Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    Watch the verb "became" in this next verse because it's very important.

    †. 1Cor 15:45 . . It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    When did Adam become a living soul? Answer: at his resurrection? No, at his birth. When did the last Adam become a life-giving spirit? Answer: at his resurrection? No, at his birth too.

    Some folks object to the above answer by saying that the portion of 1Corinthians where 15:45 is located is all about resurrection rather than birth. Oh? Then what's Adam's origin doing in there instead of his resurrection?

    The point is: Watchtower theology holds that it's impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and as a human being simultaneously; and that's why they say that the Word of John 1:1-4 had to give up its existence as a spirit being in order to become the human being of John 1:14. Well; that's what the Society says about Jesus Christ; but it's not what the Bible says.

    According to 1John 1:1-2 the kind of life that's in the Word of John 1:1-4 is everlasting life; which is a kind of life that's impervious to death; and that's why it's impossible for the Word to relinquish its existence in order to become a human being.

    †. John 1:1-4 . . 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. What has come into existence by means of him was life.

    In other words: Adam came into human existence with life; but not by the power of his own life. In contrast, the Word came into human existence by the power of his own life; viz: Adam was never even a life-giving man let alone a life-giving spirit; but the Word is both.

    †. John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.

    Well; if the life that's in the Father is eternal life, then the life that's in His son is eternal life too.

    The Watch Tower Society insists that human life is entirely organic. Well; Christ wasn't entirely organic. Within him was not just human life; but also the life of God.

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

    Surely at least a portion of the divine quality is the power to both give and to sustain all manner of life. So even had Christ not been a life-giving spirit, he was at the very least a life-giving man.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    †. 1Pet 3:18-20 . .Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit. (Note the language. He wasn't made alive as a spirit, but rather; in the spirit.)

    . . .
    In this state also he went his way and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah's days, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.

    One popular theory regarding the "spirits in prison" is that they were renegade angels that somehow mated with women to produce a curious species of hominids called Nephilim.

    That theory seems to me the least tenable since Jesus Christ died to ransom his fellow men from the wrath of God rather than angels; so preaching to them would be a waste of time and resources. And anyway, according to Matt 25:41 the fate of fallen angels is set in concrete so preaching to them would be futile.

    It's far more likely that the spirits in prison are the remains of antediluvians who drowned in the Flood. That being the case, then Christ would have preached to them not after they were dead, but while the ark was under construction; viz: the spirit state in which Christ preached to the people in Noah's day would have been the one identified below.

    †. Gen 6:3 . . After that Jehovah said: My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely

    Jehovah's spirit of course doesn't act towards men via close encounters of a third kind; but rather through holy men; e.g. Abel (Luke 11:50-51), Enoch (Jude 1:14), and Noah. (2Pet 2:5)

    According to the word-for-word Greek version of 1Pet 1:11 in the Kingdom Interlinear, Christ's spirit state was active all through the Old Testament. In point of fact, in every major English translation of 1Pet 1:10-12, the spirit of Christ was active in all the prophets.

    It seems very logical to me that Jehovah's spirit as per Gen 6:3, and Christ's spirit state as per 1Pet 3:18 are speaking of the same spirit. It's not too difficult to understand why the Watchtower Society would not want that to be true.

    OBJECTION: Christ had not yet been put to death in the flesh back in Noah's day while the ark was under construction.

    RESPONSE: Christ was existing in a spirit state way, way back in time prior to the creation of the cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. He didn't have to die to get like that.

    †. 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.

    I wonder sometimes if John and Jane Doe Jehovah's Witness have ever questioned why the Word of John 1:1-3 is called that name. Well; it's not too hard to figure out.

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

    †. John 5:37 . . Also, the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his figure.

    †. 1Tim 6:16 . . Unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.

    The mysterious radiance behind the curtain has never communicated with humans directly: not once. Humans have been in touch with the radiance indirectly via the Word ever since the garden of Eden.

    †. Gen 3:8 . . Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife went into hiding from the face of Jehovah God in between the trees of the garden.

    The "voice" of Jehovah God had to be the Word of John 1:1-3. That same voice forbade Adam to taste the fruit.

    †. Gen 2:15-17 . . And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it. And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."

    In a nutshell; the Word of John 1:1-3 not only speaks for the mysterious radiance behind the curtain, but also speaks as the radiance; so much so that oftentimes you can't tell them apart. Ancient rabbis, baffled by this being whose name is apparently the same as his master's; called it Metatron.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Jesus Christ and David are biologically related (Luke 1:32, Rom 1:3). Based upon all the history written about David and his progeny in the Old Testament; I think we can be reasonably sure that Jesus Christ would have both failed and sinned had he been born only of man rather than of both God and man.

    The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that Christ didn't sin because he "chose" not to sin. But that's what they say; 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: Temptations are not always lures to evil but also serve as evaluations: like as when Abraham was tasked to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham's obedience proves that he was a man of faith; and the Bible's comment that Abraham was God's friend was vindicated.

    It's very common for poorly-trained Bible students to assume Matt 4:1 implies that God's son has some weaknesses that the Devil can exploit if Christ doesn't keep his guard up. But the temptation wasn't a test of his resolve since according to 1John 3:9 it was, and it still is, impossible for Christ to sin. In other words; entrapment is futile since there is nothing in him that finds sin appealing. So why the outback temptation?

    Well; that was for our benefit. Manufacturers routinely proof-test products to assure potential customers that their products are up to the task for which they're designed; plus Christ was vindicated where he says "I always do the things pleasing to Him" (John 8:29)

    Point being: if Christ had to resist the Devil with will power, then he'd be just as flawed as the rest of us and we'd have good reason to believe that the Devil would eventually catch him in a moment of weakness. No doubt the Devil hoped that after forty days in the outback without food that 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.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    Watch Tower Society theologians allege that Jesus Christ would have no use for a human body in the celestial sphere. However; according to their own theology, the sum total of human existence is the human body; viz: no human body = no human existence. So then, according to their own theology, Jesus Christ has to have a human body just to exist at all as a human being; and I maintain that he has to be a human being in order to officiate as a priest after the manner of Melchizedek because that priesthood has never been bestowed upon an angel.

    †. 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.

    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 Word, and Jesus Christ are the same person by three names; 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 whose end result is a language barrier very difficult to surmount when discussing Christ with the Society's door-to-door missionaries.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    WATCHTOWER CLAIM: It is impossible for Jesus Christ to be in heaven as a human being in the presence of God because 1Tim 6:16 says that the king of all kings dwells in an unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.

    RESPONSE: We should look at more of that section of Paul's letter.

    "In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders that you observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting. Amen." (1Tim 6:13-16)

    The Greek word for "unapproachable" also means inaccessible; which right there attests that humanity needs a mediator between itself and the light to provide them at least an indirect access.

    One thing we need to point out right off the bat is that nowhere in that passage is there an angel named Michael mentioned; whereas Christ is mentioned a total of three; seeing as how according to Rev 17:14 the one labeled "the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords" is the one known as the Lamb; whom, according to John 1:29, John 1:36 is Jesus Christ.

    Anyway; to the point: Apparently the Watch Tower Society has overlooked the fact that Jesus Christ is not only a human being, but also a divine spirit being; viz: a god (John 1:1 and John 1:18). Were Christ only human, he would be barred access to the inaccessible light.

    We know for a fact that Christ-- as a man rather than an angel --has access to the inaccessible light.

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

    The word for "men" and "man" in that verse is 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 Christ Michael; it says Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a human being rather than a species of angel by the same name.

    Numerous passages in the New Testament state that Christ the anthropos not only has access to the inaccessible light, but is seated next to it.

    Q: But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet? (Heb 1:13)

    A: None.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    During one of his debates with the Sadducees; Christ referenced the Old Testament.

    †. Matt 22:29 . . Jesus said to them: you are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

    The Sadducees didn't believe in the standard meaning of resurrection; which can be roughly defined as a power of God that brings human remains back to life again; a power that the Old Testament clearly predicts.

    †. Dan 12:2 . . And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches and to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.

    "those asleep in the ground of dust" are human remains.

    †. Gen 3:19 . . In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.

    The Watchtower Society-- just as the Sadducees of old --denies the validity of a physical resurrection even though the prophet Daniel predicted it; and ironically the Society bases its belief on one of Christ's own statements:

    †. Matt 22:30 . . For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.

    It's easy for one's mind to construe "as angels" to imply existing with a spirit body instead of a solid body; but that's missing the point; which is: angels don't marry and/or raise families.

    According to Christ's statement; in the resurrection people will retain their gender; viz: men will still be identifiable as men, and women will still be identifiable as women; viz: they will still be human beings; which is thoroughly agreeable with Dan 12:2; and actually with Isa 26:19 too. In order for human beings to become spirit beings, men and women would have to undergo not only a change of nature; but also a change of gender-- in point of fact a change to no gender at all because angels aren't designed to multiply.

    Prior to his statement Christ was challenged on a question about multiple spouses in reference to the law of Deut 25:5-6. And his answer was only to point out that sex and marriage won't be an option in the next life. When he said that people will be as angels, he only meant they will remain infertile and unattached; which of course suggests the absence of libido too.

    Q: How can a physical corpse be returned to life that's been obliterated by an atom bomb, or eaten and digested by beasts, or cremated, or rotted away due to lack of embalming?

    A: We're not talking about corpses here; we're talking about remains; which in many cases will be nothing but molecules and/or atomic elements.

    The Watchtower's objection fails to appreciate the power of God which is the very same mistake the Sadducees made; and some of the Corinthians too.

    †. 1Cor 15:34 . .Wake up to soberness in a righteous way and do not practice sin, for some are without knowledge of God. I am speaking to move you to shame.

    Not everyone sleeping in the dust as per Dan 12:2 is doing so as a corpse. In time, left to nature, everyone's body decomposes enough to disappear altogether, bones and all. But regardless of how someone's body is disposed, destroyed and/or disintegrated; it can be rebuilt from scratch just as easily as Adam's body was built from scratch in the beginning.

    Q: What if the atoms that composed one persons' body went into making another person's body after the first one's demise? How will God raise their bodies to life seeing as how they shared the very same atoms?

    A: That's kinda cute; but only reveals one's ignorance of the universality of the elements on the periodic table. For example; the periodic elements that nature utilized to construct my body are the very same elements that nature utilizes to construct every kind of organic life on earth: all the flora and all the fauna.

    So if my body needed, say, a carbon atom, it could utilize a carbon atom from a Sequoia cactus and it would work just fine in my body 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 my original carbon atoms in order to reconstruct my original body; He just needs carbon atoms.

    Ironically the Society insists that Michael the arch angel was reconstructed from God's memory of Michael's previous existence. Does the Society seriously expect people to believe that God's power to reconstruct a life from memory is limited to angels?

    NOTE: an interesting aspect of Israel's covenanted law is that its marital rules and regulations are limited to this life.

    †. Rom 7:1-3 . . Can it be that you do not know, brothers, (for I am speaking to those who know law) that the Law is master over a man as long as he lives? For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. So, then, while her husband is living, she would be styled an adulteress if she became another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man's.

    So the Sadducees' challenge was deprived of any, and all, legal significance by the simple fact that all of the particulars spoken of in Matt 22:23-28 will have died at least once by the time they're resurrected, thus dissolving any marital obligations to which they bound themselves prior to their demise.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    A scientist's concept of death is entirely physical, and that's to be expected seeing as how the perspective of men of science is that of men under the sun; viz: sensible men, whose understanding of the cosmos-- with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is moderated by empirical evidence.

    NOTE: Empirical evidence can be defined as: knowledge gained from observation rather than from revelation; which is why you'll often read the author of Ecclesiastes saying: "I have seen". Well; he could not see beyond death; so to him, death ends everyone's existence because in the absence of empirical evidence for life beyond the grave, there is no logical basis for believing it's there-- simple as that.

    2Tim 3:16-17 testifies that Solomon was inspired to write the book of Ecclesiastes. However; it isn't a book of revelation; no, it's a scientific man's perspective of life under the sun thru and thru; viz: it's Solomon's own personal philosophy. Ecclesiastes is what I would call an intellectual man's book, and most folk soon discover that many of Solomon's ideas agree quite readily with their own.

    According to 1Kgs 5:9-14, Solomon was a very wise man; but according to Matt 12:41-42 Jesus Christ was wiser. Well; according to Jesus Christ there's an afterlife; and people in it are fully conscious, fully sentient, and fully aware of their circumstances. Now; people have to make a choice: do they listen to Solomon or do you listen to Jesus Christ? Duh; that's a no-brainer. God demands that everyone listen to Jesus Christ.

    †. Matt 17:5 . . A bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! A voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.

    Solomon spoke of death; but there's no indication in the book of Ecclesiastes that he ever saw beyond death for himself to know what he was talking about. In contrast, according to John 3:11, Jesus Christ not only spoke of death, but he actually saw beyond death for himself to know what he was talking about: so in my estimation, Christ's eye-witness reports carry far more weight than Solomon's opinions. You see; neither science nor philosophy has all the facts: whereas according to John 3:31-34, Jesus Christ does.

    Now, that said, it's important when listening to Jesus Christ to avoid spinning his words and/or forcing them to mean things they don't say in writing. For example:

    †. John 11:11-14 . . Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep. Therefore the disciples said to him: Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well. Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: Lazarus has died.

    The word "sleep" is derived from the Greek word koimao (koy-mah'-o) which means, primarily, to slumber. By no stretch of the imagination does koimao ever imply that someone has gone completely out of existence. Were that the case, then for the four days between the time of Lazarus' demise and Jesus calling him forth from the tomb, there would've been no Lazarus. So then, in order to "awaken" Lazarus, Jesus Christ would've had to reconstruct him from God's memory; in other words: create a second Lazarus who, in all points, would be a perfect duplicate of the first Lazarus.

    But you see; that's a scientific man's understanding of death rather than a spiritual man's understanding. The spiritual man's understanding isn't moderated by empirical evidence; but rather: by divine intervention in human affairs.

    Q: If Ecclesiastes really and truly counts as inspired scripture; then it's legitimate to ask: What purpose did God have in mind for Solomon's worldly views? In what way is his personal philosophy of life useful for reproving, for setting things straight, and for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work? (2Tim 3:16-17)

    A: Since 2Timothy is essentially a letter written from one pastor to another, then I think it safe to assume that the "man of God" is a man of the cloth; viz: clergy of some sort. If so, then Ecclesiastes is invaluable for equipping the man of God with a perspective of life from the secular man's point of view. Why? So he can relate.

    I attended a Billy Graham crusade back in September of 1976 in what used to be San Diego's Jack Murphy Stadium, and was really impressed with his ability to relate to the audience not as a holier-than-thou, head in the clouds pulpit pounder; but as one of the people; viz: a genuine fellow man. At the time I thought to myself: if ever I become an evangelist, that's the kind of preacher I want to be: one that can relate.

    In other words: men of God freshly out of seminary are typically missing a secular world view; viz: they're education is unfinished. It's like the difference between an officer graduated from West Point and one who got his bars in Officer Candidate School. The one is all set for a serious military career and ready to go places; while the other is just an expendable 90-day wonder.

    Studying Ecclesiastes has made me very sympathetic towards atheists, skeptics, and agnostics; and of men like Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees, Physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science). In his book, The First Three Minutes, Mr. Weinberg wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . .The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

    What a dismal evaluation of life on earth. To a brilliant, secular man like Mr. Weinberg, the human experience is an exercise in futility: a farce, a tragedy. The universe? It's devoid of meaning-- just a three-dimensional mural that people find fascinating and interesting --cosmic entertainment; so to speak. The quest for knowledge seems the only thing that gives men like Mr. Weinberg any purpose to exist at all. Well; thanks to Ecclesiastes; I can totally sympathize with Mr. Weinberg's outlook on life; and would never criticize him for feeling the way he does because that is exactly how Solomon felt about life under the sun too; and he was a pretty bright guy himself.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    A common Greek word translated "worship" in the New Testament is proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) which means, essentially, to kiss like a dog licking its master's hand. It also means to fawn or crouch to; viz: to prostate oneself in homage; i.e, to do reverence and/or to adore.

    In other words; proskuneo is an ambiguous word with more than one meaning; and it's peppered all through the New Testament in a variety of applications; for example:

    †. Matt 21-2 . . After Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, look! astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, saying: Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when we were in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance.

    Webster's defines "obeisance" as 1) a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission; e.g. bow, and 2) acknowledgment of another's superiority or importance. Here it is again:

    †. Matt 2:11 . . And when they went into the house they saw the young child with Mary its mother, and, falling down, they did obeisance to it.

    I think it's worthwhile noting that those men didn't fall down and do obeisance to the infant as a god; but as a king; which was an acceptable practice in the politics of that day and it typically had like zero religious significance. There's been exceptions of course, but by and large, potentates aren't usually revered as gods.

    Below is an example of obeisance to a god.

    †. Matt 4:10 . . Then Jesus said to him: Go away, Satan! For it is written: It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to Him alone you must render sacred service.

    NOTE: The word "Jehovah" is nowhere in the New Testament's Greek text. The Watch Tower Society's translators penciled it in. The actual word is derived from kurios (koo'-ree-os) which basically means supreme in authority. The Hebrew equivalent is 'adown (aw-done') and/or the shortened 'adon (aw-done') which mean: sovereign: either human or divine. 'Adown, like kurios, is an ambiguous word often used as a courteous title of respect for elders and/or superiors; for example Sarah used the very same word of her husband at Gen 18:12, Rachel addressed her dad by it at Gen 31:5, and Jacob addressed his brother Esau by 'adown at Gen 33:8.

    At this juncture; I should point out that according to Watch Tower Society theology, "Jesus Christ" is another name for Michael the arch angel; and it's also another name for the Word of John 1:1, which means of course that according to John 1:1 and John 1:18, the Watch Tower Society's Michael is a god. So then, putting two and two together; it's readily seen that obeisance to Jesus Christ = obeisance to Michael = obeisance to a god; and that has some pretty serious ramifications.

    †. Ex 20:2-5 . . I am Jehovah your God. You must not have any other gods against my face. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them.

    This is a bit of a catch-22 for the Watch Tower Society's missionaries because according to Ex 20:2-5, it is a sin to do obeisance to any other god but Jehovah, while at the same time Php 2:9-11 requires it. In point of fact, as per Society-think; failure to bow down to Michael dishonors Jehovah. (Php 2:11)

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    †. Matt 4:10 . .Then Jesus said to him: Go away, Satan! For it is written: It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to Him alone you must render sacred service.

    Whom to give sacred service might seem like a silly question with an obvious answer; but: What exactly is sacred service? Well; if the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy can be used as a basis for answering that question; I would say that sacred service can be defined as compliance with the wishes of a divine being; viz: a god.

    Putting two and two together here's what I came up with. According to John 1:1 and John 1:18 Jesus Christ is a god. And according to John 14:15, John 14:21, and John 15:14; it is Jesus Christ's wishes that people obey his commandments; and according to John 3:35-36, people who refuse to obey Jesus Christ's commandments have already been assigned the wrath of "the" god. That's how serious it is to disobey Jesus Christ's commandments.

    So then, if Jesus Christ is another name for Michael the arch angel; then obeying Jesus Christ's commandments = obeying Michael the arch angel's commandments= obeying a god's commandments = rendering sacred service to a god other than the one true god.

    This situation presents no difficulty for traditional Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is a manifestation of the one true god in human flesh. But non traditional Christians, the ones who don't believe Jesus Christ is a manifestation of the one true god in human flesh, have got a problem because according to Matt 4:10 rendering sacred service to any god other than the one true god is forbidden.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    †. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

    According to Jesus Christ's God-given message as per John 3:3-8, a physical man is defined as the product of natural human birth. This is far more serious than the typical non spirit-born Watch Tower Society missionary is capable of realizing.

    According to Paul the apostle's teachings at 1Cor 2:11-16, the physical man cannot relate to God, cannot perceive God's thoughts, and cannot accept the things of the spirit of God because to the physical man, the things of the Spirit are absurd and he cannot get to know them because they are examined spiritually as opposed to examined soulically.

    OBJECTION: One thing you fail to realize is that a person need not be spirit born to be spiritual. There are a large number of references to this throughout the Bible, including Moses, Joshua, David, and many others who were spiritual and about whom it is never said they underwent spirit birth.

    RESPONSE: Well; quite obviously that ship has sailed and it's time to wake up and get your bearings. People today are not in the Old Testament era. They're in the New; and there's no going back; so everyone now is pretty much stuck with the God-given words spoken by Jesus Christ and the inspired teachings of the apostle Paul. So then, even if 1Cor 2:14 wasn't applicable back in the Old Testament's day, it sure is now; and all the clever sophistry, semantic double speak, and humanistic reasoning and rationalizing in the world is not going invalidate those men nor circumvent them.

    Now, we should address the Society's objection that "it is never said they underwent spirit birth". The Watch Tower Society's objection is called an argument from silence; which is essentially a kind of logic that concludes if something isn't clearly stated, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state. But I infer from the God-given words spoken by Jesus Christ, and from Paul the apostle's inspired teachings, that the Old Testament's luminaries were all spirit-born to a man regardless of the Bible not explicitly saying so.

    Don't you see? The spirit birth about which Jesus Christ spoke was not a new thing. In point of fact, Nicodemus was supposed to know all about it without Jesus having to explain it.

    †. John 3:10 . . Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not know these things?

    The Watch Tower Society's missionaries have a decision to make: Did Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle know what they were talking about or not? And if they did; then why are the Society's missionaries listening to the Watch Tower Society instead of listening to Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle?

    Well; I'll tell you why. It's because Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle spoke for the things of the Spirit of God; therefore their teachings are unreasonable to Watch Tower Society missionaries by the simple fact that they are products of natural human birth instead of supernatural spirit birth.

    †. John 6:6-7 . . What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel because I said you people must be born again.

    Well; it's no marvel to me. I mean, how else are people with a physical mind ever going to relate to God on a meaningful level? With the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within their bony little skulls? HAW! especially when 60% of that tissue is fat?

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Visit Vase Resin for information and purchase of resin for silk flower arrangements.