Questions about JW’s

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,772
1,382
113
You have them confused with Mormons. JWs do not send teenagers on "missions" and do not call youth "elders".
They have the same foundation .Corrupted men who must be venerated so they can lord it over the faith of the pew sitters.
Just as Catholiscim or Judaism . They simply make the treasure we have in us (bodies of death.) without effect. The old law of the fathers. . oral traditions of men

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

They went out from us because they are not of the us that Jesus defines. that shows faithlessness . The wrong manner of spirit. . . natural unredeemed mankind .
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
248
132
43
13. Apparently JW’s do not believe God is omniscient.

My JW coworker explained to me that God merely has the ability to know all things but chooses when to use it.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,621
301
83
Nothing you stated answered any of my questions, please read the questions and answer them carefully. By answering my question I will then be able to fully develop and close my answer to the questions you originally asked me. Here are the questions again:

1) I showed you Hebrews 2:8 that states 'God subjected all things under man, and left NOTHING NOT subject to him', and stated that using your reasoning that 'nothing' means absolutely 'nothing', does it mean that God and the angels were subjected to man? <----- Please answer. If not, then does 'nothing' here mean absolutely 'nothing'? <----- Please answer

2) When it states Jesus is "first in all things" in Col 1:18, does the "all things" literally mean 'all things', as in, 'every single thing'? <--- Please answer. If so, then is Jesus the first murder? <---- Please answer

3) In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?


4) What translation are you reading from that expresses Jesus is called creator by the Father in Rev 3:14, do you care to show me please?

Again, once you have answered my questions I will fully explain my reasoning against the points you raise, nothing you have said in your last response negates my questions, so stop stalling and answer them.
Now I will answer you NWL. Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world? My point is that your are "NOT" considering the context or the whole of Scripture.

Jesus Christ is first or has the "pre-eminence" as it pertains to His role/work of Him being the Messiah. He's first over the creation since He is the creator. He was first/chief who rose from the dead in permanent manner, defeating death. He's first by being the "head" of the Church.

He's not the first person to be a murderer or go to the bathroom. See how "stupid" this sounds and your lack of common sense? Crossreference Colossian 1:19 with Colossians 2:9, "For in Him all the fulness of "Deity" dwells in bodily form." How do you explain this verse as it relates to you believeing Jesus is "a god?"

You ask about Revelation 3:14. Btw, I use the NASB. "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning "OF" the creation "OF" God." Your Nwt inserted the word "by" God. The Greek has "of" God. You did this to show that Jesus is a created being. The following is what Thayer and Strong's Lexicon says.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&t=KJV

The word for "beginning" in the Greek is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word. Do you want me to explain to what an architect does? This makes sense because Colossians 1:16 says, "For by Him all things were created. John 1:3 says the same thing. So how could Jesus Christ be a created being Himself? Before I address your other questions (which are east to answer) I want to see what you think of my answers.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,466
249
63
Oregon
.
My JW coworker explained to me that God merely has the ability to know all
things but chooses when to use it.

It's not unusual for untrained eyes to reach that conclusion from certain
events in the Bible; for example:

The Tower of Babel.

"Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons
of men had built." (Gen 11:5)

Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Jehovah said: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is
loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy. I am quite determined to go down
that I may see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it
that has come to me, and if not, I can get to know it. (Gen 18:20)

The offering of Isaac.

"Jehovah’s angel began calling to him out of the heavens and saying:
“Abraham, Abraham!” to which he answered: “Here I am!”

. . . 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." (Gen
22:11-12)

A scientist, whose comments I once read, said that science is, at best,
transient. In other words; what is commonly accepted as scientific fact for
now, may be proven in error by later discoveries. Because of that, thoughtful
scientist are flexible; they keep an open mind and remain ever alert for the
possibility that there are things that they've somehow overlooked.

For example: Isaac Newton's laws work pretty well in normal applications;
while not so workable when it comes to dark matter and dark energy.

Your JW friend no doubt knows quite a bit about the Watchtower's version of
Jehovah from his Kingdom Hall training sessions, but there are things about
the ancient version of Jehovah that he is failing to take into consideration.
Therefore his thoughts at present about God's omniscience may seem
rational and reasonable to a JW mind; but nevertheless, the Watchtower's
version of Jehovah is flawed and badly in need of some very crucial
adjustments.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,466
249
63
Oregon
.
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For
example they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in
Halloween, serve in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.

Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of
Romans so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.

Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages
below.

Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.
As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its
soul-- its blood --you must not eat.

Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell,
whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul
must be cut off from his people.

Lev 17:10-14 . . As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien
resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood,
I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I
shall indeed cut him off from among his people.

Acts 15:19-20 . . Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the
nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain . . from blood.

The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all
the same as using it for food.

Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its
interpretation of those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is
not to win a debate; only to offer a second opinion.

The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath
violators. (Ex 31:14-15)

Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number
of occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that
human life, safety, and welfare trump strict observance of religious law.

One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon
showing a man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge
landslide boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family,
and the family dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the
legalist calmly points out that he can't move the car until the light turns
green.

Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating
circumstances, which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the
seriousness or extent of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.

Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill
to crush the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an
acceptable excuse to go before the light turns green. In those kinds of
cases, human life, safety, and welfare trump strict conformity to the law.

Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order
to save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the
sin of dishonesty? No, on the contrary; He overlooked it and instead
rewarded the midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact,
their actions were adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)

Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions
with a JW from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with
the utmost in diplomacy, care, and civility because this is a hot-button
issue. Should your JW audience come to the realization that they've made a
monstrous mistake, they will be overwhelmed with guilt, disillusion, and
humiliation; not to mention fear of the organizational tsunami that'll come
their way should they dare to question the Society's stance on blood
transfusions.
_
 
Dec 9, 2011
11,443
1,016
113
Sometimes when you corner, box in, and try to overpower by removing beliefs that do not align with the True Word of God, you empower those groups, because being attacked makes them feel like they are onto something true. Someone who is in a mental state of accepting half truths will many time grow stronger if they are being attacked for it. It's enough truth to hold onto and convince oneself. It's just not the TRUTH that God sent to us 2,000 years ago by His Gospel!
When you say they are someone In the mental state of accepting half truths resulting In thinking that they are on to something true ,This makes me think of a politician.
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
5,039
1,186
113
Now I will answer you NWL. Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world? My point is that your are "NOT" considering the context or the whole of Scripture.

Jesus Christ is first or has the "pre-eminence" as it pertains to His role/work of Him being the Messiah. He's first over the creation since He is the creator. He was first/chief who rose from the dead in permanent manner, defeating death. He's first by being the "head" of the Church.

He's not the first person to be a murderer or go to the bathroom. See how "stupid" this sounds and your lack of common sense? Crossreference Colossian 1:19 with Colossians 2:9, "For in Him all the fulness of "Deity" dwells in bodily form." How do you explain this verse as it relates to you believeing Jesus is "a god?"

You ask about Revelation 3:14. Btw, I use the NASB. "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning "OF" the creation "OF" God." Your Nwt inserted the word "by" God. The Greek has "of" God. You did this to show that Jesus is a created being. The following is what Thayer and Strong's Lexicon says.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&t=KJV

The word for "beginning" in the Greek is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word. Do you want me to explain to what an architect does? This makes sense because Colossians 1:16 says, "For by Him all things were created. John 1:3 says the same thing. So how could Jesus Christ be a created being Himself? Before I address your other questions (which are east to answer) I want to see what you think of my answers.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
God bless you bluto

Now understand the pretrib rapture...lol.
Bless your day my friend!!!
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,466
249
63
Oregon
.
According to John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22; Jesus Christ
committed no sins of his own. The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that
Christ didn't sin because he "chose" not to sin. In other words: in their
estimation Christ could've failed, he could've sinned.

That's what they say; but it's not what the Bible says. The fact of the matter
is; Christ's divine genetics 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 version makes it look as though one born of God's reproductive seed
sins now and then but not all the time; viz: doesn't make a habit of sin. But
that's an interpretation rather than a translation. The text on the Greek side
of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear says this:

"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been generated."

There's more:

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

The Greek word translated "divine quality" is theotes (theh-ot'-ace) which
means divinity; defined by Webster's as the quality or state of being divine.

I don't mean to split hairs but the order of those words in a sentence makes
a difference: divine quality and the quality of being divine are not the same.
For example: patience is a divine quality, but people capable of patience
aren't eo ipso divine. So let's get that straightened out right from the get-go.

Anyway; what we're looking at in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity; rather,
"the" divinity; viz: we're looking at 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
fullness of God's divinity.

FAQ: If it was impossible for Christ to either sin or fail; then what practical
purpose did his temptation serve?

A: Christ testified "I always do the things pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). The
Devil's failure to break Christ certifies the truth of his statement. In other
words: Christ was proof-tested to demonstrate that he contains no flaws.

No doubt the Devil expected that after forty days in the outback without
food, Christ would be worn down to the point where he would no longer care
whether he sinned or not. But it made no difference. Christ was still just as
incapable of sin after forty days in the outback as he was during the first
thirty years of his life in Nazareth because Christ's innocence didn't depend
upon his resolve; rather, upon his genetics so to speak; viz: upon God's
[reproductive] seed. (1John 3:9)

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the
JWs' 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 fact that out of God he has been
generated; then it goes without saying that the God out of whom the
progeny was generated would be unable to sin too; viz: if God's reproductive
seed is unable to sin, then obviously the source of the seed would be unable
to sin too.

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

NOTE: The Watchtower Society religion is a bit of an odd duck in the world
of Christianity. While most, if not all, of the other denominations seek to
glorify Christ; it seems the Society's primary mission in life is to tear him
down.

A very common Greek word in the New Testament for the Devil is diabolos
(dee-ab'-ol-os) which refers to traducers; defined by Webster's as someone
who exposes others to shame or blame by means of falsehood and
misrepresentation; i.e. slander. Whether the Watchtower Society is
deliberately or inadvertently misrepresenting Jesus makes no difference: the
point is they are, that's what matters.
_
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
422
9
18
NWL said:
1) I showed you Hebrews 2:8 that states 'God subjected all things under man, and left NOTHING NOT subject to him', and stated that using your reasoning that 'nothing' means absolutely 'nothing', does it mean that God and the angels were subjected to man? <----- Please answer. If not, then does 'nothing' here mean absolutely 'nothing'? <----- Please answer

2) When it states Jesus is "first in all things" in Col 1:18, does the "all things" literally mean 'all things', as in, 'every single thing'? <--- Please answer. If so, then is Jesus the first murder? <---- Please answer
Now I will answer you NWL. Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world? My point is that your are "NOT" considering the context or the whole of Scripture.
Just answer the question, stop beating around the bush, does the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 literally mean 'everything' and include 'all things', does it or doesn't it, please just answer the quesiton. OR can I take your comment of, "Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", as an affirmation that you do not take the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 to be 100% literal?

Also, nowhere have I stated that I myself believe the 'everything' and 'all things' in the mentioned scriptures literally include 'all things' and literally everything, so stop assuming I'm trying to claim they do, as I've mentioned numerous times this is a thought experiment.

Colossians 2:9, "For in Him all the fulness of "Deity" dwells in bodily form." How do you explain this verse as it relates to you believeing Jesus is "a god?"
Re-ask this question after you have properly answered all my question and I will give an answer.

NWL said:
4) What translation are you reading from that expresses Jesus is called creator by the Father in Rev 3:14, do you care to show me please?
You ask about Revelation 3:14. Btw, I use the NASB. "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning "OF" the creation "OF" God." Your Nwt inserted the word "by" God. The Greek has "of" God. You did this to show that Jesus is a created being. The following is what Thayer and Strong's Lexicon says.
The NWT is not my translation, it is one of the many translations I use, also, the use of "by" in exchange of "of"does not change the meaning of the verse whatsoever, so I do not even understand what point you're trying to make by your claim it does. I too use the NASB, as you stated it reads "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this", Jesus here is called "the Beginning of the creation of God", I'm confused where does it state Jesus is the originator or cause of creation as you stated, al lI can see it stating is that Jesus is the 'beginning' of Gods creation, I should highlight here that beginning does not mean beginner here. If a verse read "Man/Adam was the last of the creation of God" nobody would be confused or think it meant anything other than how it clearly reads, yet, when a verse clearly shows Jesus was the "beginning of the creation of God" somehow this does not mean Jesus was the 'beginning of the creation of God' despite it saying he was the beginning of the creation of God. You need to realize and appreciate any average reader of English who reads the translation that Jesus was "the beginning of the creation of God" would understand such a statement to mean Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God, or in even simpler terms, Jesus was created and the first thing (beginning) of God creation.

The word for "beginning" in the Greek is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word. Do you want me to explain to what an architect does? This makes sense because Colossians 1:16 says, "For by Him all things were created. John 1:3 says the same thing. So how could Jesus Christ be a created being Himself? Before I address your other questions (which are east to answer) I want to see what you think of my answers.
Language evolves and changes over time, yes, our modern english word "architect" can be traced bac to the word 'arche', but this is not to say the term arche means 'architect', in fact there isn't a scholar alive today who has ever been able to show that the Greek word arche meant 'architect' in the 1CE in biblical or extra-biblcal writings. It never does! This is a common argument Trinitarians make when they have no clue the term 'arche' never meant or even resembled or carried any connotation of the word whatsoever.

3) In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
422
9
18
13. Apparently JW’s do not believe God is omniscient.

My JW coworker explained to me that God merely has the ability to know all things but chooses when to use it.
This is correct, you need to realize that a God who does not have the ability to not know things he chooses not to know is not all-powerful. Compare the below comparisons and decide for yourself what being would be more powerful:

Who is more powerful, (1) A being who has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know OR (2) a being who can only know all things and lacks the ability to choose to know or not know?

The answer is obvious, (1) the being who has the has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know is one who is more powerful since he has a choice, whereas the other one does not, NOTHING is impossible with God, whereas the God whom YOU worship lacks the ability of choice, whereas our one does not.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,621
301
83
Just answer the question, stop beating around the bush, does the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 literally mean 'everything' and include 'all things', does it or doesn't it, please just answer the quesiton. OR can I take your comment of, "Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", as an affirmation that you do not take the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 to be 100% literal?

Also, nowhere have I stated that I myself believe the 'everything' and 'all things' in the mentioned scriptures literally include 'all things' and literally everything, so stop assuming I'm trying to claim they do, as I've mentioned numerous times this is a thought experiment.



Re-ask this question after you have properly answered all my question and I will give an answer.



The NWT is not my translation, it is one of the many translations I use, also, the use of "by" in exchange of "of"does not change the meaning of the verse whatsoever, so I do not even understand what point you're trying to make by your claim it does. I too use the NASB, as you stated it reads "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this", Jesus here is called "the Beginning of the creation of God", I'm confused where does it state Jesus is the originator or cause of creation as you stated, al lI can see it stating is that Jesus is the 'beginning' of Gods creation, I should highlight here that beginning does not mean beginner here. If a verse read "Man/Adam was the last of the creation of God" nobody would be confused or think it meant anything other than how it clearly reads, yet, when a verse clearly shows Jesus was the "beginning of the creation of God" somehow this does not mean Jesus was the 'beginning of the creation of God' despite it saying he was the beginning of the creation of God. You need to realize and appreciate any average reader of English who reads the translation that Jesus was "the beginning of the creation of God" would understand such a statement to mean Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God, or in even simpler terms, Jesus was created and the first thing (beginning) of God creation.



Language evolves and changes over time, yes, our modern english word "architect" can be traced bac to the word 'arche', but this is not to say the term arche means 'architect', in fact there isn't a scholar alive today who has ever been able to show that the Greek word arche meant 'architect' in the 1CE in biblical or extra-biblcal writings. It never does! This is a common argument Trinitarians make when they have no clue the term 'arche' never meant or even resembled or carried any connotation of the word whatsoever.

3) In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?
And you don't know what your talking about with this "lame" excuse that "Language evolves and changes over time" baloney. Read the following. https://books.google.com/books?id=PuF8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=the+greek+word+arche+is+beginning+do+we+get+our+english+word+architect+from+the+greek+word+arche&source=bl&ots=1wzz2TZk_I&sig=ACfU3U1zo-gCsiDXUcsokM8z4govIG6idQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3r8-t2K_qAhUZCjQIHbKmCbcQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=the greek word arche is beginning do we get our english word architect from the greek word arche&f=false

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche Now, just for the sake of argument it does not mean specifically "architect," the word is still defined as being the creator and not Jesus being created as you teach.

IN GOD THE SON
bluto
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,772
1,382
113
This is correct, you need to realize that a God who does not have the ability to not know things he chooses not to know is not all-powerful. Compare the below comparisons and decide for yourself what being would be more powerful:

Who is more powerful, (1) A being who has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know OR (2) a being who can only know all things and lacks the ability to choose to know or not know?

The answer is obvious, (1) the being who has the has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know is one who is more powerful since he has a choice, whereas the other one does not, NOTHING is impossible with God, whereas the God whom YOU worship lacks the ability of choice, whereas our one does not.
God is not a man and neither is there a infallible fleshly interpreter set between God not seen, the eternal, and the things of men the temporal (daysman)

God who knows all things hides the spirutl understandings in parable . They unlock the secret thing of God and conceal them from those who refuse to rightly divide the parables. They reveal the golden measure of faith.

Proverbs 25:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.

Why do the JW's elders lord it the over faith the flock Catholic and Mormons follow the same kind of law of the fathers.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,621
301
83
This is correct, you need to realize that a God who does not have the ability to not know things he chooses not to know is not all-powerful. Compare the below comparisons and decide for yourself what being would be more powerful:

Who is more powerful, (1) A being who has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know OR (2) a being who can only know all things and lacks the ability to choose to know or not know?

The answer is obvious, (1) the being who has the has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know is one who is more powerful since he has a choice, whereas the other one does not, NOTHING is impossible with God, whereas the God whom YOU worship lacks the ability of choice, whereas our one does not.
Apparently your not familar with Philippians 2:5-9. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus vs6, who although He (always) existed as God/in the form of God, did not take advantage of being God, vs7, but emptied Himself of the preogatives He already had as God and became a man." vs8, being found in the appearance of a man, HE CHJOSE TO HUMBLE HIMSELF by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross."

For example, let's say your a billionare and you DECIDE not to spend one dime of your money and live like a hermit/homeless person. No matter how you live and put yourself through, your still a billionare. This is what Howard Huges actually did. If you don't know who he is look it up.

And btw, here are few verses showing the "omniscience" of God. https://www.openbible.info/topics/omniscience

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
422
9
18
And you don't know what your talking about with this "lame" excuse that "Language evolves and changes over time" baloney. Read the following. https://books.google.com/books?id=PuF8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=the+greek+word+arche+is+beginning+do+we+get+our+english+word+architect+from+the+greek+word+arche&source=bl&ots=1wzz2TZk_I&sig=ACfU3U1zo-gCsiDXUcsokM8z4govIG6idQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3r8-t2K_qAhUZCjQIHbKmCbcQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=the greek word arche is beginning do we get our english word architect from the greek word arche&f=false

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche Now, just for the sake of argument it does not mean specifically "architect," the word is still defined as being the creator and not Jesus being created as you teach.
Bluto, as I mentioned in my previous post the Greek word 'arche' never means originator/architect/source/beginner, this false idea is often pushed by Trinitarians and if often cited by seemingly learned people, the fact remains, the term never carries the connotation of originator/architect/source/beginner. Try and find me a reference to where someone shows evidence that the term 'arche' means "source of action", you'll find they never do! People, books, and articles will say the term 'arche' can mean originator/architect but they will never reference where or how they have come to this conclusion. For example, look at Thayer's lexicon of the word 'arche' and notice all the different meaning the word has, then look at when he references the word meaning "originator/active cause" and notice he only list Rev 3:14, all the other meanings and variation of the word he was able to list with numerous examples. This is circular reasoning, you cannot prove a word means something, where the proof that the word means what it never means is the very verse in question. If you want to try and push that the word "arche" means originator/architect/source/beginner then show me in the bible, or even where other people show from the bible where the word 'arche' means originator/architect/source/beginner that isn't Rev 3:14? (wikipedia doesn't reference examples, neither does the book 'Jesus and the end times', they simply make assertions based on false information).

Untitled.jpg
As you can see above, Thayer clearly highlights that the word was first used with the understanding of originator/architect/source/beginner in the 8th century, 800 years after the bible was written!

Below you'll find the points you did not address in my last post, please just get it over and done with already and address what I said, as soon as you do I will carry on with my explanation and fully answer your previous questions to me.

I said: Just answer the question, stop beating around the bush, does the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 literally mean 'everything' and include 'all things', does it or doesn't it, please just answer the quesiton. OR can I take your comment of, "Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", as an affirmation that you do not take the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 to be 100% literal?

Your answer to my above question could be "yes, 'all things' and everything did literally mean 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8" OR "no, 'all things' and 'everything' did not include literally 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8", which one is it! Why can you not answer the question as simply as this?????

In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?
(this question is very relevant to our discussion of Rev 3:14 hence why I asked it in foresight)

And you don't know what your talking about with this "lame" excuse that "Language evolves and changes over time" baloney.
You must be extremely ignorant and arrogant to make the comment you just made, even in English language evolves, new words are made every few years, go find me the words 'internet', 'email', 'voicemail', ''emoji', 'wifi', 'dope', show me where the word 'gay' meant homosexual instead of 'joyful' prior to the 19th century. Language evolves, fact! Have you ever heard of the term ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, have you ever wondered why they are modified by the word 'ancient', its because they are dead languages since they have evolved into modern Hebrew and modern Greek, the same way old English evolved into the modern English that we speak today. You have no clue on the matter and just use an ad hominem attack on me and reference another place where some claims 'arche' means originator but nowhere themselves reference how they've come to this conclusion.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
422
9
18
Apparently your not familar with Philippians 2:5-9. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus vs6, who although He (always) existed as God/in the form of God, did not take advantage of being God, vs7, but emptied Himself of the preogatives He already had as God and became a man." vs8, being found in the appearance of a man, HE CHJOSE TO HUMBLE HIMSELF by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross."

For example, let's say your a billionare and you DECIDE not to spend one dime of your money and live like a hermit/homeless person. No matter how you live and put yourself through, your still a billionare. This is what Howard Huges actually did. If you don't know who he is look it up.

And btw, here are few verses showing the "omniscience" of God. https://www.openbible.info/topics/omniscience

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
My response to NOV25 was in relation to 'God' being all-knowing and wasn't specific to Jesus whatsoever, so do not understand how Phil 2:5-9 is relevant.

Let me make this real simple by asking a real simple question, do your God YHWH have the ability to choose to not know something, or, does he lack the ability to be able to choose to not know something, which is it?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,993
2,134
113
@dcontroversal - I absolutely believe in your revelation of the 144k - it is true, won’t JW’s be surprised to find out they are NOT in the 144K! :giggle:

My aunt, my mom's oldest sister, became a JW with her husband in the 1940s. They were not part of the 144,000 because all the seats were already taken, 70 years ago.

Nothing like a 2 tiered reward system.

#? JWs believe you are saved by works. Those works are mostly selling watch towers and making converts. Not even the commands of Jesus.

I have a friend who was raised JW and left the cult. She said they were very warm and loving till you got baptized and on the membership roles. Then, you were pushed out the door to make more converts, and none of the leaders cared about you at all. She was shunned by her family for leaving. She almost died, and her mom refused to come and see her at the hospital. Talk about a group where the cult is more important than your family!'
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,772
1,382
113
My aunt, my mom's oldest sister, became a JW with her husband in the 1940s. They were not part of the 144,000 because all the seats were already taken, 70 years ago.

Nothing like a 2 tiered reward system.

#? JWs believe you are saved by works. Those works are mostly selling watch towers and making converts. Not even the commands of Jesus.

I have a friend who was raised JW and left the cult. She said they were very warm and loving till you got baptized and on the membership roles. Then, you were pushed out the door to make more converts, and none of the leaders cared about you at all. She was shunned by her family for leaving. She almost died, and her mom refused to come and see her at the hospital. Talk about a group where the cult is more important than your family!'
Hospital and blood issues as to how JW's define them tells plenty on how they wrongfully divide scripture . lately they have been backing off allowing some to live by having blood work .

Same applies with any sect that number people and days rather than walking by faith. Where the elders lord it over the flock .They need some way to control the mind set of the pew sisters .Mormonism follows the same kind of law of men called a law of the Father. Just as Catholisicim .
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,466
249
63
Oregon
.
Mark 11:12-13 . .The next day, when they had come out from Bethany, he
became hungry. And from a distance he caught sight of a fig tree that had
leaves, and he went to see whether he would perhaps find something on it.
But, on coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season
of figs.

FAQ: If Jehovah really was in the world as a man, then why didn't He know
by omniscience that the fig tree would have no fruit? Why was it necessary
for Him to examine it up close in person?

A: Jesus was able, on occasion, to observe things from a distance (John 1:48)
so the question is a reasonable inquiry.

Jehovah's conduct in Mark 11:12-13 would've been unusual but by no
means uncharacteristic.

In the 11th chapter of Genesis, the people built themselves a tower. Jehovah
came down to see the tower. Now, if Jehovah is omnipresent and
omniscient, then why bother coming down out of heaven to inspect the
tower in person?

In the 18th chapter of Genesis, Jehovah announced to Abraham that He was
on a journey to visit Sodom in order to determine whether the reports He
was hearing about the city were true or not. Again: if Jehovah is
omnipresent and omniscient, why bother coming down out of heaven to visit
Sodom in person?

In the 22nd chapter of Genesis, Jehovah had Abraham offer his son as a
sacrifice made with fire. At the conclusion of the event; a celestial being--
speaking for Jehovah and speaking as Jehovah --said: "Now I do know that
you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one,
from Me."

It goes without saying that Jehovah knows every man's thoughts, and He
also knows the future, viz: nothing we do, say, or think catches Jehovah by
surprise; He sees everything. So then, if Jehovah already knew in advance
that Abraham would offer Isaac, and already knew in advance that Abraham
was God-fearing, then why did He say "now I know"? Shouldn't Jehovah
have already known?

The only sensible answer to those questions, including the question about
the fig tree, is that there is a humanness to God that began quietly coming
to light all the way back in the very beginning of the Bible; but the New
Testament is where we see it on display even more.

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.

Heb 1:3 . . [The Son] is the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact
representation of His very being.

John 14:7 . . . If you men had known me, you would have known my
Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him. Philip
said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said
to him: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have
not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father also.

FAQ: Well then, why didn't Christ use the powers of Jehovah to make that
tree produce fruit for him to eat right then and there on the spot instead of
cursing the poor thing?

A: Isn't that similar to the Devil's reasoning in the 4th chapter of Matthew?

The fact of the matter is: Jesus was micro-managed. He cursed that fig tree
in compliance with his Father's wishes to do so.

John 6:38 . . I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the
will of him that sent me.

John 8:28 . . I do nothing of my own initiative

In the end; Jesus had to examine that fig tree up close and personal
because it was on his God-given itinerary to do so; and if ever Christ had a
passion; it was compliance with his Father's every wish.

John 4:24 . .My food is for me to do the will of Him that sent me

John 8:29 . . I always do the things pleasing to Him.

Phil 2:6 . . . Although he was existing in God’s form, he gave no
consideration to a seizure, namely: that he should be equal to God.
_
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,621
301
83
Bluto, as I mentioned in my previous post the Greek word 'arche' never means originator/architect/source/beginner, this false idea is often pushed by Trinitarians and if often cited by seemingly learned people, the fact remains, the term never carries the connotation of originator/architect/source/beginner. Try and find me a reference to where someone shows evidence that the term 'arche' means "source of action", you'll find they never do! People, books, and articles will say the term 'arche' can mean originator/architect but they will never reference where or how they have come to this conclusion. For example, look at Thayer's lexicon of the word 'arche' and notice all the different meaning the word has, then look at when he references the word meaning "originator/active cause" and notice he only list Rev 3:14, all the other meanings and variation of the word he was able to list with numerous examples. This is circular reasoning, you cannot prove a word means something, where the proof that the word means what it never means is the very verse in question. If you want to try and push that the word "arche" means originator/architect/source/beginner then show me in the bible, or even where other people show from the bible where the word 'arche' means originator/architect/source/beginner that isn't Rev 3:14? (wikipedia doesn't reference examples, neither does the book 'Jesus and the end times', they simply make assertions based on false information).

View attachment 218476
As you can see above, Thayer clearly highlights that the word was first used with the understanding of originator/architect/source/beginner in the 8th century, 800 years after the bible was written!

Below you'll find the points you did not address in my last post, please just get it over and done with already and address what I said, as soon as you do I will carry on with my explanation and fully answer your previous questions to me.

I said: Just answer the question, stop beating around the bush, does the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 literally mean 'everything' and include 'all things', does it or doesn't it, please just answer the quesiton. OR can I take your comment of, "Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", as an affirmation that you do not take the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 to be 100% literal?

Your answer to my above question could be "yes, 'all things' and everything did literally mean 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8" OR "no, 'all things' and 'everything' did not include literally 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8", which one is it! Why can you not answer the question as simply as this?????

In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father?
(this question is very relevant to our discussion of Rev 3:14 hence why I asked it in foresight)



You must be extremely ignorant and arrogant to make the comment you just made, even in English language evolves, new words are made every few years, go find me the words 'internet', 'email', 'voicemail', ''emoji', 'wifi', 'dope', show me where the word 'gay' meant homosexual instead of 'joyful' prior to the 19th century. Language evolves, fact! Have you ever heard of the term ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, have you ever wondered why they are modified by the word 'ancient', its because they are dead languages since they have evolved into modern Hebrew and modern Greek, the same way old English evolved into the modern English that we speak today. You have no clue on the matter and just use an ad hominem attack on me and reference another place where some claims 'arche' means originator but nowhere themselves reference how they've come to this conclusion.
Bluto, as I mentioned in my previous post the Greek word 'arche' never means originator/architect/source/beginner, this false idea is often pushed by Trinitarians and if often cited by seemingly learned people, the fact remains, the term never carries the connotation of originator/architect/source/beginner. Try and find me a reference to where someone shows evidence that the term 'arche' means "source of action", you'll find they never do! People, books, and articles will say the term 'arche' can mean originator/architect but they will never reference where or how they have come to this conclusion. For example, look at Thayer's lexicon of the word 'arche' and notice all the different meaning the word has, then look at when he references the word meaning "originator/active cause" and notice he only list Rev 3:14, all the other meanings and variation of the word he was able to list with numerous examples. This is circular reasoning, you cannot prove a word means something, where the proof that the word means what it never means is the very verse in question. If you want to try and push that the word "arche" means originator/architect/source/beginner then show me in the bible, or even where other people show from the bible where the word 'arche' means originator/architect/source/beginner that isn't Rev 3:14? (wikipedia doesn't reference examples, neither does the book 'Jesus and the end times', they simply make assertions based on false information).

View attachment 218476
As you can see above, Thayer clearly highlights that the word was first used with the understanding of originator/architect/source/beginner in the 8th century, 800 years after the bible was written!

Below you'll find the points you did not address in my last post, please just get it over and done with already and address what I said, as soon as you do I will carry on with my explanation and fully answer your previous questions to me.

When I said "lame" I meant as it pertains to our discussion with Revelation 3:14 and not to language/words in general that change over time including their meanings. Secondly, the guy "Anaximander was using the word "arche" in a Philosophical sense. He used the word as it relates to "evolution" and how animals etc came about which means your argument is "fallacious." Read the following; https://www.google.com/search?sourc....0.0.1.1150342...........0.#spf=1593805908376

Now, let's say that your right about Anaximander, (but your not), why did your organization see the need to add words to Revelation 3:14 to make it appear that Jesus Christ is a created being? NWT, "the beginning of the creation by God." The word "by" is not in the original text. The obvious implication is that God the Father created Jesus Christ.

Then to make matters worse for you, guess what your Greek Interlinear states. "the beginning of the creation of THE God." Here again adding the word "the" to make it appear Jesus again is a created being. My Bible, the NASB says, "the beginning of the creation of God." This rightly means that God is the creator, peirod, end of story. I don't have to "contort" the words and context to mean what it is not teaching.

My way makes perfect sense becaue Jesus Christ has already been created with creating all things. John 1:3, Colossians 1;16, Here at Revelation 3:14 and at Hebrews 1:10. You even had add the word "other" at Colossians 1:16, why? You also "butchered" John 1:1 by saying Jesus Christ is "a god." Why?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 
Jul 1, 2019
31
2
8
Why do you keep refusing to answer NWLs questions bluto? It's frustrating following your posts and seeing that each and every response you make you ignore the elephant in the room while pretending that you're answering questions when you're not.

Answering questions posed to you when dialoguing with others about a particular topic is an essential means of qualifying whether the things one person is professing can stand to scrutiny of opposing thought and cross-examination, which you are failing to demonstrate.

This is typical Trinitarian behaviour, as a JW myself I see it all the time when discussing topics with people. When people are against the ropes with their theology they just outright try and avoid the obvious and end up refusing to respond to the outright obvious if its contradicts their world view, which you and so many others on this forum section have done when similar questions have been posed to them. Do the forum a favour and answer the questions if you intend to have a meaningful dialogue, anything else and you're just embarrassing yourself and your position, as its quite blatant you're avoiding the questions. Address his questions!