Jehovah's Witnesses/The Watchtower Society

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

God is from the Greek word theós (theh'-os).

Many moons ago; I asked some Watchtower Society missionaries to explain to me
why the Watchtower Society translated theós in upper case seeing as how in their
theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled with an upper case G.
Well; they were too inexperienced to explain and my question left them stumped.

The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek definite
article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use upper case
because it's normally their practice that whenever theós is modified by the Greek
definite article, then the upper case is required.

But I don't recommend making an issue of the capitalization because skilled
Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the attention upon Thomas'
possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare that Jesus was a god. No, he
clearly declared that Jesus was "my" god. Here's what it looks like in the Kingdom
Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham way back
in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God voluntarily covenanted
with Abraham's posterity to be their god. At that time, Jehovah didn't say He'd be
their only god; just their god, i.e. a god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted that
covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own free will; which is really
important because it forbids them to possess more than one god. No longer would
Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only god.

● Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am Jehovah
your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially refer to
God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to have a market
share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing less than 100%. (cf.
Mark 12:28-30)

If the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that
possessing a god along with Jehovah-- in effect possessing multiple gods --would
incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by
doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas knew what
he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant to say something
else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as
his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why it is that Jesus
Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's divine status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal friends.

BTW: In Matt 19;17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19, Jesus objected when somebody
called him good. Well; if he would object to something as elementary as that, then
I think it's safe to assume that he would've certainly objected to Thomas calling
him "my god" if in fact Jesus were not Thomas' god.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● John 20:17 . . Be on your way to my brothers and say to them; "I am ascending
to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."

FAQ: If Jesus is God, as classical Christianity claims, then how can he have a God?
Does God worship Himself?

A: I have yet to encounter the language of John 20:17 in reverse, viz: I have yet to
see a passage in the Bible where the Father refers to His son as "my God". The
reason for that is very simple; Jesus is a son.

● Ex 20:12 . . Honor your father

● John 8:49 . . Jesus answered: I honor my Father

There's a hierarchy in the divine relationship just as there is a hierarchy in human
relationships. Though all members of a human family are equally human, they are
not all equal in rank and privilege; some are superior and some are subordinate.
(cf. John 14:28, 1Cor 15:28)

The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society calls Jesus "the only-begotten son from a
Father" (John 1:14). Don't let that mislead you. The Society dare not accept
Christ's status as God's literal progeny because the ramifications would force them
to revise their theology.

The Society also calls Jesus "the only-begotten god" (John 1:18). Well; If the true
God were to beget a god, wouldn't that god be the true God like its father?

For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of the true God as a species; viz: if indeed
the true God were to beget a child, He would beget a child of like species; i.e. the
true God would beget the true God, i.e. more of Himself, because that's the only
kind of offspring that the true God could possibly engender; just as when a true
human being begets a child, they beget a child of like species i.e. they beget a true
human being like themselves because that's the only kind of offspring that a true
human being can engender.

Now, we can volley back and forth with JWs, countering each other's verses with
more verses-- verse upon verse --but I can just about guarantee that us and they
will both be chasing our tails and getting nowhere until they agree to approach the
Son's relationship to his Father from a biological perspective; which is a perspective
that just about anybody with even a cursory knowledge of the birds and the bees
can understand with ease.

FAQ: How can the true God be two of Himself out there when even Jesus plainly
declared there is only one true God? (John 17:3)

A: The Bible also declares that there is only one true Man. (Acts 17:26)

In the beginning, when God created the Man creature, He created it male and
female; i.e. two persons. But the two persons do not represent two Mans. There is
only one Man though the one Man is a binary creature and can be spoken of with a
plural pronoun.

● Gen 1:27. . And God proceeded to create the man in His image, in God’s image
He created him; male and female He created them.

● Gen 5:2 . . Male and female He created them. After that He blessed them and
called their name Man in the day of their being created.

After God created Adam, he then proceeded to construct Eve from Adam's body
rather than create her from the soil as before. That way, Eve retained Adam's
humanness rather than be given a unique humanness of her own, viz: Eve was in
Adam, and he in her.

In a similar manner-- though no doubt quite a bit more complicated --God's son is
in God, and God is in His son. i.e. the Son extends the Father just as Seth extended
Adam: the difference being that Adam begot multiple sons, whereas God has
begotten only the one.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
It's both tragic and ironic that the Watchtower Society's rank and file missionaries
go worldwide advertising a kingdom that they themselves will never be allowed to
enter. Here's why.

At John 3:3-12, Christ discusses what he labels "earthly things".

The primary earthly thing discussed was the kingdom of God. The other earthly
thing discussed was a Spirit-birth requirement to enter it. In other words: God's
kingdom on earth, and a Spirit birth, are joined at the hip.

The overwhelming majority of JWs coming to our doors aren't Spirit-born now, nor
do they ever expect to be-- not in this life, nor in the next --yet they sincerely
believe they have a shot at admission to God's kingdom on earth. However, seeing
as how the Spirit-birth requirement is a must rather than an option; they will not
succeed.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Many of the Jehovah's Witness missionaries going door-to-door throughout the
world are honestly, and sincerely, wanting to enter the kingdom of God; which is
why I'm convinced that Christians really ought to know something about New
Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about the kingdom.

● 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be ready to make a defense before everyone that demands
of you a reason for the hope in you,

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in Peter's instructions is elpis (el pece')
which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence.
Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

In other words: elpis hope is a know-so hope rather than a cross your fingers hope.

So, unless someone knows for proof-positive, beyond even the slightest glimmer of
sensible doubt, that they have a passport to the kingdom of God locked in and
irrevocable, then of course it is impossible for them to comply with Peter's
instructions seeing as they would not yet have the kind of hope about which he
wrote.

● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoice in the hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the
worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; but they do have plenty of cause
to fear the unknown.

Elpis hope is one of the three primary elements of Christianity (1Cor 13:13). It's
also a calling. (Eph 4:4)

When people are lacking the kind of hope described by the Greek word elpis, then I
believe it's safe to assume that they have not yet responded to God's call; or
worse, He hasn't yet called them; and quite possibly never will.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● John 14:16-17 . . I will request the Father and he will give you another helper to
be with you forever, the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because
it neither beholds it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in
you.

● John 14:26 . .The helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name,
that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told
you.

Rank and file JWs are taught to believe that they obtain boldness in speaking the
word of God, and zealousness in engaging in the work of witnessing, from "having"
the holy spirit. (pg 382, Reasoning From The Scriptures)

However; when speaking of "having" the holy spirit, the JWs mean that it is
alongside them rather than inside them. Only a special guild of 144,000 JWs
actually have the spirit inside them. The special guild are known as the anointed
class; a label taken from 1John 2:27.

The non-anointed class-- a.k.a. the great crowd, a.k.a. the hewers of wood and
haulers of water --are in a very serious condition. Here's why:

● Rom 8:9 . .You are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's
spirit truly dwells in you.

Seeing as how God's spirit does not truly dwell "in" John Q and Jane Doe
missionary, then they are, by default, in harmony with the flesh. That only makes
things worse.

● Rom 8:5-8 . . For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the
things of the flesh, but those in accord with the spirit on the things of the spirit. For
the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and
peace; because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under
subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony
with the flesh cannot please God.

The non-anointed class' situation is just too ironic for words. They displease God,
and He displeases them; yet they go door-to-door sincerely believing themselves
Jehovah's friends and allies.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1John 2:26-27 . .These things I write you about those who are trying to mislead
you. And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and
you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but, as the anointing from him is
teaching you about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught
you, remain in union with him.

The anointing provides people with some valuable advantages to which people who
lack it of course have no access.

1» Protects people from deception

2» Enables people to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants them grasped

3» Makes it possible for people to remain in union with him.

According to Watchtower Society theology, only 144,000 special Jehovah's
Witnesses have the anointing. There aren't that many living Witnesses who have
the anointing though because when anointed Witnesses die, their passing doesn't
create vacancies; viz: 144,000 is the maximum unless an anointed JW either
apostatizes or is ousted via the process of disfellowship.

What that means is: the vast majority of today's living JWs don't have the
anointing. We're talking about some serious numbers here.

Currently, there are approximately 20+ million adherents following the
Watchtower's Society's version of Christianity. Even if all 144,000 anointed
Witnesses were alive today, that would leave approximately 19.86 million JWs
roaming the earth in our day who 1) have no protection from deception, 2) are
unable to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants them grasped, and 3)
not in union with him.

I'd imagine that quite a few ordinary Witnesses sincerely believe that their
association with the Watchtower Society keeps them in union with Jesus Christ; but
according to 1John 2:26-27, union with Jesus Christ isn't accomplished on the
coattails of an organization; it's accomplished by means of the anointing.

Ironically, every non anointed JW coming to our doors preaching the kingdom of
God are themselves "those who are trying to mislead you."
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take for
example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 7:1-8 wherein is listed a
specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

The Society claims that those aren't biological sons of Israel; but rather "spiritual"
sons-- referring of course to the Society's elite cadre of 144,000 Witnesses who
have supposedly undergone a spirit birth as per Christ's instructions at John 3:3
12; and the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27.

The Society's claim is premised upon its observation that there never was a tribe of
Joseph; when in reality Joseph is listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28 and
Ezek 48:31-34). So that portion of the Society's reasoning is clearly a false
premise.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its observation that Ephraim and Dan are
missing from the list of tribes at Rev 7:4-8. However, what the Society's
theologians have somehow overlooked in the Old Testament is that it doesn't
matter whose names are chosen to represent the twelve tribes of Israel just so long
as there are twelve names. Are there twelve in Rev 7:4-8? Yes. Well then that's
good enough. I realize that makes no sense but then the Lord's apostles were still
referred to as "the twelve" even with Judas out of the picture. So that premise in
the Society's reasoning is spurious too.

The Society's claim is also premised upon its reasoning that Levi isn't a valid tribe
based upon the fact that the Levites are exempt from warfare. However, Levi is
clearly listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28) plus Ezek 48:31-34, which is
a good many years after Num 1:1-54. So that premise is bogus too.

The Watchtower Society not wanting the 144,000 to be biological Hebrews is one
thing; but I would just like to know from whence Charles T. Russell's and Joseph F.
Rutherford's followers got the idea that their people constitute the 144,000. That's
a pretty serious claim. How do they validate it? I don't know; but I can just about
guarantee that their explanation is an outlandish stretch of the imagination
consisting of humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, spiritualizing, clever sophistry, and
semantic double-speak.

NOTE: According to Rev 14:1-4, the 144,000 are supposed to all be males, and
none have ever slept with a woman. That, if true, would of course disqualify
married JWs.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Matt 24:45-47 . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master
appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is
that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will
appoint him over all his belongings.

The core of the Watchtower Society-- the Governing Body --sincerely believes itself
the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in that passage, i.e. believes that God
chose the leaders of the Watchtower Society as His sole distributor of truth to
mankind; thus explaining why John Q and Jane Doe Jehovah's Witnesses are taught
that they need to submit unquestioningly to the Governing Body in order to
associate with God, and for protection from doomsday, viz: the calamities depicted
in the book of Revelation.

"That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true followers
in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave. Our spiritual
health and our relationship with God depend on this channel." (Watchtower, 2013
Jul 15, p.20)

"We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval."
(Watchtower, 2011 Jul 15, p.24, Simplified English Edition)

"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor
private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete
confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus
Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (Watchtower, 2001 Aug 01, p.14)

According to the above: rank and file JWs are being taught that it's essential to
comply with the Governing Body's teachings. However; at the same time they are
warned that the Body's teachings cannot be assured that they are either inspired or
infallible.

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in
doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower
Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments
in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his
faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food." (paragraph 12, under the
heading; "Who is leading God's People today?" of the Feb 2017 Watchtower--Study
Edition)

Just imagine the degree of confusion and insecurity that would pervade the minds
of regular Christians had the authors of the New Testament scriptures attached a
caveat to their writings similar to the above.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example
they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween, serve
in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions with a JW
from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the utmost in
diplomacy, care, and civility because this is a hot-button issue. Should your JW
audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake, they will
be overwhelmed with guilt, disillusion, and humiliation; not to mention fear of the
organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to begin questioning
the Society's stance on blood transfusions.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

That's what they say; but it's not what the Bible says. The fact of the matter is;
Christ's divine genetics made it impossible for him to sin.

● 1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin,
because His [reproductive] seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin,
because he has been born from God.

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

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

There's more:

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

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

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

Anyway; what we're looking at in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity; rather, "the"
divinity; viz: we're looking at God's divinity; which I think pretty safe to assume is
impeccable. I seriously doubt even the Devil himself could fail and/or sin were he
brimming with not just a percentage; but with all the fullness of God's divinity.

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

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

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

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the JWs'
conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a better response than
that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as impossible for God to sin as it is
for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due
to the fact that out of God he has been generated; then it goes without saying that
the God out of whom the progeny was generated would be unable to sin too; viz: if
God's reproductive seed is unable to sin, then obviously the source of the seed
would be unable to sin too.

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

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● John 1:18 . . No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god, who is in
the bosom position with the Father, is the one that has explained him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
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)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
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 loses awareness.

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.

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 Jesus' 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 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Fiction can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that, though
untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people, places, and events that are not
only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a wooden boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story
about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and the
autistic boy is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the other is far
removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that couldn't possibly be a
real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- banquets, stewards, weddings,
farmers sowing seed, pearls, lost sheep, fish nets, women losing coins, sons leaving
home, wineskins bursting, tares among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig
trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.

Now; if Christ had told a story with a moon made of green cheese; we would have
good reason to believe that at least that particular parable was fantasy; but not one
of them are so far removed from the normal round of human experience that they
have no basis in reality whatsoever.

No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in Christ's parables. At best; they qualify as
fiction; but never fantasy because that would be extremely out of character for
Christ-- the Logos: the voice of God --who went about advertising "If you hold to
my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the
truth will set you free."

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that
the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable theory has a
fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life man; the father of
the Hebrew people, held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's
prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He was also a prophet (Gen
20:7) and the friend of God (Isa 41:8).

I simply cannot accept that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians
for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life
man; most especially a prophet and one of his Father's buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story
is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record as a gossip alleging that Abraham said
things he didn't really say.

As for Abraham; he was a prophet, i.e. an inspired man. As such, he would be privy
to information that would normally be unavailable to the average rank and file pew
warmer. Abraham was also a teacher/mentor. (Gen 18:19)

So then, I think it's fairly safe to assume the information that Abraham passed on
to the rich man came to Abraham via inspiration; which, if so, means that our
reaction to his remarks should be very different than the rich man's. He brushed
aside what Abraham told him; but we, I should hope, are wiser than that impious
dunce because we know that a prophet's teachings are the voice of God.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No, it
originated with Jehovah.

● John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

● John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which
I have heard of Him.

● John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the
Father taught me.

● John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He
gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

● John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent
me.

So, by alleging that Luke 16:19-31 is fiction/fantasy, the parable theory slanders
God by insinuating that He's a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to
tell the truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous
seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.

God's impeccable character is what makes the narrative all the more disturbing.
Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of sensible doubt, that Christ's
Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume Luke 16:19-31 was drawn
from real life because I certainly don't want to be listed among those who believe
Jehovah is capable of dishonesty.

● 1John 5:10 . . The person not having faith in God has made Him a liar, because
he has not put his faith in the witness given which God, as witness, has given
concerning His son.

We must conclude then that there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering
where people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them; similar to the survivors of the
Titanic watching their loved ones go to Davy Jones while utterly helpless to do
anything about it.

You know what can be even worse than going to hell? Your own children following
you there: and they trusted you. Here's a sort of cute story I heard once. I don't
know if it's true but I guess it sure is pertinent.

A thirsty farmer went out to his barn in the dead of night after a snowfall to sneak a
pull from a hidden liquor bottle. Just as he got to the barn door he heard something
behind him. Turning, the farmer recognized his little boy coming towards him. In
amazement he asked the little guy how he ever managed to find his way out to the
barn in the dark. His son replied: It was easy; I walked in your footsteps.

Can you just imagine the anguish that parents feel in the netherworld knowing they
brought up their children to follow an ideology whose pot at the end of the rainbow
is filled with fire instead of gold. How do people bear up under something like that
on their conscience?
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The Watchtower Society alleges that the transfiguration event recorded in Matt
17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36, and 2Pet 1:16-18 displayed Jesus' true angelic
form.

However; according to the reports; the transfiguration event was 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.

During the event, a voice from heaven identified the Lord 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.

At no time during the event did Jesus undergo a name change; he was never once
addressed, or referred to, as Michael.

None of the accounts say that Jesus' physical body was changed into a spirit body.
In point of fact, the only alteration that Jesus actually underwent was the shine that
radiated from his face and his clothing; and he remained recognizable as Jesus rather
than someone that the apostle Peter had never seen before.

NOTE: Moses too appeared in glory during the event, which would've been the
second time around for him. (Ex 34:29-35)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
JW POSIT: It is impossible for Jesus Christ to be in heaven as a human being in the
presence of God because 1Tim 6:16 says that the king of all kings dwells in an
unapproachable light, whom "not one of men" has seen or can see.

RESPONSE: The Greek word translated "unapproachable" also means inaccessible;
which right there attests that humanity needs a mediator between itself and the
unapproachable light to provide them at least an indirect access.

Note that the passage below is misquoted. Watch for the revision.

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men; an angel: Christ
Michael." (1Tim 2:5)

No, that passage doesn't actually say "an angel" nor does it actually say "Christ
Michael". Here it is for real.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men; a man: Christ
Jesus."

The Greek word for men, as well as the word for man, is derived from anthropos
(anth'-ro-pos) --a common Greek word for human beings in the New Testament.

So it's readily seen from a cursory examination of the Greek that the mediator
spoken of in 1Tim 2:5 is a human being rather than an angel.

Seeing as how Christ Jesus is allowed access to the inaccessible light as a human
being, then it's safe to conclude that there has to be something very unusual about
him.

Well; for one thing, his body is no longer that of mortal men. When he went up to
heaven, Christ Jesus' body underwent a miraculous transformation. It's still human,
that we know, but its chemistry is unlike any human body on Earth. (1Cor 15:50-
53)

For another, Christ Jesus is not only human, but also divine (John 1:1, John 1:18,
and Col 2:9). That alone would surely be enough to grant him some special
privileges, and it does. For example: the angel Gabriel stands in the presence of
God (Luke 1:19) while Christ Jesus the man is seated. (Ps 110:1, Col 3:1)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding
call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in
union with Christ will rise first.

I'm going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a point.

"with the archangel's voice"

No, it doesn't say the archangel's voice, rather, it says "an" archangel's voice-- viz:
a nondescript arch angel --so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss
4:16-17 is referring to a specific arch angel when according to Dan 10:13, there's
more than one. Identifying the arch angel in 1Thess 4:16-17 as the angel spoken of
in Jude 1:9 would be an arbitrary designation.

The title "Son of Man" in Matt 24:30-31 alerts us to the fact that the Lord himself,
spoken of in 1Thess 4:16-17, will be the progeny of a human being rather than the
progeny of an angel being; primarily because the Greek word translated "Man" is
anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) which is a common word for humans throughout the New
Testament rather than angels and/or humanistic avatars.

NOTE: The expression "in union with Christ" refers to an elite class of Christians
identified in 1John 2:26-27 as anointed. In other words: 1Thess 4:16-17 doesn't
apply to rank and file Witnesses; i.e. the great crowd, a.k.a. the hewers of wood
and the haulers of water.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● John 1:14 . . So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a
view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father;
and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

The Greek word from which "undeserved kindness" is derived is charitos; which
itself is derived from charis (khar'-ece)

"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of charis/charitos; rather, it's the
Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they think those words ought to mean.
The literal meaning is graciousness.

John Q and Jane Doe Witness are being deprived of viewing some very pleasant
aspects of the only-begotten son's personality by interpreting charis to mean
undeserved kindness because graciousness says some wonderful things about not
only the flesh that the Word became; but also about the Father from whom the
Word came.

Webster's defines "graciousness" as; kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

*Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness

*Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals

*Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

*Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

*Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly,
and liberal in giving

*Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent,
tolerant, and lenient.

*Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a
desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.

*Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good
relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.

Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation
committee had the academic decency to let charis/charito speak for themselves
instead of butting in to tell people what they think those words ought to mean.

"Keep on teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, praises to God,
spiritual songs with graciousness" (Col 3:16)

"Let your utterance be always with graciousness." (Col 4:6)

NOTE: The claim that the only begotten son is somehow undeserving of kindness is
of course 110% false. Worthiness is in every fiber of Christ's being. (Dan 7:13-14,
Phil 2:8-11, Rev 5:1-14, Rev 19:11)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Ecc 12:7 . . .The dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be, and the spirit
itself returns to the true God who gave it.

Solomon's comment strongly suggests that human existence isn't entirely organic.
In point of fact, information comes out very early in the Bible that there's a non
organic element to human existence called the breath of life.

● Gen 2:7 . . Jehovah God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground, and
breathed into it the breath of life; and the man came to be a living soul.

The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among other
things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire) burning: light, (2)
to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4) to animate.

Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the order to
start their engines-- they light 'em up, so to speak: for example:

"What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light
of men." (John 1:3-4) viz: the Word's life kindled all other forms of life, including
human life.

The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul, spirit,
blast, and inspiration.

What we're looking at here is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the regular kind
because it doesn't do a bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They3
won't come alive like that; it's been tried.

However, there's evidence in the Bible, starting in Genesis, indicating that it's
possible to pump life into a corpse: in point of fact into anything, even stones (Matt
3:9, Luke 19:40).

Creatures within whom is the breath of life are perishable (e.g. Gen 7:21-22) but I
have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible clearly stating that the breath of life
itself is perishable. In point of fact, I think it is very easy to prove that the human
creature's breath of life is not only a permanent feature of their existence; but also
prevents them from going out of existence.

For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 passed
away, they all left the organic portion of their existence behind-- viz: their bodies -
yet on the other side they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.

I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one thing I do
know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have they lost their
identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus, and the rich man is
still the rich man; and that has to be because they retained their breath of life when
they crossed over to the other side.

For example; in Watchtower theology, Michael the arch angel had to die in order to
become a human being. Now, the amazing part of the story is that Michael didn't go
completely out of existence when he died; his life force carried on.

"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, 2/15/1982, page 7)

So, if it's possible for God to transfer the life force of a deceased spirit being into a
human body in order to preserve the spirit being's continuity of life, then I see no
reason to question whether God can do the very same thing in reverse; viz:
transfer the life force of a deceased human being into a spirit body; thus preserving
the human being's continuity of life.

● Heb 12:22-23 . . But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living
God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the
congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the
Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect,

"spiritual lives" isn't a translation, rather, it's an interpretation of the Greek word
pneúmasi which actually means spirits; and is so translated in something like
thirty-two verses in regular Bibles.

NOTE: The Watchtower Society isn't consistent with its interpretation of pneúmasi.
For example at Rev 16:13-14 they say it means inspired expressions instead of
spiritual lives, and at 1Pet 3:19 they say it means spirits; i.e. sentient non-organic
beings.
_