudden I did not hear from him for a week or two. When he finally responded again it did not sound like him at all. His response was almost word for word from what I found on the JW web site. I then realized he most likely went to the elders to get a response for me. So he was no longer responding with his words or thoughts, just JW junk. And yes it was junk, even though it came from the elders. It was a bunch of different bible passages all jumbled together to make their point. :willy

On another note, my sister, her husband, her 4 kids and all of their kids are all JW's. The weird part is that half of them are on physiological medications. :loco Go figure. :idunno

So sad... :(
 
Top