.
[font=Verdana]CONTACT
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society missionary (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and inexperienced; and thus assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water coming down my dad's driveway was a typical Christian.
But when I talked this over with an 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 lectures sponsored by a local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The speaker (call him Pete) was an ex JW who had been in the Watchtower Society system for near three decades before terminating his involvement; so he knew the twists and turns of its doctrines pretty good.
Later on, I read a book titled "Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. I also read the Society's little brown book titled "Reasoning From The Scriptures".
(This was all before the internet and the ready volume of information available online, e.g. YouTube.)
From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although the Watchtower Society uses many of classical Christianity's standard terms and phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in the Witness mind than what you'd expect because the Society has re-defined the meanings of those terminologies.
So the first challenge with Watchtower Society teachings is to scale the language barrier. That by itself is an Herculean task because we're not only be up against a tangle of semantics, but also a Jumanji of twisted scriptures, double speak, humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, and clever sophistry.
_[/font]
Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #21.
[font=Verdana]THE FIG TREE
â—� Mark 11:12-13 . .The next day, when they had come out from Bethany, he became hungry. And from a distance he caught sight of a fig tree that had leaves, and he went to see whether he would perhaps find something on it. But, on coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season of figs.
Q: If Jehovah really was in the world as the man Jesus, then why didn't He know by omniscience that the fig tree would have no fruit? Why was it necessary for Him to examine it up close in person?
A: Jehovah's conduct in that matter would've been unusual but by no means uncharacteristic.
In the 11th chapter of Genesis, the people built themselves a tower. Jehovah came down to see the tower. Now, if Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, then why bother coming down out of heaven to inspect the tower in person?
In the 18th chapter of Genesis, Jehovah announced to Abraham that He was on a journey to visit Sodom in order to determine whether the reports He was hearing about the city were true or not. Again: if Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, why bother coming down out of heaven to visit Sodom in person?
In the 22nd chapter of Genesis, Jehovah had Abraham offer his son as a sacrifice made with fire. At the conclusion of the event; a celestial being-- speaking for Jehovah and speaking as Jehovah --said: "Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me."
It goes without saying that Jehovah knows every man's thoughts, and He also knows the future, viz: nothing we do, say, or think catches Jehovah by surprise; He sees everything. So then, if Jehovah already knew in advance that Abraham would offer Isaac, and already knew in advance that Abraham was God-fearing, then why did He say "now I know"? Shouldn't Jehovah have already known?
The only sensible answer to those questions, including the question about the fig tree, is that there is a humanness to God that began quietly coming to light all the way back in the very beginning of the Bible; but the New Testament is where we see God's humanness on display even more.
â—� 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.
"explained him" is accurate enough but doesn't really say it right-- "exposed him" is much better.
â—� John 14:7 . . . If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him. Philip said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father also.
Q: Well then, why didn't Jesus use his divine powers to make that tree produce fruit for him to eat right then and there on the spot instead of cursing the poor thing?
A: Isn't that similar to the Devil's reasoning in the 4th chapter of Matthew?
The fact of the matter is: Jesus was micro-managed. He cursed that fig tree in compliance with his Father's wishes to do so.
â—� John 6:38 . . I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.
â—� John 8:28 . . I do nothing of my own initiative
â—� John 8:29 . . He that sent me is with me; He did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to Him.
â—� John 10:30 . . I and my Father are unified
â—� John 14:10 . . Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father, and the Father is in union with me?
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE FIG TREE
â—� Mark 11:12-13 . .The next day, when they had come out from Bethany, he became hungry. And from a distance he caught sight of a fig tree that had leaves, and he went to see whether he would perhaps find something on it. But, on coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season of figs.
Q: If Jehovah really was in the world as the man Jesus, then why didn't He know by omniscience that the fig tree would have no fruit? Why was it necessary for Him to examine it up close in person?
A: Jehovah's conduct in that matter would've been unusual but by no means uncharacteristic.
In the 11th chapter of Genesis, the people built themselves a tower. Jehovah came down to see the tower. Now, if Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, then why bother coming down out of heaven to inspect the tower in person?
In the 18th chapter of Genesis, Jehovah announced to Abraham that He was on a journey to visit Sodom in order to determine whether the reports He was hearing about the city were true or not. Again: if Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, why bother coming down out of heaven to visit Sodom in person?
In the 22nd chapter of Genesis, Jehovah had Abraham offer his son as a sacrifice made with fire. At the conclusion of the event; a celestial being-- speaking for Jehovah and speaking as Jehovah --said: "Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me."
It goes without saying that Jehovah knows every man's thoughts, and He also knows the future, viz: nothing we do, say, or think catches Jehovah by surprise; He sees everything. So then, if Jehovah already knew in advance that Abraham would offer Isaac, and already knew in advance that Abraham was God-fearing, then why did He say "now I know"? Shouldn't Jehovah have already known?
The only sensible answer to those questions, including the question about the fig tree, is that there is a humanness to God that began quietly coming to light all the way back in the very beginning of the Bible; but the New Testament is where we see God's humanness on display even more.
â—� 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.
"explained him" is accurate enough but doesn't really say it right-- "exposed him" is much better.
â—� John 14:7 . . . If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him. Philip said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father also.
Q: Well then, why didn't Jesus use his divine powers to make that tree produce fruit for him to eat right then and there on the spot instead of cursing the poor thing?
A: Isn't that similar to the Devil's reasoning in the 4th chapter of Matthew?
The fact of the matter is: Jesus was micro-managed. He cursed that fig tree in compliance with his Father's wishes to do so.
â—� John 6:38 . . I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.
â—� John 8:28 . . I do nothing of my own initiative
â—� John 8:29 . . He that sent me is with me; He did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to Him.
â—� John 10:30 . . I and my Father are unified
â—� John 14:10 . . Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father, and the Father is in union with me?
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #22.
[font=Verdana]THE FIRSTBORN
â—� Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation
The Watchtower Society has appropriated that verse as evidence that God's son was the first thing created before everything else in the cosmos.
However, the New Testament Greek word for "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos, which never means created first; no, it always means born first. The correct Greek word for created first is protoktistos.
The average Watchtower Society missionary doesn't know the difference between prototokos and protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway. To some of them; born first and created first are essentially one and the same.
But are they the same? No. Birthing requires a parent while creating requires a craftsman. Birthing produces progeny while crafting produces projects. God's son wasn't a project; no, he's uniquely God's progeny.
However; firstborn doesn't always refer to birth order. The term also refers to pay grade, so to speak, and as such is transferrable from an elder sibling to a younger, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1).
There was a time when David was God's firstborn (Ps 89:20-27). The position was later transferred to one of David's sons (Dan 7:13-14, Ps 110:1, Matt 22:42-45, Phil 2:9-11). So for now and forever; neither anything nor anybody is higher up on creation's chain of command than Christ. You'd think that the Jews' religious experts of Jesus' day would have known about this.
� Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?� They said to him: “David’s" He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet� ’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?�
Jesus referred to Psalm 110:1, which reads like this:
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.�
The Hebrew word for "Lord" in that verse is 'adown (aw-done'); a very common title of respect for one's superiors in the Old Testament. Sarah revered her husband Abraham as 'adown (Gen 18:12) Rachel revered her dad Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob revered his brother Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). So then; Psalm 110:1 can be translated like this:
The utterance of Jehovah to my superior: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."
David is the paterfamilias of his own line of royalty, making him superior to all of his male progeny; none of them outrank him, all are his subordinates. But Ps 110:1 speaks of one of David's male progeny who somehow breaks the rules; and the Jews' religious experts were utterly baffled by it.
â—� Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word
The Jews' religious experts were no doubt aware, by means of their Old Testament studies, that the rank of firstborn can be moved around among siblings, but nobody even dreamed that a father's superiority could be taken from him and given to one of his children, making that child the head of the house over its parents.
This was something strange to their Jewish way of thinking; yet there it is in black and white in their own scriptures. They had somehow failed to catch the significance of Ps 110:1 until Jesus drew their attention to it.
â—� Eph 1:20-21 . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.
â—� Phil 2:8-11 . . God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Q: What is the name that is above every other name?
A: Jehovah
Q: Is that another reason why Jesus is superior to David?
A: Yes. Jesus has the God-given right to use Jehovah's name as his own name; which allows him all the respect and reverence that the name deserves; viz: failure to revere Jesus as Jehovah dishonors God the Father.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE FIRSTBORN
â—� Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation
The Watchtower Society has appropriated that verse as evidence that God's son was the first thing created before everything else in the cosmos.
However, the New Testament Greek word for "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos, which never means created first; no, it always means born first. The correct Greek word for created first is protoktistos.
The average Watchtower Society missionary doesn't know the difference between prototokos and protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway. To some of them; born first and created first are essentially one and the same.
But are they the same? No. Birthing requires a parent while creating requires a craftsman. Birthing produces progeny while crafting produces projects. God's son wasn't a project; no, he's uniquely God's progeny.
However; firstborn doesn't always refer to birth order. The term also refers to pay grade, so to speak, and as such is transferrable from an elder sibling to a younger, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1).
There was a time when David was God's firstborn (Ps 89:20-27). The position was later transferred to one of David's sons (Dan 7:13-14, Ps 110:1, Matt 22:42-45, Phil 2:9-11). So for now and forever; neither anything nor anybody is higher up on creation's chain of command than Christ. You'd think that the Jews' religious experts of Jesus' day would have known about this.
� Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?� They said to him: “David’s" He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet� ’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?�
Jesus referred to Psalm 110:1, which reads like this:
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.�
The Hebrew word for "Lord" in that verse is 'adown (aw-done'); a very common title of respect for one's superiors in the Old Testament. Sarah revered her husband Abraham as 'adown (Gen 18:12) Rachel revered her dad Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob revered his brother Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). So then; Psalm 110:1 can be translated like this:
The utterance of Jehovah to my superior: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."
David is the paterfamilias of his own line of royalty, making him superior to all of his male progeny; none of them outrank him, all are his subordinates. But Ps 110:1 speaks of one of David's male progeny who somehow breaks the rules; and the Jews' religious experts were utterly baffled by it.
â—� Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word
The Jews' religious experts were no doubt aware, by means of their Old Testament studies, that the rank of firstborn can be moved around among siblings, but nobody even dreamed that a father's superiority could be taken from him and given to one of his children, making that child the head of the house over its parents.
This was something strange to their Jewish way of thinking; yet there it is in black and white in their own scriptures. They had somehow failed to catch the significance of Ps 110:1 until Jesus drew their attention to it.
â—� Eph 1:20-21 . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.
â—� Phil 2:8-11 . . God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Q: What is the name that is above every other name?
A: Jehovah
Q: Is that another reason why Jesus is superior to David?
A: Yes. Jesus has the God-given right to use Jehovah's name as his own name; which allows him all the respect and reverence that the name deserves; viz: failure to revere Jesus as Jehovah dishonors God the Father.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #23.
[font=Verdana]OTHER
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.
"Because 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. This alert readers that "other" is not in the Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's editors took the liberty to pencil it in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation; and thereafter, His son created everything else.
One day, a pair of Watchtower 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 the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 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 in order to make it read 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 letters, and forcing them to mean things they don't say in writing; this is what Peter has to say about that.
â—� 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.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits brackets around the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen from the Watchtower Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures that "other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]OTHER
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.
"Because 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. This alert readers that "other" is not in the Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's editors took the liberty to pencil it in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation; and thereafter, His son created everything else.
One day, a pair of Watchtower 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 the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 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 in order to make it read 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 letters, and forcing them to mean things they don't say in writing; this is what Peter has to say about that.
â—� 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.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits brackets around the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen from the Watchtower Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures that "other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #24.
[font=Verdana]MONOGENES
Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only-begotten god; while another translation says Jesus is the only begotten son. Which translation is correct?
A: Either translation will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the very same thing.
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9 are translated from 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 a couple's sole biological child in the New Testament. If a couple has 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 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.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]MONOGENES
Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only-begotten god; while another translation says Jesus is the only begotten son. Which translation is correct?
A: Either translation will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the very same thing.
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9 are translated from 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 a couple's sole biological child in the New Testament. If a couple has 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 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.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #25.
[font=Verdana]FAIL SAFE
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. 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.
â—� 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.
That translation makes it look as though one born of God 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 Kingdom Interlinear reads like this:
"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been generated."
There's more:
â—� Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
What we're looking at isn't nondescript divine quality; rather, the divine quality; viz: we're looking at the quality of 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 quality of God's divinity.
Q: If it was impossible for Christ to sin; 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 proves 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 impervious to sin after forty days in the outback as he was during the first 30 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.
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.
â—� Jas 1:13 . . For with evil things God cannot be tried.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]FAIL SAFE
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. 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.
â—� 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.
That translation makes it look as though one born of God 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 Kingdom Interlinear reads like this:
"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been generated."
There's more:
â—� Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
What we're looking at isn't nondescript divine quality; rather, the divine quality; viz: we're looking at the quality of 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 quality of God's divinity.
Q: If it was impossible for Christ to sin; 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 proves 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 impervious to sin after forty days in the outback as he was during the first 30 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.
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.
â—� Jas 1:13 . . For with evil things God cannot be tried.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #26.
[font=Verdana]THOMAS' GOD(S)
â—� John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
"God" 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 all 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 clearly 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.
"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." (Ex 20:1-30
"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.
â—� Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by doing them.
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 Christ and was one of his close personal friends.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THOMAS' GOD(S)
â—� John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
"God" 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 all 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 clearly 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.
"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." (Ex 20:1-30
"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.
â—� Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by doing them.
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 Christ and was one of his close personal friends.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #27.
[font=Verdana]CHRIST'S GOD
â—� 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".
For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of the true God as a species; viz: if indeed a true God were to beget a child, He would beget a child of like species; i.e. a true God would beget a true divine being like Himself because that's the only kind of offspring that a 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.
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)
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 unless we 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.
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society calls Jesus "the only-begotten son from a Father" and also "the only-begotten god". Well, don't let that mislead you. The Society dare not accept Christ's status as God's literal offspring because the ramifications would force them to revise their theology.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]CHRIST'S GOD
â—� 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".
For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of the true God as a species; viz: if indeed a true God were to beget a child, He would beget a child of like species; i.e. a true God would beget a true divine being like Himself because that's the only kind of offspring that a 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.
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)
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 unless we 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.
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society calls Jesus "the only-begotten son from a Father" and also "the only-begotten god". Well, don't let that mislead you. The Society dare not accept Christ's status as God's literal offspring because the ramifications would force them to revise their theology.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #28.
[font=Verdana]OF MICE AND MEN
â—� Luke 12:16-20 . . He spoke an illustration to them, saying: The land of a certain rich man produced well. Consequently he began reasoning within himself, saying, "What shall I do, now that I have nowhere to gather my crops?"
. . . So he said, "I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my good things; and I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many good things laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, enjoy yourself."
. . . But God said to him, "Unreasonable one; this night they are demanding your soul from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?"
I suppose there's any number of ways to interpret that illustration; but I am impressed by the fact that man's plan failed to take into account the fragility of life.
â—� 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 his thoughts do perish.
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" is ambiguous 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, aspirations, deliberations, and the like.
For the rich man in Jesus' illustration; 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 nor do their cognitive processes stop working; no, Ps 146:4 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.
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 out 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.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]OF MICE AND MEN
â—� Luke 12:16-20 . . He spoke an illustration to them, saying: The land of a certain rich man produced well. Consequently he began reasoning within himself, saying, "What shall I do, now that I have nowhere to gather my crops?"
. . . So he said, "I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my good things; and I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many good things laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, enjoy yourself."
. . . But God said to him, "Unreasonable one; this night they are demanding your soul from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?"
I suppose there's any number of ways to interpret that illustration; but I am impressed by the fact that man's plan failed to take into account the fragility of life.
â—� 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 his thoughts do perish.
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" is ambiguous 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, aspirations, deliberations, and the like.
For the rich man in Jesus' illustration; 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 nor do their cognitive processes stop working; no, Ps 146:4 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.
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 out 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.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #29.
[font=Verdana]THE PARAKLETOS
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
John Q and Jane Doe non-anointed Watchtower Society missionaries are taught to believe that God's spirit is alongside assisting them to identify, and to understand, the correct interpretations of the Bible. However, the Society's missionaries are also taught that only a special guild of 144,000 anointed Jehovah's Witnesses actually have the spirit "inside" them rather than only alongside and that is very serious. Here's why:
â—� Rom 8:9 . .You are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's spirit truly dwells in you.
Seeing as how God's spirit does not truly dwell in John Q and Jane Doe missionary, then they are, by default, in harmony with the flesh. That only makes things worse.
â—� 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.
The non-anointed situation is just too ironic for words: John Q and Jane Doe missionaries displease God, and He displeases them; yet they go door-to-door sincerely believing themselves Jehovah's friends and allies.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE PARAKLETOS
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
John Q and Jane Doe non-anointed Watchtower Society missionaries are taught to believe that God's spirit is alongside assisting them to identify, and to understand, the correct interpretations of the Bible. However, the Society's missionaries are also taught that only a special guild of 144,000 anointed Jehovah's Witnesses actually have the spirit "inside" them rather than only alongside and that is very serious. Here's why:
â—� Rom 8:9 . .You are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's spirit truly dwells in you.
Seeing as how God's spirit does not truly dwell in John Q and Jane Doe missionary, then they are, by default, in harmony with the flesh. That only makes things worse.
â—� 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.
The non-anointed situation is just too ironic for words: John Q and Jane Doe missionaries displease God, and He displeases them; yet they go door-to-door sincerely believing themselves Jehovah's friends and allies.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #30.
[font=Verdana]THE ANOINTING
â—� 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.
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 Witnesses who have the anointing though because when anointed Witnesses die, their passing doesn't create vacancies; viz: 144,000 is the maximum unless an anointed JW either apostatizes or is ousted via the process of disfellowship.
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 Witnesses were alive today, that would leave 8,056,000 JWs 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 Witnesses 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".
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE ANOINTING
â—� 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.
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 Witnesses who have the anointing though because when anointed Witnesses die, their passing doesn't create vacancies; viz: 144,000 is the maximum unless an anointed JW either apostatizes or is ousted via the process of disfellowship.
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 Witnesses were alive today, that would leave 8,056,000 JWs 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 Witnesses 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".
_[/font]
