Jehovah's Witnesses vs Old Time Religion

[WebersHome]

-
On page 1129 of the Watchtower publication Aid To Bible Understanding; a
mediator is defined as one who interposes between two parties at variance
to reconcile them: an intercessor.

Here's a question that someone wrote in to the "Questions From Readers"
section of the April 01, 1976 issue of Watch Tower magazine, asking:

"Is Jesus the mediator only for anointed Christians? (a.k.a. the 144,000)

The answer given in the magazine is YES.

The magazine's answer is corroborated on page 1130 of Aid To Bible
Understanding where it says that the 144,000 are the only ones who have
the mediator; a.k.a. Jesus Christ. (1John 2:1)

Intercession for the earthly class-- the hewers of wood and the haulers of
water, a.k.a. the great crowd --is accomplished on the coattails of the
144,000 anointed Witnesses; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party
mediator for the rank and file via the kindly patronage of the Watchtower
Society.

It's sort of like buying insurance from Allstate. The company doesn't sell
direct; its business is conducted through brokers. In essence, that's what the
Society presumes itself: Jesus Christ's brokerage.

So then; when a member of the earthly class either defects or is dis
fellowshipped, it breaks the pipeline to the mediator that he enjoyed within
the Society's fold; and he right quick loses all contact with God; and finds
himself in grave danger of the Tribulation.

Bottom line: According to Watch Tower Society theology; it is impossible for
non-anointed people to be on peaceful terms with God apart from affiliation
with the Society's anointed class, a.k.a. the faithful and wise steward.

In other words: Christ's mediation as per 1Tim 2:5 is accomplished via a
hierarchy that begins with Christ's association with the anointed class; and
from thence to the rest of humanity. Removing the anointed class from the
chain of command; cuts humanity off from Christ.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
†. John 2:19-22 . . Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three
days. Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and
will you raise it up in three days?

. . . But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was
raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say
this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said.

Now I should think that anybody with even a sixth grader's level of reading
comprehension would easily see that Christ was speaking of a physical
resurrection for himself rather than a spirit resurrection.

Watchtower Society missionaries have informed me that, instead of restoring
Jesus Christ's corpse to life, God dismantled it into a zillion teensy little
microscopic pieces and scattered them to the four winds. However, even if
the missionaries' affirmation was actually stated in the Bible record; Christ's
remains wouldn't have remained in a microscopic condition for longer than
three days or people would have good reason to believe he told a big
whopper at John 2:19-22 --not just about that; but about other things he
said too.

The Society's resurrection doctrine perpetuates a version of the lie that
guards were bribed to say Jesus Christ's corpse was stolen away so that his
disciples could claim a resurrection took place when none had; except the
Society's version says it was Yhvh who stole Christ's corpse instead of his
disciples; insinuating that God is a grave robber.

According to Heb 6:1-2, resurrection is an elementary subject; in other
words: it's for beginners. Well; think about it. If the Watchtower Society's
resurrection doctrine is faulty; just think how much more faulty its advanced
doctrines must be.

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

 

[ukok102nak]

1 Peter: 3. 17. For it is better doing well (if such be the will of God) to suffer, than doing ill.
18. Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,
19. In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:
20. Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

God bless us all always

:smoke: thank you very much :happy:

 

[WebersHome]

-
Eternal life is easily confused with immortality. The two are not one and the
same. Immortality defines the characteristics of a supernatural body
impervious to death and putrefaction; and seeing as how believers die every
day around clock then it's obvious that they don't have immortality yet; and
according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:35-58 believers won't have
immortality till some time in the future. But according to John 3:36, John
6:47, John 5:24, and 1John 5:13 they have eternal life now.

Q: If eternal life has no relation to longevity: then what is it?

A: Humans are the kind of people they are because they have human
nature. God is the kind of person He is because He has divine nature. In
point to fact: God has the divine nature because there are no other true
divinities but Himself. (John 17:3)

It's doesn't take a Th.D to appreciate just how much easier it would be for a
human to relate to God if humans had His nature instead of their nature.
And that, by the way, is the primary reason why Jesus Christ distributes
eternal life to the sheep that his Father gives him.

†. John 17:2-3 . .You have given Your son authority over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is
eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom You have sent.

Christ's statement is nothing short of blasphemy to the mind of a Torah
trained Jew because what Jesus is saying is that God has given His son the
power to endow certain select individuals with the heart and soul of a god; in
point of fact: the God. Peter saw it that way too.

†. 2Pet 1:3-4 . . His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to
life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His
own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious
and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become
partakers of the divine nature.

The divine nature isn't an organic kind of life, viz: it's a supernatural kind of
life; which is how it's possible for people to have it while mortal. In other
words: eternal life isn't meant to keep people from dying. For example:
Jesus Christ had eternal life (John 5:26, Col 2:9, 1John 1:1-2) but though
he's immortal now (Rom 6:9) he wasn't immortal when he was here-- the
cross proved that much.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
†. 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.

The inaccessible behind the curtain has never communicated with humans
directly: not once. Humans have been in touch with the inaccessible
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 inaccessible
behind the curtain, but also speaks as the inaccessible; so much so that
oftentimes you can't tell them apart. Ancient rabbis, baffled by this
mysterious voice whose name is apparently the same as his master's; call
it Metatron in sacred Jewish literature.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
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.

And then there's this:

†. 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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
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 :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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
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.

It's known 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.

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

 

[Magenta]

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.

JWs deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Their special Bible calls Him a god, though...

In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.

 

[slave]

-
Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only-begotten god;
while another translation of John 1:18 says Jesus is the only-begotten son.
Which translation is correct?


=====================

I agree it was the same...The angel announced to Mary that the Child she would bear would be called "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Isaiah prophesied the Child that would be born would be called, "Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace." Paul wrote of Him as "God manifest in the flesh," and said, "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:9. There is nothing in these passages to indicate that the man was someone other than God Himself! Notice how He was NOT prophesied to be "God the Son with us!" But "God with us!" He was NOT called "the everlasting Son!" But "the everlasting Father." He was not "God the Son manifest in flesh!" Jesus was all the fullness of Deity, all the fullness of God!

And yet, there are places in Scripture where we find ourselves befuddled as to how it all works? How can these verses fit?, as you have acknowledged being the premise here of our misunderstandings sometimes.

One of the keys to understanding God, and who Jesus is, is to realize that although He was God in flesh, God imposed upon Himself {His flesh} certain constrictions, and limitations. These were not just limitations set upon Jesus, but all flesh. All of us face certain limitations. And so when God took on flesh it was no different.

And while Scripture proclaims Him to be the Son of God some 46 times {it NEVER calls Him 'God the Son'}, and rightfully so, he is also called the Son of man, some 88 times.

The reason?... "For verily he took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Hebrews 2:16-18.

The key words to understand here are found at the start of the 17th verse "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren....." Wow! Think about that, IN ALL THINGS! A God who can relate to me, yet not lose His Godliness is a God I want to follow!

 

[WebersHome]

-
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 dust; viz: 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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
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: intellectual men, whose understanding of the cosmos-- with all of
its forms of life, matter, and energy --is moderated by human experience
and 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 an intellectual
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 a thinking 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 (as well as the Song) 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.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
Death is one of the aspects of human experience about which the
Watchtower Society's door-to-door haulers of water and hewers of wood are
thoroughly in the dark and that's because they are mentally locked into the
Society's premise that human death entails but one thing, and one thing
only: non existence.

†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in
yourselves.

Regardless of how any one particular denomination chooses to interpret
Jesus' statement; one thing about it stands out-- there are people all around
us, in the malls, in the supermarkets, in the football stadiums, in the sports
arenas, at kiddies' soccer games, on the freeway, at the dentist, at the
movies, the bank, in the White House, in Congress, in State assemblies, on
internet forums, on Twitter, on Facebook, and next door neighbors et al;
who are dead on the hoof: viz: dead while they live: and they don't know it
because death on the hoof doesn't show up in photographs, or digital
images, or on X-rays, or CatScans, or any other kind of physical exam. This
kind of death is not only a silent killer; it's an invisible killer too.

I once heard of a preacher's sermon titled: Millions Now Living Will Be Dead
By The Turn Of The Century. Another preacher came along behind him and
preached: Millions Now Living Are Already Dead. Ironically; both were
correct because there's more to death than the demise of one's organic
existence.

Rev 20:11-15 depicts a judgment of the dead. They are mentioned four
times in that passage. The living are not mentioned even once. But none of
the dead will be organically dead having been resurrected from various
locations to face justice. Nevertheless, though they are not organically dead,
they are dead on the hoof; which is exactly why none of their names will be
found in the book of life.

Q: What happened? Why are those people dead on the hoof and their names
not written in the book of life?

A: That's very easy to answer. They failed to heed Christ's teachings; and to
believe in God.

†. John 5:24. . Most truly I say to you: He that hears my word, and believes
Him that sent me, has everlasting life; and he does not come into judgment
but has passed over from death to life.

†. John 5:25 . . Most truly I say to you: The hour is coming, and it is now,
when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who have
given heed will live.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take
for example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 14:1-3 wherein
is listed a specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of
Israel.

The Society alleges that those aren't biological sons of Israel; but rather
"spiritual" sons-- referring of course to the Society's elite cadre of 144,000
Witnesses who have supposedly undergone a spirit birth as per Christ's
instruction at John 3:3-8.

The Society's allegation is premised upon its observation that there never
was a tribe of Joseph; when in reality Joseph is listed as both a son and a
tribe at Gen 49:2-28, and as a tribe at Ezek 48:31-34. So that portion of the
Society's reasoning is clearly a false premise.

The Society's allegation is also premised upon its observation that Ephraim
and Dan are missing from the list of tribes at Rev 7:4-8. However, what the
Society's theologians have somehow overlooked in the Old Testament is that
it doesn't matter whose names are chosen to represent the twelve tribes of
Israel just so long as there are twelve names. Are there twelve in Rev 7:4-
8? Yes. Well then that's good enough. I realize that makes no sense but then
the Lord's apostles were still referred to as "the twelve" even with Judas out
of the picture. So that premise in the Society's reasoning is spurious too.

The Society's allegation is also premised upon its reasoning that Levi isn't a
valid tribe based upon the fact that the Levites are exempt from warfare.
However, Levi is clearly listed as both a son and a tribe along with Joseph at
Gen 49:2-28. Levi is also listed as a tribe at Ezek 48:31-34; which is a good
many years after Num 1:1-54. So that premise is bogus too.

The Watchtower Society not wanting the 144,000 to be biological Hebrews is
one thing; but I would just like to know from whence Charles T. Russell's
and Joseph F. Rutherford's followers got the idea that their people are the
144,000. That's a pretty serious claim. How do they justify it? I don't know;
but I can just about guarantee that their explanation is an outlandish stretch
of the imagination consisting of humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, clever
sophistry, and semantic double-speak.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
Roughly translated into English, Arbeit Macht Frei means: Work Makes Free

That slogan was placed above the entrance to several Nazi camps like
Auschwitz and Dachau; but of course the only freedom that work obtained
for inmates was death; either by fatigue, disease, starvation, or execution.

At the Buchenwald camp the slogan Jedem das Seine was used; which
means, literally: "to each his own" but idiomatically it means: Everyone gets
what he deserves. But again, their just deserts were typically the same as
those of Dachau and Auschwitz.

Bear with me because I do have a point to make with those grizzly
reminders.

†. Rom 2:6-11 . . And he will render to each one according to his works:
everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and
incorruptibleness by endurance in work that is good; however, for those who
are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness there
will be wrath and anger, tribulation and distress, upon the soul of every man
who works what is injurious, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory
and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first
and also for the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

†. Php 2:12 . . Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that you have
always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily
during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and
trembling

If those were the only teachings in the Bible related to escaping the wrath of
God; I think I could safely say, without hesitation, and without reservation:
everyone is lost-- just as hopelessly lost as the poor misfortunate at Dachau,
Auschwitz, and Buchenwald because just as they could never work enough
to satisfy the Nazis; so nobody can ever work enough to satisfy God; let
alone enough to satisfy the Watch Tower Society.

†. Luke 17:7-10 . .Who of you is there that has a slave plowing or minding
the flock who will say to him when he gets in from the field: Come here at
once and recline at the table. Rather, will he not say to him: Get something
ready for me to have my evening meal, and put on an apron and minister to
me until I am through eating and drinking, and afterward you can eat and
drink. He will not feel gratitude to the slave because he did the things
assigned, will he? So you, also, when you have done all the things assigned
to you, say: We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we
ought to have done.

†. Rom 3:12 . . All men have deflected, all of them together have become
worthless

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

 

[tanach]

Just thought I would chuck in some interesting information about Charles Russell. He was fixated with the Great Pyramid and its
measurements. So much so that one was put on his grave. I saw a photo of it some time ago and wonder if it is still there, the one on his grave that is. Has anyone seen it?

 

[WebersHome]

-
†. 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 opinion of what they think that word ought to mean.
It's literal meaning is graciousness.

Witnesses are being robbed 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)

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
CHALLENGE: According to Jude 1:7, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed
by everlasting fire; but in case you haven't noticed; there's no fire over
there today because it went out.

RESPONSE: The reference in Jude 1:7 pertains to Gen 19:24, which states:

"Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens,
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah."

The emphasis is not so much upon the nature of the fire; but upon the
nature of the source of the fire; whom most people assent is an eternal
being who always was, who always is, and who always shall be. In other
words "everlasting fire" doesn't describe imperishable fire that never goes
out, but rather, it describes divine fire; viz: fire from God.

Now, the scary part is: God is able to manipulate fire's properties. For
example: In the book of Daniel; three Jewish guys named Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-nego were sentenced to be executed by roasting to
death in a pit that was fired so extra hot that the guards who threw the guys
into it were slain by its radiant heat. What happened to the three guys?
Nothing: they were unscathed; and in point of fact, not even their clothing
caught fire, nor even smelled like it had been in a fire.

In the book of Exodus; Moses encountered a bush aflame while tending his
father-in-law's sheep. Though the bush was blazing, the fire had no effect on
it.

Ergo: though the everlasting fire that incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah
eventually went out, there is no guarantee that the fire depicted at Rev
20:11-15 will do the same.

"And it will certainly occur that from new moon to new moon and from
sabbath to sabbath all flesh will come in to bow down before me: Jehovah
has said.

. . . And they will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men
that were transgressing against me; for the very worms upon them will not
die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become
something repulsive to all flesh." (Isa 66:23-24)

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
†. 1Thss 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.

"the Lord himself" is construed to be Michael the archangel due to the fact
that the only other place in the New Testament where the Greek word
archangélou appears is Jude 9, which reads:

"But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was
disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against
him in abusive terms, but said: May Jehovah rebuke you."

The word "Jehovah" is not really in that passage. The Society took the
liberty to pencil it in. It's supposed to be kurios which is normally translated
"lord". Thus the passage, as it is in the NWT isn't a translation; instead, it's
an interpretation; viz: the Society forced the passage say what they think it
ought to say instead of leaving the text as-is and letting the language and
grammar of the passage speak for itself.

In addition; seeing as how kurios in Jude 9 isn't modified by the definite
Greek article "ho" then capitalization of "lord" is entirely arbitrary.

Now, the thing that's interesting is that the Society translated kurios as
Jehovah in Jude 9 but not in 1Thes 4:16 in spite of the fact that kurios in
1Thes 4:16 is modified by the definite Greek article "ho". In other words: of
the two passages, the word "Jehovah" has more right to be in 1Thes 4:16
than it does in Jude 9.

But you see; had the Society translated kurios as "Jehovah" in 1Thes 4:16,
then the archangel would come across as God; which, to the Society, is
unthinkable.

But that aside: is the Lord of 1Thes 4:16 really Michael the archangel of Jude
9? No; what we're looking at in 1Thes 4:16 is a chain of command; with
which I am very familiar after serving three years in the US Army. The top
brass never communicates its wishes directly to the men; but indirectly
through lower ranking officers.

According to Matt 24:30-31, the Son of Man shall dispatch angels to round
up his elect from every corner of the globe. In other words: the commanding
voice of 1Thes 4:16 is Christ's as he issues the order for his angels to move
out and begin rounding up his elect. The voice of the archangel will be
Michael's as he goes up and down the ranks directing his officers to get their
regiments into action. I can just picture it. When Christ issues that order,
things will get pretty noisy up there in the atmosphere as units of angels are
mobilized to begin carrying out their mission.

NOTE: The title "Son of Man" alerts us to the fact that the commander in
chief of the entire operation will be an h.sapiens rather than a spirit.

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

 

[WebersHome]

-
Here's a common translation of Luke 23:43

"I tell you the truth; today you will be with me in paradise.

Here's the Watchtower Society's translation

"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

The reason that the Society's translation differs from just about every other
translation is because, first off, the Society doesn't believe that people exist
beyond the death of their bodies; not even Christ. Along with that is the
Society's understanding of John 20:17, which reads like this:

"Jesus said to her: Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the
Father."

In point of fact, Matt 12:40 and Acts 2:25:31 testify that when Christ
died, he didn't go up, but instead, went down

The Society erred by assuming that seeing as how Christ had not yet
ascended to the Father, then he couldn't possibly have meant that he and
the other guy would go to paradise that very day.

The trick is: There's more than one paradise in the New Testament. One is
down inside the earth where Abraham and Lazarus were situated in
accordance with Luke 16:19-31. Another is located in a celestial region that
Paul labeled the third heaven (2Cor 12:2-4). And yet another is located in a
place called the paradise of God. (Rev 2:7)

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