Questions about JW’s

[creative111]

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

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!

 

[bluto]

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!

Oh please, I have addressed the questions and I get tired of hearing "you Trinitarians etc." Yes, I am a Trinitarian and have been one for 58 years now. I have formal debates with Witnesses in Southeren California. I've been invited to your kingdom halls and debated three elders at one time. God has used me to reach JW's who have left your organization and a two them were in there 25 and 30 years respectively. I know what they went through by being "shunned" by their own family. And guess what, both of them ended up converting their family and relatives to the real Jesus Christ, not some "a god" who you guys deem as "chopped" liver.

The whole issue for me is not about Trinitarianism, but who is Jesus Christ. Why do you think at Matthew 16:13 Jesus ask His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" What did Peter say at vs16? "Thou are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." And at vs17, who do you think revelaed this to Peter? "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

And what did Jesus say to the Pharises at Matthew 22:42-46. "What do you think about the Christ/Messiah, whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." Vs41, Then how does David in the Spirit, (i.e the Holy Spirit and not Gods active force) call Him Lord, saying , vs44, "The Lord(=God) said to My Lord(=the Messiah) sit at My right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath Thy feet?"

Vs45, "If Davidthen calls Him Lord, how is David his son?" To some of us the contradiction is clear: How could the Messiah simultaneously be David's son and his Lord? And notice what vs46 states. "And no one was able to answer Him a word." So, if the Jews could not answer Jesus, you can't. So don't pretend or think you got me "trapped" and I'm in a "shudder" hiding under my desk. You in the big leagues now and not messing around with little kids.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Webers.Home]

.
FAQ: In standard Bibles; Jesus told one of his fellow prisoners that they
would be in paradise the very day of their deaths (Luke 23:43). But three
days later he told Mary Magdalena that he had not yet ascended to his
Father (John 20:17). How do you reconcile Jesus' statements in standard
Bibles?

A: Well, of one thing we can be very certain: when Jesus died, he didn't go
up; quite the opposite direction: he went down. (Matt 12:40, Ps 16:9-10,
and Acts 2:25-31)

Paradise is structured such that its elements exist in more than one place.
For example: a city park system consists of any number of parks located in
any number of places, yet each individual park can still be correctly called a
city park.

For another example; the Pacific Crest Trail (a.k.a. PCT) traverses the
north/south length of three states-- California, Oregon, and Washington. No
matter where trekkers might be located on the trail at any given moment--
whether south at mile No.1 in Campo San Diego, or 2,140 trail-miles to the
north at Cascade Locks Oregon --they're all on the very same PCT
regardless of which State they happen to be passing thru.

Paradise is sort of like that. There's a section of it in the netherworld (Luke
16:19-31) another in a secret region called the third heaven (2Cor 12:2-4)
and yet another situated with God. (Rev 2:7)
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Some of Solomon's remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes appear to conflict
with Christ's teachings in the New Testament. Well; the answer to that is
actually pretty simple.

According to 2Tim 3:16, Solomon was inspired to write Ecclesiastes, but the
catch is: his comments essentially represent a world view-- a philosophy of
life under the sun --rather than a book of either history, revelation, or
prophecy.

In other words: Solomon's observations are limited to the scope of empirical
evidence and human experience; a perception of reality moderated by what
we can see for ourselves going on around us in the physical universe rather
than the spiritual-- which is at least one of the reasons why Ecclesiastes
appeals to cultists, atheists, and agnostics, et al.

Solomon's world view is punctuated with pessimism; which is basically a
mindset inclined to dwell on the negative in human experience rather than
the positive. For example:

"You only go around once, so do it with all the gusto you can get!"

That was a Schlitz beer slogan some years ago. It's worldly wisdom thru and
thru rather than Christ's. Compare it to a couple of Solomon's remarks:

● Ecc 9:5 . . The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead,
they are conscious of nothing at all.

● Ecc 9:10 . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for
there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place
to which you are going.

That wisdom reflects Schlitz beer wisdom, i.e. it's earthly wisdom rather
than the wisdom that comes from above.

Solomon was a very wise man; in point of fact, the brightest intellectual of
his day. But Solomon's knowledge and experience were limited. He didn't
know everything there is to know, nor had he seen everything there is to
see, nor been everywhere there is to go. Whereas Christ's knowledge is
extremely vast.

● Col 2:3 . . Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and
of knowledge.

Christ, in his capacity as the Word, created everything existing in the current
cosmos.

● John 1:3 . . All things came into existence through him, and apart from
him not even one thing came into existence.

So then, it only stands to reason that Christ would know more about the
afterlife than Solomon because the Word has actually seen it for himself,
whereas Solomon didn't see anything beyond the grave when he penned
Ecclesiastes.

A good rule of thumb to apply when the teachings of Solomon and Jesus
contradict each other, is to keep in mind that Jesus is Solomon's superior,
viz: Jesus' teachings trump Solomon's.

● Matt 12:42 . .The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment
with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of
the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than
Solomon is here.

● John 3:31 . . He that comes from above is over all others.

And Jesus comes highly recommended too.

● Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to
him.

So then, when encountering remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes that are out
of step with Jesus' teachings in the New Testament; my unsolicited spiritual
counseling is to ignore the world's view of the afterlife and go with the
wisdom of "my Son".

● John 8:12 . . I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no
means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.
_

 

[Absolutely]

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.

Uh, no we dont need it to be cunningly reframed like your bogus changed bible changes it.

Your cunning disenfranchisement will get you a proper pay day.

You are anti Christ. Your stand and tireless efforts are to spread lies and false doctrine cunningly cooked up by your false leaders.

 

[creative111]

Oh please, I have addressed the questions and I get tired of hearing "you Trinitarians etc." Yes, I am a Trinitarian and have been one for 58 years now. I have formal debates with Witnesses in Southeren California. I've been invited to your kingdom halls and debated three elders at one time. God has used me to reach JW's who have left your organization and a two them were in there 25 and 30 years respectively. I know what they went through by being "shunned" by their own family. And guess what, both of them ended up converting their family and relatives to the real Jesus Christ, not some "a god" who you guys deem as "chopped" liver.

bluto

Firstly, JW's do not in any way shape or form have formal debates at Kingdom Halls, it is something not permitted and never has been. So, this is either an outright lie on your part and you're simply saying it to boost your credibility over this forum, which is ironic as you are clearly lying, or you went to a Kingdom Hall meeting once and simply spoke to a few JW Elders in an informally setting. Do your homework, JW's don’t formally debate at Kingdom halls.

Secondly, no you haven’t answered his questions. It’s been weeks since he asked you some seemingly very simple questions, i.e. does “all things” in Col 1:16 literally mean all things. You’ve yet to give a straight forward or direct answer, instead you waffle and give strawmen answers. He asked you if “Nothing” at Hebrews 2:8 means literally nothing and you’ve yet to give a straightforward answer and instead accused him of something which JW’s (and I assume himself included) do not believe as you misunderstood him making a statement for argument sake as him making a statement of truth. (JW's do not believe Jesus was the first murder, we both know NWL was not suggesting this but as he said was a “thought experiment”.)

All you seem to do is evade and wave a flag around as if you’ve conquered his questions when you have not. It does not go unnoticed by others reading your comments. No one cares if you've been a Trinitarian 58 years, truth is truth irrespective if someone is 10years old or 50 years old. Give direct answers and stop evading the obvious questions with strawmen, you're not fooling anyone.

Answer his questions;

-Does “first in all things” mean all things in Col 1:16?

-Does “nothing” regarding what God left under mans/Jesus feet mean literally nothing in Hebrews 2:8?

-Does 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?

-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 the first person of the trinity the Father?

 

[Webers.Home]

.
The passage below from the Watchtower Society's bible is deliberately
misquoted. Watch for it.

● Ps 146:3-4 . . Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling
man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his
ground; in that day he ceases to exist.

The actual passage says "his thoughts do perish" which is quite a bit
different than ceasing to exist.

The Hebrew word for "thoughts" in that passage is 'eshtonah (esh-to naw')
which means thinking rather than existing.

Unfortunately, Ps 146:4 is the only place in the entire Old Testament where
'eshtonah appears so we can't compare its uses in other contexts.

However, according to Webster's the word "thinking" is ambiguous with
quite a variety of meanings to choose from; including, but not limited to:
concerns, anticipations, conceptions, opinions, imaginations, visualizations,
ideas, epiphanies, plans, schemes, fantasies, arguments, aspirations,
deliberations, and the like.

For the rich man in the parable at Luke 12:16-20; I would choose ideas,
plans, and schemes.

"I will say to my soul: Soul, you have many good things laid up for many
years; take your ease, eat, drink, enjoy yourself. But God said to him:
Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your soul from you. Who,
then, is to have the things you stored up?"

For a contemporary example: consider all those people who perished in the
World Trade Center, and in the Japan and Indonesia tsunamis, and the Haiti
earthquake. None of them woke that day planning on it being their last on
earth. No, on the contrary; they had people to see, places to go, and things
to do: but before the day ended; whatever was on their itinerary lost its
importance-- their priorities went right out the window and became no more
significant than green cheese on the moon.

All their plans, their dreams, their schedules, their appointments, their
schemes, their problems, their ambitions, their loves, and their aspirations
went right down the tubes as they were suddenly confronted with a whole
new reality to cope with.

So then, an alternative to the Watchtower Society's interpretation is that
people don't cease to exist when they die, nor do they lose awareness; no,
Ps 146:3-4 only means that whatever was on their minds before they passed
away is now null and void.

Take for another example the Pop singer Michael Jackson. While working on
a new world tour, Jackson died in his sleep. As a result; his tour wrapped on
the spot.

When my eldest nephew was paroled from prison, he quit drinking, and
began going to college with the goal towards becoming a counselor. For 2½
years all went well. His parole officer was happy, and he was on track and
getting good grades. My nephew's future looked assured. And then on the
morning of Sept 25, 2015, he dropped dead to the floor of natural causes.

My nephew's passing was a terrible disappointment to everybody; but
actually we all kind of expected it. He was grossly overweight, had high
blood pressure and high cholesterol, rarely exercised, and smoked. But the
point is; my nephew's dream ended just as abruptly as flipping a light
switch. And all of our hopes for his success ended the same way, viz: our
thoughts perished right along with his.

Death is the mortal enemy of human ambitions. It often casts its long
shadow when people set about planning their lives. The Scottish poet Robert
Burns noticed that life sometimes throws a curve ball that makes all your
careful preparations strike out instead of getting you on base.

He was working one day plowing in the field and uprooted a mouse's
underground nest who was all set for the oncoming winter. The mouse had
picked a fallow field as the site for its winter retreat thinking it would be safe
and snug; unmolested during the cold. But it didn't (or maybe we should say
it couldn't) know the workings of powers higher than itself-- in this case,
farmers and their machinery.

Mousie, you are not alone in proving foresight may be vain.
The best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew,
And leave us naught but grief and pain for promised joy.
_

 

[Absolutely]

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!

Jesus is your stumbling block.
Your doctrine was originated by Charles Russell.
It has been modified ever since.

Your prophets declared the end of the world around 1973 or so with that comet on the cover of your mag hat y'all sell door to door.
Bogus.
Your bible is changed...bogus

You will never be able to cover up the diety of Jesus.

That is your rock of offense
The truth about Jesus is your rock of offence.

You doctrine and leaders are corrupt big time.

 

[Absolutely]

Uh, no we dont need it to be cunningly reframed like your bogus changed bible changes it.

Your cunning disenfranchisement will get you a proper pay day.

You are anti Christ. Your stand and tireless efforts are to spread lies and false doctrine cunningly cooked up by your false leaders.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Magenta]

1 Corinthians 15:14-18

 

[creative111]

1 Corinthians 15:14-18

All JW's believe that Jesus was raised form the dead Magneta. Unless your posting the scripture just to post the scripture. I'm not too sure what the purpose of your post is in the forum section.

Still waiting to hear the answers to the questions posed to you by NWL.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

All JW's believe that Jesus was raised form the dead

Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.

The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored
to life as per John 2:19-22.

"Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. 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."

You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His
life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum
of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his
human form passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God
transferred Michael's life force back into his angel form thus restoring him to
his former spirit existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a
permanent state of decease.

NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.

FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.

Copied and Pasted from post No.15
_

 

[NOV25]

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.

Scripture does not teach that God can be omniscient, it teaches He is omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute not a super power, there is a difference.

At least you admit to worshipping a different god, maybe there’s hope for you yet @NWL

 

[Absolutely]

.


Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.





You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)


NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.

FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.

Copied and Pasted from post No.15
_

.


Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.

The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored
to life as per John 2:19-22.

"Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. 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."

You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His
life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum
of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his
human form passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God
transferred Michael's life force back into his angel form thus restoring him to
his former spirit existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a
permanent state of decease.

NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.

FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.
_

They are crafty.

 

[Absolutely]

You are right when you pointed out their special definitions.
You think they are saying one thing,but nope they are reframing the bible.

Like talking to a devious little kid.
Never will get on the same page because all debate stops at dishonesty.
Their core is corrupt. They are not honest.

 

[Absolutely]

Firstly, JW's do not in any way shape or form have formal debates at Kingdom Halls, it is something not permitted and never has been. So, this is either an outright lie on your part and you're simply saying it to boost your credibility over this forum, which is ironic as you are clearly lying, or you went to a Kingdom Hall meeting once and simply spoke to a few JW Elders in an informally setting. Do your homework, JW's don’t formally debate at Kingdom halls.

Secondly, no you haven’t answered his questions. It’s been weeks since he asked you some seemingly very simple questions, i.e. does “all things” in Col 1:16 literally mean all things. You’ve yet to give a straight forward or direct answer, instead you waffle and give strawmen answers. He asked you if “Nothing” at Hebrews 2:8 means literally nothing and you’ve yet to give a straightforward answer and instead accused him of something which JW’s (and I assume himself included) do not believe as you misunderstood him making a statement for argument sake as him making a statement of truth. (JW's do not believe Jesus was the first murder, we both know NWL was not suggesting this but as he said was a “thought experiment”.)

All you seem to do is evade and wave a flag around as if you’ve conquered his questions when you have not. It does not go unnoticed by others reading your comments. No one cares if you've been a Trinitarian 58 years, truth is truth irrespective if someone is 10years old or 50 years old. Give direct answers and stop evading the obvious questions with strawmen, you're not fooling anyone.

Answer his questions;

-Does “first in all things” mean all things in Col 1:16?

-Does “nothing” regarding what God left under mans/Jesus feet mean literally nothing in Hebrews 2:8?

-Does 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?

-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 the first person of the trinity the Father?

Where do you think you have a valid question in that gobbledygook?
Your questions are framed to make a nonsensical point.

 

[tourist]

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!

From my understanding of scripture, God is 3 separate entities, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, comprising one God.

The Father is the ultimate authority and has given Jesus the authority over the entire universe.

Jesus is part of the Trinity, is both fully human and fully divine and died for the sins of the world. Jesus, being part of the Trinity has always existed along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit comforts and guides us in the life-long repentance process that begins immediately after you confess your sins to God and, by the shed blood of Jesus dying on the cross, you have been wiped clean of the stain of sin.

Do you, as a JW believe that Jesus is God, or is He just a created person and only considered as a god (not capitalized), as stated in the NWT in the book of John? If Jesus is not God but rather just a created being than He could not have possibly died for your sins as He would have no authority to do so.

I could say for myself, as a created being, that I could die for your sins but that would be misguided and I would be a liar. If Jesus was just a 'god' then He would be a liar too as your sins would remain.

 

[Absolutely]

Just a fair warning, if this thread turns into defending the heresies of the Jehova's Witness it will be closed and the offenders removed.

Cue obie won kinobie voice ;
""The watchtower spirits are strong in this thread""

Too funny

 

[NWL]

Oh please, I have addressed the questions and I get tired of hearing "you Trinitarians etc." Yes, I am a Trinitarian and have been one for 58 years now. I have formal debates with Witnesses in Southeren California. I've been invited to your kingdom halls and debated three elders at one time. God has used me to reach JW's who have left your organization and a two them were in there 25 and 30 years respectively. I know what they went through by being "shunned" by their own family. And guess what, both of them ended up converting their family and relatives to the real Jesus Christ, not some "a god" who you guys deem as "chopped" liver.

The whole issue for me is not about Trinitarianism, but who is Jesus Christ. Why do you think at Matthew 16:13 Jesus ask His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" What did Peter say at vs16? "Thou are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." And at vs17, who do you think revelaed this to Peter? "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

And what did Jesus say to the Pharises at Matthew 22:42-46. "What do you think about the Christ/Messiah, whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." Vs41, Then how does David in the Spirit, (i.e the Holy Spirit and not Gods active force) call Him Lord, saying , vs44, "The Lord(=God) said to My Lord(=the Messiah) sit at My right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath Thy feet?"

Vs45, "If Davidthen calls Him Lord, how is David his son?" To some of us the contradiction is clear: How could the Messiah simultaneously be David's son and his Lord? And notice what vs46 states. "And no one was able to answer Him a word." So, if the Jews could not answer Jesus, you can't. So don't pretend or think you got me "trapped" and I'm in a "shudder" hiding under my desk. You in the big leagues now and not messing around with little kids.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I can confirm what creative111 has said, JW's elders do not engage in formal debates, to do so would strip them of their position as elders, you reveal yourself by making such claim. Perhaps you have informally spoken with elders, perhaps even three of them and perhaps even been invited to a kingdom hall as many people are, but to go as far as to make it seem like you've were invited to engage in a formal debate at a kingdom hall show you have no clue how JW elders operate, since such a thing would never happen.

The fact remains, you have not answered my questions head-on, I've expressed this time and time again, you evade, skip and dance around my questions and reply to make it seem like you've answered my question when in fact you haven't.

Where have you stated whether or not you believe the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 is 100% literal or not? Nowhere have you outright stated you believe it to be 100% literal or not litreal, if you have, simply direct me to the post where you did.

Does 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?

When I asked "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?" where have you given an answer to what person of the trinity is being spoken of when it mentions 'God' in v1? if you have answered this, simply direct me to the post where you did.

Show me in the bible where the Greek word 'arche', or even where other people express 'arche' means 'originator' in the bible, carries the meaning of 'originator' that isn't Rev 3:14?

 

[NWL]

Scripture does not teach that God can be omniscient, it teaches He is omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute not a super power, there is a difference.

At least you admit to worshipping a different god, maybe there’s hope for you yet @NWL

Scripture does not teach that God can be omniscient, it teaches He is omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute not a super power, there is a difference.

At least you admit to worshipping a different god, maybe there’s hope for you yet @NWL

The bible does not teach God is omniscient, I do not think you know the meaning of the word 'teach', since by using such a word you imply the bible explicitly teaches in what manner God is omniscient when it does, if it does, then prove me wrong. God is omnipotent (all-powerful), but God being all-powerful doesn't imply he needs to flex his muscles and constantly be displaying his power at all times does it, God, much like a human being with our own physical strength can limit our power. Usain Bolt isn't sprinting at 1000mph every time he runs or tries to do a light jog because he, like all beings, has the ability to limit his power. Likewise, God, being all-powerful, can limit his power, the same can be said for his attribute of omniscience, he can limit his ability and choose NOT to know.

Like I said before, which you completely ignored as you are unable to reason, if God does not have the ability to choose to NOT know something, then God is not an all-powerful God as he has restraints. Since you are too scared to even attempt to try and reason against me I'll simply pose two little questions to you and watch in shock at your inability to answer it, no doubt you'll make another backhanded comment to try and make yourself feel better at not being able to reason against what is so evidently clear by what I say.

Does 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?

Despite the fact that God is omnipotent, does he have the ability to limit his power when demonstrating his power?

The fact that the bible directly highlights that God did not know some things completely annihilates your position and proves exactly what I said true, that God, despite having the ability/attribute of being all-knowing can limit his power. See the below:

(Genesis 22:1, 2) "..Now after this the true God put Abraham to the test, and he said to him: “Abraham!..Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and travel to the land of Mo·riʹah and offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will designate to you"...Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac hand and foot and put him on the altar on top of the wood...Then he said: “Do not harm the boy, and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing because you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me..”

Notice, YHWH tested Abraham and instructed him to sacrifice his Son, God stopped him from doing so and stated "for now I do know", how could an all-knowing God state "now he knows", surely an all-knowing God would have known Abraham would have obediently offered his own Son up! No, God, despite having the ability of omniscience by nature, can limit his power and choose NOT to know something, as Gen 22 clearly shows.