Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses

[truthjourney]

You misunderstood, I'll wager. Every JW knows that only Jehovah can read hearts. What one of us would know what is in your heart?

No I didn't misunderstand. I would hope that JWs know that only God can see the heart and that only He decides who will be destroyed and not the Watchtower Society.

Maybe they were referring to some of this information.
"You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life."--You Can Live Forever book p. 255

"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do."-- December 1, 1981 Watchtower, p. 27

"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil."-- September 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 19

 

[freelight]

Just for the halibut!

Just for the halibut!

I tell them to go to hell

Well aren't you a sweet little booger for Jesus :flamer:

~*~*~

If you want to get 'technical' from a J-dub view,....all souls go to 'hell' (if we are meaning 'hades'/'sheol') which is the underworld or common grave of mankind,...all go there, and await their resurrection to judgment and then go on from there according to their merits.

But if you'd like to play the 'meanie' card,...you can,...but that wont go well for any sensitive types, because the traditional view of "going to hell" is laden with visions of eternal torment, agonizing flames, endless suffering, to no end or relief. To tell someone to "go to hell" in the traditional sense (as 'hell' is imagined by some religionists) is the cruelest most demeaning thing you can say to a person.

Did Jesus tell people to "go to hell"? :idunno:

Granted, Jesus probably had an entirely different concept of 'hell' than what most traditionalists are spinning these days.

 

[intojoy]

 

[intojoy]

Jehobo's witnesses

 

[KingdomRose]

Jehobo's witnesses

You are despicable.

You are also blatantly breaking the 3rd commandment to not use the name of God in a worthless way. You are disrespecting Jehovah and He doesn't take that lightly.:down:

 

[meshak]

You are despicable.

You are also blatantly breaking the 3rd commandment to not use the name of God in a worthless way. You are disrespecting Jehovah and He doesn't take that lightly.:down:

Amen!

 

[OCTOBER23]

Do not get embroiled in trivial issues
---------------------
Aww shuks, But I like trivial issues.

 

[Apple7]

Oh, I have an answer. I just have been involved on another forum and hadn't gotten this far for a few days. I could fill up a whole lot of space here, but I'll stick to just a few verses. You said "any verse," singular, but I'll pick a few more.

"The Father loves the Son and has GIVEN all things into his hand." (John 3:35, NASB) If the Son were an equal member of a trinity, he would not have had to have something GIVEN to him; he would already have it. The Father appears to have more power and authority.

"Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19, NASB) Very clearly, in Jesus' own words, he doesn't do anything of his own volition, but copies what the Father does. He LEARNS FROM THE FATHER. This shows that Jesus is not equal to the Father, or he would not need to imitate anyone else. He would already know how to do something.

"For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has GIVEN ME A COMMANDMENT as to what to say." (John 12:49, NASB) Why would an equal member of a trinity need to be given a command as to what to say? Here we have the Father telling the Son what to do. If the Son was equal, he would figure out what he wanted to say on his own. Jesus also says that the Father SENT him. He would not be SENT by anyone if he was equal to everyone in the trinity.

"I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." (John 20:17b, NASB) Jesus himself has a God, which is the Father. He is saying in his own words that there is someone who is higher than he is. His God. So he can not be an equal person in the trinity of Gods. The "Trinity" is found to be spurious.

Amazingly, all your examples emanate from the Book of John...and yet, you ignore the very beginning of the Book, John 1.1, of which, leaves no reasonable doubt that Jesus is indeed God.

After you ignore the opening statement that The Son is God, you also conveniently ignore the entire first chapter of John which informs the reader that God became flesh and dwelt among His people.

Now, once that you have ignored the foundation and point of reference for John's narrative, you freely cherry pick verses that years of work as a trained JW has ignorantly taught you to use against The Trinity, and Christians.

However, each and every one of your JW baker's dozen verses in no way diminishes Jesus' deity or The Trinity.

The only way that an obtuse witness, like yourself, can expect someone to fall for that lame argument would be for the recipient to be completely ignorant of the context from which you extracted it from, of which, we are not.


Context, always has, and always will, totally crush to the ground scriptural ignorant cults like JW's.

 

[KingdomRose]

Amazingly, all your examples emanate from the Book of John...and yet, you ignore the very beginning of the Book, John 1.1, of which, leaves no reasonable doubt that Jesus is indeed God.

That was involved in my whole point. You find a handful of verses, like John 1:1, to prove your raunchy Trinity Doctrine, and yet you IGNORE all the other verses that beg to differ!!!

Jesus was NOT God because of the way John wrote that sentence in his first chapter. "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word." Definite article with "the god," no article with "god was the word." In English we put an indefinite article with "god was the word" because there was no article there and we need one in English. We don't say, "Snoopy was dog," we say, "Snoopy was A dog."

So.....Jesus was not being called "God" (THE God) by John.

You say I IGNORE all the first chapter that says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? HOW have I ignored that? You grasp at straws, don't you! I believe that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

Why don't you comment on all the verses I cited? You said I wouldn't find any that indicated that Jesus was not God. But you wouldn't touch those with a 10 foot cattle prod, would you?

:Shimei:

 

[glorydaz]

That was involved in my whole point. You find a handful of verses, like John 1:1, to prove your raunchy Trinity Doctrine, and yet you IGNORE all the other verses that beg to differ!!!

Jesus was NOT God because of the way John wrote that sentence in his first chapter. "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word." Definite article with "the god," no article with "god was the word." In English we put an indefinite article with "god was the word" because there was no article there and we need one in English. We don't say, "Snoopy was dog," we say, "Snoopy was A dog."

So.....Jesus was not being called "God" (THE God) by John.

You say I IGNORE all the first chapter that says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? HOW have I ignored that? You grasp at straws, don't you! I believe that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

Why don't you comment on all the verses I cited? You said I wouldn't find any that indicated that Jesus was not God. But you wouldn't touch those with a 10 foot cattle prod, would you?

:Shimei:

Since Jesus is God and Man, you will find verses that show He is both. What you folks like to do is ignore all the verses that say He is God and stand on the verses that say He is man.

You should note that John the Baptist was the one spoken of in the OT who was crying out in the wilderness...make straight the highway for our God. You instead spend all your time trying to stick in articles that weren't even in the Greek to make a case that Jesus is merely a god. Not wise at all. :nono:

 

[Apple7]

Pathetic JW...

Pathetic JW...

That was involved in my whole point. You find a handful of verses, like John 1:1, to prove your raunchy Trinity Doctrine, and yet you IGNORE all the other verses that beg to differ!!!

No scripture differs....that is why you must ignore context, like you are doing right now.

Jesus was NOT God because of the way John wrote that sentence in his first chapter. "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word." Definite article with "the god," no article with "god was the word." In English we put an indefinite article with "god was the word" because there was no article there and we need one in English. We don't say, "Snoopy was dog," we say, "Snoopy was A dog."

Please don't pretend that you know any Greek, because you most assuredly do not.

Your ‘anarthrous = indefinite’ argument falls flat.

The NWT translators have absolutely no background in NT Greek (neither do you!) as demonstrated in the first section of John 1.1 -18, in which they arbitrarily assign θεος which occurs eight times, and is arthrous in only two of these instances (verses 1 & 2). The NWT translates θεος as ‘God’, once as ‘a god’, and once as ‘the god’.


So...where's the consistency?!

There is none.

Its whatever theological breeze is blowing up your skirt at the moment...:rotfl:

So.....Jesus was not being called "God" (THE God) by John.

John 1.1 declares The Son to be Theos, beyond any reasonable doubt.

You say I IGNORE all the first chapter that says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? HOW have I ignored that? You grasp at straws, don't you! I believe that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

None of your references even come from John 1.

Like this one, John 1.18...

θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote monogenēs Theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato

No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.

Why don't you comment on all the verses I cited? You said I wouldn't find any that indicated that Jesus was not God. But you wouldn't touch those with a 10 foot cattle prod, would you?

Show us where in the verses that you cited, that Jesus declares that He is not God.

Good luck, JW...

 

[freelight]

John 1:18 in the spot-light......

John 1:18 in the spot-light......

None of your references even come from John 1.

Like this one, John 1.18...

θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote monogenēs Theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato

No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.

Note: this passage differs in different manuscripts, concerning whether Jesus is a 'begotten God' or merely the ' begotten Son of God',....so its complicated as far as textual tradition and criticism goes, but still offers little proof that Jesus is 'God'. (One can assume he is a kind of 'begotten God' or begotten 'god' generated out of an unbegotten God and revealing the unbegotten God, but see they are still different entities). There is still the duality of 'different' persons here, and still...this doesn't prove the traditional orthodox conception of a Trinity existing anywhere.

In fact,....Arians favored (for a certain time) the rendering "the only begotten God', as found primarily in the early Alexandrian texts (perhaps influenced by gnostic thought), and were equally fine with the "only begotten Son" as well, since the former phrase still indicates a begotten divinity being generated out of an original Father-Deity (Jesus being 'unique' and 'one of a kind' compared to other humans, as one 'begotten' of Deity), so we still have a distinct separation of personalities here, a Father-Son relationship. Beyond certain terms and definitions its just 'semantics'. You still have a 'Father' and a 'Son'. No quibbles there.

See: John 1:18 (resource -commentary)

Videos:

John 1:18 - The "only begotten God"?

Does John 1:18 say that Jesus is "God" or "Son"?

Show us where in the verses that you cited, that Jesus declares that He is not God.

So lets play here for a bit. Because you are the son of your father, does that make you your father? It appears you are quite different distinct personalities. Even as 'special' and 'unique' as Jesus was/is....he's still the 'Son' of the Father, one generated out of 'God', one born of God, one begotten of God. You can 'spin' the term 'eternally begotten' til the cows come home,....but he's still begotten. While a being may share the nature or character of his progenitor, that begotten one is still an offspring.

Only Pure Spirit-Deity Alone ('God') is 'unbegotten', 'unborn', 'undying', 'immortal' in nature, relationally being "Our Universal Father". He is the Father of all, including Jesus.

The person sent by 'God' is but the 'representative' or 'representation' of 'God',...not necessarily 'God' himself, unless you want to allude a kind of spiritual essence that is shared by the two, and/or between all sentient beings. But that's a matter of 'metaphysics'. On a more liberal note one can say we are all part of the essence of God, and God's spirit and consciousness pervades All That IS. - but back to the realm of 'duality' -

The 'Son' or 'Christ' is the 'agency' of 'God', a begotten personality-expression, a logos of the original MIND. A Unitarian view (spice it up with other nuances as you like) here is quite reasonable and logical, without superimposing or presupposing an orthodox 'trinity' concept. But I can play with and incorporate a 'Trinity' just as well, in my musings of 'God'. Beyond a traditional-orthodox formula of the 'Godhead', the Urantia Papers presents an even more cosmically grand view of what it calls 'The Paradise Trinity'.

All views of a Singular and/or Trinitarian concept of Deity can be entertained, without a necessity for dogmatic conclusion, since you cant put 'God' in a box, but both accept the fundamental proposition of Deity being ONE. And so, we all begin with and converge back into the original primordial Singularity (One Essence, One Be-ness) from which and in which all creation has its movement. There is only One Spirit-Life-Consciousness-Source of all, and IT is All There IS.

The Infinite can express aspects of itself in any and all dimensions or forms, as well as ever being beyond all dimensions and forms.

 

[Danoh]

Oh, I have an answer. I just have been involved on another forum and hadn't gotten this far for a few days. I could fill up a whole lot of space here, but I'll stick to just a few verses. You said "any verse," singular, but I'll pick a few more.

"The Father loves the Son and has GIVEN all things into his hand." (John 3:35, NASB) If the Son were an equal member of a trinity, he would not have had to have something GIVEN to him; he would already have it. The Father appears to have more power and authority.

"Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19, NASB) Very clearly, in Jesus' own words, he doesn't do anything of his own volition, but copies what the Father does. He LEARNS FROM THE FATHER. This shows that Jesus is not equal to the Father, or he would not need to imitate anyone else. He would already know how to do something.

"For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has GIVEN ME A COMMANDMENT as to what to say." (John 12:49, NASB) Why would an equal member of a trinity need to be given a command as to what to say? Here we have the Father telling the Son what to do. If the Son was equal, he would figure out what he wanted to say on his own. Jesus also says that the Father SENT him. He would not be SENT by anyone if he was equal to everyone in the trinity.

"I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." (John 20:17b, NASB) Jesus himself has a God, which is the Father. He is saying in his own words that there is someone who is higher than he is. His God. So he can not be an equal person in the trinity of Gods. The "Trinity" is found to be spurious.


:banana:

Consider that all you've done is taken those passages out of the overall scope and context in which their words were asserted.

 

[Apple7]

There is still the duality of 'different' persons here,...

No one, but you, maintained that The Son was The Father to begin with.

How is it that you still don't understand The Trinity?

 

[Apple7]

No scripture differs....that is why you must ignore context, like you are doing right now.




Please don't pretend that you know any Greek, because you most assuredly do not.

Your ‘anarthrous = indefinite’ argument falls flat.

The NWT translators have absolutely no background in NT Greek (neither do you!) as demonstrated in the first section of John 1.1 -18, in which they arbitrarily assign θεος which occurs eight times, and is arthrous in only two of these instances (verses 1 & 2). The NWT translates θεος as ‘God’, once as ‘a god’, and once as ‘the god’.


So...where's the consistency?!

There is none.

Its whatever theological breeze is blowing up your skirt at the moment...:rotfl:







John 1.1 declares The Son to be Theos, beyond any reasonable doubt.





None of your references even come from John 1.

Like this one, John 1.18...

θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote monogenēs Theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato

No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him.





Show us where in the verses that you cited, that Jesus declares that He is not God.

Good luck, JW...

Bump for any JW, at this point...

 

[KingdomRose]

Since Jesus is God and Man, you will find verses that show He is both. What you folks like to do is ignore all the verses that say He is God and stand on the verses that say He is man.

You should note that John the Baptist was the one spoken of in the OT who was crying out in the wilderness...make straight the highway for our God. You instead spend all your time trying to stick in articles that weren't even in the Greek to make a case that Jesus is merely a god. Not wise at all. :nono:

You are wrong, because I have not focused on verses referring to Jesus as a man. I have been saying what he himself said, that he was and is THE SON OF GOD. John the Baptist was to clear the way for JEHOVAH, because Jehovah was the top-most Being in the minds of all the Jews that were expecting the Messiah. They knew that the Messiah would be REPRESENTING Jehovah, so it was perfectly proper to say that John was making straight the highway for their God. In fact, there are references that indicate that Jehovah and Jesus would "come" together. "Look, I am coming quickly" in Revelation 22:12 does not require that the verses about "Alpha & Omega" apply to Jesus, because God also speaks of Himself as "coming" to execute judgment.

ISAIAH 26:21: "For behold, the LORD [YHWH] is about to come out from His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity..." (NASB)

And Malachi speaks of a JOINT coming for judgment, on the part of Jehovah and His "messenger of the covenant":

MALACHI 3:1-6: "'Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord [Messiah], whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,' says the LORD [YHWH] of hosts. 'But who can endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them....Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely...' says the LORD [YHWH] of hosts. 'For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.'"

Yes, Jesus is "a god" in that "god" simply means an important, powerful person. The Father, Jehovah, has the article "TOV" or, "the," before His title (god). So the Father is THE god---the god that is above all other gods that are honored by men.

Accept this truth or don't. It doesn't matter to me.

:sheep:

 

[KingdomRose]

Consider that all you've done is taken those passages out of the overall scope and context in which their words were asserted.

That's not true, but I guess that's all you can come up with, since you aren't attempting to explain what they mean.

 

[Bright Raven]

That's not true, but I guess that's all you can come up with, since you aren't attempting to explain what they mean.

The Trinity is clearly explained in scripture

John 1:1 King James Version (KJV)

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

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

 

[Danoh]

That's not true, but I guess that's all you can come up with, since you aren't attempting to explain what they mean.

I asked to consider that. That you concluded from my words only reveals your actual approach, and thus, the basis of your conclusions, once more - you read into things, and then follow that with concluding it must be right, because that is what you are seeing.

Consider that. Then we can go back and forth regarding my own basis.

The best to you in that...

In fact, here is a free gift...or a warning; your choice - Rom. 6:25.

 

[Apple7]

Another JW destroyed at the door step!

Another JW destroyed at the door step!

Yes, Jesus is "a god" in that "god" simply means an important, powerful person. The Father, Jehovah, has the article "TOV" or, "the," before His title (god). So the Father is THE god---the god that is above all other gods that are honored by men.

Again...

Please don't continue to debase yourself by posing to know Greek - when you clearly do not!

Here is a verse with the article, and it applies directly, and irrefutably, to Jesus...

σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


Go tell your lies to someone else...