jewhovas witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

[kedge]

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

Not going to get into a massive debate over anything, go speak to one of Jehovah's Witnesses to hear what they say on the matter. I thought that was obvious from what was copied in the previous post? Jesus Christ is not the Almighty God so Jesus can be a god but not The Almighty God, I have to admit if Jesus was The Almighty God why would he hand himself all authority and judgement?, why would Jesus Chrisy say the Father (God) is greater than he is?. You nor I not anyone is forced to believe in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe but what information they provide on jw.org makes logical sense to many, they can reason with scripture, and well, it fits and makes sense to me and they provide scriptural support for their Biblical worldview. No need to reply but if you want to then you have the liberty to do so or if you would like the last word in then feel free.


Take care.

 

[WebersHome]

-
Depending upon one's translation of choice; Jesus Christ is described in John
1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, as the only-begotten god and/or the
only-begotten son of God. Either way, the koiné Greek word for "only
begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words: the first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel
rather than two or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common;
e.g. monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc, of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child in the New Testament. If a parent has two or three biological
children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a
monogenes child, the child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an
adopted child can never be monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be
the home's biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

REBUTTAL: I would submit that monogenes is also used in the context of
"one of a kind" viz: a child who is unequalled when compared to others. For
example, it is found in Hebrew 11:17 of Isaac being Abraham's "only
begotten son." But Isaac's older brother Ishmael was also Abraham's
biological son.

RESPONSE: The rebuttal isn't a translation, it's an interpretation.

To start with, three New Testament examples of monogenes are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38, and in all three examples it refers not
to a special child, but to a parent's sole biological child.

Now I'll go to the Old Testament; and for the benefit of any Watch Tower
Society missionaries hereabouts; I'll refer to the NWT.

†. Gen 22:2 . . And he went on to say: “Take, please, your son, your only
son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Moriah and
there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall
designate to you.

†. Gen 22:12 . . And he went on to say: “Do not put out your hand against
the boy and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are
God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from
me.”

The Code Of Hammurabi, and of the still earlier laws of Lipit-Ishtar, implicitly
made inheritance rights a legal consequence of the father's acceptance of an
infant boy as his legitimate son; so then, the laws of Abraham's day entitled
Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's
firstborn. However, there was a clause in the law stipulating that if a slave
owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother
and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement
with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
law to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her.

†. Gen 22:14 . . So Abraham got up early in the morning and took bread
and a skin water bottle and gave it to Hagar, setting it upon her shoulder,
and the child, and then dismissed her.

The phrase "dismissed her" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a word used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves. In
other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no,, she was
set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if
Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have
retained his status as Abraham's eldest biological son.

Now the important thing to keep in mind is that after the 21st chapter of
Genesis, Ishmael is no longer reckoned one of Abraham's biological sons.
According to common sense he is, yes, but with God he's not; and I
sincerely believe that is precisely how Heb 11:17 ought to be understood.

My point is: If the Word of John 1:1 really and truly is God's biological
offspring, then the Watch Tower Society has a serious problem with its
Christology; because if God were to reproduce He would give birth to God;
viz: more of Himself; just was when humans reproduce they give birth to
humans; viz: more of themselves.

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

 

[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 position relates to it because the recipients
of the letter were spiritually immature and dull of hearing; viz: they were so
lacking in Bible proficiency 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 Jesus 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 to Christianity; then why is it so marginalized? Even
the Society itself is a bit perplexed why the name of that angel is nigh unto
totally 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 theory is an utter fantasy.

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

That poem so rings 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 Christianity with the
Society's door-to-door missionaries.

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

 

[nnrukshan15]

if Jehovah s witnesses deny Jesus is God they are not Christian

 

[JaumeJ]

People who claim to be in Jesus Christ have denied much of His teachings since the day He ascended to the Right Hand of the Father.

People who do not understand Jesus Christ from Abraham through John the Baptist form a part of the vast number of Christians who have recrucified our Lord since He ascended.

My very early understanding of this came with the infilling of the Holy Sapirit. It was indignation at what peple have perpetrated, perpetrated, and preach in His name without having first consulted Him.

I must remind myself of this indignation at all times, otherwise I could be Hellenized to the point of excluding the Nation of God, and this included people of all nations beginning with the Children of Israel. There is much mystery to be revealed come the Kingdom, but in the meantime let us allgive credit to Jesus for loving all man, beginnig with His own tribe, His own people.