Jehovah's Witnesses vs The Bible
For a home-spun, Bible-based religion whose origin is
relatively recent, the Watchtower Society has done pretty well for itself.
Beginning with one man shortly after the American Civil War, it currently
numbers approximately 8.2 million active members spread out in approximately 118,000
congregations worldwide. (Congregations have been displaced and consolidated in
recent years due to the Society liquidating a number of Kingdom Halls in order
to settle its legal obligations.)
My first encounter with a Watchtower Society agent (a.k.a. Jehovah's
Witness) occurred in 1969. At the time I was young and inexperienced; and thus
assumed that the missionary coming down my dad's
driveway was a typical Christian.
But when I talked this over with an elder; he became alarmed; and urged me to
read a little book titled "30 Years A Watchtower Slave" by William J. Schnell;
whom the Society at one time demonized as an agent of Satan. I would not be
surprised if it still does.
After getting my eyes opened by Mr. Schnell's book, I was afterwards steered
towards another book titled "Kingdom Of The Cults" by Walter Martin. No doubt
the Society demonizes Mr. Martin too.
Around late 1980, my wife and I attended a series of lectures sponsored by a
local church titled "How To Witness To Jehovah's Witnesses". The speaker (call
him Pete) was an ex JW who had been in the Watchtower Society system for
near three decades before terminating his involvement; so he knew the twists and
turns of its doctrines pretty good.
Pete didn't train us to hammer the Society's missionaries in a discussion
because even if you best them scripture for scripture, they will not give up on
the Society. Their mind's unflinching premise is that the Society is right even
when it appears to be totally wrong. They are thoroughly convinced that the
Society is the voice of God, while your voice has no more validity than that of
a squeaky little gerbil.
Later on, I read a book titled "Why I Left The Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. I also read the Society's little brown book titled
"Reasoning From The Scriptures".
(This was all before the internet and the ready volume of information available
online, e.g. YouTube.)
From all that vetting, study, and training I quickly discovered that although
the Watchtower Society uses many of Christianity's standard terms and phrases,
those terms and phrases mean something entirely different in the JW mind than what you'd expect because the Society has re-defined the
meanings of those terminologies.
So your first challenge with Jehovah's Witness teachings is to
scale the language barrier. That by itself is an Herculean task because you'll
not only be up against a tangle of semantics, but also a Jumanji of
twisted scriptures, double speak, humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, and
Staring Into The Abyss
Raymond Victor Franz was a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
from October 20, 1971 until his removal on May 22, 1980, and served at the
organization's world headquarters for fifteen years, from 1965 until 1980.
Mr. Franz resigned, and stated that the request for his resignation, and his
subsequent dis-fellowshipping, resulted from allegations of apostasy.
Following his departure, Mr. Franz wrote a book titled "Crisis Of Conscience"
relating his personal experiences with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
and his views on Jehovah's Witness teachings. It's a bit expensive in print
form, but as of the date of this writing could be heard audibly for free on
YouTube and/or as a free pdf download.
Mr. Franz's book, and his interviews, are helpful aids for people wondering if
they made the right decision leaving the Society's fold. It's also helpful for
people thinking about becoming a Jehovah's Witness but not too sure whether
they'd be making a really big, life-changing mistake not easily corrected.
Many of the Jehovah's Witness missionaries going door-to-door throughout the
world are honestly, and sincerely, wanting to enter the kingdom of God; which is
why I'm convinced that Christians really ought to know something about New
Testament hope before engaging JWs in a conversation about the kingdom.
● 1Pet 3:15 . . Always ready to make a defense
before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you,
The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in Peter's instructions is elpis (el pece')
which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure) and to expect with confidence.
Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.
other words: elpis hope is a know-so hope rather than a cross your fingers hope.
So, unless someone knows for proof-positive, beyond even the slightest glimmer
of sensible doubt, that they have a passport to the kingdom of God locked in and
irrevocable, then of course it is impossible for them to comply with Peter's
instructions seeing as they would not yet have the kind of hope about which he
● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoice in the hope.
When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading
the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; but they do have
plenty of cause to fear the unknown.
Elpis hope is one of the three principal elements of Christianity (1Cor 13:13).
It's also a calling. (Eph 4:4)
When people are lacking the kind of hope described by the Greek word elpis, then
I believe it's safe to assume that they have not yet responded to God's
call; or worse, He has not called them; and quite possibly never will.
The Kingdom Of God On Earth
It's both tragic and ironic that the Watchtower Society's rank and file
missionaries go worldwide advertising a kingdom that they themselves will never
be allowed to enter. Here's why.
John 3:3-12, Christ discusses what he labels "earthly things".
The primary earthly thing discussed was the kingdom of God. The other earthly
thing discussed was a Spirit-birth requirement to enter it. In other words:
God's kingdom on earth, and a Spirit birth, are joined at the hip.
The overwhelming majority of JWs coming to our doors aren't Spirit-born now, nor
do they ever expect to be-- not in this life, nor in the next --yet they
sincerely believe they have a shot at admission to God's kingdom on earth.
However, seeing as how the Spirit-birth requirement is a must rather than an
option; they will not succeed.
The Watchtower Society will never accept classical Christianity's teaching that
Jesus Christ is Jehovah incognito simply because the Society's undying premise
is that it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a human
According to the premise: Jehovah's spirit existence would have to be terminated
before He could become a human existence; and I can easily guarantee that nobody
is ever going to convince the Society otherwise unless they first prove that the
Word of John 1:1-4 is impervious to death. In other words; in order to prove to
the Society that it's possible for a spirit being to exist as a human being
simultaneously, it is necessary to prove to the Society that the Word is an
everlasting life; which is a kind of life that cannot die. Fortunately it's very
easy to do because the apostle John did that part for us in his first epistle.
● 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed
attentively and our hands felt, concerning the word of life, (yes, the life was
made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the
everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,)
Greek word for "everlasting" in that passage is aionios (ahee-o'-nee-os)
which essentially means perpetual; viz: without interruption.
The Word's human existence as per John 1:14 was as a mortal life and thus easily
interrupted; but seeing as how the Word's spirit existence as per 1John 1:1-2 is
an everlasting life, then it's impossible for the Word's spirit existence to be
Jehovah cannot interrupt His existence as God because Jehovah is an everlasting
life (Gen 21:33, Rom 16:26). In the same manner, the Word cannot interrupt his
existence as the Word because the Word is an everlasting life too. (John 5:26,
The Word may have temporarily divested himself of his glory when he came to the
earth to live and die as a human being, but he did not, and could not, divest
himself of his spirit existence because in order to do that, he would have to
die; which is an impossibility for everlasting life. If that were not so, then
it would be possible to assassinate Jehovah. In point of fact, it would even be
possible for Jehovah to commit suicide.
According to chapter 1, verse 1, of John's gospel, the Word is a god. Well;
seeing as how the Word is an everlasting life, then he's obviously an
everlasting god too; viz: the Watchtower Society's religion has two everlasting
gods in it, and both of those everlasting gods are credited with the creation of
the cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy.
Precisely how an everlasting creator can exist simultaneously as a created thing
is one of the mysteries of classical Christianity that has to be taken on faith
rather than reason because the 3-pound lump of fatty, flabby organic tissue
housed in a man's bony little skull, and sufficing for a mind, is just too
limited to get it; and not even all three of those pounds are devoted to
The Living God(s)
● Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is
the living god.
The Hebrew word for "living" in that passage is chay (khah'-ee) which
first appears in the Bible at Gen 1:20 where it speaks of aqua life and winged
life. Then it appears at Gen 1:24 where it speaks of life on land. It appears
again at Gen 2:7 where it speaks of human life.
Vegetation is never spoken of as chay. So I think we can limit the kind of life
spoken of by chay as conscious existence; viz: sentient life.
Jehovah is called the living god something like fifteen times in the Old
Testament, and fifteen more times in the New.
unaware of any other gods in the whole Bible identified as living gods; not even
the people of Psalm 82 to whom God said "You are gods".
Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god.
In other words: labeling Jehovah as the living god is a way of saying He is the
only god that's actually eternal, i.e. always was, always is, and always shall
be. This has some serious ramifications because when speaking of Christ:
● Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of
the divine quality dwells bodily.
Greek word for "divine quality" is theótes (theh-ot'-ace) which means:
Seeing as how
theótes is modified by the Greek definite article "ho" then what we're
looking at here in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity, but rather the
divinity. In other words: we're looking at the fullness of the divinity of the
everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken of at John 1:1
is a god. However: the Word isn't just any god; no, the fullness of the divinity
of the living god dwells in the Word; viz: the Word is a living god, i.e. the
life that's in the Word always was, always is, and always shall be.
● John 5:26 . . For just as the
Father has life in himself, so He has granted also to the Son to have life in
When the Father
granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father has life in Himself,
things got a bit complicated because unless Jehovah and the Word are somehow different
names for the same personage; there is now one too many living gods out there.
The Last Adam
● 1Cor 15:45a . . The first man Adam became a
● 1Cor 15:47 . .The first man is out of the earth
and made of dust
Those verses are references to Gen 2:7, which reads like this:
"Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."
The Watchtower Society alleges that Jehovah God wasn't directly involved in
creating the first man, rather, His involvement was indirect. According to them,
the actual work was done by the hand of a divine being called the Word.
"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a
god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence
through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (John
Seeing as that's the case; then the breath of life spoken of in Gen 2:7 was
blown into the first man's nostrils by the Word. In all respects then, we owe
the beginning of the original human race to the Word just as much as we owe it
to Jehovah God because both are given credit for its origin.
● 1Cor 15:45b . .The last Adam became a life-giving
That verse speaks of the origin of yet another human race. This second human
race wasn't made of dust from the ground, nor was it given consciousness by
blowing into its nostrils the breath of life, nor did it come to be a living
Up to this point; I'm told of only two life-giving spirits in the Bible: the
Word and Jehovah God. So unless there is now three life-giving spirits, I feel
safe to conclude that the last Adam is one of the two; i.e. he's either the Word
or he's Jehovah God. Well; it's easy to show by John 1:14 that the last Adam and
the Word are one and the same person.
the Word became flesh and resided among us"
When did this last Adam become a life-giving spirit? At his birth or at his
According to John 5:26 and 1John 1:1-2, the Word is an everlasting life which,
according to Gen 21:33 and Rom 16:26, is an indestructible category of life
that's impervious to death. And according to John 1:1, the Word is a god. Well; people die, but gods never die. (Ps 82:6-7)
So the Word didn't go out of existence when he came into the world as an h.sapiens;
which means of course that Jesus Christ was a life-giving spirit right from the
moment of his conception rather than at his resurrection; i.e. he was capable of
giving life prior to his crucifixion.
Speaking to the Jews of his day; Jesus said:
sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them
everlasting life" (John 10:27-28)
"You are searching the Scriptures, because you think that by means of them you
will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about
me. And yet you do not want to come to me that may have life." (John 10:39-40)
So you're saying a created man pioneered the original human race; and a man
who's both creator and created pioneered the second human race?
● 1Cor 15:47 . .The second man is out of heaven.
● John 6:38 . . I have come down from heaven
● John 6:42 . . They began saying: Is this not
Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it that now he
says: I have come down from heaven?
The dual nature of Christ's existence is a fatal hang-up for the Watchtower
Society due to its spurious belief that it's impossible for the Word to exist as
a human being and a spirit being simultaneously. But the evidence is very
difficult to refute.
It ain't what
you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
— Mark Twain —
Sheol / Hades
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
Jonah alive in the fish?
Yes. (Jonah 2:1)
At some point in his nautical adventure Jonah went to a
place called sheol (Jonah 2:2) which he sited at the bottoms of the
mountains. (Jonah 2:6)
Well; the bottoms 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 bottoms 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.
Christ paralleled his own afterlife journey with Jonah's.
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
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.
Just before being cast ashore, Jonah prayed thus:
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 is the very same
word for pit in Ps 16:8-10; which Acts 2:25-31 verifies is speaking of
putrefaction. In other words: 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.
"My own flesh will reside in security. For you will not
leave my soul in Sheol. You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit." (Ps
"you will not leave my soul in Sheol" speaks of the bottoms
of the mountains, a.k.a. the heart of the Earth.
"You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit" speaks
of putrefaction; viz: Christ's flesh was restored to life before nature's
processes could destroy it.
What does the story of Jonah have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses?
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 so 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
koiné 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.
My only question is: How was Jonah a sign to the people of
Nineveh? The city was located up around northern Iraq; approximately 400 miles
from the Mediterranean Sea. It's my guess travelers on their way to Nineveh
witnessed Jonah exit the fish, and upon arrival in the city spread their amazing
tale far and wide. If so, that would help explain why the people took Jonah's
message to heart instead of mocking him as just another kooky itinerant
If Jesus Christ's resurrection is true-- if his 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.
● 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.
Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be questioned if they
believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure you they would answer
in the affirmative. However, what you may not know is that you and they would
not be speaking the same language as the conversation would be talking about two
very different processes that go by the same name. In other words: you would
find yourself thrown off by semantic double speak.
The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored to life
as per John 2:19-22.
"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
You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that entire
passage would be easily proven false. But according to the Watchtower Society's
way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body didn't return to life at all; and
In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to come to
the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how in
Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a
human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his "life force" remained intact and was
transferred to a human form.
"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm
to earth. Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained
identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to
Bible Understanding, 1971, p.920)
"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, 2-15-82, p.7)
But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his human form
passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God transferred Michael's life
force back into his angel form thus restoring him to his former spirit
existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a permanent state of
The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently not entirely
because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life force was
transferred to another form— in Michael's case, from a spirit form to an
organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it could
be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his former
It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that wouldn't
be true seeing as how Jesus' life force was Michael's to begin with.
The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of angel
and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept Jesus' human
In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an organic man in the normal sense,
rather; he was an organic angel.
The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay dead so he
could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the Society gives for
keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An additional explanation
is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine;
where it's stated:
"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
There is a
really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's Michael's human
remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body stayed dead, the
Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of that significance
can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if it makes no
difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the Bible speaks of Jesus
Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a man's corpse rather than an angel's.
● Acts 1:1-3 .
.The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus started
both to do and to teach, until the day that he was taken up, after he had given
commandment through holy spirit to the apostles whom he chose. To these also by
many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered.
Watchtower Society's version of those "positive proofs" is interesting.
In order to show his friends that their savior was back from death, an angel
named Michael is alleged to have materialized an artificial Jesus that was in
all respects just as physical, and just as functional, as the real Jesus.
1• The New Testament never even one time, on any occasion, nor under any
circumstances, nor in any situation, either attests, alleges, alludes, or states
that an angel named Michael appeared to Christ's disciples cloaked in a human
2• The Society's Michael never once let on to his friends that he was an angel
in disguise. He led them to believe that his avatar was the actual Jesus Christ
they all knew prior to his crucifixion.
3• Passing one's self off in the guise of a dead man is the lowest form of
identity theft imaginable. It's what I expect
from human beings, but that is not the kind of behavior I have a right to expect
from an arch angel.
A so-called materialized body is not a real person.
5• Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor James, nor Jude, ever even one single
instance in any of their writings identify Jesus Christ as an angel named
Michael: not once. You'd think that if Jesus Christ is currently an angel who
goes by the name of Michael, those men would have said so because that would be
a really big deal.
Q: Why make an issue of the nature of Christ's resurrection?
A: Were I the Devil, I would do my utmost best to disprove the
resurrection of Jesus' crucified dead body because his crucifixion is only half
enough to protect people from the wrath of God. Though his physical body's death
obtains forgiveness for people's sins, its death doesn't gain people
● Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered up for the sake of
our trespasses, and was raised up for the sake of declaring us righteous.
Greek word translated "righteous" is dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis)
means acquittal; defined as an adjudication of innocence.
People merely forgiven still carry a load of guilt; viz: they have a criminal
record. Christ's physical resurrection deletes their record so that on the
books, it's as though they've never been anything but 100% innocent.
This clearing of one's guilt that I'm talking about is obtained via the kindness
and generosity of God through belief in the resurrection of Christ's crucified
dead body. If the Devil can succeed in convincing people that Jesus' crucified
body is still dead or, even better yet, make them question whether the man even
existed at all; then they will fail to obtain an acquittal, and consequently end
up put to death in brimstone because records are to be reviewed when people
stand to face justice at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15.
Of all the doctrines invented by the Watchtower Society, I'd have to say that
their resurrection story is the most insidious because belief in the recovery of
Christ's crucified dead body is one of the essential elements of the gospel that
must be accepted if one is to have any chance at all of escaping the sum of all
1Cor 15:17 . . Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is
useless; you are yet in your sins.
NOTE: According to 1Cor 15:34,
people that believe Jesus Christ's crucified body is still dead aren't fully
conscious; viz: they're like someone in a stupor; i.e. dazed.
In standard Bibles; Jesus told one of his fellow prisoners that they would be in
paradise the very day of their deaths (Luke 23:43). But three days later he told
Mary Magdalena that he had not yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17). How do
you reconcile Jesus' statements?
Well, of one thing we can be very certain: when Jesus died, he didn't go up;
quite the opposite direction: he went down. (Matt 12:40, Ps 16:9-10, and Acts
Paradise is structured such that it exists in more than one place; for example:
The Pacific Crest Trail (a.k.a. PCT) traverses the north/south length of three
states— California, Oregon, and Washington. No matter where trekkers might be
located on the trail at any given moment— whether south at mile No.1 in Campo
San Diego, or 2,140 trail-miles to the north at the Columbia River in Cascade
Locks Oregon —they're all on the very same PCT.
Paradise is sort of like that. There's a section of it in the netherworld (Luke
16:19-31) another in a secret region called the third heaven (2Cor 12:2-4) and
yet another situated with God. (Rev 2:7)
Christ In Heaven
1Cor 15:50 clearly testifies that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God. Wouldn't that fact alone preclude the possibility of Christ's crucified
dead body returning to life?
First, and foremost; it was essential that Christ's crucified dead body be
returned to life or otherwise his prediction as per John 2:19-22, and the
Scriptures as per Ps 16:10, Luke 24:44-46, and Acts 2:24-32 would be easily
The chemistry of Jesus' original body had to be the same when it revived.
However, as 1Cor 15:50 says: his body's original material was unsuitable for
life in a celestial environment. So then, in order for Jesus to be up there as a
physical being, the chemistry of his body had to be reformulated.
God is very creative so I seriously doubt that flesh and blood are the only
materials that He has to work with. I also seriously doubt that spirit material
is the default material when flesh and blood are not an option; I mean, after
all, if God was able to design the human body in its original form to inhabit
the Earth, I see no reason why He would not be able to redesign it to inhabit a
When would Christ's body have undergone this redesign/reformulation?
Some day all of Christ's believing followers will be physically resurrected and
taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 4:13-17). On the way up, their
natural bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation (1Cor
15:51-53). They'll become superhuman; viz: deathless and ageless.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's crucified body underwent a
similar transformation while on the way up to heaven as per Acts 1:9 so that
today his body is no longer a normal human body; but instead, a superhuman body
to which all his believing followers' bodies will one day conform. (Phil 4:20-21)
Although the chemistry of Christ's body has been reformulated; it's still capable of
dining upon ordinary foods and beverages. (Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16-18)
If Jesus Christ's corpse really did return to life; then how did he get it into
a room without opening the door? (John 20:19)
Christ walked on water, restored withered limbs, cured people born blind, healed
serious diseases like leprosy, restored dead bodies to life, controlled the
weather, multiplied fish and bread, turned water into wine, and levitated. Plus;
he once said that rocks could be made to speak. (Luke 19:40)
What's one more miracle, more or less? Walking through walls? Disappearing and
reappearing? How hard could any of that really be for a man with the powers of
God at his disposal?
It's curious how people can say they believe in miracles, yet cannot believe
that God has sufficient control over the laws of nature to make a physical human
body pass through solid objects. What defines miracles anyway? Aren't they acts
of God that defy reason? Mark Twain once remarked that faith is believin' what
you know ain't so. I would add that faith is believing what's revealed rather
than only what makes sense.
Well; if Jehovah has enough control over the laws of nature to pass a physical
human body through closed doors, then couldn't He pass the arch angel Michael
through the door as a spirit and then materialize him on the other side as a
human in order to communicate with his friends?
That would be acceptable if only there were some record of it in the New
Testament. But it is an irrefutable fact that the New Testament not even one
time, on any occasion, nor under any circumstances, nor in any situation, either
attests, alleges, alludes, or states that an angel named Michael appeared to
Christ's friends cloaked in a human avatar. That doctrine doesn't come from the
New Testament. It's a humanistic fantasy.
Spiritual Body vs Spirit Body
Watch for the deliberate misquote in the passage below.
1Cor 15:42-44 . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is
raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. It is sown
a physical body, it is raised up a spirit body. If there is a physical body,
there is also a spirit one.
misquote? Well; there is no mention of a spirit body in that passage. The actual
word is "spiritual".
The Greek word
translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily refer to the
characteristics of thin air. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear
absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the bodily chemistry of an angel or a
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual counselors (Gal 6:1)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)
It's apparently been decided, and chipped in stone, by a number of theologians
that the spiritual body has to be composed of spirit because of the passage
● 1Cor 15:50 . . This I say, brothers, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom,
spirit isn't necessarily the default material when flesh and blood are ruled
In my opinion if God was intelligent enough, and creative enough, to invent all
the natural atomic elements on the periodic table with which to fabricate the
current cosmos with all of its natural forms of life, matter, and energy; then
it shouldn't be all that difficult for Him to produce yet another set of atomic
elements with which to fabricate unnatural bodies composed of materials
heretofore unknown by the likes of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen
There are some other things in addition to immortality that are known about the
The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's glorified body.
● Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in
heaven. And we eagerly await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by
the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform
our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
2) The resurrected body is fully human.
Heb 2:5-8 . . For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth
to come,d about which we are speaking. But a certain witness has given proof
somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or the son of man
that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than angels; with glory
and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. All
things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him
God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all
things in subjection to him;
Heb 5:1-6 . . For every high priest taken
from among men is appointed in behalf of men over the things pertaining to God .
The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods and beverages.
● Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not
drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew
with you in my Father's kingdom.
● Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it
again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.
Luke 22:28-29 . . However, you are the ones that have stuck with
me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a
covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my
spiritual body is visible to the naked eye.
● Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you
stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into
heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven.
● 1John 3:2 .
.We shall see him just as he is.
● Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the
clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him
Connecting With God Via High
● Ps 110:4 . . Jehovah has sworn (and he
will feel no regret): You are a priest to time indefinite according to the
manner of Melchizedek
Melchizedek's only personal appearance in the Bible occurs at Gen 14:18-20. The
letter to Hebrews in the New Testament utilizes him as a "type" of Christ's
The author of the letter to Hebrews was reluctant to discuss Melchizedek's
office, and how Christ's current high priest position relates to it, because the
recipients of the letter were so spiritually immature, and so disinterested in
Bible study, that he feared his comments would result in a ping. In other words:
a discussion of Melchizedek and how he relates to Jesus Christ isn't everybody's
cup of tea so I won't bother going into detail.
However; at least one of the salient features of Mel's priesthood should be
readily obvious to everybody regardless of their spiritual acumen: Mel was a
human being; just as all of God's high priests have always been human beings—
no exceptions. In point of fact, the letter to Hebrews clearly states that high
priests are taken from among men (Heb 5:1). So that becomes the No.1 qualification
for a Melchizedekian priest right out of the box and instantly disqualifies
Mel's jurisdiction was on the earth. But that was before Israel's covenanted law
established Aaron's priesthood. So when that happened; Mel's post was
temporarily suspended; and in point of fact, if Christ were on earth, he would
not be an active priest because this is Aaron's district.
However, though Mel's post was moved to heaven's temple, there were no changes
made to the nature of the person who holds the office. In other words; a priest
according to the manner of Melchizedek is a human being no matter where he is.
And since Ps 110:4 made Jesus Christ a priest to time indefinite, then he will
remain a human being to time indefinite; and in order to be a human being, the
Society says he has to have a human body because in their theology; human
existence is entirely physical.
● 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.
The Greek for both "men" and "man" in that verse is the
same. It's derived from anthropos (anth'-ro-pos)
—a common word for human beings in the New Testament; which is why
that passage doesn't say there is one mediator between God and men, an angel,
Christ Michael. No it doesn't say an angel, Christ Michael; rather, it says a man,
Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a human being rather than an angel by the
A search of the entire New Testament for the angel Michael turns up but two
references: Jude 1:9 and Rev 12:7. That angel is nowhere in the gospels, nowhere
in Acts, and nowhere in the epistles other than Jude. If that angel is so
all-fired important; then why is it so marginalized? Even the Society itself is
a bit perplexed as to why the name of an angel so highly revered in their
theology is nigh unto absent in the New Testament.
The Society claims that the names Jesus and Michael are interchangeable; but
that's the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges on record; not to mention
a very serious case of identity fraud. Even if an angel had once existed as a
human being named Jesus; it no longer does. Now it exists as an angel being
named Michael. The two names aren't interchangeable because the one name denotes
a human being and the other name denotes a spirit being. Go ahead; search the
New Testament and see how much luck you have finding somebody's name hyphenated
like this: Jesus-Michael Christ. You won't because the Society's theology is an
what a wicked web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.
— Sir Walter Scott —
That poem rings so true. Once Charles T. Russell and/or Joseph F. Rutherford
declared that Michael the angel, and Jesus Christ the human, are the same
person; they were faced with the Herculean task of forcing the Bible to agree;
and that was quite a challenge; which was accomplished by means of clever
amalgams of fiction, sophistry, half-truths, semantic double speak, and
5:7-9 . . In the days of his flesh Christ
offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him
out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he
was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned
obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he
became responsible for everlasting salvation to all
those obeying him
The "perfection" Jesus Christ obtained by means
of suffering is directly related to his priesthood rather than his personal
● Heb 5:10
. . Because he has been specifically called by God a
high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.
In order for a priest to be effective, he has to be capable of
5:1-3 . . For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in
behalf of men over the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and
sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal moderately with the ignorant and erring
ones since he also is surrounded with his own weakness, and on its account he is
obliged to make offerings for sins as much for himself as for the people.
Jesus Christ of course could do no wrong of his
own; but he was put through the wringer so he'd have a taste of what us mere
mortals face every day of our lives.
4:15 . . For we have as high priest, not one
who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all
respects like ourselves, but without sin.
Hence, the purpose of the suffering that the Son endured was
for a far different purpose than the discipline which the Father's lesser
sons are put through at Heb 12:5-11 since according to 1John 3:9 and Col 2:9
it was, and it still is, impossible for God's son to ever be unholy, or
unrighteous, or disobedient.
In other words; the Son's suffering was for the purpose of
experiencing first-hand what it's like to obey as a human being. As the Word
in heaven, obedience is his way of life because according to John 1:1-14,
the Word is a god; but the rest of us are mere mortals. Obedience isn't a
piece of cake for those of us who are only human.
It's one thing to sympathize and say you feel your fellow man's pain; but in
order to truly empathize with his pain; you've got to go through it yourself.
It's exactly that which makes Jesus an excellent choice for high priesthood in
heaven because the things he suffered made him a "merciful" high priest; viz: an
high priest that's truly one of us instead of an indifferent judgmental bigot
from another world.
During America's dust bowl era in the 1930's, the Federal Farm Security
Administration sent out an educated young lady named Sonora Babb to counsel
migrant farm workers out west. Nobody trusted her until they found out she grew
up in the so-called No Man's Land of the southern great plains. Sonora wasn't
just another indifferent stuffed-shirt bureaucrat. She was familiar with the
dust bowlers' way of life first-hand, and it made all the difference in the
quality of her rapport with migrant farm workers.
The above pertained to Christ's high priesthood. Non-anointed Jehovah's Witnesses—
a.k.a. the earthly class; viz: the hewers of wood and haulers of water, the
great crowd —-do not have direct access to it, rather, they have indirect
access to Christ's high priesthood via their affiliation with the Watchtower
Society. (See Mediation)
May I suggest to any and/or all JWs hereabout that they take advantage of
whatever degree of access they have for now and speak up candidly and
forthrightly with Christ, asking him if there isn't some way to take advantage
of his high priesthood's services without having to be affiliated with the
Watchtower Society; i.e. as a free moral agent instead of dependent upon a
It's a reasonable request, and I'm pretty sure if asked in all
honesty and sincerity that Christ will get back to its inquirer with a response.
● John 6:37-28 . . Everything the Father gives me
will come to me, and the one that comes to me I will by no means drive away;
because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him
that sent me.
● Heb 4:16 . . Let us, therefore, approach with
freeness of speech to the throne of undeserved kindness, that we may obtain
mercy and find undeserved kindness for help at the right time.
The Faithful And Wise Steward
● Matt 24:45-47 . .Who really is the
faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to
give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on
arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all
The core of the Watchtower Society— the Governing Body —sincerely believes
itself the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in that passage, i.e. believes
that God chose the leaders of the Watchtower Society as His sole distributor of
truth to mankind; thus explaining why John Q and Jane Doe Jehovah's Witnesses
are taught that they need to submit unquestioningly to the Governing Body in
order to associate with God, and for protection from doomsday, viz: the
calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.
"The faithful and discreet slave” was appointed over Jesus’ domestics in 1919.
That slave is the small, composite group of anointed brothers serving at world
headquarters during Christ’s presence who are directly involved in preparing and
dispensing spiritual food. When this group work together as the Governing Body,
they act as the faithful and discreet slave." (jw.org, 10th Nov 2012)
"That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true
followers in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful
slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this
channel." (Watchtower, 2013 Jul 15, p.20)
need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval."
(Watchtower, 2011 Jul 15, p.24, Simplified English Edition)
"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor
private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete
confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus
Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (Watchtower, 2001 Aug 01, p.14)
However: paragraph 12, under the heading; "Who is leading God's People today?"
of the Feb 2017 Watchtower—Study Edition, says:
"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."
Just imagine the degree of confusion and insecurity that would pervade the minds
of regular Christians had the authors of the New Testament scriptures attached a
caveat to their writings similar to the above.
I've had JW missionaries tell me that The Watchtower magazine isn't an authority in matters
of faith and practice. But the Jan 1, 1942 issue of the magazine, on page 5,
speaks for itself as a trustworthy source of Watchtower Society theology by
"Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or
expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all. Those who
believe that God uses he Watchtower as a means of communicating to his people,
or of calling attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower."
In other words: the haulers of water and the hewers of wood— viz: the rank and
file —are not only expected to know what's in the Watchtower magazine, but
they're also required to accept it as the God's truth regardless whether it's
inspired and/or infallible.
Jehovah vs Jehovah's Witnesses
● Rom 8:9 . .You are in harmony, not with
the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you.
The Watchtower Society does not acknowledge God's spirit as a sentient being,
"The holy spirit is the active force of God. It is not a person but is a
powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy
will." (Reasoning From The Scriptures, p. 381)
I highly recommend avoiding debate with JWs over the personage of
God's spirit because they will match you scripture for scripture and you're
likely to just end up going round and round in circles without ever getting to
the bottom of anything.
Anyway; Rom 8:9 informs the Watchtower Society's non anointed Witnesses that
they are in harmony, not with God's spirit, but with the flesh; seeing as how
they do not have God's spirit truly dwelling in them; and that is not a good
thing seeing as they that are in harmony with the flesh are Jehovah's
adversaries. If John Q and Jane Doe non-anointed Witness don't know this; then
all I can say is: they've got some catching up to do.
● Rom 8:8 . . So those who are in harmony
with the flesh cannot please God.
● 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.
On page 1129 of the Watchtower publication Aid To Bible Understanding a
mediator is defined as one who interposes between two parties at variance to
reconcile them: an intercessor.
Here's a question that someone wrote in to the "Questions From Readers" section
of the April 01, 1976 issue of Watchtower magazine, asking:
Jesus the mediator only for anointed Christians? (a.k.a. the 144,000)
answer given in the magazine is YES.
The magazine's answer is corroborated on page 1130 of Aid To Bible
Understanding where it says that the 144,000 are the only ones who have the
mediator; a.k.a. Jesus Christ. (1John 2:1)
Intercession for non anointed Witnesses is accomplished on the coattails of the
144,000; viz: Jesus Christ is an indirect, second party mediator for the rank
and file via their affiliation with the Watchtower Society.
It's sort of like buying insurance from Allstate. The company doesn't sell
direct; its business is conducted through brokers. In essence, that's what the
Society presumes itself: Jesus Christ's mediation brokerage.
So then; when a Jehovah's Witness either defects or is disfellowshipped, it
breaks the pipeline to the mediator that they enjoyed within the Society's fold;
right quick losing all contact with God, and placing themselves in grave danger
of the calamities depicted in the book of Revelation.
Bottom line: According to Watchtower Society theology; it is impossible for
non-anointed people to be on peaceful terms with God apart from affiliation with
the Society's anointed class, a.k.a. the faithful and wise steward.
In other words: Christ's mediation for rank and file JWs as per 1Tim 2:5 is accomplished via a chain
of communication that begins with Christ's association with the faithful and
wise steward; and from thence to the rest of humanity. Removing the faithful and
wise steward from the chain cuts humanity off from Christ; thus leaving them
with no way to reconcile with God.
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.
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)
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
The Greek word for men, as well as the word for man, is derived from
anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) —a common koiné Greek word for human beings in the
New Testament; in other words:
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and anthroópoon; an
ánthroopos: Christ Jesus."
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
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
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)
Q: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as a god
in lower case instead of God in upper case?
A: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary grammatical
The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's
modified by the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates
theós in upper case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho
theós pertains to the one true God, while theós by itself is
somewhat flexible, for example John 1:18 and John 20:17 where the Society
in upper case though it be not modified by ho.
However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of
The Greek New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the
article is not essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the
predicate, ho can be either used, or not used, without making any real
So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either
of the two theόs in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely
arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict rule of Greek grammar. Of course
the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case god because it's agreeable
with their version of Christ's divinity.
Society's theology is a based on a version called monolatrism, which basically
alleges that all gods are actual deities; though not all deities are deemed
worthy of worship. This is not quite the same as polytheism where numerous gods
are all considered worthy of worship.
distinguished from monotheism (asserts the existence of only one god) and
distinguished from henotheism (a religious system in which the believer worships
one god alone without denying that others may worship different gods of equal
Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods: the true and the false, viz:
the authentic and the imitation, the intrinsic and the artificial. The
Watchtower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third sandwiched
between the true and the false called "mighty ones". The mighty-one category is
a sort of neutral zone where qualifying personages exist as bona fide deities
without violating the very first of the Ten Commandments. For example:
"I myself have
said: You are gods" (Ps 82:6)
referred to in that passage are humans; which
everybody should know are only imitation deities rather than the genuine
article; so in order to avoid stigmatizing humans as fake gods, the Society
classifies them as mighty ones.
This gets kind
of humorous when we plug "mighty one" into various locations. For example:
beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a mighty
one." (John 1:1)
"No man has seen
God at any time; the only-begotten mighty one who is in the bosom position with
the Father is the one that has explained him." (John 1:18)
The "mighty one"
category was an invention of necessity. In other words: without it, the Society
would be forced to classify the only-begotten (John 1:18) and the Word (John
1:1) as a false god seeing as how Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 testify
that there is only one true god.
POSIT: Jesus verified the
authenticity of Ps 82:6 in a discussion recorded at John 10:34-36. If the word
of God cannot be nullified, then those gods have to be real gods.
Oh; they're real alright: real imitations because according to Deut 6:4, John
17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6 there is only one true god. Therefore the gods in Ps 82 are
artificial gods. True gods don't die; viz: they're immortal, impervious to
death. The gods in Psalm 82 are not immortal.
So then, what
does all this say about God's son? Well; if God's son is only a mighty one, as
the Watchtower Society alleges; then he's an artificial god, and his divinity is no more
divine in reality than a totem pole or a statue of Shiva.
The Fig Tree
11:12-13 . .The next day, when they had come out from Bethany, he became
hungry. And from a distance he caught sight of a fig tree that had leaves,
and he went to see whether he would perhaps find something on it. But, on
coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season of
If Jehovah really was in the world as the man Jesus, then why didn't He know
by omniscience that the fig tree would have no fruit? Why was it necessary
for Him to examine it up close in person?
Jehovah's conduct in that matter would've been unusual but by no means
In the 11th chapter of Genesis, the
people built themselves a tower. Jehovah came down to see the tower. Now, if
Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, then why bother coming down out of
heaven to inspect the tower in person?
In the 18th chapter of Genesis,
Jehovah announced to Abraham that He was on a journey to visit Sodom in
order to determine whether the reports He was hearing about the city were
true or not. Again: if Jehovah is omnipresent and omniscient, why bother
coming down out of heaven to visit Sodom in person?
In the 22nd chapter of Genesis,
Jehovah had Abraham offer his son as a sacrifice made with fire. At the
conclusion of the event; a celestial being— speaking for Jehovah and
speaking as Jehovah —said: "Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that
you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me."
It goes without saying that Jehovah
knows every man's thoughts, and He also knows the future, viz: nothing we
do, say, or think catches Jehovah by surprise; He sees everything. So then,
if Jehovah already knew in advance that Abraham would offer Isaac, and
already knew in advance that Abraham was God-fearing, then why did He say
"now I know"? Shouldn't Jehovah have already known?
The only sensible answer to those
questions, including the question about the fig tree, is that there is a
humanness to God that began quietly coming to light all the way back in the
very beginning of the Bible; but the New Testament is where we see God's
humanness on display even more.
1:18 . . No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god, who is in
the bosom position with the Father, is the one that has explained him.
"explained him" is accurate
doesn't really say it right— "revealed him" is much better.
14:7 . . . If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also;
from this moment on you know him and have seen him. Philip said to him:
"Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him:
"Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come
to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father also.
Well then, why didn't Jesus use his divine powers to make that tree produce
fruit for him to eat right then and there on the spot instead of cursing the
Isn't that similar to the
Devil's reasoning in the 4th chapter of Matthew?
The fact of the matter is: Jesus was
micro-managed. He cursed that fig tree in compliance with his Father's
wishes to do so.
6:38 . . I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of
him that sent me.
8:28 . . I do nothing of my own initiative
8:29 . . He that sent me is with me; He did not abandon me to myself,
because I always do the things pleasing to Him.
10:30 . . I and my Father are unified
John 14:10 . . Do you not believe that I am in union with the
Father, and the Father is in union with me?
In the end; Jesus had to examine that fig tree up close and
personal because it was on his itinerary to do so.
● Col 1:15
. . He is the firstborn of all creation
The Watchtower Society has appropriated that passage as
evidence that Christ, as the Word, was the first thing God created before
NOTE: Well, I think we
really need to ask: How far back in time are they talking about? till only
the beginning of the current cosmos, or as far back in time when God existed
all by Himself, and nothing else?
Anyway; the New Testament Greek word for "firstborn" in that
verse is prototokos, which never means created first; no, it always
means born first. The correct Greek word for created first is
The average JW probably doesn't know the
difference between prototokos and protoktistos; and no doubt would care
little about it anyway. To some; born first and created first are
essentially one and the same.
However; firstborn doesn't always refer to birth order. The
term also refers to pay grade, so to speak, and as such is transferrable
from an elder sibling to a younger, e.g. Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Manasseh
to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1).
There was a time when David was God's firstborn (Ps
89:20-27). The position was later transferred to one of David's sons. You'd
think that the Jews' religious experts of Jesus' day would have known about
● Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while
the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: “What do you think
about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s" He said to
them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying,
‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies
beneath your feet” ’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his
Jesus was referring to Psalm 110:1, wherein we will find two
very different Hebrew words for "Lord"'
The first is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yhvh, a.k.a. Yahweh)
which is a name reserved for the one true God only and no other.
The second is 'adown (aw-done'); a very common title
of respect for one's superiors in the Old Testament. Sarah revered her
husband Abraham as 'adown (Gen 18:12) Rachel revered her dad Laban as 'adown
(Gen 31:5) and Jacob revered his brother Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). So then;
Psalm 110:1 can be translated like this:
"The utterance of Jehovah to my superior: Sit at my right
hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."
David is the paterfamilias of his own line of royalty, making
him superior to all of his male progeny; none of them outrank him, all are
his subordinates. But Ps 110:1 speaks of one of David's male progeny who
somehow breaks the rules; and the Jews' religious experts were utterly
baffled by it.
● Matt 22:46 . . And no one was
able to answer him a word
The Jews' religious experts were no doubt aware, by means of
their Old Testament studies, that the rank of firstborn can be moved around
among siblings, but nobody even dreamed that a father's supremacy could be
taken from him and given to one of his children; in effect making that child
superior to its parents.
This was something strange to their
Jewish way of thinking; yet there it is in black and white in their own
scriptures. They had somehow failed to catch the significance of Ps 110:1
until Jesus drew their attention to it.
Now; the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as
per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy does not permit children to
be superior to their parents.
● Ex 20:12 . . Honor your father
and your mother
So then, Christ would have to outrank his father David by
another route than family; and he does.
Renaming is fairly common in the Bible, e.g. Abram to
Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Ben-oni to Benjamin, Simon to Cephas, and Rev
2:17. But with Christ, we encounter an astonishing renaming.
● Phil 2:8-11 . . God exalted
him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every
other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in
heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue
should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father. (cf. Eph 1:20-21)
Q: What is
"the name" that is above every other
Q: Is that
the reason why Jesus outranks his father
A: Yes. Jesus has the God-given right to use Jehovah's
name as his own name; which allows him all the respect and reverence that
the name deserves; viz: failure to revere Jesus as Jehovah dishonors the name
of God the Father.
Below is the
text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower Society's New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.
"Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon
the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they
are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have
been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and
by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."
Note that the word "other" is in brackets. This alert readers that "other" is
not in the Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to
pencil it in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation;
and thereafter, His son created everything else.
One day, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my door consisting of an
experienced worker and a trainee. I immediately began subjecting the trainee to
a line of questioning that homed in on the Society's rather dishonest habit of
penciling in words that go to reinforcing it's line of thinking.
I had him read the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that the
word "other" is in brackets to alert him to the fact that "other" is not in the
Greek manuscript. The experienced worker corroborated my statement.
then proceeded to have the trainee read the passage sans "other". It comes out
"By means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the
things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through
him and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things
were made to exist."
The trainee's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to
discover that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he was led
Had I pressed the attack; I would have pointed out to the trainee that the
Society is inconsistent with its use of the word "other" by failing to pencil it
into John 1:3 in order to make it read like this:
"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even
one [other] thing came into existence."
Now; as to tampering with Paul's letters, and forcing them to mean things they
don't say in writing; this is what Peter has to say about that.
● 2Pet 3:15-16 . . Furthermore, consider the
patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to
the wisdom given him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also
in all his letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which
the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits brackets around the
word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen from the Watchtower
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures that "other"
is nowhere to be found in the Greek text.
I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added
"other" because that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't
say so in writing. In other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an
interpretation rather than a translation. Caveat Lector.
● John 1:18 . .
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom
position with the Father is the one that has explained him.
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9
contain the Greek word monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a
combination of two words.
The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a
single channel rather than two or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is
very common; e.g. monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide,
monochrome, monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.
The other word is genes; from whence we get the
English word gene; which Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a
part of a cell that controls or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of
a living thing. In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set
rather than many.
Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to parents'
sole biological child in the New Testament. If parents have two or more
biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to
qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.
Obviously then, an adopted child can never be monogenes
because it wouldn't be the parents' biological child. Examples of monogenes
children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.
So then, scientifically speaking, Christ is unique in that he
is God's sole biological offspring, while God's other sons are not; viz: they're
placed as sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:4-5)
Q: God literally fathered a child?
A: I think it's probably a bit more accurate to say
that God literally co-fathered a child.
Q: How did he do it? Is there a Mrs. God? And who was
the other father?
A: Jesus' conception, described at Luke 1:26-35,
wasn't only miraculous, it was a very unusual combination of human and
David contributed the human component. (Luke 1:32, Acts
13:22-23, Rom 1:1-3, and 2Tim 2:8)
God contributed the divine component. (Luke 1:35 and 1John 3:9)
Jesus then, is just as much God's progeny as he is David's;
and just as much David's progeny as he is God's.
Q: What about Heb 11:17 where Isaac is stated to be
Abraham's monogenes child? Wasn't Ishmael a biological child of his too?
A: Isaac is the only biological child that Abraham and
Sarah produced together; just as Jesus is the only biological child that God
and Man produced together.
To say that this is all very baffling, illogical,
unscientific, and unreasonable would be an understatement. In my mind's
normal way of thinking, Christ's rather odd case of mixed-species genetics
is an outlandish fantasy that, biologically, makes no sense at all. It's
sort of like crossing an iguana with an apricot to produce a reptilian fruit
tree. But; the circumstances of Christ's conception are in the Bible, so
those of us who call ourselves Christians have got to accept it.
"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain)
Now, here's the inescapable ramification:
Like reproduces its like. In other words, when David
reproduced, he fathered a human being like himself in every way. When God
reproduced, He fathered a divine being like Himself in every way; ergo:
Christ is just as much God as God, in the same way that Christ is just as
much David as David.
According to John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22; Jesus committed no
sins of his own.
The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that Christ didn't
sin because he "chose" not to sin. In other words: he could have failed, he
could have sinned.
That's what they say; but it's not what the Bible says. The
fact of the matter is; Christ's divine genetics make it impossible for him
● 1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has
been born from God does not carry on sin, because His [reproductive] seed
remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, because he has been born
from God. (NWT)
That translation makes it look as though one born of God's
reproductive seed sins now and then but not all the time; viz: doesn't make
a habit of sin. But the text on the Greek side of the Society's Kingdom
Interlinear reads like this:
"He is not able to be sinning because out of God he has been
● Col 2:9 . . It is in him that
all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. (NWT)
The Greek word translated "divine quality" is theotes
(theh-ot'-ace) which means divinity; defined by Webster's as the quality or
state of being divine.
I don't mean to split hairs but the order of those words
in a sentence makes a difference: divine quality and the quality of being
divine are not the same. For example: patience is a divine quality, but
people capable of patience aren't eo ipso divine. So let's get that
straightened out right from the get-go.
Anyway; what we're looking at in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript
divinity; rather, "the" divinity; viz: we're looking at God's divinity;
which I think pretty safe to assume is impeccable. I seriously doubt even
the Devil himself could fail and/or sin were he brimming with not just a
percentage; but with all the fullness of God's divinity.
If it was impossible for Christ to either sin or fail; then what practical
purpose did his temptation serve?
Christ testified "I always do the things pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). The
Devil's failure to break Christ certifies the truth of his statement. In
other words: Christ was proof-tested to demonstrate that he contains no
No doubt the Devil expected that after forty days in the
outback without food, Christ would be worn down to the point where he would
no longer care whether he sinned or not. But it made no difference. Christ
was still just as incapable of sin after forty days in the outback as he was
during the first thirty years of his life in Nazareth because Christ's
innocence doesn't depend upon his resolve; rather, upon his genetics so to
speak; viz: upon God's [reproductive] seed. (1John 3:9)
While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot
do? Well; the JWs' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18).
But a better response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is
just as impossible for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean;
think about it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically
sinless nature of God's reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that
the source of that seed would be unable to sin too.
● Jas 1:13 . . For with evil
things God cannot be tried. (NWT)
The Watchtower Society religion is a bit of an odd duck in the world of
Christianity. While most, if not all, of the other denominations seek to
glorify Christ; it seems the Society's primary mission in life is to tear him
A very common Greek word in the New Testament for the Devil
is diabolos (dee-ab'-ol-os) which refers to traducers; defined by
Webster's as someone who exposes others to shame or blame by means of
falsehood and misrepresentation; i.e. slander
● John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My
Lord and my God!"
God and/or gods, is from the Greek word theós
Many moons ago; I asked some Watchtower Society missionaries to explain to me
why their Bible translated theós in upper case in Thomas' statement seeing as
how in Watchtower theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled
with an upper case G. Well; they were too inexperienced to explain and my
question left them stumped.
The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had
to use upper case because it is their practice that whenever theós
is modified by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is
For argument's sake; let's remove the upper cases and translate the passage like
Thomas said to him: "my lord and my god!"
We could tolerate a lower case lord because that was a common way to address
just about any superior back in those days, whether divine or otherwise; for
example 1Pet 3:6.
However; we would have difficulty with a lower case god because the passage is
In other words: the apostle Thomas didn't just declare that Jesus was a god. No,
Thomas clearly declared that Jesus was "my" god.
The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with Jehovah in the books of Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy forbids them to possess more than one god.
Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am Jehovah your God, who
have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. You must
not have any other gods against my face.
"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially refer to
God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to have a market
share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing less than 100%.
(cf. Mark 12:28-30)
If the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that
possessing any other god but Jehovah would incur the
covenant's curse upon himself.
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put
the words of this law in force by doing them.
The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas knew what he
was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant to say something else.
Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his
god, then John Q and Jane Doe JWs need to ask around and find out why it is that
Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the Watchtower Society's
Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's divine status
when Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
John 20:17 . . Be on your way to my brothers and say to them; "I am ascending to
my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."
Jesus is God, as classical Christianity claims, then how can he have a god? Does
God worship Himself?
A: I have yet to encounter the language of John 20:17 in reverse, viz: I
have yet to see a passage in the Bible where the Father refers to His son as "my God".
The reason for that is very simple.
● Ex 20:12 . . Honor your father
● John 8:49 . . Jesus answered:
I honor my Father
There is a hierarchy in the divine relationship just as there
is a hierarchy in human relationships. Though all members of a human family
are equally human, they are not all equal in rank and privilege; some are
superior and some are subordinate. (cf. John 14:28, 1Cor 15:28)
The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society calls Jesus "the
only-begotten son from a Father" (John 1:14, NWT). Don't let that mislead
you. The Society dare not accept Christ's status as God's literal progeny
because the ramifications would force them to revise their theology.
The Society also calls Jesus "the only-begotten god" (John
1:18, NWT). Well; If the true God were to beget a god, wouldn't that god be
a true God like its father?
For simplicity's sake; it helps to think of the true God as a
species; viz: if indeed the true God were to beget a child, He would beget a
child of like species; i.e. the true God would beget a true God like Himself
because that's the only kind of offspring that the true God could engender;
just as when a true human begets a child, they beget a child of like species
i.e. they beget a true human being like themselves because that's the only
kind of offspring that a true human can engender.
Now, we can volley back and forth with JWs, countering each
other's verses with more verses: verse upon verse; but I can just about
guarantee that us and they will both be chasing our tails and getting
nowhere until they agree to approach the Son's relationship to his Father
from a biological perspective; which is a perspective that just about
anybody with even a cursory knowledge of the birds and the bees can
understand with ease.
How can there be two Gods out there when the Bible plainly declares there is
The Bible also declares that there is only one Man.
In the beginning, when God created the Man species, He
created it male and female; i.e. two persons. But the two persons do not
represent two Mans. There is only one Man though the species can be spoken
of with a plural pronoun.
● Gen 1:27 . . And God proceeded
to create the man in his image, in God’s image He created him; male and
female He created them. (NWT)
There is a growing number of people in the world calling themselves non
binary. I don't know what their problem is with identifying themselves as
male or female, but it would be very odd indeed for some of them to go about
as Christians while refusing to accept the Genesis explanation of Man's
Of Mice And Men
The passage below from the NWT 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.
passage says "his thoughts do perish" and it's one of the
Watchtower Society's proof texts to support their teaching that people cease
to exist when they pass away.
The Hebrew word for "thoughts" in that passage is 'eshtonah
(esh-to naw') which means: thinking.
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
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; 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
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
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.
Solomon vs Jesus
Some of Solomon's remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes appear
to conflict with Christ's teachings in the New Testament. Well; the answer
to that is actually pretty simple.
According to 2Tim 3:16, Solomon was inspired to write
Ecclesiastes, but the catch is: his comments essentially represent a world
view-- a philosophy of life under the sun --rather than a book of either
history, revelation, or prophecy.
In other words: Solomon's observations are limited to the
scope of empirical evidence and human experience; a perception of reality
moderated by what we can see for ourselves going on around us in the
physical universe rather than the spiritual-- which is at least one of the
reasons why Ecclesiastes appeals to cultists, atheists, and agnostics, et
Solomon's world view is punctuated with pessimism; which is
basically a mindset inclined to dwell on the negative in human experience
rather than the positive. For example:
"You only go around once, so do it with all the gusto you can
That was a Schlitz beer slogan some years ago. It's worldly
wisdom thru and thru rather than Christ's. Compare it to a couple of
● Ecc 9:5 . . The living are
conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of
nothing at all.
● Ecc 9:10 . . All that your
hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising
nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.
That wisdom reflects Schlitz beer wisdom, i.e. it's earthly
wisdom rather than the wisdom that comes from above.
Solomon was a very wise man; in point of fact, he was the
brightest intellectual of his day. But Solomon's knowledge and experience
were limited. He didn't know everything there is to know, nor had he seen
everything there is to see, nor been everywhere there is to go. Whereas
Christ's knowledge is extremely vast.
● Col 2:3 . . Carefully
concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.
Christ, in his capacity as the Word, created everything
existing in the current cosmos.
● John 1:3 . . All things came
into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into
So then, it only stands to reason that Christ would know more
about the afterlife than Solomon because the Word has actually seen it for
himself, whereas Solomon didn't see anything beyond the grave when he penned
A good rule of thumb to apply when the teachings of Solomon
and Jesus contradict each other, is to keep in mind that Jesus' teachings
● Matt 12:42 . .The queen of the
south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will
condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom
of Solomon, but, look! something more than Solomon is here.
● John 3:31 . . He that comes
from above is over all others.
And Jesus comes highly recommended too.
● Matt 17:5 . . This is my Son,
the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.
So then, when encountering remarks in the book of
Ecclesiastes that are out of step with Jesus' teachings in the New
Testament; my unsolicited spiritual counseling is to ignore the Jehovah's
Witnesses take on Ecclesiastes and go with the wisdom of "my Son".
● John 8:12 . . I am the light
of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will
possess the light of life.
14:16-17 . . I will request the Father and he will give you another helper to be
with you forever, the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive,
because it neither beholds it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with
you and is in you.
● John 14:26 .
.The helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one
will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told
Rank and file JWs are taught to believe that God's spirit is
alongside assisting them to identify, and to understand, the correct
interpretations of the Bible. However, they are also taught that only a special
guild of 144,000 JWs actually have the spirit "in" them rather than only
alongside. The special guild are known as the anointed class; a label taken from
The non-anointed condition is very serious. Here's why:
● Rom 8:9 .
.You are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's spirit
truly dwells in you.
Seeing as how God's spirit does not truly dwell in John Q and Jane
Doe missionary, then they are, by default, in harmony with the flesh. That only
makes things worse.
● Rom 8:5-8 .
. For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of
the flesh, but those in accord with the spirit on the things of the spirit. For
the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life
and peace; because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not
under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in
harmony with the flesh cannot please God.
The non-anointed situation is just too ironic for words. They
displease God, and He displeases them; yet they go door-to-door sincerely
believing themselves Jehovah's friends and allies.
● 1John 2:26-27 . .These things I write you
about those who are trying to mislead you. And as for you, the anointing that
you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching
you; but, as the anointing from him is teaching you about all things, and is
true and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.
anointing provides people with some valuable advantages to which people who lack
it of course have no access.
Protects people from deception
Enables people to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants them grasped
Makes it possible for people to remain in union with him.
According to Watchtower Society theology, only 144,000 special
Jehovah's Witnesses have the anointing. There aren't that many living Witnesses
who have the anointing though because when anointed Witnesses die, their passing
doesn't create vacancies; viz: 144,000 is the maximum unless an anointed JW
either apostatizes or is ousted via the process of disfellowship.
What that means is: the vast majority of today's living JWs
don't have the anointing. We're talking about some serious numbers here.
Currently, there are approximately 8.2 million living Witnesses. Even
if all 144,000 anointed Witnesses were alive today, that would leave
8,056,000 JWs roaming the earth in our day who 1) have no protection from
deception, 2) are unable to grasp Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants
them grasped, and 3) not in union with him.
Doubtless there are numbers of ordinary Witnesses who
sincerely believe that their association with the Watchtower Society keeps
them in union with Jesus Christ; but according to 1John 2:26-27, union with
Jesus Christ isn't accomplished on the coattails of an organization; it's
accomplished by means of the anointing.
Watchtower Society missionaries sincerely believing
themselves in union with Jesus Christ without the anointing are each
"one of those who are trying to mislead you".
Matters Of Conscience
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example
they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween,
serve in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.
Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of
Romans so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.
Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages below.
● Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive
may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all
to you. Only flesh with its soul— its blood —you must not eat.
● Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood
in any places where you dwell, whether that of fowl
or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from
● Lev 17:10-As for any man of the house of Israel
or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any
sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the
blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.
● Acts 15:19-20 . . Hence my decision is not to
trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to
abstain . . from blood.
Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all the same
as using it for food.
Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its interpretation
of those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is not to win a debate;
only to offer a second opinion.
The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that Moses'
people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath violators.
Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number of
occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that human
life, safety, and welfare trump strict observance of religious law.
One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon
showing a man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge
landslide boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family, and
the family dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the legalist
calmly points out that he can't move the car until the light turns green.
Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating
circumstances, which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the
seriousness or extent of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.
Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill
to crush the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an acceptable
excuse to go before the light turns green. In those kinds of cases, human life,
safety, and welfare trump strict conformity to the law.
Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order to
save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the sin of
lying? No, on the contrary; He overlooked their dishonesty and instead rewarded
the midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact, their
actions were adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)
Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood
transfusions with a JW from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go
about it with the utmost in civility because this is an emotional issue.
Should your JW audience come to the realization that they've made a
monstrous mistake, they will be overwhelmed with guilt, disappointment, and
humiliation; not to mention fear of the organizational tsunami that'll come
their way should they dare to question the Society's stance on blood
3:12 . . Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved: clothe
yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of
mind, and mildness.
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
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:
Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a statement, and
another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?
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 it's 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
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.
Psalm 45:6 is usually translated like this:
"Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever."
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 isn't ambiguous. It always, and without exception,
indicates a divine being rather than a judge or a magistrate.
Here's how Heb 1:8 is usually translated:
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 to being a qualified linguist, nor even an armchair linguist; but
I really have to question how 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). Well; that worked for the
missionary; but it still left me questioning how the Society came up with their
English translation of Heb 1:8 because without some textual clarification, their
translation relegates God to the rank and status of furniture upon which the Son
parks his derriere.
The usual translations of Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 has one God speaking to another
God. Does that make sense to you?
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.
If you read it as "God is your throne" then it's sensible and consistent.
Sensible to whom? The Watchtower Society and its army of missionaries?
Consistent with what? The Society's theology? And just exactly who was it that
certified the Watchtower Society's theology as infallible and speaking for God
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 didn't really know
whether the Society is correct: he was taking the Society's word that it knows
what it's talking about.
Resurrection Of The Dead
● 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
. . 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 with the breath of life in order to bring
someone back into existence. No, because if a corpse were re-energized with
the breath of life, it 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)
Q: 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).
Q: 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?
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.
The Elite 144,000
So-called Replacement Theology is just another name for identity theft. Take for
example the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Rev 7:1-8 wherein is listed
a specific number of Hebrews taken from every tribe of the sons of Israel.
The Society claims that those aren't biological sons of Israel; but rather
"spiritual" sons— referring of course to the Society's elite cadre of 144,000
Witnesses who have supposedly undergone a spirit birth as per Christ's
instruction at John 3:3-8; and the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27.
The Society's claim is premised upon its observation that there never was a
tribe of Joseph; when in reality Joseph is listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28 and Ezek 48:31-34). So that portion of the Society's
reasoning is clearly a false premise.
The Society's claim is also premised upon its observation that Ephraim and
Dan are missing from the list of tribes at Rev 7:4-8. However, what the
Society's theologians have somehow overlooked in the Old Testament is that it
doesn't matter whose names are chosen to represent the twelve tribes of Israel
just so long as there are twelve names. Are there twelve in Rev 7:4-8? Yes.
Well then that's good enough. I realize that makes no sense but then the Lord's
apostles were still referred to as "the twelve" even with Judas out of the
picture. So that premise in the Society's reasoning is spurious too.
The Society's claim is also premised upon its reasoning that Levi isn't a valid
tribe based upon the fact that the Levites are exempt from warfare. However,
Levi is clearly listed as both a son and a tribe (Gen 49:2-28, Ezek 48:31-34) which is a good
many years after Num 1:1-54. So that premise is bogus too.
The Watchtower Society not wanting the 144,000 to be biological Hebrews is one
thing; but I would just like to know from whence Charles T. Russell's and Joseph
F. Rutherford's followers got the idea that their people constitute the 144,000. That's
a pretty serious claim. How do they validate it? I don't know; but I can just
about guarantee that their explanation is an outlandish stretch of the
imagination consisting of humanistic reasoning, rationalizing, spiritualizing, clever sophistry,
and semantic double-speak.
NOTE: According to Rev 14:1-4,
the 144,000 are supposed to all be males, and none have ever slept with a
woman. That, if true, would of course disqualify married JWs.
● 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.
"undeserved kindness" isn't a translation of the word charis;
it's the Watchtower Society's own opinion of what they
think that word ought to mean. It's 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
To begin with; 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
Here's a couple of passages from the NWT where the Society's translation
committee had the decency to let charis speak for itself instead of butting in
to tell people what they think it 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)
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)
The Rendezvous With Christ
● 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.
going to revise a portion of that passage slightly in order to bring out a
"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)
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.
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
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.them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the
ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as
fiction; but never fantasy because
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).
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.
I simply cannot believe 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
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.
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 the
narrative 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?
The Breath Of Life
Human existence is thought by some to be entirely organic.
It's not. There's a non-organic element to human existence called the breath
● Gen 2:7a . . And Jehovah God
formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to humanity like women
give birth to children, or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't
God's biological progeny —humans are God's handiwork like the glass products
manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch
using mostly sand for their base material.
● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of
The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially
refers to powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar,
ashes, and/or rubbish.
● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into
it the breath of life
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
"What has come into existence by means of him was life, and
the life was the light of men." (John 1:3-4)
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).
● Gen 2:7c . . and man became a
The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its
first appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged
creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy
crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.
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.
"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 living 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 living 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,
The words "spiritual lives" are a construed
the Greek word pneúmasi which actually means spirits rather than
spiritual lives; and is so translated in something like 32 verses in regular
Bibles, including, but not limited to, the spirits in prison. (1Pet 3:19)
The Watchtower Society's Bible contains quite a few places where Greek words
are construed rather than translated. For example Rev 16:13-14 where
pneúmasi is said to be "inspired expressions" instead of spirits.
Among The Seven Shameful Abominations
● Prv 6:16-19 . .There are six things that
Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to His soul: No.2 a false
tongue, and No.6 a false witness that launches forth lies,
Seeing as how
the Watchtower Society, as an institution, is basically misleading; then no
Jehovah's Witnesses will survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev
● Rev 21:8 . . All liars, their part will
be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
There are currently an estimated 8,200,000 Witnesses on a road to that lake, and
that's only counting the current noses. The grand total ever since the days of
Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Franklin Rutherford must be pretty significant
Webster's defines apostasy as renunciation of a religious faith and/or
abandonment of a previous loyalty; viz: defection, which is defined as conscious
abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine).
Apostasy is not always a bad thing. For example:
● 1Thes 1:4-10 . . For we know, brothers
loved by God, his choosing of you, because the good news we preach did not turn
up among you with speech alone but also with power and with holy spirit and
strong conviction, just as you know what sort of men we became to you for your
sakes; and you became imitators of us and of the Lord, seeing that you accepted
the word under much tribulation with joy of holy spirit, so that you came to be
an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.
. . .The fact is, not only has the word of Jehovah sounded forth from you
in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith toward God has spread
abroad, so that we do not need to say anything. For they themselves keep
reporting about the way we first entered in among you and how you turned to
God from your idols to slave for a living and true God, and to wait for his
Son from the heavens, whom he raised up from the dead, namely, Jesus, who
delivers us from the wrath which is coming.
Another example of the ideal kind of apostasy is my own.
I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944 and subsequently
attended its catechism till I completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.
In 1968, for reasons of faith and practice, I renounced Rome. I simply could
not, in all good conscience, remain affiliated with a denomination that I no
longer believed in; so I defected.
Jehovah's Witnesses with honest reservations in their hearts about the
trustworthiness of the Watchtower Society have got to leave it— they have to.
Staying would not only be a sin against their conscience, but also against their
own better judgment.
Missionaries At The Door
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
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
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
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 occupied.
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
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, or other attribute of the person making the
argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the
substance of the argument itself.
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
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 bigger than yours.
The Kingdom Of The Cults
by Walter Martin
Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses
by Ted Dencher
30 Years A WatchTower Slave
by William J. Schnell
Crisis Of Conscience
by Raymond Victor Franz
On The Promises