Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Missionaries At My Door
5 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2012 - 1:36PM #1
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


My first discussion with a Watchtower Society missionary occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and naive, and thus assumed that the hewer of wood, and hauler of water, who came down my driveway was a fellow born-again Christian. But when I talked this over with a Protestant church elder he became alarmed; and urged me to read a little book titled 30 Years A Watchtower Slave by William J. Schnell; whom the Society used to demonize as an agent of Satan. I would not be surprised if it still does.


After getting my eyes opened by Mr. Schnell's book, I was steered towards another book titled Kingdom Of The Cults by Walter Martin. No doubt the Society demonizes Mr. Martin too.


Later, in 1980, my wife and I attended a series of classes offered by a church we were attending in San Diego called "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses" instructed by a man who had been with the Society for more than twenty years before coming to a realization that something was not quite right.


The ex-Witness didn't train us to win Witnesses over to our way of thinking; no, he trained us to do four things: (1) don't give them a chance to launch into their spiel, but immediately put them on the defensive with your own questions, thus denying them control of the conversation, (2) force them to listen and pay attention even if you have to repeat yourself to do it, (3) don't permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions, and (4) show them the Bible not in ways they've already seen, but in ways they've never seen before. You see, the goal is not to win Witnesses, but to make them realize that there is more to the Bible than the Society's propriety slant on it.


Note : regarding item #3, I was instructed that when a Witness says that they don't know an answer, but will consult with their supervisors; that's the point when the current interview must stop-- no exceptions --and not proceed any further till they return with an answer.


Later on, I read a book titled Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted Dencher and eventually purchased a copy of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to use in my discussions with Witnesses because it is the one Bible that they cannot refute; nor dare refute. I also read and studied the Society's little brown book titled Reasoning From The Scriptures.


From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and phrases, those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in the Witness mind than what you'd expect. It is genuinely a case of apples and oranges going by the same names. So your first challenge in dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses is to scale the language barrier; and that by itself is no easy task.


More »
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2012 - 1:42PM #2
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


The Watchtower Society's form of theology is a variety known as monolatrism which basically alleges that all gods are actual deities; though not all deities are deemed worthy of worship. This is not quite the same as Hinduism's polytheism where numerous gods are all considered worthy of worship. Monolatrism is distinguished from monotheism (asserts the existence of only one god) and distinguished from henotheism (a religious system in which the believer worships one god alone without denying that others may worship different gods of equal value.)


For example: every star in the Milky Way is a valid sun; but there is only one star that science calls "the" sun. Likewise; there are a number of valid moons in the solar system; but only one is "the" moon. That pretty much defines monolatrism.


The New Testament appears to validate monolatrism.


†. 1Cor 8:5 . . For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.


But there's a fly in the ointment. At John 17:3 Jesus spoke of his Father as "the only true god". So then, by default, all other gods are false gods. The ramifications of that are pretty serious because if the Word of John 1:1 isn't the only true god, then by default the Word is a false god. The Society tries to circumvent this rather thorny theological problem by labeling gods "mighty ones". But even at that, Jesus' father would be the only true mighty one; and all other mighty ones would be, by default, false mighty ones.


†. Gen 1:1 . . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


The common Old Testament Hebrew word for god(s) is 'elohiym for which the Watchtower Society's proprietary definition is "mighty one" and applies to all gods; both the almighty god and the lesser gods. However, by plugging "mighty one" into a few passages, it's quickly ascertained that there is but one actual mighty one rather than a profusion of actual mighty ones; for example:


†. Isa 43:10 . ."You are my witnesses" is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no mighty one formed, and after me there continued to be none."


†. Isa 44:6 . .This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, "I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no mighty one"


†. Isa 44:8 . . Does there exist a mighty one besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none.


†. Isa 45:5 . . I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no mighty one.


†. Isa 45:18 . . For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true mighty one, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it


†. Isa 45:21-22 . . Make your report and your presentation. Yes, let them consult together in unity. Who has caused this to be heard from a long time ago? Who has reported it from that very time? Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other mighty one; a righteous mighty one and a Savior, there being none excepting me?


†. Isa 46:9 . . Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other mighty one, nor anyone like me


Society missionaries have informed me that when God says there is no other mighty one; He simply means there are no mighty ones like Jehovah but doesn't preclude the existence of lesser mighty ones. But is that what the Bible says? No; that is what the Society says; so don't let them get away with that kind of clever in-house sophistry.


Christ was an Old Testament expert. I'm pretty sure he knew Isaiah forwards and backwards. So when he labeled his Father as the only true god at John 17:3, he meant just exactly what Isaiah meant; viz: there is only one actual mighty one; and all the rest of the so-called mighty ones mentioned in the Old Testament aren't real; viz: they're imagined.


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

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2012 - 1:55PM #3
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


†. 1Tim 2:5 . .There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, a man Christ Jesus.


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


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


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


The answer given in the magazine is YES.


The answer given is corroborated on page 1130 of Aid To Bible Understanding where it says that the 144,000 are the only ones who have the mediator. The ramifications of that answer are very serious; for example:


†. 1John 2:1 . . My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one.


The pronoun "we" is exclusive; viz: it refers to the 144,000. They're the only ones in the Society with direct access to the helper Jesus Christ.


Intercession for the earthly class-- the hewers of wood and the haulers of water --is accomplished on the coattails of the 144,000. In other words: Jesus is an indirect, second party mediator for the rank and file through the kindly patronage and guidance of the Watchtower Society. But when an earthly class Witness is disfellowshipped, it breaks the connection to the mediator that he enjoyed within the Society's fold; and he right quick loses all contact with God; and finds himself in serious danger of the Tribulation. Bottom line? It is impossible for non anointed people to be on peaceful terms with God apart from the Watch Tower Society.


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

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 17, 2012 - 3:34PM #4
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


†.1Tim 6:20-21 . .Turn away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge". For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith.


The koiné Greek word for "knowledge" in that verse is gnosis (gno'-sis) which just simply means knowing. Knowledge isn't eo ipso a bad thing; I mean, after all, Christ is chock full of things to know.


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


Paul's warning likely refers to Gnosticism; which consisted of diverse, syncretistic religious movements consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that the material cosmos was created by a subordinate deity called a demiurge, which, in the thinking of Gnostics, is Yhvh's divine associate assigned the task of creating the known universe including all of its forms of life, matter, and energy: which boils down to a second creator, as opposed to the traditional Christian concept of a solo creator of the universe.


Point being: with a little tinkering; John 1:1-3 can make it appear that there really was a demiurge involved in the creation of the cosmos.


"In [the] beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."


Here's an item of interest pertinent to the Society's translation.


Absence of the Greek definite article "ho" relative to the second theos in John 1:1 is used by the Watch Tower Society as proof that it should not be translated with upper case spelling. However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not essential to speech.


In other words: when the Greek word theos is in the predicate, "ho" could be either used, or not used, without making any real difference. Bottom line? A translator's choice whether to capitalize "god" or not to capitalize "god" is entirely arbitrary.


FYI: the Society's use of the article "a" in translating the second theos of John 1:1 is an editorial insertion; in other words: the article is not in the Greek but was inserted to make the second theos appear to be a god other than the only true god. So then, a legitimate alternative to the Society's translation, and consistent with Dr. Robertson's Grammar, would look like this:


"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with god, and god was the Word."


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

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2012 - 6:01AM #5
Estacia
Posts: 2,236

When Morman Missionaries come to my door I tell them fale prophets are not welcomed here.


If you have the truth you hold tight on to it and you have nothing to fear.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2012 - 1:43PM #6
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398

.
If someone wishes to go toe to toe with Mormons (which I seriously don't recommend) I suggest you go straight for the jugular-- the priesthood order of Melchizedek. The reason being because according to the letter to Hebrews, the Melchizedekian order is a high-priest position; and very exclusive.


(1)  Melchizedekian priests do not obtain their positions by succession


(2) Melchizedekian priests are personally hand-picked by God; not by man.


(3) Melchizedekian priests must be immortal.


(4) Melchizedekian priests must be childless.


(5) There can be only one Melchizedekian priest at a time.


(6) Jesus is the man currently occupying the position; and since he rose from the dead immortal, he will never be replaced.


(7) The Melchizedekian order began with its post on earth. But when the Law established Aaron as the high priest, Mel's post was moved to heaven; viz: no man on earth can officiate as a priest of the order of Melchizedek; not even Jesus; were he here.


If the Mormons with whom you are conversing attempt to divert you, or refute you with "revelation" or in any way bee-ess their way out of those seven limitations with clever LDS sophistry; it's time to come to a full stop-- politely thank them for stopping by, and bid them have a nice day.


Buen Camino
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2012 - 9:36AM #7
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


Rank and file door-to-door Witnesses claim they are guided by the spirit of God in their understanding of the Bible. But one of the things I quickly discovered about the Society is that though it uses many of standard Christianity's terms and phrases, the Society's definitions are something entirely different than what I expected, and unless people know that going in, discussions with its agents will prove very frustrating. It is genuinely a case of apples and oranges going by the same names, which is just as much a barrier to communication as speaking to someone in a foreign language.


For example: is the Society's spirit of God a person? No; the Society's version of God's spirit is a force instead of a person. So the rank and file's claim to having the guidance of God's spirit is according to Society-speak, but not according to standard Christian-speak; viz: according to standard Christian-speak; their claim is false.


The great crowd also claims they don't need the anointing of 1John 2:26-27 in order to be guided by God's spirit.  But what they aren't told is that the anointing serves three very important purposes: (1) to protect people from being deceived, (2) to enable people to grasp Christianity's teachings the way Christ wants them grasped, and (3) to make it possible for people to remain in union with him.


None of the benefits of the anointing are available to the hewers of wood and the haulers of water; ergo: they are unprotected from deception, they are unable to grasp Christianity's teachings the way Christ wants them grasped; and worst of all: neither are they in union with him. This is all the more reason to regard the Society's door-to-door representatives as little more than a misguided troop of off-reservation renegades using methods to serve Yhvh that don't meet His approval. How do I know their methods don't meet Yhvh's approval? Simple. Because that's the default when people aren't in union with His son.


†. Mtt 12:30 . . He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.


Buen Camino
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2012 - 9:28AM #8
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


Were you to ask door-to-door Watchtower Society missionaries if they believe that Christ rose from the dead, I can assure you they would answer yes. However, what you may not know is that you and they would not be on the same page as the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go by the same name.


The standard Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common throughout the gospels; viz: homo sapiens come back as homo sapiens, and always as themselves. Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) didn't believe in that kind of return to life. He taught reincarnation; which is very different because it doesn't eo ipso indicate people coming back as homo sapiens, nor as even as themselves; but rather, as rearranged karma; which means Buddhists could conceivably come back as someone else, or a sea urchin, or a termite, or a fruit bat.


But the Watchtower Society's resurrection theory is even crazier than that. According to its proprietary way of seeing things; Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead at all; and here's why.


In Watchtower theology, the New Testament's Jesus pre-existed as an angel named Michael. When the angel became human, it lost the qualities of an angel because the Society insists it's impossible to exist as a human being and as a spirit being both at the same time. So when Jesus was crucified, Michael died too and went out of existence right along with his mortal alter ego. So Michael's resurrection was actually a re-creation back into existence from God's memory of his former self. But Michael's human counterpart wasn't included in that because in Society theology, Jesus' body has to stay on earth, and here's why:


On page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watch Tower magazine; 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."


In Watchtower theology, Christ's appearances to his friends after his resurrection were not in Jesus' true human form, but in a form Michael materialized for the benefit of his followers so they could see that their savior (albeit no longer human) was back in existence. In effect then, according to the Watchtower Society, Michael was created twice-- once in the ages past before the world came into existence, and then again after Jesus' crucifixion. So for three days and nights, neither Michael nor Jesus existed. Does that all sound far fetched? Well, it is genuine Watchtower doctrine I can assure you.


The Society's proprietary resurrection doctrine quite obviously has a serious problem with the corpus delicti. When the women went to the grave site, and entered the tomb, the body was gone.


†. Luke 24:1-3 . . On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.


If the Society wishes the world to accept its proprietary version of Christ's resurrection then they are going to have to produce Jesus' body as evidence that neither he nor it revived. But they have yet to account for Jesus' corpse; so it is impossible for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's really still down here on the "altar" somewhere. But not to worry. The Society's theologians are quite good at clever sophistry and have concocted a brilliant defense of their theory; which is just as well because were the Society to go on a quest for Christ's corpse, they would be akin to blind men, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there because Christ's body revived; and him with it.


†. Luke 24:3-6 . .Suddenly two men in clothing that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them: Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!


The pronoun "He" is antecedent to the name Jesus in verse 4. In other words; the men weren't talking about an angel named Michael but about a human being named Jesus.


The "dead" in that location were dead human bodies; about which the men said one was alive; and that's because it was supposed to be alive.


†. John 2:19-22 . . 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.



Buen Camino
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2012 - 11:35AM #9
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398

.
Watchtower Society sophists argue that the account of the metemorphe (transfiguration) found at Mtt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form, proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh? Does it?


According to the Society's own doctrines, Christ's true angelic form is a spirit being named Michael. Also according to Society doctrines, it is impossible to exist as a spirit being and a human being both at the same time. So then, had Christ undergone a change of nature in the transfiguration scene, he would have also undergone a change of name, but at no time during the event was he ever referred to as Michael but throughout the event continued to be referred to as Jesus; which is his human name.


During the event, a voice from heaven identified Jesus as "my beloved son". According to the first chapter of the letter to Hebrews, God has never taken an angel as either His son or His heir.


According to Luke's version, Moses and Elijah were also emitting a bright light. Were they angels too? I don't think so; and besides, Moses was supposed to be dead; but there he was in person alive as ever.


All three of the synoptic gospels report the transfiguration event as a preview of the future kingdom; which, according to Heb 2:5-8 will be ruled, managed, and supervised by human beings rather than by angel beings. This presents a knotty problem for the Society because according to its sophists, Jesus' body cannot be taken off the altar; viz: it has to stay dead and cached away somewhere on the earth in order to remain an effective sacrifice for the sins of the world.


The fact of the matter is that had Jesus morphed into an angel; the sacred text would say so; but it doesn't; indicating that the Society has gone and done something very common with cultists like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, David Koresh, and Jim Jones: it has forced the Bible to say things that it does not say in writing. According to 2Pet 3:15, people who handle the Bible like that do so at their own peril.


Buen Camino
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2012 - 10:23AM #10
weberhome02
Posts: 3,398


According to the New World Translation: God now serves as a throne for His son throughout eternity (Ps 45:6, Heb 1:8). Well; I have to ask: which should people esteem worthy of more honor, respect, dignity, and reverence: a king's throne or the king who parks his derriere on it?


No; according to the language of the Kingdom Interlinear, God doesn't serve as His son's throne; rather, God is His son. And how is that possible? Well; think about it. My son is me. No, we aren't one and the same individual; but we are one and the same species; and that's because my son is my progeny. In other words: like produces like. So then; were God to reproduce, then He would produce only more of Himself just as when I reproduced I produced only more of myself; viz: as humans give birth to humans, so God would give birth to God. So if the son in the first chapter of the letter to Hebrews was really and truly birthed by God, then it only stands to reason he's God too.


It can't be any other way; unless of course the Word of John 1:1 was created at some point in the distant past and then placed as a son in God's home. However, that idea presents yet another knotty problem for the Society's sophists. According to the language and grammar of John 1:3-5 there has been no life created that the Word himself didn't undertake to create. And also; a created Word would indicate that a creature-- according to the NWT --now parks its derriere upon his creator; thus relegating Yhvh to the rank and status of furniture.


Buen Camino
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook