Author Topic: Discoveries  (Read 620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #35 on: Mon Mar 09, 2020 - 21:46:57 »
.
The Watchtower Society argues that the account of the metemorphe (transfiguration) found at Matt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form, proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh?

According to the Society's own doctrines, it is impossible to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously. Now this is important to note because in order for Jesus to exist in human form, his angel form had to be terminated. So at the time of the transfiguration, Jesus' human form was his true form. In words: if anything, the transfiguration would prove not his ability to materialize himself as a human, rather, as an angel.

Had Jesus Christ undergone a change of nature in the transfiguration scene, he would have also undergone a change of name, but at no time during the event was he ever referred to as Michael; instead, throughout the event continued to be referred to as Jesus; which is his human name.

During the event, a voice from heaven identified Jesus 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.

All three of the synoptic gospels report the transfiguration event as 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.

Ergo: in order for Jesus to rule the kingdom as a human being, his human body would have to be restored to life because a materialized human body is not human; it's an avatar.

This presents a knotty problem for the Society because according to its teachings, Jesus' body cannot be restored to life. It has to stay dead and cached away somewhere on the earth in order to remain an effective sacrifice for the sins of the world.

The Watchtower Society's rather curious claim is located on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; which reads: "If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."


NOTE: All the first covenant's sacrifices were removed from the altar, none were allowed to remain, not even their ashes. And besides, "God's altar" wasn't the earth; it was the cross, from which Jesus' body was removed the very afternoon of his death.

I'm a fan of a very bright woman named Marilyn vos Savant. She pens a weekly column in the Sunday paper's Parade Magazine. Her tested IQ is somewhere in the 200 range. Marilyn received a question that goes like this:


FAQ: Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a statement, and another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?

A: Usually the person who makes an affirmative statement (defined as a statement that asserts a fact, makes an allegation, or favors an action; etc) has the burden of proof. America's justice system is an example. The prosecution (or the plaintiff, as the case may be) rather than the defense, must prove its case to the jury. Failure to prove it's case, requires that the defense be exonerated.

In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; it has a moral obligation to substantiate it because it is not incumbent upon the Society's opponents to prove its claims are false.

No, it is incumbent upon the Society to prove its claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to do it by rationalizing, nor by humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in scripture. They claim that Jesus' crucified body is still deceased. If that claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture, then sensible jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as spurious fiction.

The fact of the matter is that had Jesus morphed into an angel; the sacred text would say so; but it doesn't; indicating that the Society has gone and done something very common with cultists like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, David Koresh, and Jim Jones: it has forced the Bible to mean things that it does not say in writing. According to 2Pet 3:15, people might just as well put a gun to their heads when they do that.
_

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discoveries
« Reply #35 on: Mon Mar 09, 2020 - 21:46:57 »

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #36 on: Tue Mar 10, 2020 - 21:18:24 »
.
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 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 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)
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #37 on: Wed Mar 11, 2020 - 19:45:56 »
.
Psalm 45:6 is usually translated like this:

"Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

The Watchtower Society translates it like this:

"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever"

Chabad.org translates it like this:

"Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever"

Seeing as how the Hebrew word 'elohiym is a bit ambiguous, then either "God" or "judge" will do-- at least in the Old Testament. But when we go over to the New Testament, we quickly discover that "God" is the better choice of words because the Greek word theόs usually always, with very few exceptions, indicates a divine being rather than a judge or a magistrate when it's modified by the little Greek article "ho".

Here's how Heb 1:8 is usually translated:

"Of the Son He says: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"

Here's how the Watchtower Society translates Heb 1:8

"With reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever"

I lay no claim as a qualified linguist, nor even an armchair linguist; but I really have to question from whence the Society came up with "God is your throne".

A Watchtower Society missionary explained to me that "God is your throne" is a metaphor indicating that the Son's throne is established with the power of God rather than the power of men (John 18:36). In other words: "God is your throne" is an interpretation rather than a translation.


 JW REBUTTAL: The usual translations of Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 has one God speaking to another God. Does that make sense to you?

RESPONSE: That kind of reasoning has been a fatal flaw in the Society's theology ever since the days of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph F. Rutherford; viz: much of the Society's theology is based upon what makes sense to it rather than what the Bible reveals to it.

 JW REBUTTAL: If you read it as "God is your throne" then it's sensible and consistent.

RESPONSE: Sensible to whom? The Watchtower Society and its minions? Consistent with what? The Watchtower Society's theology? And besides, "God is your throne" isn't even a valid translation, rather, it's an interpretation, i.e. it says what the Society thinks Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 ought to say rather than what those verses actually say.

I once asked a missionary how he knew the Society's theology was correct. He answered: "They go by the Bible and everything they say makes sense." Well; a large percentage of traditional Christianity goes by the Bible, and much of what it says makes sense too.

Bottom line is: the missionary couldn't really be certain whether the Society is correct: he was courageously assuming the bosses know what they're talking about; but no one should ever do that because of the Society's caveat located in the Feb 2017 Watchtower-Study Edition; paragraph 12, under the heading; "Who is leading God's People today?" which reads like this:

"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."
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #38 on: Thu Mar 12, 2020 - 22:31:14 »
.
1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.

The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the fifteenth chapter calls "the dead" a physical body.

According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing a corpse in order to bring it back to life. No, because according to their way of thinking; if someone's corpse were returned to life, its owner would be barred from the kingdom of God.

1Cor 15:50 . . This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom,

But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53) which would be quite useless were they to be thrown away. On the contrary; the seeds have to be kept on hand so they can undergo a transformation suitable for the kingdom together with the bodies of those who are alive at the time of the Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)


FAQ: What about the remains of people whose bodies are no longer intact such as those eaten and digested by critters, burned to ashes, and/or blown to smithereens in war?

A: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return to the dust from whence they're made. (Gen 3:19).

FAQ: What if some of the atoms that made my body go into making another person's body after I'm dead? How will God fully restore both our bodies to life seeing as how He will have need of the atoms of each to do so?

A: Specific atoms are all the same; it's not as if there are no two alike; viz: if God needs some carbon atoms to reconstruct your body, He could utilize carbon atoms from a Sequoia cactus and they would work just fine without the slightest need for adjustment because every carbon atom is a precise duplicate of every other carbon atom; viz: all carbon atoms are just one kind of carbon atom.

So it isn't necessary for God to locate all your original carbon atoms in order to reconstruct your original body; He just needs carbon atoms; and they are very plentiful in nature: same with iron atoms, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #39 on: Fri Mar 13, 2020 - 19:56:39 »
.
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; so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to the archangel Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 when, in point of fact, according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one archangel.

Archangels are very high ranking, but there is another personage even higher in rank than they spoken of in Josh 5:13-15; a being whose rank is described as captain of Jehovah's forces; and in the captain's presence, Joshua was required to remove his shoes; same as Moses at the burning bush. (Ex 3:1-5)


NOTE: 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 a human being rather than an angel being.
_

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discoveries
« Reply #39 on: Fri Mar 13, 2020 - 19:56:39 »



Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #40 on: Sat Mar 14, 2020 - 12:23:42 »
.
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 ancient 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)
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #41 on: Sun Mar 15, 2020 - 22:43:11 »
.
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 remark 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. They 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.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #42 on: Mon Mar 16, 2020 - 23:29:36 »
.
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".

The Hebrew word for "thoughts" in that passage is 'eshtonah (esh-to naw') which means thinking rather than awareness.

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.

For 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 example 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 they 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.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #43 on: Tue Mar 17, 2020 - 23:14:46 »
.
Jesus & Jonah (01)

If we're not careful with the story of Jonah, the time element can become a red herring while the real issue-- the issue that matters most --is Jonah's death and resurrection.

Matt 12:39-40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth.

Christ's statement should be accompanied by this next passage so there's no mistaking what he was talking about.

John 2:18-22 . . Therefore, in answer, the Jews said to him: “What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?”

. . . In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Therefore the Jews said: “This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?”

. . . But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #44 on: Wed Mar 18, 2020 - 23:01:45 »
.
Jesus & Jonah (02)

Jonah 1:17 . . Jehovah appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, so that Jonah came to be in the inward parts of the fish three days and three nights.


FAQ: Was Jonah alive in the fish?

A: Yes. (Jonah 2:1)

FAQ: The whole time?

A: No; and in point of fact; unless Jonah was deceased at some point, then his adventure would relate very little of any real significance to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

FAQ: So you think Jonah died in the fish?

A: Jonah 2:5-7 strongly suggests that he drowned prior to being swallowed by the big fish; which fits perfectly with the fact that Jesus was dead before his body was entombed; viz: neither man was buried alive.

Jonah's prayer from within the fish speaks of a prayer that he prayed while drowning, and also about a prayer that he prayed while incarcerated in sheol; a total of three prayers; each one prayed from three separate locations and under three different circumstances: in the sea, in sheol, and in the fish.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #45 on: Thu Mar 19, 2020 - 17:53:03 »
.
Jesus & Jonah (03)

At some point in his nautical adventure Jonah went to a place called sheol (Jonah 2:2) which he sited at the roots of the mountains. (Jonah 2:6)

Well; the roots of the mountains aren't located in the tummies of fish, no; they're located down deep in the Earth. So, the only way that Jonah could possibly be at the roots of the mountains while in the belly of a fish at the same time was for the man and his body to part company and go their separate ways.

And then there's Jesus . . .

Matt 12:39-40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth.

Now when you think about it; Jesus' corpse was never in the heart of the Earth. It wasn't even in the Earth's soil. His corpse was laid to rest on the surface of the Earth in a rock-hewn tomb.

So the only way that Jesus could possibly be in a tomb on the surface of the Earth while in the heart of the Earth at the same time; was for the man and his body to part company and go their separate ways.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #46 on: Fri Mar 20, 2020 - 13:18:18 »
.
Jesus & Jonah (04)

Just before being cast ashore, Jonah prayed thus:

Jonah 2:6 . . But out of the pit you proceeded to bring up my life, O Jehovah my God.

The Hebrew word for "pit" in that verse speaks of putrefaction.

The very same Hebrew word is located in Ps 16:8-10 which Acts 2:25-31 verifies is speaking of putrefaction; viz: Jonah 2:6 tells of the prophet's flesh just as Ps 16:8-10 and Acts 2:25-31 tell of Christ's flesh. In other words: Jonah 2:6 tells of Jonah's resurrection; which is precisely the sign that Jesus intended at Matt 12:39-40.

So then, just as Jonah's soul was not left at the bottoms of the mountains, Christ's soul was not left in the heart of the earth. And just as Jonah's body was not left to decompose in the fish, neither was Christ's body left to decompose in the tomb. And just as Jonah came back from his grave within three days and nights, so Jesus came back from his grave within three days and nights.

If none of this were so, then Jonah's experience would be a pretty useless parallel to Christ's.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #47 on: Sat Mar 21, 2020 - 18:22:37 »
.
Jesus & Jonah (05)


FAQ: What does the story of Jonah have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses?

A: JWs are taught to believe that human life is entirely physical; viz: when people die they cease to exist. Well; were that belief a reality; then Jesus Christ would've ceased to exist when he passed away on the cross.

Jonah's experience is handy for illustrating Jesus' experience; viz: if Jonah existed at the bottoms of the mountains while his flesh was deceased in the tummy of a fish, then Jesus existed in the heart of the Earth while his flesh was deceased in a tomb.

Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and also a sign to Jesus' generation (Matt 13:39-40, Luke 11:29-30). The word "sign" is translated from a Greek word that's sometimes used in the gospels to indicate miracles.

Had Jonah stayed alive in the fish's tummy, that would not be the kind of sign that Jesus had in mind. He needed a miraculous event that would adequately depict his own; the reason being that Jesus' flesh was on track to be returned to life. (John 2:19-21)

Jonah, coupled with Ps 16:8-10, Acts 2:25-31, and Matt 12:39-40 proves that Jesus continued to exist out of body when he passed away; and if he and Jonah did, then there's reason to expect that everyone else does too.

If Jesus Christ's resurrection is true-- if his crucified dead body actually recovered just as Jonah's-- then Jesus most certainly is the one man in the New Testament that everybody really ought to approach with a great deal of caution because Jonah's message warned of the impending destruction of just one city; while Jesus' message warns of the impending destruction of many cities. (Rev 16:17-19)

Matt 12:41 . . Men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because they repented at what Jonah preached, but, look! something more than Jonah is here.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #48 on: Mon Mar 23, 2020 - 19:08:22 »
.
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 could not 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 one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy; but none of none 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 his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never fantasy.

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. And he's also 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 testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

Abraham was also a prophet (Gen 20:7) which means he was an inspired man. As such, he would be privy to information that would normally be unavailable to the average rank and file pew warmer. However prophets aren't meant to keep what they hear from God to themselves; they're messengers, e.g. Abraham was 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 his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro-managed.

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 that narrative all the more terrifying. 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; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based upon real life.

In other words: 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.

People for whom I feel the most pity are parents that brought up their children in a religion whose pot at the end of the rainbow is filled with molten sulfur instead of gold. How do people bear up under something like that on their conscience?
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #49 on: Tue Mar 24, 2020 - 19:36:45 »
.
The Watchtower Society argues that the account of the metemorphe (transfiguration) found at Matt 17:1-9 showed Jesus' true angelic form, proving his ability to materialize a human form at will. Oh?

According to the Society's own doctrines, it is impossible to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously. Now this is important to note because in order for Jesus to exist in human form, his angel form had to be terminated. So at the time of the transfiguration, Jesus' human form was his true form, viz: if anything, the transfiguration would prove not his ability to materialize himself as a human, rather, as an angel.

Had Jesus Christ undergone a change of nature in the transfiguration scene, he would have also undergone a change of name, but at no time during the event was he ever referred to as Michael; instead, throughout the event continued to be referred to as Jesus; which is his human name.

During the event, a voice from heaven identified Jesus 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.

All three of the synoptic gospels report the transfiguration event as 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.

Ergo: in order for Jesus to rule the kingdom as a human being, his human body would have to be restored to life because a materialized human body is not human; it's an avatar.

This presents a knotty problem for the Society because according to its teachings, Jesus' body cannot be restored to life. It has to stay dead and cached away somewhere on the earth in order to remain an effective sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Watchtower Society's rather curious claim is located on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; which reads:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."


NOTE: All the first covenant's sacrifices were removed from the altar, none were allowed to remain, not even their ashes. And besides, "God's altar" wasn't the earth; it was the cross, from which Jesus' body was removed the very afternoon of his death.

I'm a fan of a very bright woman named Marilyn vos Savant. She pens a weekly column in the Sunday paper's Parade Magazine. Her tested IQ is somewhere in the 200 range. Marilyn received a question that goes like this:


FAQ: Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a statement, and another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?

A: Usually the person who makes an affirmative statement (defined as a statement that asserts a fact, makes an allegation, or favors an action; etc) has the burden of proof. America's justice system is an example. The prosecution (or the plaintiff, as the case may be) rather than the defense, must prove its case to the jury. Failure to prove it's case, requires that the defense be exonerated.

In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; it has a moral obligation to substantiate it because it is not incumbent upon the Society's opponents to prove its claims are false.

No, it is incumbent upon the Society to prove its claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to do it by rationalizing, nor by humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in scripture. They claim that Jesus' crucified body is still deceased. If that claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture, then sensible jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as spurious fiction.

The fact of the matter is that had Jesus morphed into an angel; the sacred text would say so; but it doesn't; indicating that the Society has gone and done something very common with cultists like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, David Koresh, and Jim Jones: it has forced the Bible to mean things that it does not say in writing. According to 2Pet 3:15, people might just as well put a gun to their heads when they do that.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #50 on: Wed Mar 25, 2020 - 11:29:00 »
.
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 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)
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #51 on: Thu Mar 26, 2020 - 19:44:05 »
.
Psalm 45:6 is usually translated like this:

"Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

The Watchtower Society translates it like this:

"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever"

Chabad.org translates it like this:

"Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever"

Seeing as how the Hebrew word 'elohiym is a bit ambiguous, then either "God" or "judge" will do-- at least in the Old Testament. But when we go over to the New Testament, we quickly discover that "God" is the better choice of words because the Greek word theόs usually always, with very few exceptions, indicates a divine being rather than a judge or a magistrate when it's modified by the little Greek article "ho".

Here's how the Watchtower Society translates Heb 1:8

"With reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever"

I lay no claim as a qualified linguist, nor even an armchair linguist; but I really have to question from whence the Society came up with "God is your throne".

A Watchtower Society missionary explained to me that "God is your throne" is a metaphor indicating that the Son's throne is established with the power of God rather than the power of men (John 18:36). In other words: "God is your throne" is an interpretation rather than a translation.


JW REBUTTAL: The usual translations of Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 has one God speaking to another God. Does that make sense to you?

RESPONSE: That kind of reasoning has been a fatal flaw in the Society's theology ever since the days of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph F. Rutherford; viz: much of the Society's theology is based upon what makes sense to it rather than what the Bible reveals to it.

JW REBUTTAL: If you read it as "God is your throne" then it's sensible and consistent.

RESPONSE: Sensible to whom? The Watchtower Society and its minions? Consistent with what? The Watchtower Society's theology? And besides, "God is your throne" isn't even a valid translation, rather, it's an interpretation, i.e. it says what the Society thinks Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 ought to say rather than what those verses actually say.

I once asked a missionary how he knew the Society's theology was correct. He answered: "They go by the Bible and everything they say makes sense." Well; a large percentage of traditional Christianity goes by the Bible, and much of what it says makes sense too.

Bottom line is: the missionary couldn't really be certain whether the Society is correct: he was courageously assuming the bosses know what they're talking about; but no one should ever do that because of the Society's caveat located in the Feb 2017 Watchtower-Study Edition; paragraph 12, under the heading; "Who is leading God's People today?" which reads like this:

"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."
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #52 on: Fri Mar 27, 2020 - 11:25:31 »
.
1Cor 15:36-42 . .What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.

. . . Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

. . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.

The Greek word for "dead" in that passage is nekros (nek-ros') which basically refers to a corpse. In point of fact, verse 44 in this section of the fifteenth chapter calls "the dead" a physical body.

According to the Watchtower Society: the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in the fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, is not talking about re-energizing a corpse in order to bring it back to life. No, because according to their way of thinking; if someone's corpse were returned to life, its owner would be barred from the kingdom of God.

1Cor 15:50 . . .This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom,

But human remains are likened to seeds (1Cor 15:35-53) which would be quite useless were they to be thrown away. On the contrary; the seeds have to be kept on hand so they can undergo a transformation suitable for the kingdom together with the bodies of those who are alive at the time of the Lord's return. (1Thess 4:13-18)


FAQ: What about the remains of people whose bodies are no longer intact such as those eaten and digested by critters, burned to ashes, and/or blown to smithereens in war?

A: It was God's intentions from the very beginning that human bodies return to the dust from whence they're made. (Gen 3:19).

FAQ: What if some of the atoms that made my body go into making another person's body after I'm dead? How will God fully restore both our bodies to life seeing as how He will have need of the atoms of each to do so?

A: Specific atoms are all the same; it's not as if there are no two alike; viz: if God needs some carbon atoms to reconstruct your body, He could utilize carbon atoms from a Sequoia cactus and they would work just fine without the slightest need for adjustment because every carbon atom is a precise duplicate of every other carbon atom; viz: all carbon atoms are just one kind of carbon atom.

So it isn't necessary for God to locate all your original carbon atoms in order to reconstruct your original body; He just needs carbon atoms; and they are very plentiful in nature: same with iron atoms, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #53 on: Sat Mar 28, 2020 - 17:41:16 »
.
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; so I think it would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to the archangel Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 when, in point of fact, according to Dan 10:13, there's more than one archangel.

Archangels are very high ranking, but there is another personage even higher in rank than they spoken of in Josh 5:13-15; a being whose rank is described as captain of Jehovah's forces; and in the captain's presence, Joshua was required to remove his shoes; same as Moses at the burning bush. (Ex 3:1-5)


NOTE: 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 a human being rather than an angel being.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #54 on: Sun Mar 29, 2020 - 19:47:11 »
.
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 ancient 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)
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #55 on: Tue Mar 31, 2020 - 20:31:04 »
.
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. They 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.
_

Offline NyawehNyoh

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Manna: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's Wrong All The Time
Re: Discoveries
« Reply #56 on: Wed Apr 01, 2020 - 12:47:36 »
.
Should it be decided to go head to head with Watchtower Society missionaries, here's some useful tips passed on by Pete, the ex Jehovah's Witness mentioned at the first.

1) Round up a copy of the Watchtower Society's "New World Translation of the Bible" and its "Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures." Sometimes these are available in thrift stores like Good Will and Salvation Army. Both are available online from amazon dot com.

For some useful insights into a variety of Jehovah's Witness teachings, the little brown book titled "Reasoning From The Scriptures" is a must-have. It's available online too. Be sure to get the Watchtower Society's version instead of another book by the same name authored by a different agency.

2) Do not let these people get personal with you. You must never ever assume they are your friends because first and foremost their primary interest is in making you a life-long slave to the Watchtower Society. You can be courteous and you can be civil, but it's highly recommended that you not let them into your life.

3) Do not accept their literature. They will want to come back later and discuss it with you; thus taking control of both your thinking and the meeting.

4) Don't let them get too far into their spiel, but at the first opportunity begin introducing your own questions; thus denying them control of the conversation.

5) Do not debate. You're not a salesman pushing a product, nor a recruiter, nor a candidate running for an elected office: you're not on a quota, you're not out to win anything, nor are you required to win-- you're a herald; viz: a messenger. Your information is best presented as a second opinion for them to think about; and that's all. No hammering and no pressuring.

The goal is to show missionaries that the Society's isn't the only expert opinion out there. In other words: the Watchtower Society's interpretations aren't the only option; nor are theirs eo ipso the right interpretations just because the Governing Body says so.

6) Avoid getting embroiled in trivial issues like birthdays, Easter, Christmas, Christmas trees, the design and construction of the wooden device upon which Christ was crucified, saluting the flag, service in the military, and that sort of thing. There are much bigger fish to fry than those.

The No.1 issue on their minds when they come to your door will likely be Jehovah's kingdom, in particular, the portion of His kingdom to be on Earth.

7) Make them listen and pay attention to what you say even if you have to repeat yourself to do it, or clap your hands, snap your fingers, or raise your voice. Do not let them digress, change the subject, go off on a tangent, nor get distracted and/or turn their attention elsewhere while you're speaking. If they start digging through their bags, shuffling papers, tinkering with their tablets, or looking up a reference; call them on it because there is no use in speaking when their minds are elsewhere engaged.

8) Do not permit them to interrupt you and/or talk out of turn. Politely, but firmly, insist that they hold their peace until you've said your piece.

9) Do not permit them to evade and/or circumvent difficult questions. They sometimes say that they will have to confer with someone more knowledgeable. When they do that, the meeting is over. Thank them politely for their time and then ask them to leave and come back when they have the information. Do not let them stay and start a new topic of their own.

10) Do not react and/or respond to ad hominems, which can be defined as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, qualifications and/or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. They will most likely challenge your qualifications, especially your credibility with the Greek and Hebrew languages, so be prepared for that.

11) These people undergo hour upon hour of training to refute standard Christian doctrines, so it's very important to show them the Bible not only in ways they've already seen, but also in ways they've never imagined.

It is my personal opinion that it's not a good idea to attempt to evangelize a Watchtower missionary as I can just about guarantee that most experienced JWs are better at evangelizing you than you are them. If you think that your own gospel message is some sort of silver bullet; you'll find out right quick that their silver bullets are quite likely bigger than yours.
_