.
[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 #31.
[font=Verdana]MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween, serve in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.
Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of Romans so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.
Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages below.
â—� Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-- its blood --you must not eat.
â—� Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.
â—� Lev 17:10-As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.
â—� Acts 15:19-20 . . Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain . . from blood.
The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all the same as using it for food.
Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its interpretation of those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is not to win a debate; only to offer a second opinion.
The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath violators. (Ex 31:14-15)
Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number of occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that human life, safety, and welfare trump strict observance of religious law.
One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon showing a man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge landslide boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family, and the family dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the legalist calmly points out that he can't move the car until the light turns green.
Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating circumstances, which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the seriousness or extent of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.
Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill to crush the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an acceptable excuse to go before the light turns green. In those kinds of cases, human life, safety, and welfare trump strict conformity to the law.
Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order to save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the sin of lying? No, on the contrary; He overlooked their dishonesty and instead rewarded the midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact, their actions were adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)
Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions with a JW from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the utmost in civility because this is an emotional issue. Should your JW audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake, they will be overwhelmed with guilt, disappointment, and humiliation; not to mention fear of the organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to question the Society's stance on blood transfusions.
� Col 3:12 . . Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved: clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, and mildness.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween, serve in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.
Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of Romans so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.
Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages below.
â—� Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-- its blood --you must not eat.
â—� Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.
â—� Lev 17:10-As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.
â—� Acts 15:19-20 . . Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain . . from blood.
The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all the same as using it for food.
Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its interpretation of those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is not to win a debate; only to offer a second opinion.
The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath violators. (Ex 31:14-15)
Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number of occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that human life, safety, and welfare trump strict observance of religious law.
One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon showing a man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge landslide boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family, and the family dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the legalist calmly points out that he can't move the car until the light turns green.
Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating circumstances, which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the seriousness or extent of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.
Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill to crush the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an acceptable excuse to go before the light turns green. In those kinds of cases, human life, safety, and welfare trump strict conformity to the law.
Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order to save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the sin of lying? No, on the contrary; He overlooked their dishonesty and instead rewarded the midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact, their actions were adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)
Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions with a JW from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the utmost in civility because this is an emotional issue. Should your JW audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake, they will be overwhelmed with guilt, disappointment, and humiliation; not to mention fear of the organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to question the Society's stance on blood transfusions.
� Col 3:12 . . Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved: clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, and mildness.
_[/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 #32.
[font=Verdana]RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
â—� 1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.
The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the fifteenth chapter calls "the dead" a physical body.
According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing a corpse with the breath of life in order to bring someone back into existence. No, because if a corpse were re-energized with the breath of life, it would be barred from the kingdom of God.
� 1Cor 15:50 . . This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom,
But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53) which would be quite useless were they to be thrown away. On the contrary; the seeds have to be kept on hand so they can undergo a transformation suitable for the kingdom together with the bodies of those who are alive at the time of the Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)
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: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return to the dust from whence they're made. (Gen 3:19).
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.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
â—� 1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.
The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the fifteenth chapter calls "the dead" a physical body.
According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing a corpse with the breath of life in order to bring someone back into existence. No, because if a corpse were re-energized with the breath of life, it would be barred from the kingdom of God.
� 1Cor 15:50 . . This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom,
But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53) which would be quite useless were they to be thrown away. On the contrary; the seeds have to be kept on hand so they can undergo a transformation suitable for the kingdom together with the bodies of those who are alive at the time of the Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)
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: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return to the dust from whence they're made. (Gen 3:19).
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.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #33
.
[font=Verdana]THE ELITE 144,000
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 alleges 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 allegation 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 at Gen 49:2-28, and as a tribe at Ezek 48:31-34. So that portion of the Society's reasoning is clearly a false premise.
The Society's allegation 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 allegation 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 along with Joseph at Gen 49:2-28. Levi is also listed as a tribe at 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, clever sophistry, and semantic double-speak.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: According to Rev 14:1-4, the 144,000 are supposed to be all male, and none have ever slept with a woman. That, if true, would of course disqualify married Witnesses.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE ELITE 144,000
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 alleges 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 allegation 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 at Gen 49:2-28, and as a tribe at Ezek 48:31-34. So that portion of the Society's reasoning is clearly a false premise.
The Society's allegation 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 allegation 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 along with Joseph at Gen 49:2-28. Levi is also listed as a tribe at 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, clever sophistry, and semantic double-speak.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: According to Rev 14:1-4, the 144,000 are supposed to be all male, and none have ever slept with a woman. That, if true, would of course disqualify married Witnesses.
_[/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 #34.
[font=Verdana]UNDESERVED KINDNESS
â—� John 1:14 . . So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
The ancient Greek word from which "undeserved kindness" is derived is charitos; which itself is derived from charis.
"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of the word charis; it's the Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they think that word ought to mean. It's literal meaning is graciousness.
John Q and Jane Doe Witness are being deprived of viewing some very pleasant aspects of the only-begotten son's personality by interpreting charis to mean undeserved kindness because graciousness says some wonderful things about not only the flesh that the Word became; but also about the Father from whom the Word came.
To begin with; Webster's defines "graciousness" as; kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness
Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals
Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality
Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others
Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving
Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.
Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.
Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.
Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation committee had the decency to let charis speak for itself instead of butting in to tell people what they think it ought to mean.
"Keep on teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs with graciousness" (Col 3:16)
"Let your utterance be always with graciousness." (Col 4:6)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The claim that the only begotten son is somehow undeserving of kindness is of course 110% false. Worthiness is in every fiber of Christ's being. (Dan 7:13-14, Phil 2:8-11, Rev 5:1-14, Rev 19:11)
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]UNDESERVED KINDNESS
â—� John 1:14 . . So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
The ancient Greek word from which "undeserved kindness" is derived is charitos; which itself is derived from charis.
"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of the word charis; it's the Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they think that word ought to mean. It's literal meaning is graciousness.
John Q and Jane Doe Witness are being deprived of viewing some very pleasant aspects of the only-begotten son's personality by interpreting charis to mean undeserved kindness because graciousness says some wonderful things about not only the flesh that the Word became; but also about the Father from whom the Word came.
To begin with; Webster's defines "graciousness" as; kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness
Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals
Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality
Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others
Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving
Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.
Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.
Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.
Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation committee had the decency to let charis speak for itself instead of butting in to tell people what they think it ought to mean.
"Keep on teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs with graciousness" (Col 3:16)
"Let your utterance be always with graciousness." (Col 4:6)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The claim that the only begotten son is somehow undeserving of kindness is of course 110% false. Worthiness is in every fiber of Christ's being. (Dan 7:13-14, Phil 2:8-11, Rev 5:1-14, Rev 19:11)
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
THE RENDEZVOUS WITH CHRIST
Post #35.
[font=Verdana]THE RENDEZVOUS WITH CHRIST
â—� 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a point.
"with the archangel's voice"
No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says "an" archangel's voice; so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to the archangel Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 when, in point of fact, according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one archangel.
Archangels are very high ranking, but there is another personage even higher in rank than they spoken of in Josh 5:13-15; a being whose rank is described as captain of Jehovah's forces; and in the captain's presence, Joshua was required to remove his shoes; same as Moses at the burning bush. (Ex 3:1-5)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the Lord himself spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17 will be a human being rather than an angel being.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE RENDEZVOUS WITH CHRIST
â—� 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a point.
"with the archangel's voice"
No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says "an" archangel's voice; so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to the archangel Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 when, in point of fact, according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one archangel.
Archangels are very high ranking, but there is another personage even higher in rank than they spoken of in Josh 5:13-15; a being whose rank is described as captain of Jehovah's forces; and in the captain's presence, Joshua was required to remove his shoes; same as Moses at the burning bush. (Ex 3:1-5)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the Lord himself spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17 will be a human being rather than an angel being.
_[/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 #36.
[font=Verdana]SOLOMON vs JESUS
â—� 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is inspired of God
Followers of Islam claim that the entirety of the Koran was given to Muhammad word for word via voice dictation; but Christians dare not make the same claim for the Old Testament, viz: though it's all inspired, it was not all given word for word via voice dictation.
Bible students are often baffled as to why Solomon's remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes sometimes contradict Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Well; the answer to that is actually pretty simple.
Solomon wasn't inspired to record his observations from the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the scope of empirical evidence and human experience; rather, from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: a down to earth thinking man whose perception of reality is moderated by what he can see for himself going on around him in the physical universe; which of course results in an evaluation of life on earth as seen from the earth rather than an evaluation of life on earth as seen from heaven.
In other words: Ecclesiastes is one man's world view-- his personal philosophy of life --rather than a book of either history, revelation, or prophecy; and it's loaded 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 advertisement some years ago. It's worldly wisdom thru and thru rather than heavenly. Compare it to a couple of Solomon's remarks:
â—� Ecc 9:5 . . The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all
â—� 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.
That wisdom is Schlitz beer wisdom thru and thru.
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.
â—� 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.
In other words; Jesus' wisdom trumps Solomon's.
â—� John 1:1-3 . . In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
â—� Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.
And Jesus comes highly recommended too.
â—� Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.
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: go with "my Son".
â—� 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.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]SOLOMON vs JESUS
â—� 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is inspired of God
Followers of Islam claim that the entirety of the Koran was given to Muhammad word for word via voice dictation; but Christians dare not make the same claim for the Old Testament, viz: though it's all inspired, it was not all given word for word via voice dictation.
Bible students are often baffled as to why Solomon's remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes sometimes contradict Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Well; the answer to that is actually pretty simple.
Solomon wasn't inspired to record his observations from the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the scope of empirical evidence and human experience; rather, from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: a down to earth thinking man whose perception of reality is moderated by what he can see for himself going on around him in the physical universe; which of course results in an evaluation of life on earth as seen from the earth rather than an evaluation of life on earth as seen from heaven.
In other words: Ecclesiastes is one man's world view-- his personal philosophy of life --rather than a book of either history, revelation, or prophecy; and it's loaded 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 advertisement some years ago. It's worldly wisdom thru and thru rather than heavenly. Compare it to a couple of Solomon's remarks:
â—� Ecc 9:5 . . The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all
â—� 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.
That wisdom is Schlitz beer wisdom thru and thru.
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.
â—� 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.
In other words; Jesus' wisdom trumps Solomon's.
â—� John 1:1-3 . . In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
â—� Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.
And Jesus comes highly recommended too.
â—� Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.
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: go with "my Son".
â—� 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.
_[/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 #37.
[font=Verdana]CHRIST'S PARABLES
Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.
Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are not only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.
For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and the autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the other is far removed from normal reality.
I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- banquets, stewards, weddings, farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.
Now; if Christ had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy; but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life man; the father of the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God (Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's buddies.
And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.
There is something else to consider.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No, it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro-managed.
â—� John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words
â—� John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.
â—� John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me.
â—� John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
â—� John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.
So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory slanders God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.
God's impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based upon real life.
In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to where they are and there is no way to warn them; similar to the survivors of the Titanic watching their loved ones go to Davy Jones while utterly helpless to do anything about it.
People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought up their children in a religion whose pot at the end of the rainbow is filled with molten sulfur instead of gold. How do people bear up under something like that on their conscience?
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]CHRIST'S PARABLES
Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.
Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are not only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.
For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and the autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the other is far removed from normal reality.
I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- banquets, stewards, weddings, farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.
Now; if Christ had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy; but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life man; the father of the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God (Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's buddies.
And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.
There is something else to consider.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No, it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro-managed.
â—� John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words
â—� John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.
â—� John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me.
â—� John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
â—� John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.
So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory slanders God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.
God's impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based upon real life.
In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to where they are and there is no way to warn them; similar to the survivors of the Titanic watching their loved ones go to Davy Jones while utterly helpless to do anything about it.
People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought up their children in a religion whose pot at the end of the rainbow is filled with molten sulfur instead of gold. How do people bear up under something like that on their conscience?
_[/font]
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
Post #38Thanks for posting this. I haven't had a chance to read through all of these posts, but so far it is quite enlightening and entertaining.WebersHome wrote: .
[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]
I can also remember JW's coming to our home as a small child. Ironically, they became an integral factor in my decision to even begin to search through the bible.
A few years ago a few knocked on my door and I reluctantly relented in inviting them back the following week to "share a message". There was so much going on in these little visits, that i decided to surreptitiously film them. This went on for over a year or so, and I didn't think much about it after they gave up, and stopped visiting me until I rediscoverd these clips and started looking them over after I disconnected my internet service.
What I discovered was that I can see so much more of what's going on as someone who is not directly engaged in these discussions. It is quite eye opening.
-
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 #39.
[font=Verdana]THE BREATH OF LIFE
Human existence is thought by some to be entirely organic. It's not. There's a non-organic element to human existence called the breath of life.
â—� Gen 2:7a . . And Jehovah God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to humanity like women give birth to children, or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny --humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
â—� Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or rubbish.
â—� Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life
The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire) burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4) to animate.
Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the order to start their engines-- they light 'em up, so to speak: for example:
"What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:3-4)
The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff. Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul, spirit, blast, and inspiration.
What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the regular kind because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried.
However, there's evidence in the Bible, starting in Genesis, indicating that it's possible to pump life into a corpse: in point of fact into anything, even stones (Matt 3:9, Luke 19:40).
â—� Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its first appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.
Creatures within whom is the breath of life are perishable (e.g. Gen 7:21-22) but I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible clearly stating that the breath of life itself is perishable. In point of fact, I think it is very easy to prove that the human creature's breath of life is not only a permanent feature of their existence; but also prevents them from going out of existence.
For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 passed away, they all left the organic portion of their existence behind-- viz: their bodies --yet on the other side they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.
I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus, and the rich man is still the rich man; and that has to be because they retained their breath of life when they crossed over to the other side.
For example; in Watchtower theology, Michael the arch angel had to die in order to become a human being. Now, the amazing part of the story is that Michael didn't go completely out of existence when he died.
"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)
So, if it's possible for God to transfer the life force of a deceased spirit being into a living human body in order to preserve the spirit being's continuity of life, then I see no reason to question whether God can do the very same thing in reverse; viz: transfer the life force of a deceased human being into a living spirit body; thus preserving the human being's continuity of life.
â—� Heb 12:22-23 . . But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect,
The words "spiritual lives" are a construed interpretation of the Greek word pneúmasi which actually means spirits rather than spiritual lives; and is so translated in something like 32 verses in regular Bibles, including, but not limited to, the spirits in prison. (1Pet 3:19)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The Watchtower Society's Bible contains quite a few places where Greek words are construed rather than translated. For example Rev 16:13-14 where pneúmasi is said to be "inspired expressions" instead of spirits.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]THE BREATH OF LIFE
Human existence is thought by some to be entirely organic. It's not. There's a non-organic element to human existence called the breath of life.
â—� Gen 2:7a . . And Jehovah God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to humanity like women give birth to children, or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny --humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
â—� Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or rubbish.
â—� Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life
The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire) burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4) to animate.
Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the order to start their engines-- they light 'em up, so to speak: for example:
"What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:3-4)
The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff. Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul, spirit, blast, and inspiration.
What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the regular kind because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive like that; it's been tried.
However, there's evidence in the Bible, starting in Genesis, indicating that it's possible to pump life into a corpse: in point of fact into anything, even stones (Matt 3:9, Luke 19:40).
â—� Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its first appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.
Creatures within whom is the breath of life are perishable (e.g. Gen 7:21-22) but I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible clearly stating that the breath of life itself is perishable. In point of fact, I think it is very easy to prove that the human creature's breath of life is not only a permanent feature of their existence; but also prevents them from going out of existence.
For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 passed away, they all left the organic portion of their existence behind-- viz: their bodies --yet on the other side they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.
I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus, and the rich man is still the rich man; and that has to be because they retained their breath of life when they crossed over to the other side.
For example; in Watchtower theology, Michael the arch angel had to die in order to become a human being. Now, the amazing part of the story is that Michael didn't go completely out of existence when he died.
"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)
So, if it's possible for God to transfer the life force of a deceased spirit being into a living human body in order to preserve the spirit being's continuity of life, then I see no reason to question whether God can do the very same thing in reverse; viz: transfer the life force of a deceased human being into a living spirit body; thus preserving the human being's continuity of life.
â—� Heb 12:22-23 . . But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect,
The words "spiritual lives" are a construed interpretation of the Greek word pneúmasi which actually means spirits rather than spiritual lives; and is so translated in something like 32 verses in regular Bibles, including, but not limited to, the spirits in prison. (1Pet 3:19)[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The Watchtower Society's Bible contains quite a few places where Greek words are construed rather than translated. For example Rev 16:13-14 where pneúmasi is said to be "inspired expressions" instead of spirits.
_[/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 #40.
[font=Verdana]MISSIONARIES AT THE DOOR
Should it be decided to go head to head with Watchtower Society missionaries, here's some useful tips passed on by Pete, the ex Jehovah's Witness mentioned at the first.
1• Round up a copy of the Watchtower Society's New World Translation of the Bible, and its Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Sometimes these are available in thrift stores like Good Will and Salvation Army. Both are available online from amazon dot com.
For some useful insights into a variety of Jehovah's Witness teachings, the little brown book titled Reasoning From The Scriptures is a must-have. It's available online too. Be sure to get the Watchtower Society's version instead of another book by the same name authored by a different agency.
2• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever assume they are your friends because first and foremost their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the Watchtower Society. You can be courteous and you can be civil, but it's highly recommended that you not let them into your life.
3• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and discuss it with you; thus taking control of both your thinking and the meeting.
4• Don't let them get too far into their spiel, but at the first opportunity begin introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the conversation.
5• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product, nor a recruiter, nor a candidate running for an elected office: you're not on a quota, you're not out to win anything, nor are you required to win-- you're a herald; viz: a messenger. Your information is best presented as a second opinion for them to think about; and that's all. No hammering and no pressuring.
The goal is to show missionaries that the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo ipso the right interpretations just because the Governing Body says so.
6• Avoid getting embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas, Christmas trees, the design and construction of the wooden device upon which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.
The No.1 issue on their minds when they come to your door will likely be Jehovah's kingdom, in particular, the portion of His kingdom to be on Earth.
7• Make them listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking. If they start digging through their bags, shuffling papers, tinkering with their tablets, or looking up a reference; call them on it because there is no use in your speaking when their minds are elsewhere occupied.
8• Do not permit them to interrupt you and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly, insist that they hold their peace until you've said your piece.
9• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.
10• Do not react and/or respond to ad hominems, which can be defined as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
11• These people undergo hour upon hour of training to refute standard Christian doctrines, so it's very important to show them the Bible not only in ways they've already seen, but also in ways they've never imagined.
It is my personal opinion that it's not a good idea to attempt to evangelize a Watchtower missionary as I can just about guarantee that most experienced JWs are better at evangelizing you than you are them. If you think that your own gospel message is some sort of silver bullet; you'll find out right quick that their silver bullets are bigger than yours.
_[/font]
[font=Verdana]MISSIONARIES AT THE DOOR
Should it be decided to go head to head with Watchtower Society missionaries, here's some useful tips passed on by Pete, the ex Jehovah's Witness mentioned at the first.
1• Round up a copy of the Watchtower Society's New World Translation of the Bible, and its Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Sometimes these are available in thrift stores like Good Will and Salvation Army. Both are available online from amazon dot com.
For some useful insights into a variety of Jehovah's Witness teachings, the little brown book titled Reasoning From The Scriptures is a must-have. It's available online too. Be sure to get the Watchtower Society's version instead of another book by the same name authored by a different agency.
2• Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever assume they are your friends because first and foremost their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the Watchtower Society. You can be courteous and you can be civil, but it's highly recommended that you not let them into your life.
3• Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and discuss it with you; thus taking control of both your thinking and the meeting.
4• Don't let them get too far into their spiel, but at the first opportunity begin introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the conversation.
5• Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product, nor a recruiter, nor a candidate running for an elected office: you're not on a quota, you're not out to win anything, nor are you required to win-- you're a herald; viz: a messenger. Your information is best presented as a second opinion for them to think about; and that's all. No hammering and no pressuring.
The goal is to show missionaries that the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo ipso the right interpretations just because the Governing Body says so.
6• Avoid getting embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas, Christmas trees, the design and construction of the wooden device upon which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.
The No.1 issue on their minds when they come to your door will likely be Jehovah's kingdom, in particular, the portion of His kingdom to be on Earth.
7• Make them listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking. If they start digging through their bags, shuffling papers, tinkering with their tablets, or looking up a reference; call them on it because there is no use in your speaking when their minds are elsewhere occupied.
8• Do not permit them to interrupt you and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly, insist that they hold their peace until you've said your piece.
9• Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.
10• Do not react and/or respond to ad hominems, which can be defined as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
11• These people undergo hour upon hour of training to refute standard Christian doctrines, so it's very important to show them the Bible not only in ways they've already seen, but also in ways they've never imagined.
It is my personal opinion that it's not a good idea to attempt to evangelize a Watchtower missionary as I can just about guarantee that most experienced JWs are better at evangelizing you than you are them. If you think that your own gospel message is some sort of silver bullet; you'll find out right quick that their silver bullets are bigger than yours.
_[/font]
