Interesting WTS Quotes

[AVmetro]

I've recently started collecting these. Some of them may come in handy when witnessing to JWs at your door. If anything, they give a rough idea of what they believe regarding a few things.

-AV

-------------------------------------------


Channel to understanding the Bible... All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. (The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; pp. 8)

Thus God translated Enoch, or put him in a trance, somewhat like the trance an apostle of Jesus Christ experienced thousands of years later. (2 Corinthians 12:1-4) What Enoch saw and heard while he was held bound and entranced with that new world vision of Paradise restored, he was not permitted to utter to men. While Enoch was in the trance, "God took him," that is, God let Enoch's life expire peaceably. He felt no pangs of death; he did not see or realize he was dying. (The Truth Shall Make You Free; 1943; 2,000,000 ed.; pp. 127)

Jehovah can read hearts and minds, and he knows those who will likely respond to his love even though they may not yet know him. (The Watchtower; 8/15/1994; pp. 17)

While it would be unreasonable in the extreme to think of a God getting personally into a hundred, a thousand, or a million men, there is not the slightest unreasonableness in the thought that the power of the Highest, the power, the influence of Jehovah could be in and upon hundreds, thousands, or millions without in anywise interfering with the personal presence of Jehovah upon the throne of the universe. (At-One-Ment Between God And Man; 1899; 1915 ed.; pp. 269)

But let none get the thought that the body is the soul: this is an error, as our Lord's words clearly show, - "God is able to destroy both soul and body." But on the other hand there can be no soul, no sentient being without a body - heavenly or earthly, spiritual or animal. (At-One-Ment Between God And Man, 1899; 1915 ed.; pp. 339)

What vanity popes have displayed over the centuries! A contrast indeed to the humble simplicity of Peter, who said to Cornelius, the Roman army officer who knelt at Peter's feet to do obeisance to him: "Stand up,... I am only a man after all"! (Acts 10:25,26, The Catholic Jerusalem Bible) And what a contrast to the angel who gave the apostle John the Revelation! John tries to bow down worshipfully to that angel, but the angel declared: "Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God." Revelation 22:8-9 (The Watchtower, 2/1/1990; pp. 14)

Now the first Gentiles were about to hear the good news. (Acts 10:24-43) When Peter and his associates arrived in Caesarea, Cornelius, his relatives, and his intimate friends were waiting. Cornelius fell at Peter's feet, but the apostle humbly refused such obeisance. (The Watchtower, 6/1/1990; pp. 19)

In order to resurrect a person, God has to know everything about him. Only with this information can God bring back the same person with the same personality, so that the individual will be himself and recognize himself. This means that God must restore every detail of the person's makeup. This would include his appearance, his inherited traits, the influence that environment and experience have had on him, along with his complete memory. (Life Does Have a Purpose; 1977; pp. 116)

"I became curious about their religion, which seemed so different. When I went to church, we would hear the same thing over and over again: 'Believe in Jesus Christ, get baptized, and you will get to heaven.' But that seemed too easy. I had come to believe that when things are too easy, you are either a genius, or something is wrong. I knew that I was not a genius, so I concluded that something must be wrong with what the church was teaching." (The Watchtower; 8/22/1994; pp. 21)

Man on earth can no more get rid of these demonic "heavens" than man by airplane or other means get up above the air envelope which is about our earthly globe and in which man breathes. (The Truth Shall Make You Free; 1943; 2,000,000 ed.; pp. 285)

The babe of a few days is pretty sure to be nervous and irritable and distressed if the mother is so; an influence goes to the child, not only through the mother's milk, but telepathically, electrically, from her person to the child. (The New Creation; 1899; 1915 ed.; pp. 531)

Of course, the prophets Moses and Elijah were not actually there with Jesus on that lofty mountain when he was thus transformed before the three apostles. Moses and Elijah were still dead, still in Hades, the common grave of mankind. What the three apostles saw was merely a vision, not an actuality. (Let Your Name Be Sanctified; 1961; pp. 250)


The face of the deep, of course, would be toward the Pleiades, which are claimed to be the habitation of Jehovah. (Creation; 1927; 2,175,000 ed.; pp. 94)
The constellation of the seven stars forming the Pleiades appears to be the crowning center around which the known systems of the planets revolve even as our sun's planets obey the sun and travel in their respective orbits. It has been suggested, and with much weight, that one of the stars of that group is the dwelling-place of Jehovah and the place of the highest heavens;... (Reconciliation; 1928; pp. 14)

The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God. (Reconciliation; 1928; pp. 14)

The creating of the body and clothing in which he appeared to them, in the very room in which they were gathered, was proof unquestionable that Christ was no longer a human being, though he assured his disciples that the body which they saw, and which Thomas handled, was a veritable flesh and bone body, and not a mere vision or appearance. (The Time Is At Hand; 1889; 1915 ed.; pp. 126)

Having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more. For that basic reason his return could never be in the human body that he sacrificed once for all time. (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, 1982; pp. 143)

Our Lord's human body was, however, supernaturally removed from the tomb; because had it remained there it would have been an insurmountable obstacle to the faith of the disciples, who were not yet instructed in spiritual things - for "the spirit was not yet given." (John 7:39) We know nothing about what became of it, except that it did not decay or corrupt. (Acts 2:27,31)

Whether it was dissolved into gasses or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love, of Christ's obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows; - nor is such knowledge necessary. (The Time Is At Hand; 1889; 1915 ed.; pp. 129)

Our Lord's human body, the one crucified, was removed from the tomb by the power of God. Had it remained there it would have been an obstacle in the way of the faith of his disciples, who were not yet instructed in spiritual things. They were not thus instructed until the giving of the holy spirit at Pentecost. The scriptures do not reveal what became of that body, except that it did not decay or corrupt. (Acts 2:27-31) We can only surmise that the Lord may have preserved it somewhere to exhibit to the people of the millennial age. (The Harp Of God, 1921; 1928 ed.; pp. 172)

"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help ... and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ...This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women...known... as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses..." It should be noted that even from its earliest beginnings the Society considered itself to be a true prophet of God. The Society does not expect others to just trust that it is a true prophet: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" Watchtower, April 1, 1972

"We deny that He was raised in the flesh, and challenge any statement to that effect as being unscriptural." Studies, Vol.7 p.57

Jesus was not made a human creature at his resurrection but was made a spirit, which accounts fo his invisibility. WT 4/1/1947, pp.101-102

"The human body of fleash, which Jesus Christ laid down forever as a ransom sacrifice, was disposed of by God's power...Things In Which It Is Impossible for God To Lie, (1965)page 354

Having given up flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more. You Can Live Forever In Paradise on Earth 1982 and 1989 editions page 143

In order to convince Thomas of who He was, He used a body with wound holes. You Can Live Forever In Paradise on Earth 1982 and 1989 editions page 145

"God disposed of Jesus' body, not allowing it to see corruption and thus preventing its becoming a stumbling block to faith." The Watchtower, Novenber 15, 1991 page 31

Watchtower booklet, "What does God Require of Us?" (1996) on page 7, paragraph 6 it says: "Jesus died and was resurrected by God as a spirit creature, and he returned to heaven".

[Piebald]

Enlighten my ignorance - do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watchtower Society to be inerrant?

[AVmetro]

Hamster:

Enlighten my ignorance - do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watchtower Society to be inerrant?

Depends on which publication you're reading. :rsmile: At times you'll find something like:

Channel to understanding the Bible... All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. (The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; pp. 8)

At others you'll have JWs cite quotes saying "We're not a 'prophet' in THAT sense'". It's basically making one statment then covering yourself with something else later down the road when a prediction fails.

[AVmetro]

Having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more. For that basic reason his return could never be in the human body that he sacrificed once for all time. (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, 1982; pp. 143)

Cf..1Tim2:5

This one is just simply deceptive:

The creating of the body and clothing in which he appeared to them, in the very room in which they were gathered, was proof unquestionable that Christ was no longer a human being, though he assured his disciples that the body which they saw, and which Thomas handled, was a veritable flesh and bone body, and not a mere vision or appearance. (The Time Is At Hand; 1889; 1915 ed.; pp. 126)

[Non-Trinitarian]

10-25-2003 @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255612#post255612)
Hamster:

Enlighten my ignorance - do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watchtower Society to be inerrant?

No and AVMetro's analysis of it is quite wrong. From time to time, after further research and study of God's Word, we recognize a needed adjustment in a teaching. Obviously we can't be inerrant and do that. At the same time, we beleive we must stick close to God's Organiation. Apparently some thought the apostle John would never die. They were wrong. But early Christians couldn't just leave the church because there was a misunderstanding of things. So while we do recognize that some teachings may be wrong, even now, we do believe this is God's Organization and that as time goes by we will more fully understand the truth. The Fundamental teachings though are solid. Ie., Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son, along with other teachings as well. Of which I won't address in this thread since it doesn't seem appropriate to the topic.

[Non-Trinitarian]

10-25-2003 @ 04:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255839#post255839)
AVmetro:

Having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more. For that basic reason his return could never be in the human body that he sacrificed once for all time. (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, 1982; pp. 143)

Cf..1Tim2:5

This one is just simply deceptive:

The creating of the body and clothing in which he appeared to them, in the very room in which they were gathered, was proof unquestionable that Christ was no longer a human being, though he assured his disciples that the body which they saw, and which Thomas handled, was a veritable flesh and bone body, and not a mere vision or appearance. (The Time Is At Hand; 1889; 1915 ed.; pp. 126)

Just depends on how you read it. To me a person who is looking for deception will find it. As angels in the OT materialized into fleshly bodies to eat with Abraham, etc., they had fleshly bodies. But they were not "humans" in the truest sense. Jesus is a spirit being like the angels but materialized in a fleshly body for the benefit of his apostles. You know how some people will say Jesus was not "fully" human when on earth? Incorrect though they are, it's a similar principle in that after Jesus was a spirit, and after angels materialized for a brief period, they were not really of human nature.

[InHim]

Yesterday @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345714#post345714)
Non-Trinitarian:



Just depends on how you read it. To me a person who is looking for deception will find it. As angels in the OT materialized into fleshly bodies to eat with Abraham, etc., they had fleshly bodies. But they were not "humans" in the truest sense. Jesus is a spirit being like the angels but materialized in a fleshly body for the benefit of his apostles. You know how some people will say Jesus was not "fully" human when on earth? Incorrect though they are, it's a similar principle in that after Jesus was a spirit, and after angels materialized for a brief period, they were not really of human nature.



I was just wondering Non-T how do you determine which one is God's organization? With all the options out there this has to be a bear?

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348550#post348550)
InHim:

I was just wondering Non-T how do you determine which one is God's organization? With all the options out there this has to be a bear?

It took me a while and I actually stumbled across it. I set out to prove JW's wrong so I accepted a Bible study to help them understand the truth. Armed with "Kingdom of the Cults" and a few books by former JW David Reed, I was ready to do battle. However, as I argued from the books, the JW answered the questions with ease by using other scriptures, which the anti-JW books I had did not address. In fact, I'm convinced David Reed is the biggest liar on earth. He went as far as to try and tell me what the JW's would say and they didn't say anything like what he said they would say. And suppossedly he was an elder at one time.

Over time I determined, after many discussions with my preacher and two more books he gave me, that Jesus was not God. Then I started studing other doctrines. In time I came to see that, to me at least, JW's had the truth for the most part. I was also impressed with their fruitage of the ministry, their zeal and love for high moral standards. Doctrines are sometime hard to see for people but Jesus said his followers would be recognized by their fruits. To me JW's are the obvious on that.

Okay, I know you didn't ask for my life's story and unfortunately none of my family shares my viewpoint. But I believe God's Organization is identified in several ways.
1.) basic teachings of Bible
2.) their fruits
3.) Being separate from this morally debauched world
4.) Hailing Jesus as King and God's Kingdom as the only solution for mankind
5.) the preaching work (Matt 28:19,20)
6.) refusing to kill people just because their government, in what ever land they live in, says that they are right and eveyone else is wrong. I was also very impressed that while Catholics were killing Catholics and Protestants were killing Protestants, Mormons killing Mormons, etc., JW's were willing to go to prison instead of kill fellow JW's who lived in another country. That also had a big impact on me.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348559#post348559)
Non-Trinitarian:



It took me a while and I actually stumbled across it. I set out to prove JW's wrong so I accepted a Bible study to help them understand the truth. Armed with "Kingdom of the Cults" and a few books by former JW David Reed, I was ready to do battle. However, as I argued from the books, the JW answered the questions with ease by using other scriptures, which the anti-JW books I had did not address. In fact, I'm convinced David Reed is the biggest liar on earth. He went as far as to try and tell me what the JW's would say and they didn't say anything like what he said they would say. And suppossedly he was an elder at one time.

Non-Trin, this approach is how I started out investigating the LDS church. I soon discovered that this was absolutely the wrong approach. The key is knowing how to interpret the Bible as a whole and reading contextually. If this site has taught me anything, it's context!!


Over time I determined, after many discussions with my preacher and two more books he gave me, that Jesus was not God. Then I started studing other doctrines. In time I came to see that, to me at least, JW's had the truth for the most part. I was also impressed with their fruitage of the ministry, their zeal and love for high moral standards. Doctrines are sometime hard to see for people but Jesus said his followers would be recognized by their fruits. To me JW's are the obvious on that.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that Jesus was not God. I can assure you that Jesus is not the Father, and Scripture bears that out totally, but Jesus not being God, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could start a new thread with the conclusions you have about this. Thanks.

Okay, I know you didn't ask for my life's story and unfortunately none of my family shares my viewpoint. But I believe God's Organization is identified in several ways.

I'd like to examine this list to help both of us, if you don't mind.

1.) basic teachings of Bible

Everyone teaches that they are the ones who teach it right. LDS, Christadelphians, Branch Davidians, etc.
2.) their fruits

Same. LDS use this as their chief staple as to why all other churches are apostates.

3.) Being separate from this morally debauched world

But to what extent? By not celebrating holidays and birthdays? I think that's way too legalistic.

4.) Hailing Jesus as King and God's Kingdom as the only solution for mankind

All groups do this too.

5.) the preaching work (Matt 28:19,20)

Same here. Statistically, the LDS are the busiest proselitizers


6.) refusing to kill people just because their government, in what ever land they live in, says that they are right and eveyone else is wrong. I was also very impressed that while Catholics were killing Catholics and Protestants were killing Protestants, Mormons killing Mormons, etc., JW's were willing to go to prison instead of kill fellow JW's who lived in another country. That also had a big impact on me.

Man you guys could not have made it in the OT times. The Law called for the death penalty for Jews who broke certain laws and God called David to war many times. But even more telling is the fact that Christians were not forbidden to serve in the army either by Scripture or by the counsel of the early church fathers. And the Army killed to protect the country. Ecc 3:3 says:

A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.

so there is a time to kill when necessary.

[themuzicman]

Well, if I got to make up my own translation of the bible using horrid greek grammar techniques, I could make an interesting case for a wacky cult, too.

But most people prefer an accurate translation of the original.

They can't even get something as simple as John 1 right, because it causes problem with their doctrine.

I think your error was going into the lions den with someone else's sword.

Michael

[InHim]

Today @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348559#post348559)
Non-Trinitarian:



It took me a while and I actually stumbled across it. I set out to prove JW's wrong so I accepted a Bible study to help them understand the truth. Armed with "Kingdom of the Cults" and a few books by former JW David Reed, I was ready to do battle. However, as I argued from the books, the JW answered the questions with ease by using other scriptures, which the anti-JW books I had did not address. In fact, I'm convinced David Reed is the biggest liar on earth. He went as far as to try and tell me what the JW's would say and they didn't say anything like what he said they would say. And suppossedly he was an elder at one time.

Over time I determined, after many discussions with my preacher and two more books he gave me, that Jesus was not God. Then I started studing other doctrines. In time I came to see that, to me at least, JW's had the truth for the most part. I was also impressed with their fruitage of the ministry, their zeal and love for high moral standards. Doctrines are sometime hard to see for people but Jesus said his followers would be recognized by their fruits. To me JW's are the obvious on that.

Okay, I know you didn't ask for my life's story and unfortunately none of my family shares my viewpoint. But I believe God's Organization is identified in several ways.
1.) basic teachings of Bible
2.) their fruits
3.) Being separate from this morally debauched world
4.) Hailing Jesus as King and God's Kingdom as the only solution for mankind
5.) the preaching work (Matt 28:19,20)
6.) refusing to kill people just because their government, in what ever land they live in, says that they are right and eveyone else is wrong. I was also very impressed that while Catholics were killing Catholics and Protestants were killing Protestants, Mormons killing Mormons, etc., JW's were willing to go to prison instead of kill fellow JW's who lived in another country. That also had a big impact on me.




Well Non-T I have to say that I do admire the JW's zeal; I can think of another group that knocks on my door that are equally zealous. But the problem I find with your criteria is that too many groups fit it.

Mormons are very moral people and their city is one of the cleanest. Their family values are very high.

Buddhists are some of the most gentle, peaceful people; respecting all life. and so on.

I think that Bill the cat hit it on the head. The bible is the only criteria.

I find it very difficult to read the scriptures and hold to a JW's biblical view.

Also you have the problem of polytheism if you hold to a non-Trinitarian view. Not to mention the fact that you cannot reconcile a God who needs to create in order to love. For who was God loving before anything was created?

[InHim]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348618#post348618)
Bill the Cat:




Everyone teaches that they are the ones who teach it right. LDS, Christadelphians, Branch Davidians, etc.


Same. LDS use this as their chief staple as to why all other churches are apostates.






I like to point out to some people that come knocking how 2 Peter 2:1 squares with sound criteria.

You ever notice how specific it is and how it separates? Which groups deny the Lord that bought them? All of them but one.

You made great points.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348618#post348618)
Bill the Cat:

Non-Trin, this approach is how I started out investigating the LDS church. I soon discovered that this was absolutely the wrong approach. The key is knowing how to interpret the Bible as a whole and reading contextually. If this site has taught me anything, it's context!!

I agree Bill, that context is important. Which is why JW's don't believe what others do. We both say context is what we are using.



I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that Jesus was not God. I can assure you that Jesus is not the Father, and Scripture bears that out totally, but Jesus not being God, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could start a new thread with the conclusions you have about this. Thanks.

You noticed I skipped your info on Jesus because that subject is huge. Let's talk more about that later. Not that I want to debate but maybe you and I can set a forum where just we discuss this. I am afraid of being overun with questions and arguments from 1500 people and I can't deal with everyone. I was going to start by considering your scriptures you discussed. How is that?



Everyone teaches that they are the ones who teach it right. LDS, Christadelphians, Branch Davidians, etc.

And they should. If they thought they were wrong they would leave, I hope.


But to what extent? By not celebrating holidays and birthdays? I think that's way too legalistic.

Did 1st century Christians celebrate Birthdays. If not, why not?


Same here. Statistically, the LDS are the busiest proselitizers

Actually, I saw an LDS site that said we were. LDS sends out young ones for two years. After that they are done. JW's, all of them, do it their whole life, every week. I've only been asked a few times if I was a Mormon. We ran into Mormons one weekend as we were working the same street (those poor households!) and they asked if people always accused us of being them. We said seldom did that happen. They said they got accussed of being JW's all the time. (BTW, we went ot t anew street)

Last year JW's spent 1,200,000,000 hours in the ministry. My point is I don't see how LDS could be busier than us.



Man you guys could not have made it in the OT times. The Law called for the death penalty for Jews who broke certain laws and God called David to war many times. But even more telling is the fact that Christians were not forbidden to serve in the army either by Scripture or by the counsel of the early church fathers. And the Army killed to protect the country. Ecc 3:3 says:

A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.

so there is a time to kill when necessary.

Well, we could make it in the OT. It's not that we don't kill because we're sissies. The thing to remember is that we are in the NT era. Here's a question for you. Did 1st century Christians become soldiers? Did soldiers who became Christians continue to be soldiers? (have to do some historical research on that one but I'm sure you're up to it.) And I do believe Christians were forbidden to become soldiers. "Put away your sword. For those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

Bill, I take weekends off but next week I want to start a thread on Jesus. Okay with you? I don't mind talking to others either but when someone with an "attitude" starts attacking me, I won't respond. I appreciate your kindness.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348621#post348621)
themuzicman:

Well, if I got to make up my own translation of the bible using horrid greek grammar techniques, I could make an interesting case for a wacky cult, too.

But most people prefer an accurate translation of the original.

They can't even get something as simple as John 1 right, because it causes problem with their doctrine.

I think your error was going into the lions den with someone else's sword.

Michael

I had several swords. The King James, NIV, NAB (very nice Bible), and Jerusalem Bible. Millions of JW's became JW's without the NWT.

[Bill the Cat]

No sweat Trin. I'll be back on Mon too to discuss the details with you. God bless and have a good weekend.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348686#post348686)
InHim:


Well Non-T I have to say that I do admire the JW's zeal; I can think of another group that knocks on my door that are equally zealous. But the problem I find with your criteria is that too many groups fit it.

Mormons are very moral people and their city is one of the cleanest. Their family values are very high.

Buddhists are some of the most gentle, peaceful people; respecting all life. and so on.

I think that Bill the cat hit it on the head. The bible is the only criteria.

I find it very difficult to read the scriptures and hold to a JW's biblical view.

Also you have the problem of polytheism if you hold to a non-Trinitarian view. Not to mention the fact that you cannot reconcile a God who needs to create in order to love. For who was God loving before anything was created?

Thanks for the compliment. I didn't say actions were the sole criteria. But they are a big determiner for recognizing the true church. I agree with Bill that the Bible is the sole criteria and the Bible tells us how to act. When religions don't follow that criteria, then I know they're not the true religion. That being said, I know good people in every religion, so I am speaking in generalities.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 11:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348702#post348702)
Non-Trinitarian:

I had several swords. The King James, NIV, NAB (very nice Bible), and Jerusalem Bible. Millions of JW's became JW's without the NWT.

Sure. They became so because another JW told them what their translation says.

If you read the KJV, NIV, or NASB, you find that JW theology doesn't square with it.

John 1 is the clearest example.

Michael

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348708#post348708)
themuzicman:



Sure. They became so because another JW told them what their translation says.

If you read the KJV, NIV, or NASB, you find that JW theology doesn't square with it.

John 1 is the clearest example.

Michael

John 1:1 can grammatically translated as the NWT, verified by many Bible scholars. Additionally, I also read quotes from scholars and footnotes in Bibles (see the NAB at John 1:1 for instance) that verified what the witnesses said about the lack of the definite article and its impact. Now scholars have their own take on how to translate John 1:1 and also what it MEANS by the lack of the article but most admit it is significant. JW's understanding of what it means is different from others (which don't even agree amongst themselves on what it means) but this comes down to theological arguments, not translation arguments.

And I was actually refering to the 75 years of JW's before the NWT was in existence. The Watchtower Society produced King james Bibles since the first part of the 20th century. It's those people who never heard of the NWT and yet still became witnesses.

Bill and I will discuss John 1:1 next week sometime. I'll save the rest for then. In the meantime, the book I will be using as a reference for my discussion is a book by Brian Holt. It's called "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" Personally i think it's the best book out there for a Non-T defense. You can get it at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971376085/qid=1071852498/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-3174254-2158331?v=glance&s=books

or the Publisher-

http://www.tellway-publishing.com/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=26&WebPageID=409

Most, if not all of your arguments are found in it.

[InHim]

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348707#post348707)
Non-Trinitarian:



Thanks for the compliment. I didn't say actions were the sole criteria. But they are a big determiner for recognizing the true church. I agree with Bill that the Bible is the sole criteria and the Bible tells us how to act. When religions don't follow that criteria, then I know they're not the true religion. That being said, I know good people in every religion, so I am speaking in generalities.



I'm curious Non-T as to your opinion on what I wrote:

Also you have the problem of polytheism if you hold to a non-Trinitarian view. Not to mention the fact that you cannot reconcile a God who needs to create in order to love. For who was God loving before anything was created? ”

Let me expand:

It is quite clear that the bible teaches that Jesus is God or as JW's say a god. But the problem with that is that now you have two gods making the holder of this view a polytheist. The Trinitarian however believes in one God revealed in three persons, so they are monotheists.

I know that the JW's will say yes Jesus is a god but not the almighty. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, I'll follow this reasoning for the sake of the point.

The bible says there is a true God and many false gods. The question then is, is Jesus a true God or a false god?

There is no getting around it, if you say true God then you become a polytheist and you have two true Gods; if you say false god, then you contradict the bible and you are worst off than where you started.

[themuzicman]

However, translating John 1:1 as the JWs do becomes a problem in John 1:18, where they have to contradict what they said about 1:1 to make any sense at all.

So, if we take the entire section within the grammatical context and style used by John, the JW translation is internally inconsistent, and thus incorrect.

Plus, if we go on over to Hebrews 1:8 for the JW, there are all kinds of gyrations and silliness which makes no sense whatsoever.

Michael

[Non-Trinitarian]

The bible says there is a true God and many false gods. The question then is, is Jesus a true God or a false god?

There is no getting around it, if you say true God then you become a polytheist and you have two true Gods; if you say false god, then you contradict the bible and you are worst off than where you started.


Is Moses a true God or a false God?
Is Solomon a true God or a false God?
Are the people Jesus refered to as being called Gods true Gods or false Gods?

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348766#post348766)
themuzicman:

However, translating John 1:1 as the JWs do becomes a problem in John 1:18, where they have to contradict what they said about 1:1 to make any sense at all.

So, if we take the entire section within the grammatical context and style used by John, the JW translation is internally inconsistent, and thus incorrect.

Plus, if we go on over to Hebrews 1:8 for the JW, there are all kinds of gyrations and silliness which makes no sense whatsoever.

Michael

Where do we have to contradict from John 1:1 to John 1:18? Jesus is "a God", he is a "begotten God".

The verse that Hebrews 1:8 is quoting; To whom were those words first applied to?

[InHim]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348795#post348795)
Non-Trinitarian:



Is Moses a true God or a false God?
Is Solomon a true God or a false God?
Are the people Jesus refered to as being called Gods true Gods or false Gods?

Come on Non-T you know that the context is different.

Moses was not worshipped, or Solomon or anyone else.

Jesus is worshipped several times even in the book of revelation.

You are avoiding the question Non-T

1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.


I don't recall a text saying the same about Moses.


So again Non-T is Jesus a true God or a false god??

[themuzicman]

Today @ 12:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348799#post348799)
Non-Trinitarian:
Where do we have to contradict from John 1:1 to John 1:18? Jesus is "a God", he is a "begotten God".

The verse that Hebrews 1:8 is quoting; To whom were those words first applied to?

"No one has seen God at any time..." The first part of that verse. It's the same form as you translate "a god" in 1:1. It's harder to translate this as "a god", because it doesn't make any sense.

Also, if you go down to verses 12 and13, it says, "12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Same construction in both instances, which requires you to translate them as "a god". Are you going to argue that these are the Word, as well? Are we children of Jehovah, or children of the Word?

Lots and lots of problems, here.

Michael

(Sorry, forgot Heb 1:8)

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.


God is speaking about Christ, in referring to Him as God, and in this case "THE God" with the definate article, identifying Christ as part of the one Godhead.

Michael

[InHim]

Today @ 06:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348838#post348838)
themuzicman:



"No one has seen God at any time..." The first part of that verse. It's the same form as you translate "a god" in 1:1. It's harder to translate this as "a god", because it doesn't make any sense.

Also, if you go down to verses 12 and13, it says, "12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Same construction in both instances, which requires you to translate them as "a god". Are you going to argue that these are the Word, as well? Are we children of Jehovah, or children of the Word?

Lots and lots of problems, here.

Michael

(Sorry, forgot Heb 1:8)

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.


God is speaking about Christ, in referring to Him as God, and in this case "THE God" with the definate article, identifying Christ as part of the one Godhead.

Michael




You know the greatest problem I have with JW's is that they never stay long enough.

I have to beg them to come back.

[themuzicman]

Oh, sorry. My bad. :metro:

[InHim]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349001#post349001)
themuzicman:

Oh, sorry. My bad. :metro:



I don't think it was you, but just in case... you just wont be part of the 144000.

... neither will I

[themuzicman]

I hate it when that happens... :eek:

Did Jesus come back in 1924?

[InHim]

Yesterday @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349014#post349014)
themuzicman:

I hate it when that happens... :eek:

Did Jesus come back in 1924?



ahh 1914 is when He came back...

Which really does a number on that verse in revelation 1:7

Rev. 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

[dizzle]

I would like to see NonTrin take a stab at my Alpha and Omega article.

[Non-Trinitarian]

InHim,
You presented me with only two options. Either Jesus must be a true God or a false God. However, the scriptures don’t limit the options to those two alone. Moses and Solomon are called “God”, as are other Israelite kings.
King David was worshipped with Jehovah by the Israelites. In fact, Moses even had his own prophet, Aaron. You apparently recognize this and so buttress your claim by arguing that Jesus was worshipped. However, I disagree with you unless you mean he was worshipped in the same manner King David was or how Christians are in Revelation. Thus, it appears that unless I answer every single argument that has been thought of on why Jesus is God, you will not accept my answer that he is God’s representative and Word of God and thus appropriately called “God.” Since that appears to be your tactic and I cannot possibly answer every argument in one shot, your question is impossible to answer to a satisfactory level for you.

Also, 1 John 5:20 does not say Jesus is God, as many TRINITARIAN scholars will admit. So you not only argue with me, you argue with those of your own faith.

MusicMan,
Actually, the construction is NOT the same for John 1:18 as it is for John 1:1. That you suggest such shows you are not as well read on this subject as you ought to be for someone trying to engage in a discussion on it. Surely you have read the works of many Trinitarian scholars who recognize the difference and significance in omitting the definite article at John 1:1. JW ’s do NOT say that automatically omitting the definite article means the indefinite article “a” should be used. Even the Trinitarians who incorrectly apply Colwell’s rule recognize that Colwell highlighted a reason why the definite article was omitted from this verse (John 1:1) and the significance of it.

Thus, your statement regarding John 1:1 and John 1:18 are of the “same construction in both instances, which requires you to translate them as "a god"” is quite incorrect. That is why I am here at TWeb. Not that I think I will convince you that I am right. Odds are I won’t convince anyone. BUT, maybe I can cause you to move on to more meaningful and accurate arguments as the ones you use now will easily be seen as inaccurate by your average JW. Please be patient with me as I plan on delving into this deeper with Bill. It is too hard to continue this conversation with 3, 4 or even more people at the same time.

Also, I will deal with Heb 1:8 with Bill but for now, I ask you again. Who were the following words originally addressed? “Your throne O’God, is forever.” That I am asking you this question for a second time means your first answer was incorrect.

Dee Dee,
Please point me to your article. If it is real long it may have to sit on the back burner because I plan on discussing these issues with Bill. BTW, most of my information will come from “Jesus-God or the Son of God?” by Brian Holt. He deals with the Alpha and Omega. If you have read that book, maybe you can knock out some of his arguments before I repeat them.

Thanks

PS-Also, I take weekends off so don’t think that my lack of response is a sign of you running me off. Questions don’t run me off. Bad attitudes do.

[themuzicman]

Hebrews 1:1 sets the context for this portion of scripture:

Hebrews 1:1
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,


Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.


So, God said it about the Son.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Non-trin, I'd like to invite you to the tennis court. I'll not debate with you there, but I'll pose some questions for you from post to post. I'm just curious on what made you decide that the Messiah (Jesus) is not God.

I'll post the link shortly. Busy day!!

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351229#post351229)
themuzicman:

Hebrews 1:1 sets the context for this portion of scripture:

Hebrews 1:1
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,


Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.


So, God said it about the Son.

Michael

But who was it FIRST said to? In otherwords, the writer of Hebrews was not the first person to utter those words and the person those words were first uttered to was not Jesus. That's my point. They were said originally to the King of Israel, most likely king Solomon. So if these words didn't make King Solomon God, why would they make Jesus God?

[themuzicman]

Seems to me that God is interpreting this portion of scripture a bit differently than you are. Gee, who should I believe... you.. God... Hmm....

Michael

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351246#post351246)
Bill the Cat:

Non-trin, I'd like to invite you to the tennis court. I'll not debate with you there, but I'll pose some questions for you from post to post. I'm just curious on what made you decide that the Messiah (Jesus) is not God.

I'll post the link shortly. Busy day!!

Okay Bill. I'm not familiar with how the tennis court works but I'll review the rules shortly. I'm very busy today too. In short though, I don't believe Jesus is God, not just because of the lack of force many of the Trinitarian scriptures have, but more so because of the hundreds of verses that show Jesus is someone other than the person of God. What I did was assume that no one believed Jesus was God when the first met him. Then, going through the gospels, I examined the things he said and what they would have led people to believe. Just as a quick example, let's say you were back in Jesus' day and you heard him say this.

"What I teach is not mine but belongs to Him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or if I speak of my own originallity."

Now imagine you are there and heard Jesus say that. Are you going to think 'Wow! This guy is claiming to be God!'? Probably not. When he said "Whether it is from God or if I speak of my own or if I speak of my own originality," the people most likely thought Jesus was someone other than the Almighty. After seeing sayings like this on nearly every page of the gospels, I've concluded Jesus is God's Son, not God Himself.

To me, personally, Trinitarians for the most part focus on the 50 or so scriptures that cause them to think Jesus is God and give little weight to the hundreds of scriptures that show he is someone other than God. It's like only hearing 25% of a court case before making a decision.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351260#post351260)
themuzicman:

Seems to me that God is interpreting this portion of scripture a bit differently than you are. Gee, who should I believe... you.. God... Hmm....

Michael

God's not interpreting the scripture, you are. God inspired those very words directed to King Solomon. He inspired them to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8. In verse 9, in case some might get confused, we're reminded that Jesus has a God over him, just as Solomon did. Again, if those words didn't make Solomon God, they don't automatically make Jesus God.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351267#post351267)
Non-Trinitarian:
God's not interpreting the scripture, you are. God inspired those very words directed to King Solomon. He inspired them to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8. In verse 9, in case some might get confused, we're reminded that Jesus has a God over him, just as Solomon did. Again, if those words didn't make Solomon God, they don't automatically make Jesus God.

The author didn't claim that God was reapplying this verse. He's quoting it, and making a clear statement that this passage is about the son.

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

This is very clearly and obviously interpreted as referring specifically to the Son by the author who is inspired of God, and is clearly NOT intended as double meaning.

Do you disagree with Him?

Michael

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351285#post351285)
themuzicman:



The author didn't claim that God was reapplying this verse. He's quoting it, and making a clear statement that this passage is about the son.

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

This is very clearly and obviously interpreted as referring specifically to the Son by the author who is inspired of God, and is clearly NOT intended as double meaning.

Do you disagree with Him?

Michael

Michael,
You're not understanding what I am saying. I do believe the phrase in Heb 1:8 is being applied to Jesus. I am not contradicting you on this point. What I am saying is that this phrase, elsewhere in the Bible, was applied to King Solomon. If the Bible can say to King Solomon, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever" then it can surely say the same thing to Jesus. And if saying "Your throne O God" to King Solomon does not mean Solomon is God then saying "Your throne O God" does not automatically mean Jesus is God. Thus, "Your throne O God" is no more proof Jesus is God than saying it means Solomon is God.

[themuzicman]

And what I'm saying is that the original Psalm wasn't about Solomon, but was prophetic about Jesus, who would be Solomon's descendent.

Michael

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 07:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351548#post351548)
themuzicman:

And what I'm saying is that the original Psalm wasn't about Solomon, but was prophetic about Jesus, who would be Solomon's descendent.

Michael

And you would be in disagreement with just about every Bible commentary I know of as practically all of them agree it was first applied to Solomon and that the Israelite kings were referred to as god since they sat on Jehovah's throne. I have no ability to make you agree with the normal understanding of the verse other than say you are almost alone in your thought.

[Bill the Cat]

Non-trin, still working the details, so if you would be so kind as to give me a little while longer? Thanks.

[Origen]

Hey everyone!

I love debating Watchtower stuff - I've got a lot of experience. However, it appears that this thread is way off topic (and shoot, I have a ton of great WT quotes!), so I'll hold a lot of my arguments for more appropriate threads!

Non-Trin, I think the majority of JW arguments totally forget about ANE context. Also, the possibility of Wisdom theology. I'd be more than happy to start a thread on these topics. Here is a sample of each:

ANE Context:
Many JWs and Trins point to John 10 and argue about it (This is when Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' and the Pharisees throw a hissy fit). The non-Trin perspective sees when Jesus says the part about "ye are gods" as a backsliding of his former statement. However, this is a common rabbinical technique: if the lesser is true, how much more the greater? The fact that the pharisees were incited to violence shows Jesus to be the victor of the argument, and thus the more honorable.

Wisdom Theology:
Throughout the OT and intertestamental literature, many characteristics were applied to Wisdom. In the NT, it is evident that the writers applied to Jesus these same characteristics. This theology basically makes the Trinity much easier to understand: Jesus/Wisdom, the eternal Word of God, is equal in status with God, though he came to earth through a hypostatic union.

Non-Trin, if you are interested in discussing these topics, just reply at your leisure. Let's not discuss them in this thread, as it is getting long, and far off the original goal. I'm always happy to discuss this stuff, and I'll do my darndest not to spread discord, but to answer you with love to increase understanding.

Hope all is well with everyone.

- Origen -

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351587#post351587)
Bill the Cat:

Non-trin, still working the details, so if you would be so kind as to give me a little while longer? Thanks.

Bill,
No problem.

regards

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 07:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351593#post351593)
Origen:

Hey everyone!

I love debating Watchtower stuff - I've got a lot of experience. However, it appears that this thread is way off topic (and shoot, I have a ton of great WT quotes!), so I'll hold a lot of my arguments for more appropriate threads!

Non-Trin, I think the majority of JW arguments totally forget about ANE context. Also, the possibility of Wisdom theology. I'd be more than happy to start a thread on these topics. Here is a sample of each:

ANE Context:
Many JWs and Trins point to John 10 and argue about it (This is when Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' and the Pharisees throw a hissy fit). The non-Trin perspective sees when Jesus says the part about "ye are gods" as a backsliding of his former statement. However, this is a common rabbinical technique: if the lesser is true, how much more the greater? The fact that the pharisees were incited to violence shows Jesus to be the victor of the argument, and thus the more honorable.

Wisdom Theology:
Throughout the OT and intertestamental literature, many characteristics were applied to Wisdom. In the NT, it is evident that the writers applied to Jesus these same characteristics. This theology basically makes the Trinity much easier to understand: Jesus/Wisdom, the eternal Word of God, is equal in status with God, though he came to earth through a hypostatic union.

Non-Trin, if you are interested in discussing these topics, just reply at your leisure. Let's not discuss them in this thread, as it is getting long, and far off the original goal. I'm always happy to discuss this stuff, and I'll do my darndest not to spread discord, but to answer you with love to increase understanding.

Hope all is well with everyone.

- Origen -

Thanks. I am going to be discussing much of this with Bill. However, I too beleive Jesus is the Wisdom referred to at Prov 8:22. We understand John 10:30 in light of John 17:20-22. The Jews simply misunderstood Jesus and Jesus demonstrated that in verses 33-36. And I don't know where you get that we say Jesus is "backsliding" from verse 30 with these verses as we, to my knowledge, never said that. At least that is not how ANY of the JW articles I have read have explained it.

BTW, I have read JP Holding's work on Wisdom Theology and so am fairly familiar with it. I agree that this thread is not the place. And for now I don't have the time since I already have an ongoing discussion with Bill and I promised Dee Dee I would look at the A&O article.

regards,

[yxboom]

Sounds to me like non-trin is really going to need to call in some buddies. Already too many ladels in the soup it seems.

[Origen]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351640#post351640)
yxboom:

Sounds to me like non-trin is really going to need to call in some buddies. Already too many ladels in the soup it seems.

Oh man, I am laughing so hard right now, boom.

NonTrin-
I'll probably post about some things anyway, and you can feel free to join in.

- Origen -

[barryrob]

Enlighten my ignorance - do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watchtower Society to be inerrant?
NO:-
*** Watchtower 1980 3/15 pp. 17-18 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***

6 In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: "If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises." In saying "anyone," The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.

Yes we get things wrong at time.

Barryrob