How To Deal with "Jehovah Witness" False Teaching: Tips and Tools
Comments
-
@BroRando The Watchtower, unlike clarity from a lighthouse, obscures truth with smoke.
Please talk sense if you want real dialog. Repeating falsehood doesn’t make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. Quit pawing through Watchtower rubble and maybe some real thinking will happen.
-
False accusations doesn’t make your religion attractive, but that is a good thing.
-
You're the one rejecting the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. People can read your thread. You're own words expose your hyprocrasy. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
If a Jehovah Witness would have never quoted the scritpures you deny, you would have no sin. But now that you lie and deny the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. You sin remains. You don't beleive in JESUS because you claim is name is fraud. Well that's on you.
So how were Christians baptized?
- “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)
- Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)
- “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)
- “On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
- Allow scripture to interpret scripture. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew 28:19)
- Notice this scripture? “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” (Ephesians 4:5)
- "Whatever it is that you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17)
Learn why he is so upset with Jehovah's Witnesses...
-
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight. -Pr 12:22
-
Look at what he considers lying.
So how were Christians baptized?
- “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)
- Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)
- “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)
- “On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
- Allow scripture to interpret scripture. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew 28:19)
- Notice this scripture? “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” (Ephesians 4:5)
- "Whatever it is that you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17)
-
Book Review:
FEARLESS LOVE: UNDERSTANDING TODAY’S JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Anne Sanderson
This very accessible book was written by an ex-JW to motivate and equip Christians to reach JW friends, relatives and those who knock on our doors. To do that the author wants us to be sure of what we believe, to understand the Watchtower’s teaching and to have up-to-date information on the society. The title is inspired by 1 John 4:18: ‘There is no fear in love.’ Fear is the Watchtower’s chief weapon. Fearless Christian love is required of us. The book explains these two issues
Sanderson starts with her background and testimony. She then looks at various JW fears. This bit of the book is brilliant, as she really allows the reader to get into the head of a JW. You get a clear JW worldview and begin to see the difference between what we say and what they hear and how we can frighten them away, at times compounding the problem. We also see the society from the inside. Sanderson’s chatty style of writing is harder to follow through the more technical sections about JW distinctives and leading a Bible study compared to more pithy books that just give a straightforward comparison of beliefs.
The section dealing with the hows and whys to speak to JW’s is full of helpful tips, tested by experience. Much should be commended here. She shows confidence from her Biblical understanding and experience in the power of the gospel, prayer and testimony both of individuals and churches. It is encouraging to know what goes on in a JW’s mind after they have left an Evangelical’s door. Of course we ‘know’ the power of the gospel but it is great to read about how many leave the society and go to Bible-believing Churches that we will never hear about.
Darren Moore, “Review of Fearless Love: Understanding Today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses by Anne Sanderson,” The Churchman 115, no. 1–4 (2001): 286.
Post edited by Truth on -
I appreciate you looking into it.
You're most welcome, and thank you for taking the time to provide a response.
Many Biblical Scholars proclaim that theos can never be used in the feminine sense.
I'm not clear as to the meaning of this phrase "...in the feminine sense" with respect to the grammar of Jn. 1:1. I would then also like to know if Jn. 1:1 is the sole example of this "...in the feminine sense" for a masculine noun.
In conclusion of John's very first sentence, he did not use ton theon or ho theos but the rather the feminine noun theos.
Interesting that here you no longer speak of "...in the feminine sense" but have instead transitioned to now speak of feminine gender within Greek grammar.
So, if this is all about grammatical gender, perhaps you would explain to me how one can tell that the nominative masculine θεὸς in the third clause is to be understood as nominative feminine. And your explanation of this ought to be in the grammatical, not theological, domain.
I will end this part of my discussion with an observation regarding θεὸς.
First, these following verses use a feminine form derived from the root θεὸς (Acts 19:27, 19:37; Ro. 1:20; Col. 2:9; 1Tim. 2:10). All uses are accompanied by a feminine article with the exception of the 1Tim verse.
Second, following on the above observation, and grammatical gender issue raised above (2nd para.), is that the nominative feminine article ἡ is nowhere to be found in the third clause of Jn. 1:1.
Finally, I would ask if you are basing your conclusions, in some part, on the anarthrous θεὸς? If this is the case, then would you apply the same "feminine sense" to the five following uses (Jn. 1:6, 12-13, 18)?
-
CD Posters await @BroRando answer to @Pages' question. If @BroRando is not proficient in Greek, I can understand. I do expect him to acknowledge the question and answer appropriately. Man or machine, please respond to the specific question posed by @Pages without smoke, sidestepping, distracting, or detouring. I, @C Mc, would appreciate it greatly. CM
-
This sounds like a reasonable expectation: Acknowledge the question(s) asked and answer them appropriately, without smoke, sidestepping, distracting, or detouring. Would you say this has been YOUR practice when other posters have asked YOU questions, CM? (And can we expect you to acknowledge the question I just asked and answer it appropriately, without smoke, sidestepping, distracting, or detouring?)
-
Would you say this has been YOUR practice when other posters have asked YOU questions, CM?
...says the king of noxious smoke emissions. And we wonder why we have global warming? It isn't actually the cows...
-
Please, don't distract here or now! This is a pattern you're developing lately. I know JWs carry a lot of water for you.
- If you seriously want answers to your questions on this matter, please send them to me in a PM. I would post our exchanges on the open forum in a thread that will not interrupt with your consent.
- The prescribed statement above is specific to the @BroRando machine-like @BroRandooperators and data storage. I don't have this problem, and you know I don't. Why wouldn't you allow time and space for @BroRando to answer @Pages' questions?
- @Bill_Coley You have issues with other posters' freedom and getting over your year-long bratty-brooding over some nebulous matter.
There, I acknowledged your second question and answered it appropriately. For more, follow the directions above. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C Mc posted:
Please, don't distract here or now! This is a pattern you're developing lately. I know JWs carry a lot of water for you.
If you seriously want answers to your questions on this matter, please send them to me in a PM. I would post our exchanges on the open forum in a thread that will not interrupt with your consent.
The prescribed statement above is specific to the @BroRando@BroRando machine-like @BroRando@BroRandooperators and data storage. I don't have this problem, and you know I don't. Why wouldn't you allow time and space for @BroRando @BroRandoto answer @Pages@Pages' questions?
@Bill_Coley You have issues with other posters' freedom and getting over your year-long bratty-brooding over some nebulous matter.
There, I acknowledged your second question and answered it appropriately. For more, follow the directions above. CM
I simply wanted to know whether you intended to comply with the standard for responding to other posters' questions that you offered, unprompted, in response to the exchange in this thread between @Pages and @BroRando. Hence, there are no other questions "on this matter" for me to send to you by PM. From your reply here, I infer that your answer to my question is no, that you intended the "acknowledge-then-answer-directly" formula to apply only to @BroRando.
I should have been more precise with my question's phrasing, however, and for the fact that I wasn't, I apologize. I meant the question to refer to your responses to questions posed to you going forward and in the course of issue-based forum exchanges, not to those asked but refused in the past. Hence, my "year-long bratty-brooding over some nebulous matter" was not at issue for the question's intent. (But thank you for that characterization! For years I've asked friends and family to help me describe my brooding, and the best any of them could do was, "yucky" and "not so nicey-nice.")
-
I can share some answers with you and will answer your questions, please allow me to pinpoint of few of your questions at a time. Once you think I have answered your questions to your satisfaction then we can address the others in your response. Actually, if your searched the CD forum you will find that those questions you posed were already answered, and the other CD posters have already rejected them. So there's nothing new here as to my answers. https://www.brorando.com/post/christ-divinity-explained-in-john-1-1c
Both the Hebrew and the Greek Language use masculine nouns and feminine nouns to emphasize or de-empasize the subject of the matter in the verse. An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."
- 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
- 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
- 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen
- 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation
- 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
Most, not all translators, ignore the Biblical Greek second definition of theos from the Strong's Concordance. The feminine noun a god.
Therefore, when the Greek grammer is ignored, translators only use the masculine noun God in both instances which causes chaos and misunderstanding, in rejecting the Father and Son relationship.
@Pages Interesting that here you no longer speak of "...in the feminine sense" but have instead transitioned to now speak of feminine gender within Greek grammar.
Feminine Nouns are used to point to a Creation as in being brought forth with labor pangs which is the meaning of Begotten. Feminine Gender only applies to false gods such as goddesses or other false deities. I have never claimed Jesus is female or a goddess. That is a false claim from trinitintarians due to ignorance.
No, not in the case of one instance of God in a scripture, it depends on context whether to use God or god. However, there is one verse that has two instances of God, such as, is the case in the first verse of John. The feminine noun is applied in the second instance. "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." (John 1:18)
Man has never seen which God? Ton theon or ho theos. However, many have SEEN the only-begotten god Jesus Christ. theos. Many translators knowing the Greek Scripture have butchered the second half of this scripture several ways. Some haved removed god altogether. Some have changed god to God. Still, others have removed the word begotten to hide the fact that Jesus was brought forth by His God and Father as with labor pangs.
"For even though there are so-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, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
-
There is no definitive difference between god and God. The word god is not a name. We capitalize it as a point of respect to YHWH.
To have more than one god; God + a god is specifically forbidden by Scripture.
-
I can share some answers with you and will answer your questions, please allow me to pinpoint of few of your questions at a time.
Absolutely, and once again thank you for your response.
Actually, if your searched the CD forum you will find that those questions you posed were already answered, and the other CD posters have already rejected them. So there's nothing new here as to my answers. https://www.brorando.com/post/christ-divinity-explained-in-john-1-1c
Yes, quite right, I've been following along reading those posts and certain links; but I have came to the point of desiring to understand your position to the best that I can.
Once you think I have answered your questions to your satisfaction then we can address the others in your response.
Great!!! Little bits at a time. I would very much like us to continue with our sole focus being on Jn. 1:1.
Both the Hebrew and the Greek Language use masculine nouns and feminine nouns to emphasize or de-empasize the subject of the matter in the verse.
Since I'm relating your response to Jn. 1:1 I am guessing the above, and what follows, is making reference to the predicate nominative θεὸς.
An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos".
"...could also be translated 'divine'" could be, but perhaps a different word than θεὸς which denotes divine might have been written. "...a qualitative sense for theos" is correct for how the predicate nominative θεὸς is functioning here.
That function is providing the reader the following information in essence: "what God is, the Word is" this is fully and completely having the same exact nature as θεὸς, though both λόγος and θεὸς maintain a distinction from one another. This also includes the implication of eternalness as the uncreated Creator is eternal.
If in looking at the six translations of Jn. 1:1 you provided, you will notice two (Wuest, REB) that recognize what I detailed above.
The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."
Yes, I agree. The λόγος is not the Father.
Most, not all translators,...
Pause for a moment on the beginning word used, "Most", in your statement – nearly all wouldn't you say? And are you absolutely certain that all these translators in all these translation committees are, as you say, ignoring not only their responsibility, but Greek grammar as well?
Man has never seen which God? Ton theon or ho theos.
So, "...which God? Ton theon or ho theos." I am correct in my understanding that you believe θεόν and θεὸς are two separate and distinct deities.
It is my understanding, grammatically θεόν is the direct object in clause two; it, as you agree, is the accusative case of θεὸς. θεόν as opposed to θεὸς is in no grammatical way here being differentiated as a separate additional God.
The feminine noun is applied in the second instance.
I'm taking this statement as being applied to both Jn. 1:1, 18. In each case here θεόν and θεὸς are masculine gender as is μονογενὴς in v.18.
Feminine Nouns are used to point to a Creation as in being brought forth with labor pangs which is the meaning of Begotten.
This is, I believe, the interpretive grid behind how you perceive Jn. 1:1, 18. The use of ἀρχῇ in v. 1, and μονογενὴς in v.18 – is this correct?
-
@Pages That function is providing the reader the following information in essence: "what God is, the Word is" this is fully and completely having the same exact nature as θεὸς, though both λόγος and θεὸς maintain a distinction from one another. This also includes the implication of eternalness as the uncreated Creator is eternal.
If in looking at the six translations of Jn. 1:1 you provided, you will notice two (Wuest, REB) that recognize what I detailed above.
Yes and Jehovah's Witnesses are in agreement with that finding, though the Creator alone is eternal as "the God". The Word in being the same nature, yes, again we also agree. One should note that being in the same nature as "the God" does not make one eternal. It's a gift that Jesus later receives and will give to others.
One can say that the Word was in God's form since God is a Spirit. (John 4:24) Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” (Hebrews 1:7) All the angels are in the same nature as θεὸς this deosn't make them eternal nor are they all knowing, including the Son. (Matthew 24:36)
@Pages Most, not all translators,... Pause for a moment on the beginning word used, "Most", in your statement – nearly all wouldn't you say? And are you absolutely certain that all these translators in all these translation committees are, as you say, ignoring not only their responsibility, but Greek grammar as well?
I know the feeling. but there are some translators that applied the Greek grammer correctly. The translations refering to the Word's dvinity as I mentioned before and a partial list of the following.
- 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament
- 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English
- 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists
- 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter)
- 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
- 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
- 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
@Pages It is my understanding, grammatically θεόν is the direct object in clause two; it, as you agree, is the accusative case of θεὸς. θεόν as opposed to θεὸς is in no grammatical way here being differentiated as a separate additional God.
I'm taking this statement as being applied to both Jn. 1:1, 18. In each case here θεόν and θεὸς are masculine gender as is μονογενὴς in v.18.
And there is where the difference lays. Chritendom translators tried to force the masculine noun (God) into scripture where it is not. In both scriptures, there are two different greek words of God showing the differentiation. When theon and theos is used in the same verse, the first instance is the eternal God and the second instance is the begotten god.
- The begotten god is "Firstborn of All Creation or Creatures" (1 Col 15)
- The begotten god is "the Beginning of Creation" (Rev 3:14)
- ho theos is not used in the second instance
- μονογενὴς monogenés: only begotten is an Adjective
Notice after Jesus was resurrected and in heaven for 63 years now, we read "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him," (Rev 1:1) theos is naturally a feminine noun, to invoke theos into a masucline noun, the translator would need to invoke the change with a definite article which .
Strong's Concordance
ho, hé, to: the
Original Word: ὁ, ἡ, τό
Part of Speech: Definite Article
Transliteration: ho, hé, to
Phonetic Spelling: (ho)
Definition: the
Usage: the, the definite article.
So, which God gave Jesus Christ the Revelation? https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-1.htm
Correct. Some more examples of feminine nouns pointing to Jesus Christ's Divinity. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 KJV)
Strong's Concordance
charis: grace, kindness
Original Word: χάρις, ιτος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: charis
Phonetic Spelling: (khar'-ece)
Definition: grace, kindness
Usage: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.
Strong's Concordance
alétheia: truth
Original Word: ἀλήθεια, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: alétheia
Phonetic Spelling: (al-ay'-thi-a)
Definition: truth
Usage: truth, but not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity, truth in the moral sphere, divine truth revealed to man, straightforwardness.
Jehovah's Witnesses beleive in the Deity of Christ.
Strong's Concordance
theotés: deity
Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: theotés
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Definition: deity
Usage: deity, Godhead.
"But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)
-
Excellent resource with Questions and Answers (Don't miss this one):
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/jehovah.htm
A great PDF with JW facts. Looks solid to me. If any "facts" are incorrect," I would like to know which and why.
-
I believe we should move our conversation to your thread here: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/1007/christ-divinity-explained-in-john-1-1c
I'll post soon in that thread. This move will better serve our discussion of Jn. 1:1 and be more on topic in that thread.
-
@Pages said to @BroRando recently:
I believe we should move our conversation to your thread here: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/1007/christ-divinity-explained-in-john-1-1c
I'll post soon in that thread. This move will better serve our discussion of Jn. 1:1 and be more on topic in that thread.
The thread you suggested relocation above for @BroRando to "better serve" the "discussion of Jn. 1:1". As you know, it was started by him. It is the word-for-word copy from the JWs website, minus the color. It's one of the Bible Studies links. @Pages, is it better to start a new thread on your own than to work on one that is saturated with his links and JWs jargon? If you like working more or less in his camp, so be it. It is equally fair and reasonable to start your thread. It stands to reason; it's better to lay a foundation from scratch than fix a cracked one and then build upon it.
I assumed you have enough information and assurance to deal with an individual in @BroRando and not some quasi-computer or governance committee. I am sure you are aware of their maneuvering during a discussion. This is a new format for them where their dealings are on full display for all to see. Blessings. CM
-
Yes, I know it's his thread and that is why I wish to carry on the conversation there. His thread's title speaks of Jn. 1:1 and specifically the third clause – which is what our conversation is primarily about – even though not much, if any, content in that thread is focused on the verse itself.
But more important to my thinking would be respect – I don't wish to hijack this thread, as this thread was brought to life having a definite purpose of listing resources pertaining to the "false teaching" of the JW's. I foresee more content posting which would be counter productive to that goal.
-
Thanks for your response, insight, and understanding. More observant posters like you are needed in these forums. CM
