Posts by jonathan dough

Jehovah doesn't test you with evil. And he wouldn't wait until the day before Armagedon and the Great Tribulation to shed the light, either, not when the commission two thousand years ago was to be fishers of men. You either have the truth or you don't. And since the JWs concede most of what they have taught since the 1800s is false, then they never had the truth in the first place.

http://www.144000.110mb.com/

28

Was there a recent KM that said WT is more important than the Bible?

by Saoirse in

someone told me that there was a kingdom ministry within the last 2 years that said something along the lines of "jws should follow what the wt or fds says and not the bible".

is that true?

and if so, could someone point me to a copy of it?

jonathan dough

WT is God's word.

Testimony of Nathan H. Knorr:

Q. God was writing these books ever since 1918, wasn't he?
A. I wouldn't say God was writing them.

Q. They were written under the influence of God, weren't they?
A. They were written by men in the service of God's Organization, to bring to the attention of the People the truths as expressed in the Bible.

Q. Would you say that God's views have changed between 1918 and 1930?
A. God's views never changed, and their only expression is in the Bible, which is God's word. Man can make a mistake in the interpretation thereof.

Q. So that these leaders of agents of God are not infallible, are they?
A. That is right.

Q. But when you put out these writings in the Watch Tower, you don't make any mention, to those who get the papers, that "We, speaking for God, may make a mistake," do you?
A. When we present the publications of the Society, we present it with the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice to the People is to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes.

Q. But you don't make any mention in the fore part of your Watch Tower that "We are not infallible and subject to correction and may make mistakes"?
A. We have never claimed infallibility.

Q. But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you?
A. Not that I recall.

Q. In fact, it is set forth as God's Word, isn't it?
A. Yes, as His word.

Q. Without any qualification whatsoever?
A. That is right.

from http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/trial.htm

http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html#top

28

Was there a recent KM that said WT is more important than the Bible?

by Saoirse in

someone told me that there was a kingdom ministry within the last 2 years that said something along the lines of "jws should follow what the wt or fds says and not the bible".

is that true?

and if so, could someone point me to a copy of it?

jonathan dough

Testimony of Hayden C. Covington, head legal counsel for the Watchtower Society regarding the prediction that Jesus would return in 1874:

Q. That was the publication of false prophecy?
A. That was the publication of a false prophecy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophecy that was false or erroneous.
Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. Yes, because you must understand, we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.
...
Q. Back to the point now, a false prophecy was promulgated?
A. I agree to that.
Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's witnesses?
A. That is correct.
Q. If a member of Jehovah's witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong, and said so, would he be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so, and kept on persisting in creating trouble ... Our purpose is to have unity.
Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation, to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. And unity based on an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expresses his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the covenant, if he was baptised?
A. That is correct.

Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think....
Q. Would you say yes or no?
A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly. (pp 346-348)

28

Was there a recent KM that said WT is more important than the Bible?

by Saoirse in

someone told me that there was a kingdom ministry within the last 2 years that said something along the lines of "jws should follow what the wt or fds says and not the bible".

is that true?

and if so, could someone point me to a copy of it?

jonathan dough

Portions of Scotland transcripts here:

http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/watchtower.php

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

jonathan dough

The seventy year prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 did not apply to Jerusalem and Judah alone but to all nations which fell under the domination of the Babylonian Empire. These nations, as a unit, comprising the Babylonian Empire collectively, served the king(s) of Babylon seventy years.

In depth discussion at http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-2.html#E

28

Was there a recent KM that said WT is more important than the Bible?

by Saoirse in

someone told me that there was a kingdom ministry within the last 2 years that said something along the lines of "jws should follow what the wt or fds says and not the bible".

is that true?

and if so, could someone point me to a copy of it?

jonathan dough

I recall reading a court transcript where the individual, not sure if the president, under oath, admitted that he regarded the WT literature as more important than the Bible. Something to that effect. The Bible was secondary.

304

is jesus a god?

by javig in

hi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?

another god?

is him jesus?...

jonathan dough

Learn something before quickly responding...

"I Am"

Exodus 3:14

Hebrew word:

Pronounced: aeie (first 4 letters only, the whole thing says "I am who I am")

Means: I-shall-become (Mondern English its "I Am")

Views differ. http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#36

God said His name is I AM THAT (or WHO) I AM (’Ehyeh -’Asher -’Ehyeh), or the shortened I AM. I AM THAT I AM is one of the most debated phrases with respect to the Hebrew verb hayah. A distinct minority of interpretations render it I-Will-Be-That-I-Will-Be, (R. Alter, The Five Books of Moses: a Translation with Commentary [New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004], 321) (Books of Moses).

The Jehovah's Witnesses prefer, “I shall prove to be who I shall prove to be,” arguing that hayah “means ‘become,’ or ‘prove to be.’” They claim that the reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others (Insight, 12). But this is incorrect, at most a half truth.

Even scholars who prefer this minority view concede that “the common rendering of “I-AM-THAT-I-AM” cannot be excluded,” (Alter, Books of Moses, 321). Furthermore, “Since the tense system of Biblical Hebrew by no means corresponds to that of modern English, it is also perfectly possible to construe this as “I AM HE WHO ENDURES” (ibid.).

I AM THAT I AM without a doubt represents the majority view, the traditional common rendering, and hayah in this context means “to exist,” “to be.” “The verb makes a strong statement about the being or presence of a person or thing” (Strong and Vine’s, 68 (1a)). “Ex 3:14 is more than a simple statement of identity: “I am that I am”… is a declaration of divine control of all things (cf Hos 1:9) (ibid., 68). Remember, Jesus said “All power and authority has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).

304

is jesus a god?

by javig in

hi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?

another god?

is him jesus?...

jonathan dough

Learn something before quickly responding...

"I Am"

Exodus 3:14

Hebrew word:

Pronounced: aeie (first 4 letters only, the whole thing says "I am who I am")

Means: I-shall-become (Mondern English its "I Am")

dear one...

Genesis 2:4

Tetragrammaton first appears in scripture:

Pronounced: Adonai (Adon is singular form for Lord)

Means: Lord, lord, lord

Not necessarily. According to Strong and Vines, Adonai is used exclusively of God, but it is also used of Christ the Lord.At Psalm 110 David referred to Christ the Lord as Adonai. More detail here with jpg images of Strong and Vines re adonai.

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#34

304

is jesus a god?

by javig in

hi...i have come across the jw text that says that "the word was a god" john 1:1...who is that "god"?

another god?

is him jesus?...

jonathan dough

Revelation 1:8

Tell me who is speaking? Is it God or Jesus?

God here at Rev 1:8, Jesus elsewhere. More info here:

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#23

The heavenly resurrected Jesus is identified as Almighty God and the “First and the Last” because there can be only one “First and Last” and one “Alpha and Omega” and Jesus assumed both titles.

In the Book of Revelation Jesus can be identified as the Almighty and the “Alpha and the Omega,” titles used to identify God. Even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were correct in stating that Jesus is never specifically called the Almighty, which they claim is a title reserved for God (Reasoning, 414), that title can readily be ascribed to Jesus by logically piecing together selected verses.

For instance, both Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18 and God as the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:13 are referred to as “the First and the Last.” Therefore, because Jesus and the Almighty are both “the First and the Last,“ Jesus must be the Almighty who is the Alpha and Omega.

Also, the Alpha and the Omega (God) of Revelation 1:8 is identified as the Almighty, and because Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega, Jesus is the Almighty, a title identifying Jehovah (Yahweh) at Genesis 17:1. Jesus was, and is, God. The logical train of thought is illustrated by quoting the actual verses.

a) Jesus is the First and the Last: “Fear not, I am the First and the Last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:17, 18)
b) The Alpha and the Omega (God) is also the First and the last: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 22:12, 13)
c) Therefore, Jesus must also be the Alpha and Omega, God.
d) The Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)
e) Therefore, not only is Jesus the Alpha and Omega but also the Almighty, all powerful, omnipotent.

This makes perfect sense in light of John 17:10 where Jesus in praying to His Father said, “everything of mine is yours, and everything of yours is mine.” “Everything” is very broad. It includes His disciples, words (truth), the Holy Spirit, and all power and authority as indicated by Christ’s statement at Matthew 28:18, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Christ claimed universal power (NAB notes 28, 19); He is omnipotent, all powerful, and accordingly Almighty and sovereign of which there can only be one in the Universe.

The Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to circumvent this logic by arguing that the mere fact that one title (First and Last) is applied to two separate individuals, Jesus and the Almighty, does not mean those individuals are the same person. By analogy they contend that the expression “apostle” is applied to Jesus and to certain ones of his followers, but that doesn’t prove that they are the same person or of equal rank (Reasoning, 413).

Their analogy, however, is not applicable to this situation. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is always secondary and inferior to God in everything at all times, in heaven and on earth, never first (Should You Believe, Chapter 6). Thus, even by their own admission, there is only one who can be “the First and the Last.”

On the other hand, there have been many apostles, and if there are many such “First and Lasts” they might have a point, but there aren’t, there’s just one. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ analogy just isn’t valid. As there can only be one First and Last, and both Jesus and God are “the First and the Last,” Jesus must be God and Christ rightfully refers to Himself indirectly as the Almighty in the Book of Revelation. You could say it was the culmination of His gradual disclosure.

To put it another way, if there is only one person on planet earth and his title is King and name is Sherman, and if there is a person on earth whose name is Fred who also is called King, then Fred must be Sherman the King in the same sense that Christ must be God because there is only one “First and Last“ of the universe, one King.

Furthermore, both God and Jesus are said to be “coming,” an obvious reference to the much anticipated Second Coming of Christ’s return (Rev 1:7, 8; 22:12, 13).

It is simply not logical that in the Book of Revelation the “First and Last” is a title reserved for the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, but is also applied to a created angel who became man and reverted back to being an angel, who is always regarded by the Jehovah’s Witnesses as secondary to God in everything, a created being, always inferior. Their theory just doesn’t make sense.