Posts by Vanderhoven7

so you can see from multiple topics here (& elsewhere), based on gb update #4, jws now have permission to toast.. there’s been a boatload of “xyz is now allowed” over the past couple of years….beards, no ties in field service or at the kh, sister can wear pants at the kh & in field service…... what do you think is next?.

a lot of folks are speculating on birthday celebrations being allowed, and i agree that will eventually come, but i don’t think it is next.

too big of a jump.. heres my guess:.

Vanderhoven7

What do the rule changes about beards, women wearing pants and making toasts prove???

They prove that Jehovah's Chariot is far behind the churches of Christendom.

59

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Vanderhoven7

@Wonderment

That Jesus worshiped the Father does not preclude Jesus being entitled to worship...as the closing verses of Revelation 5 declare.

Jesus invites believers to commune with Him. However, those who see Him merely as a glorious angel do not commune with Him; talk to Him or share their burdens with him.

"Come unto me!", is the gospel call cascading down the corridors of time. No relationship with Jesus is death. The lives of those who know Jesus will be filled with praises prompted by the Holy Spirit whose role is to glorify the Son for His grace, mercy and salvation.

For example

https://youtu.be/HSDHP-Oncxk?si=ksXQ2ITCbXuK1KA0

59

Should Jesus be worshipped?

by Melody in

can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

Vanderhoven7

Definitely Yes!

This is exactly what Jehovah’s witnesses are missing. They have no life or assurance because they have missed any kind of a personal relationship with the Saviour. They cannot even say Thank you Lord for dying to free me from sin and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness.

Witnesses argue that Jesus Christ is not entitled to the unqualified or unlimited worship due the Father. But by denying the Son reverent homage or service paid to God they can only ascribe to Him instead, recognition, honor, respect given to men.

Relative honor to God through an angel was reproved in these words: "Be careful! Do not do that!...Worship God." Revelation 19:10; 22:8, 9, NWT) 'Let God Be True', 1952 edition p. 151

The distinctions Witnesses make in worship due the Father and Son are totally extra-biblical and not in keeping with Apostolic teaching and practice.

What is it that distinguishes that Christ is not to be genuinely worshiped as the Father is worshiped?

Language of Scripture:

"Proskyneo" is consistently translated as "worship" in the King James. "Proskyneo" is applied 21 times to the Father and 17 times to the Son. The only fair conclusion we can come to here is that the language of scripture does not distinguish that Christ is not to be genuinely worshiped as the Father is worshiped.

Scriptural Example:

There is not one example of the disciples or anyone else in scripture limiting their expression of worship of Christ. Jesus never rebuked the disciples for improper proskyneo of Himself. Only the self proclaimed religious authorities objected to Jesus being honored as the Father was honored. They proclaimed vigorously, saying such things as, "You make yourself equal with God" and "Only God can forgive sins" etc. To them, no man should claim the attributes or prerogatives of God. So not only does scriptural language, but also scriptural example fails to distinguish that Christ is not to be genuinely worshiped.

Scriptural Instruction:

There are no proscriptive instructions defining relative proskyneo of Christ, nor are there restrictive commandments, limiting the proskyneo of the Son. So the alleged distinction in meaning of proskyneo of Father and Son is not clarified by a distinction in scriptural terminology or by scriptural example or by scriptural commandment either prescriptive or restrictive. All restrictions proposed by any religious authority are really extra-biblical (i.e. the commandments of men). The truth is that ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER (Jn.5:22, 23). Christians can and the disciples could, never honor Jesus too highly.

Witnesses argue that Matthew 4:10 excludes unqualified worship of the Son. "You shall worship the Lord your God and him ONLY shall you serve". (Matt 4:10) That is simply not true. The exclusive element of this instruction rests on the last phrase and yet we are called to be servants of Christ. If we substitute the word "Honor" for worship in Matthew 4:10, so that it read "You shall honor the Lord your God and him only shall you serve", would the verse inform Christians that they should not give identical honor to the Son?

Form and Content:

"...to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong." (W.T. March 1880. p.83)

Can the alleged distinction in meaning of 'proskyneo' when applied to the Son be established by the form or content of worship displayed by the disciples/apostles? Do not the following constitute elements of proskyneo in terms of form and content that can legitimately be a part of the proskyneo rendered to the Son:

a. bowing the knee to Jesus while confessing Him as Lord? Phil.2:9-11

b. prostrating oneself completely before Jesus? Rev.5:8

c. fellowship or commune with Jesus, sharing our personal aspirations and hopes? I Jn.1:3

d. coming to Jesus for relief of personal burdens and cares? Mat. 11:28

e. calling on the name of Jesus, addressing Him personally as Lord? Acts 9:14, I Cor.1:2

f. praying personally to Jesus, petitioning Him for self and others? Acts 7:59-60 Jn.14:14

g. glorifying Jesus by praise? Ps.50:23 Jn.16:14, Mat.21:14-16

h. honoring Jesus verbally by ascribing worth to Him?

eg."To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever. Rev.5:13 NIV.

i. honoring Jesus by shouting or even singing His praises?

e.g. In a loud voice they (angels) sang: Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain to receive power and wealth and Wisdom and strength and HONOR AND GLORY AND PRAISE. Rev.5:12 NIV.

j. verbally ascribing to Jesus absolute worth?

e.g. JESUS: Lord of Lords and King of Kings; Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last, The beginning and the end. Rev.20:12

My Lord and my Ho Theos. Jn.20:28 Your name is to be praised O Emmanuel, Ho Theos with us! Mat.1:23 All power in heaven and earth is Yours; You created all things; and without you there was nothing made. Jn.1:3

And Your throne Ho Theos is forever. Heb. 1:8 May all angels and men worship you continually. Heb.1:6 Even so come Lord Jesus: Rev.22:20 Amen.

k. Worship of Lamb in heaven by all creation

“And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.” Rev. 5:13-14 NWT 1961

WHICH ELEMENTS OF PROSKYNEO (ABOVE) DO YOU PRACTICE?

Whether or not one acknowledges an ontological unity between Father and Son, it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself. (Jn 20:28) and we should feel free to address and worship Him as such. Anything less would be to reduce the honor due His name; the name above all names; the name to which angels must bow and to which the Father declares: Thy throne O God (Ho Theos) is forever. After all, Jesus Christ is our Creator. Why would we not worship our Creator as God?

https://youtu.be/4Gae-n0Pb7Q?si=jNVTkIMCakcopoQt

10

AMIII reappointed at GB

by Gorb in

jw
friends

bethel's morning worship was concluded with the announcement that antony morris iii is reappointed at the governing body with effect from july 2, 2025.. the reason for this deeply considered decision is the new understanding of toasting before consuming a drink.

the appointment of brother morris is an evidence of jehovah's blessing on the careful and conscientious efforts of the governing body.. g. .

Vanderhoven7

HaHa, you got us G.

7

Bible-based versus Biblical

by Vanderhoven7 in

jehovah’s witnesses continue to say their religion is completely bible-based as if this proves they are the one true religion.. gilles gray writes:.

jehovah’s witnesses have a hard time understanding/accepting that the mere fact their teachings are ‘bible-based’ doesn’t establish that those teachings are true/biblical.. the most obvious, simple logic highlights their misconception….

jehovah’s witnesses and their organisation have a long history of untrue and failed bible teachings.. for example, the watchtower once claimed that:-.

Vanderhoven7

Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to say their religion is completely Bible-based as if this proves they are the one true religion.

Gilles Gray writes:

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a hard time understanding/accepting that the mere fact their teachings are ‘Bible-based’ doesn’t establish that those teachings are true/biblical.

The most obvious, simple logic highlights their misconception…

Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Organisation have a long history of untrue and failed bible teachings.

For example, the Watchtower once claimed that:-

The time of the end began in 1799
Jesus returned in 1874
Jesus took up his kingly rule in 1878
The sealing of the anointed ended in 1881
Armageddon would take place in 1914
Armageddon would take place in 1915
There was proof conclusive that millions living in 1921 would never die
The ancient worthies would be resurrected in 1925, just before Armageddon
The Generation who were alive and aware of the events in 1914 would by no means pass away until after the Great Tribulation
The end would come before the end of the 20th century
The identity of the Faithful Slave was all of the anointed Christians during the last days
Etc…

All of the Watchtower’s untrue/failed teachings above were claimed to be what the bible says. Every teaching was ‘Bible-based’ and supported by scriptural references to verify that those teachings were true. They were taught with the very same conviction that Jehovah’s Witnesses preach their current bible teachings today.

Despite the fact that every one of the Watchtower’s former discarded bible teachings was ‘based on the bible’, not one of them was true.

Therefore, simple straightforward logic dictates that the mere fact that a teaching is ‘Bible-based’, doesn’t prove that that teaching is biblical. It could very well be untrue, like all of Jehovah’s Witnesses untrue and failed bible teachings.

20