Here's the title of one of his threads over at JWO, " Molestation - Who Knows Any More? "
When Jehovah's Witnesses do bad - Are criticisms of JW's valid? Part I
by rambaldi 102 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
the_classicist
Welcome, I'll try to make this short and succinct. But first, I'll handle this:
When Jehovah had a nation, his organization, what happened?
That's an anarchronism: the nation of Israel was never a strict, ordered religious organization.
Jesus is God, even the early Christians believed so. Common Jehovah's Witness objections:
(1) John 1:1 should really read that the "Word is a god" as there is no article in front. He is only god in the sense of being a divine being. Indeed, the even Pagans called Paul a god (Acts 12:22, 28:3-6).
(2) Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 was really a prayer or exclamation of joy to Jehovah.
(3) Christ subordinated himself to the Father as seen in John 17:3. Also in John 20:17, Christ called the Father "my God," but we do not see the Father calling the Son "my God."
(4) According to Jude 9 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Christ is really Michael the Archangel.I reply,
(1) The article is not explicitly necessary in this case. Interpreted within the monotheistic and Christological theme of the Gospel of St. John, it is very clear that this refers to Christ's being God; however, debating grammar with the WT won't do any good.
The example of Paul being called a god in Acts and other Apostles in other instances does not validate the WT position since it is Pagans who say that they are gods, whereas in the Gospel of St. John, God is telling us that his Son is God and was with Him "in the beginning."
(2) Clearly the Greek shows that Thomas was speaking to Christ. "thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou." Now translated: "and Thomas said to Him, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Now "auto" is referring directly to Christ, as it is in the dative. St. John could have written the sentence (1) without the "auto", in which case it could be a simple exclamation, (2) with "to theo" in which case it refer directly to God the Father or (3) have him say "My Lord and my God," "through Jesus." All of these are possible in Greek, but St. John did not write his Gospel that way. He is clearly saying that Christ is his God and his Lord. He isn't saying it to Jehovah through Jesus, that is a WT invention not at all present in the text. To say otherwise would be to lie.
(3) Why did Christ subordinate himself to the Father? Christ has 2 natures: God and Man. Phillipians 2:5-8 explains this truth well. Verse 6 tells us that he was "in the form of God." Alas, the Jews had no concept as to the full truth of the nature of God, which was why the Son being "in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." So, he "took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." By his incarnation as witnessed to in Luke 1, God becomes man and thereby takes on the nature of man, but since God is eternal, he retains the nature of God.
Since Christ has 2 natures, his human nature was fully subordinate to God thus enabling him to pray to His Father and to say "My God."
(4) Neither of those verses show that Christ is Michael the Archangel and it says nowhere in the Bible that he is.
Besides these, there is ample evidence that the Early Christians believe Jesus Christ was God and the Son of God. St. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Ephesians, 18:2 states in 110 AD, "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to the plan of God; he was from the seed of David, but also from the Holy Spirit."
Of course, it is very easy for me to put up tonnes and tonnes of evidence that the earliest Christians believed Christ was God. so I'll offer this challenge: Show from the writings of the Early Christians that they did not believe Christ to be God. You will find that the non-divinity of Christ is mainly an invention of Arius and his followers. You will also find that no-one, nowhere believed that Jesus was Michael the Archangel until the Jehovah's Witnesses came around.
-
Stephanus
A former JW troll by the nick of Dunscot was of the habit of turning up from time to time under new pseudonyms, usually of obscure mediaeval or renaissance scholars, philosophers or mystics. I find it interesting that this "good little Dub" should choose to do the same. Just wonderin'...
-
jaffacake
Although a chosen people the jews were not seen by God as his organisation, scripture please? Jehovah and Christ was and is only concerned with people as individuals. Show me when he used an organisation rather than individuals as prophets or messengers, scriptures please.
But there were no more Jehovah's Witnesses after the Messiah. JWs were the natural Jews. THAT is why the name Jehovah does not appear at all in any ancient Christian Greek manuscript.
THAT is why Jesus did NOT say at Acts 1:8 anything about being Jehovah's witnesses, or even his father's witnesses - "And then YOU will be MY witnesses....and indeed to the earth's remotest end."
Consistency at 1 Peter 4:14-16 - "But if any of you should suffer for being a CHRISTIAN, then there is no shame in bearing THIS NAME....If you are insulted for bearing CHRIST'S NAME, blessed are you for on you rests the spirit of God.
Despite the JW attempt to insert Jehovah's personal name for the natural jews 237 times in the New Testament where it does not belong, the name of Jesus still appears three times as often. If the name of Jehovah was important to the inspired authors of the Christian Greek scriptures, why (even in the NWT) does it not appear at all in no less than SEVEN books, including Paul's substantial letter to the Philippians? It is time for the Watchtower to admit the mistake made by Rutherford and Franz, who in reality was alone responsible for the NWT version. Now Freddie never made a mistake about anything, ever, did he?
Off on holiday now, so unfortunately I'll miss the rest of this thread.
-
sf
This guy is a cyber buddy of STUART116 from LincolnTribute Forums...also type the name into google coupled with 'watchtower':
Forum
Re: Resurrection
(2005/6/30 20:58:25)Re: Jehovah's witnesses and civil liberties
(2005/6/30 20:54:56)Re: The war on terrorism
(2005/6/30 20:53:18)Re: The war on terrorism
(2005/6/30 20:48:30)Re: The war on terrorism start with cults
(2005/6/30 20:46:38)
Show All -
sf
Oh, and I wouldn't be passed thinking that this guy and his internet jw buddies are in touch with Joel from knocking.org site. And perhaps ultimately jwmedia.org is somehow, someway, encouraging each of their endeavors that, to many of us, are very transparent as true agendas of hoping the public will start WITNESSING jws as "any other free religion" and back off with the persecution.
IT WON'T WORK TED!! LOL YOU ARE SO OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE ON THIS ONE BROTHA! E FOR EFFORT THOUGH. LOLOL WHAT THE PUBLIC WILL TRULY SEE IS THE WTBTS IN RUBBLE ONE DAY WHEN WE ARE THROUGH DISMANTLING YOUR CORRUPTION.
Hey johnny, I really gots to come to New York, and soon. You put me up, right? Tell Pops someday, someway. Hugs to Mom and Mikey too.
sKally
-
hamsterbait
They criticise everybody else's religion on the grounds of what the menbers do who are not faithful.
What's good for the goose...
HB
-
delilah
I'm with Hamster, if they didn't go around with their noses in the air, claiming to be JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, thereby presuming THEY have the only true religion and can do no wrong, then maybe more people would be forgiving of their wrongdoing.
Delilah
-
Kenneson
Rambaldi:
I agree wholeheartedly with Hamster and Delilah. Make the same concessions for people in other religions as you do for Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
sugarbritches
oh boy- where's my boots!!!!
