Watchtower Missionaries

[Adziilii]

THE NAME OF JEHOVAH AS AN HONORARY TITLE

A common New Testament Greek word for "worship" basically means to do obeisance; defined by Webster's as a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission; i.e. to bow and/or prostrate one's self.

The difference between good worship and bad worship depends upon the object. For example the wise men worshipped young Jesus. (Matt 2:2b, Matt 2:11)

That was a good kind of worship because they were paying their respects to someone they believed to be a human potentate rather than to someone they believed to be a human deity. (Matt 2:2a)

However, the worship of human deities isn't always a bad thing; for example:

“I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

That was spoken to political deities whom Peter says Christians are supposed to treat with utmost respect (1Pet 2:13-17). So then, doing obeisance to political deities is a good thing.

There are numerous incidents recorded in the gospels where people did obeisance to Jesus; but it was harmless because most folks-- in fact just about everybody --believed him to only be another of Israel's long line of prophets rather than a divine being. Well; that underwent a radical change with his resurrection.

Prior to his material existence as a human being, Jesus existed as a spirit being who went by the name of "The Word" (a.k.a. Michael the arch angel). In that capacity, he was a divine being. (John 1:1)

According to Watchtower teachings; Jesus' material existence as a human being did not recover from crucifixion. It stayed dead so that The Word could regain its spirit existence because in Watchtower theology, it is impossible for someone to exist as a material being and a spirit being simultaneously.

So then, when people to obeisance to Jesus in his resurrected form, they are no longer paying their respects to a prophet like they did before because according to Philip 2:9-11, he's been elevated to the existence of a divine being authorized to use Jehovah's name as its own name; which can be a bit confusing because when people speak of Jehovah now-- without clarification --we can't be sure which Jehovah they mean: the original Jehovah or the honorary Jehovah; a.k.a. Michael the arch angel.

This is sort of a catch-22 for JWs because the very first of the Ten Commandments forbids obeisance to any other divine being but the original Jehovah; yet Philip 2:9-11 requires it. In point of fact, failure to do obeisance to Michael the arch angel as Jehovah dishonors God.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega" says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)

That right there would be Michael the arch angel speaking for himself as Jehovah if the Society's theology is correct.

"I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever." (Rev 1:17-18)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
CONNECTING WITH GOD THRU A HIGH PRIEST

● Ps 110:4 . . Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek

Melchizedek's only appearance in the Bible occurs at Gen 14:18-20. The letter to Hebrews in the New Testament utilizes him as a "type" of Christ's celestial priesthood.

The author of the letter to Hebrews was reluctant to discuss Melchizedek's office, and how Christ's current high priest position relates to it, because the recipients of the letter were so spiritually immature, and so disinterested in Bible study, that he feared his comments would result in a ping. In other words: a discussion of Melchizedek and how he relates to Jesus Christ isn't everybody's cup of tea so I won't bother going into detail.

However; at least one of the salient features of Mel's priesthood should be readily obvious to everybody regardless of their spiritual acumen: Mel was a human being; just as all of God's high priests have always been human beings-- no exceptions. In point of fact, the letter to Hebrews clearly states that high priests are taken from among men (Heb 5:1). So that becomes the #1 qualification for a Melchizedekian priest right out of the box and instantly disqualifies angels.

Mel's jurisdiction was on the earth. But that was before Israel's covenanted law established Aaron's priesthood. So when that happened; Mel's post was temporarily suspended; and in point of fact, if Christ were on earth, he would not be a priest because this is Aaron's domain.

However, though Mel's post was moved to heaven's temple, there were no changes made to the nature of the person who holds the office. In other words; a priest according to the manner of Melchizedek is a human being no matter where he is. And since Ps 110:4 made Jesus Christ a priest to time indefinite, then he will remain a human being to time indefinite; and in order to be a human being, the Society says he has to have a human body because in their theology; human existence is entirely physical.

● 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.

The words for "men" and "man" in that verse are derived from anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) --a common koiné Greek word for human beings in the New Testament; which is why that passage doesn't say there is one mediator between God and men, an angel, Christ Michael. No it doesn't say an angel, Christ Michael; no, it says a man, Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a human being rather than an angel by the same name.

A search of the entire New Testament for the angel Michael turns up but two references: Jude 1:9 and Rev 12:7. That angel is nowhere in the gospels, nowhere in Acts, and nowhere in the epistles other than Jude. If that angel is so all-fired important; then why is it so marginalized? Even the Society itself is a bit perplexed as to why the name of an angel so highly revered in their theology is nigh unto absent in the New Testament.

The Society claims that the names Jesus and Michael are interchangeable; but that's the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges on record; not to mention a very serious case of identity fraud. Even if an angel had once existed as a human being named Jesus; it no longer does. Now it exists as an angel being named Michael. The two names aren't interchangeable because the one name denotes a human being and the other name denotes a spirit being. Go ahead; search the New Testament and see how much luck you have finding somebody's name hyphenated like this: Jesus-Michael Christ. You won't because the Society's theology is an utter fantasy.

Oh what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.
-- Sir Walter Scott --

That poem rings so true. Once Charles T. Russell and/or Joseph F. Rutherford declared that Michael the angel, and Jesus Christ the human, are the same person; they were faced with the Herculean task of forcing the Bible to agree; and that was quite a challenge; which was accomplished by means of clever amalgams of fiction, sophistry, half-truths, semantic double speak, and humanistic reasoning.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
PASSPORT TO GOD'S KINGDOM ON EARTH

It's both tragic and ironic that the Watchtower Society's rank and file missionaries go worldwide advertising a kingdom that they themselves will never be allowed to enter. Here's why.

At John 3:3-12, Christ and a Jewish rabbi named Nicodemus discussed what Christ labeled "earthly things".

The primary earthly thing discussed was the kingdom of God. The other earthly thing discussed was a spirit-birth requirement to enter it. In other words: God's kingdom on earth, and a spirit birth, are joined at the hip.

The Watchtower Society's earthly class (a.k.a. the hewers of wood and haulers of water; viz: non-anointed JWs) isn't spirit-born now, nor does it ever expect to be-- not in this life, nor in the next --yet they hope to enter God's kingdom on earth. However, seeing as how the spirit-birth requirement is a must rather than an option; they will not succeed.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
MIGHTY ONES

The Watchtower Society's theology is a based on a version called monolatrism, which basically alleges that all gods are actual deities; though not all deities are deemed worthy of worship. This is not quite the same as polytheism where numerous gods are all considered worthy of worship.

Monolatrism is distinguished from monotheism (asserts the existence of only one god) and distinguished from henotheism (a religious system in which the believer worships one god alone without denying that others may worship different gods of equal value)

While classical Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods; the Watchtower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones". The mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying personages exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the Ten Commandments. For example:

"I myself have said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)

The gods referred to in that passage are humans in positions of judicial authority; which everybody should know are only imitation deities rather than the genuine article; so in order to avoid stigmatizing humans as fake gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

This gets kind of humorous when we plug "mighty one" into various locations. For example:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a mighty one." (John 1:1)

And another:

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

The "mighty one" category was an invention of necessity. In other words: without it, the Society would be forced to classify the only-begotten (John 1:18) and the Word (John 1:1) as a false god seeing as how Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 testify that there is only one true god.

OBJECTION: Jesus verified the authenticity of Ps 82:6 in a discussion recorded at John 10:34-36. If the word of God cannot be nullified, then those gods have to be real gods.

RESPONSE: They're real alright, no doubt about it; however: true gods are immortal; they're impervious to death. The gods in Psalm 82 are not impervious to death. In other words: they're real gods but they are not true gods because according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 there is only one true god. If the gods of Psalm 82 were true gods, then Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 would be invalidated.

So then, what does all this say about God's son? Well; if God's son is only a mighty one, as the Watchtower Society alleges; then he's a fake god and his deity is no more divine than a totem pole or a statue of Shiva.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
SPIRIT BODY VS SPIRITUAL BODY

● 1Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.

Watch as I misquote that passage because the difference, though subtle. Is significant.

"It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spirit body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spirit one."

No; it doesn't say spirit body but nevertheless that's what some people have decided it ought to say.

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily refer to the characteristics of a body with the consistency of thin air. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the bodily chemistry of an angel or a demon.

Spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual counselors (Gal 6:1)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

I'm inclined to believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no way composed of a gaseous substance. Of what material it is composed I don't know; but I do know at least four things about it.

1• The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's glorified body.

● Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

2• The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

● Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

3• The spiritual body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

● Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

4• The spiritual body is capable of being seen by the naked eye.

● Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

● Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
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.

● John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

● John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

● John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me.

● 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.

● 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; which brings to mind 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 to walk in mom and dad's ideological footsteps. How do people in hell bear up under something like that on their conscience?
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
THE LIVING GOD(S)

● Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god

The Hebrew word for "living" in that passage is chay (khah'-ee) which first appears in the Bible at Gen 1:20 where it speaks of aqua life and winged life. Then it appears at Gen 1:24 where it speaks of life on land. It appears again at Gen 2:7 where it speaks of human life.

Vegetation is never spoken of as chay. So I think we can limit the kind of life spoken of by chay as conscious life; viz: sentient existence.

Jehovah is called the living god something like fifteen times in the Old Testament, and fifteen more times in the New Testament.

I'm unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible identified as living gods; not even the gods of Psalm 82 to whom God said "You are gods".

Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god. In other words: labeling Jehovah as the living god is a way of saying He is the only god that's actually eternal, i.e. always was, always is, and always shall be. This has some serious ramifications.

Speaking of Christ:

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

The Greek word for "divine quality" is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which means: divinity

Seeing as how theotes is modified by the Greek definite article "ho" then what we're looking at here in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity, but rather the divinity. In other words: we're looking at the fullness of the divinity of the living god.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken of at John 1:1 is a god. However: the Word isn't just any god; no, the fullness of the divinity of the living god dwells in the Word; viz: the Word is a living god, i.e. the life that's in the Word always was, always is, and always shall be.

"For just as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted also to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:26, New World Translation)

When the Father granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life in Himself, things got a bit complicated because unless Jehovah and the Word are different names for the same personage; there is now one too many living gods out there.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
HO THEÓS

Q: Why does the Watchtower Society refer to the Word in John 1:1 as a god in lower case rather than a god in upper case?

A: The Watchtower Society's doctrine is based upon a grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's modified by the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós with an upper case G. But when the article is absent, they translate theós with a lower case g. In other words: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true God, while theós by itself pertains to nondescript gods; unless the context dictates otherwise.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not essential to speech.

In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, "ho" can be either used, or not used, without making any real difference. Bottom line? A translator's choice whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary. So an alternate translation of John 1:1 could look like this:

"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word."

But no matter whether the Word is an upper case god or a lower case god, he is still a god; which presents a bit of a problem for the Watchtower Society.

There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false. There is no middle ground. Now according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3 and 1Cor 8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be false gods; which Webster's defines as not real or genuine; viz: imitations.

For example: back in the 1950s and 1960s, women's breast enhancements were known as falsies. In other words: the enhancements were breasts; just not real breasts; viz: not true; they were imitations.

So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he is, by default, another of the Bible's many falsies.

The Watchtower Society has resolved this dilemma for itself by inventing an intermediate category of gods sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones".

By placing the Word in the mighty-one category, the Society's version of the Word can be an actual god without being either a true god or a false god. But of course it doesn't take a Th.D. degree in English to see right off how that kind of thinking amounts to little more than clever sophistry combined with humanistic reasoning and semantic double speak.

Q: Well then; why don't they translate John 1:1 like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a mighty one."

A: They can't translate it that way because in order to do so they would have to adulterate the Greek. So instead of translating theόs as a mighty one; they teach it that way. In other words: they spin it; which can be defined as twisting something around to favor a particular point of view.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
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.

● 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.

● 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.

● 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.

● 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 eating blood.

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 post 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 fearing the organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to question the Society's stance on blood transfusions.

So please; don't rub it in. Most, if not all, the JWs you'll encounter are sincere. Mocking their errors is, in my opinion, an act of cruelty that only an insensitive clod would even think of.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
FAIL SAFE

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 heritage made it impossible for him to sin.

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

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 says that one born of God is not able to sin.

● 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; but rather at "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; but 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 Witness' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a better response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as impossible for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically sinless nature of God's reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that the source of that seed would be unable to sin too.

● Jas 1:13 . . For with evil things God cannot be tried.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
UNDESERVED KINDNESS

● 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 actually 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)

BTW: The claim that kindness and/or anything else that's in the only begotten son is "undeserved" is of course 110% false.

● Phil 2:8-11 . . When he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.

. . . For this very reason also 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 why Christ is superior to David? (Matt 22:41-45)

A: Yes.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
THOMAS' GOD(S)

● 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 door-to-door missionaries to explain to me why the Society translated theós with an upper case G in Thomas' statement seeing as how in Watchtower Society theology; only Jehovah should be referred to with capital letters. 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 an upper case G because it is their practice that whenever theós is modified by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is required.

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

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

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

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

● 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 Witnesses 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.
_

 

[Christ4Ever]

@Adziilii
Awesome post #32 !

 

[Adziilii]

.
GHOST RIDERS IN THE SKY

● 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)

NOTE: 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 an h.sapiens rather than a spirit being.
_

 

[bibleguy]

.
For a home-spun religion whose origin is relatively recent, the Watchtower Society has done pretty well for itself. Beginning with one man shortly after the American Civil War, it currently numbers approximately 8.2 million followers spread out in approximately 118,000 congregations worldwide.

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 Witness who had been in the Watchtower Society system for near three decades and was an area manager before terminating his association with the Society; so he knew the twists and turns of its doctrines pretty good.

Pete didn't train us to hammer the Society's missionaries in a discussion because even if you rebuttal them scripture for scripture, they will not give up on the Society. Their mind's unflinching premise is that the Society is right even when it appears to be totally wrong.

Later on, I read a book titled "Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled "Reasoning From The Scriptures".

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 your first challenge in coping with a Watchtower Society missionary is to scale the language barrier. That by itself is an Herculean task because you'll not only be up against a tangle of semantics, but also a Jumanji of twisted scriptures, double speak, humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, and clever sophistry.
_

And, when you gently correct them at your doorstep, they invent excuses for needing to leave, and they walk away, never bothering to learn that their position is not justified in light of critical Biblical cross-examination.

You can lead a horse to water....

 

[Adziilii]

.
I do not recommend toying with the Watchtower Society's missionaries coming to our doors. Many of them are honestly, and sincerely, hoping to enter the kingdom of God; which is why Christians really ought to know something about New Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about it.

● 1Pet 3:15 . . Always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you,

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in Peter's command is elpis (el pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

In other words: elpis hope is a know-so hope rather than a cross your fingers hope.

So, unless someone knows for proof-positive, beyond even the slightest glimmer of sensible doubt, that they have a passport to the kingdom of God locked in and irrevocable, then of course it is impossible for them to comply with Peter's instructions seeing as they would not yet have the kind of hope about which he wrote.

● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoice in the hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

BTW: The kind of hope spoken of by 1Pet 3:15 and Rom 12:12 is a "calling".

● Eph 4:4 . . There is the one hope to which you were called

When people are lacking the kind of hope described by the Greek word elpis, then I believe it is sensible to assume that they have not yet responded to God's call; or worse, He has not called them; and quite possibly never will.

● Rom 9:15-16 . . He says to Moses: I will have mercy upon whomever I do have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I do show compassion. So, then, it depends not upon the one wishing nor upon the one running, but upon God, who has mercy.
_

 

[bibleguy]

.
I do not recommend toying with the Watchtower Society's missionaries coming to our doors. Many of them are honestly, and sincerely, hoping to enter the kingdom of God; which is why Christians really ought to know something about New Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about it.

● 1Pet 3:15 . . Always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you,

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in Peter's command is elpis (el pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

In other words: elpis hope is a know-so hope rather than a cross your fingers hope.

So, unless someone knows for proof-positive, beyond even the slightest glimmer of sensible doubt, that they have a passport to the kingdom of God locked in and irrevocable, then of course it is impossible for them to comply with Peter's instructions seeing as they would not yet have the kind of hope about which he wrote.

● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoice in the hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

BTW: The kind of hope spoken of by 1Pet 3:15 and Rom 12:12 is a "calling".

● Eph 4:4 . . There is the one hope to which you were called

When people are lacking the kind of hope described by the Greek word elpis, then I believe it is sensible to assume that they have not yet responded to God's call; or worse, He has not called them; and quite possibly never will.

● Rom 9:15-16 . . He says to Moses: I will have mercy upon whomever I do have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I do show compassion. So, then, it depends not upon the one wishing nor upon the one running, but upon God, who has mercy.
_

well, it depends....I recently had the privilege of planting some seeds of truth into the heart/mind of a door-step missionary (and their associate-in-training).

The veteran was stubborn as a mule....but the associate, well, may have received the implanting of the seed of truth which may lead her to a better path in the future.

 

[Adziilii]

.

I do not recommend toying with the Watchtower Society's missionaries coming to our doors.

Toying can be defined as sportive or amusing acts; i.e. antics.

Also to act or deal with something lightly or without vigor or purpose; i.e. monkey around, play games, tease, utilize for amusement.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
● Matt 24:45-47 . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

The core of the Watchtower Society-- the Governing Body --sincerely believes itself the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in that passage, i.e. believes that God chose the leaders of the Watchtower Society as His sole distributor of truth to mankind; thus explaining why John Q and Jane Doe Jehovah's Witnesses need to submit unquestioningly to the Governing Body in order to associate with God, and for protection from doomsday, viz: the calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.

However: paragraph 12, under the heading; "Who is leading God's People today?" of the Feb 2017 Watchtower—Study Edition says:

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food."

One can easily imagine the degree of confusion and insecurity that would exist in the minds of regular Christians had the authors of the New Testament scriptures attached a caveat to their writings similar to the above.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
CHRIST IN HEAVEN

Q: 1Cor 15:50 clearly testifies that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Wouldn't that fact alone preclude the possibility of Christ's crucified dead body returning to life?

A: First, and foremost; it was essential that Christ's crucified dead body be returned to life or otherwise his prediction as per John 2:19-22, and the Scriptures as per Ps 16:10, Luke 24:44-46, and Acts 2:24-32 would be easily proven false.

The chemistry of Jesus' original body had to be the same when it revived. However, as 1Cor 15:50 says: his body's original chemistry is unsuitable for life in a celestial environment. So then, in order for Jesus to be up there as a physical being, the chemistry of his body had to be reformulated.

God is very creative so I seriously doubt that flesh and blood are the only materials that He has to work with. I also seriously doubt that spirit material is the default material when flesh and blood are not an option.

Q: When would the chemistry of Christ's body undergo reformulation?

A: Some day all of Christ's believing followers will be physically resurrected and taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 4:13-17). On the way up, their natural bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation (1Cor 15:51-53). They'll become superhuman; viz: deathless and ageless.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's crucified body underwent a similar transformation while on the way up to heaven as per Acts 1:9 so that today his body is no longer a normal human body; but instead, a superhuman body to which all his believing followers' bodies will one day conform. (Php 4:20-21)

Although the chemistry of his body has been reformulated; it's still capable of dining upon ordinary foods and beverages. (Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16-18)

Q: If Jesus Christ's corpse really did return to life; then how did he get it into a room without opening the door? (John 20:19)

A: Too many people expect Christianity to be a reasonable, scientific religion. It's not. Christianity is a supernatural religion; for example:

Christ walked on water, restored withered limbs, cured people born blind, healed serious diseases like leprosy, restored dead bodies to life, controlled the weather, multiplied fish and bread, turned water into wine, and levitated. Plus; he once said that rocks could be made to speak. (Luke 19:40)

What's one more miracle, more or less? Walking through walls? Disappearing and reappearing? How hard could any of that really be for a man with the powers of God at his disposal?

It's curious how people can say they believe in miracles but yet cannot believe that God has sufficient control over the laws of nature to make a physical human body pass through solid objects.

Q: Well; if Jehovah has enough control over the laws of nature to pass a physical human body through closed doors, then couldn't He pass the arch angel Michael through the door as a spirit and then materialize him on the other side as a human in order to communicate with his friends?

A: That would be acceptable if only there were some record of it in the New Testament. But it is an irrefutable fact that the New Testament not even one time, on any occasion, nor under any circumstances, nor in any situation, either attests, alleges, alludes, or states that an angel named Michael appeared to Christ's friends cloaked in a human avatar. That doctrine doesn't come from the New Testament. It's a humanistic fantasy.
_