Page 19 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 278

Thread: Asking JWs to describe the "a god" they insist is there

  1. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Pretty much. There are those the JWs can designate (no criteria given so whatever) who do not deserve the truth.
    No. The context where those snippets came from were about physical persecution, like during the Nazi era, that would hamper the preaching work. Or Israel's literal warfare in ancient times. Or that Christians have an obligation to be truthful, but not necessarily forthcoming (giving information)to those with wicked intent. Would you like to read the full articles?
    To take these snippets and conclude JW lie whenever they like, i.e. when preaching God's word to others, is a great evil.
    Last edited by TBax; 05-19-2017 at 11:39 AM.
    Agape,
    TBax

  2. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Do you realize that the "they" in the Psalm are the Elohim? It says in Hebrew the "Elohim." THe Elohim are not men. You asked who "they" are? They are the Elohim.
    Who are these gods?
    So you are admitting the Bible calls others gods?

    Where is the word "gods" in there?
    Yes, because you were insisting in arguing the word "judges". I was showing these were judges. I was indulging your red herring, but you do not seem to understand what you are arguing anymore.

    Please read it again, try to discern who is being spoken of in Ps 82, using the similar language in other verses.


    Ps 82:God takes his place in the divine assembly;
    In the middle of the gods he judges:
    2 “How long will you continue to judge with injustice
    And show partiality to the wicked? (Selah)


    Lev 19:15 “‘You must not be unjust in your judgment. You must not show partiality to the poor or show preference to the rich. With justice you should judge your fellow man.



    Deut 1:16 “At that time I instructed your judges, ‘When you hear a case between your brothers, you are to judge with righteousness between a man and his brother or a foreign resident. 17 You must not be partial in judgment. You should hear the small one the same as the great one. You must not become intimidated by men, for the judgment belongs to God; and if a case is too difficult for you, you should present it to me, and I will hear it.’


    Deut 16:18 “You should appoint judges and officers for each tribe in all the cities that Jehovah your God is giving you, and they must judge the people with righteous judgment. 19 You must not pervert justice, show partiality, or accept a bribe, for the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous. 20 Justice—justice you should pursue, so that you may keep living and take possession of the land that Jehovah your God is giving you.

    2 Chron 19:6 And he said to the judges: “Pay attention to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for Jehovah, and he is with you when you pass judgment. 7 Now let the fear of Jehovah be upon you. Be careful about what you do, for with Jehovah our God there is no injustice, no partiality, no bribe-taking.”

    Ps 82: 6 “I have said, ‘You are gods,
    All of you are sons of the Most High.
    7 But you will die just as men do;
    And like any other prince you will fall!’”



    Ps 49:12 But man, although honored, will not remain;
    He is no better than the beasts that perish.
    Last edited by TBax; 05-19-2017 at 11:42 AM.
    Agape,
    TBax

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Pretty much. There are those the JWs can designate (no criteria given so whatever) who do not deserve the truth. Ergo, you can weasle around the truth which is precisely what you are doing. No where does the Bible call judges, kings, those in authority "gods." No where. I ask where and you have no examples. Ergo, you weasle around this fact and zero in on one lone chapter in Psalms where none of the above are mentioned. You do not admit this. I can only assume that you have deemed me one of those who do not deserve the truth. Why not? The GB gives you full sanction to do so. You are not the first JW to behave this way. Anyone who deals with JWs in discussion will find this same behavior. This is what I have experienced to be the case in talking with JWs. You do not get a straight answer. They dance around matters. They do exactly as described in the JW publication. It describes the behaviour very nicely.
    Explained beautifully if I may say so.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    Do you believe Jesus rules as king of God's kingdom for the 1,000 years? Do you believe God gave Jesus this assignment? Do you not believe 1 Cor 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power ?
    Have you noticed you completely ignored the scripture I cited which shows God has no need of anyone to hand over to Him anything? You're missing the point of what Paul is teaching.

  5. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    I have heard from Greek scholars and none of them say this. None. Only JWs make this up. So you can ask me if I do not understand the goobly JW spine and I have to say that Greek scholars who do not get paid from the GB do not say this at all. What is more, if anyone thought Jesus was a god and men are gods and judges are gods, it would have been a major part of the writings of others. All you got is one reference in the whole of the NT that only JWs believe. Only JWs.

    Here is what Greek scholars about the JW corruption:
    Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
    Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said "it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
    British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."
    "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
    Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
    "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament.
    The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
    the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

    Unbiased educated Greek scholars do not see Jesus was a god. Sorry but that is only the GB.
    So, as usual, you refuse to examine/analyze the facts which can so easily be found by any honest person. There it is right under your nose - the facts of John's usage of parallel statements.

    All I get are insults instead. There are a few places where I question a translation in the NWT, but this is definitely not one of them. When I find a word or passage that I think can have an honest alternate rendering, I say so. See my MYGOD or Is. 9:6 study for example.

    I can only assume that you are afraid to examine my evidence honestly. It might upset what you have been told by your Trinitarian sources. That seems familiar somehow - certain people who strictly follow what their leaders tell them - hmmm. I believe you fall into that category more than I.

    I have at least carefully examined Colwell's, Wallace's, Harner's, etc. defense of the "God" at John 1:1c before I made my studies of them. They all have made some serious errors in examples used. These errors can be found in many respected Trinitarian grammars, but when it comes to John 1:1c, they ignore some of these same errors. Some of them actually admit that john 1:1c is literally "a god/God is the word." However, they all deny that that can be correct because of other scriptures they say show otherwise. "Diabolical deceivers."

    "Unbiased educated Greek scholars do not see Jesus was a god."
    You have named only biased Trinitarian scholars.

    BeDuhn is an unbiased scholar who agrees with the "a god" rendering.

    Origen (noted second century Christian scholar who actually spoke and taught Koine Greek professionally) actually examined John 1:1 and concluded that "God" uses the article whereas theos in John 1:1c does not and is therefore not God, but a created subordinate.

    Early (second century or very early third century) Sahidic Coptic translators of the Gospel of John, unlike NT Greek, did use an indefinite article. The Sahidic Coptic manuscripts, therefore render John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally "and was a god the Word.

    In addition to the greatest NT scholar of NT Greek in the first centuries A.D. (Origen), we should add the words of Hippolytus, “the most important 3rd century [he lived from about 170 A.D. – 236 A.D.] theologian of the Roman Church” (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint), who wrote, showing his understanding of the word "god" in relation to men and the Word [Logos]:

    "The Creator did not wish to make [man] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -be not deceived,- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans.

    I did not become a JW until some time after I did the study you refuse to examine. I was certainly unbiased until I finished this and several other 'trinity' studies on my own.

    These sources are not Trinitarian nor Jehovah's Witnesses.

    We cannot call your sources unbiased. Not only do they sometimes simply refer to another Trinitarian's work, but these are often provably in error in at least one important detail.
    Last edited by Tigger 2; 05-19-2017 at 06:23 PM.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Onymous Brother View Post
    Not I.
    Yeah, you.

    John 17:3 "you [the Father] the Only True God"

    I put no scripture up against it.
    Sure you do. You deny that God the Father calls His Son, God:

    Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    Go ahead, mention Solomon, so that I can introduce typology in this forum. I think its something they need to learn about. Maybe one of them will look it up.

    In the meantime, you have gone far off the track. The question in this thread is, "where is the "a" god that created the world with God? Who is He?

    You don't dare answer that question.

    Trinitarians do.
    There's all flavors of Trinitarians. I'm a Catholic. Deal with me.

    Really? Is it your memo or the secretary's who typed it?

    "switcharoo"!
    Sounds like you've dug yourself a little rabbit trail to take attention away from the fact that you are not addressing the issue. Anyway, if you think I've switched something, you'll need to prove it.

    So is any unanimous decision. Does not make the voters consubstantial and co-eternal.
    We're not talking about voters. We're talking about Jesus and His Father:

    John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
    8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
    he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

    Even this one:

    Judges 3:9 And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Calebís younger brother.

    I guess Othniel is also God?
    No, but Jesus is Jehovah. It's in His name. Je - God sus-saves.

    Jehovah is simply a transliteration of the name of God. Another form of the name, Yahveh.

    Judges 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.

    Ehud?
    Same thing. Again, you have a literalistic way of reading Scripture. You really need to study the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ.

    I did.
    Neh.

    3 He [the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,

    He can only give back what was "delivered to him."
    Each Divine Person is playing His role.

    John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

    John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

    I'm not sure why you think this disproves the Trinity?

    Again,

    Is it your memo or the secretary's who typed it?
    It's your misunderstanding of Christian Doctrine which leaves you confused as to my answer.

    Exactly.

    That "by" is not one of source, but of means, as denoted by the footnote.
    As I said, it doesn't really matter whether Christ is designated as the means or not. Because if He is, then He is certainly greater than any creature. As He has created the universe from nothing.

    Disposition of the work is not relevant to means of working.
    Nonsequitur. I said nothing about disposition. I said that the interpretation of "by means of" is already there in the word "through". Through doesn't mean disposition, but means. Or what? Do you say that "through" means that the entire universe passes through Christ? Then you have admitted that Christ is God.

    Jesus did not create from nothing.
    Yes, He did.

    He was used by the Father to perform the creation.
    Because He, as God the Son, could create from nothing.

    Think of an energy conduit, if it makes you feel better.
    Lol! Apparently, it makes you feel better. But no. Think of a Consuming Fire. Heat, energy, light. They are all one.

    Only if your secretary is responsible for the contents of your memo, making you just a flunky with no power.
    When you begin to understand Theology, let me know.

    But, the scriptures say "through" which makes it clear the contents, thus creation of the memo, was not by your secretary. The secretary just made it manifest. You could have typed the memo without the secretary. But the secretary cannot generate the memo without you.
    ....
    Thanks for playing: Dismantling the Trinity.
    More like, "look how many silly secretary jokes you can make up."

    As I said before, you have a very simplistic view of Theology. And your understanding of eternity is lacking.

    God the Son proceeds from the Father from eternity. Eternity is not like time. There is no before or after in eternity. God the Son has always proceeded from the Father and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded from both.

    Eternity is not a time before our time. Eternity is and will always be here. It transcends time.
    Last edited by De Maria; 05-19-2017 at 07:09 PM.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBax View Post
    No. The context where those snippets came from were about physical persecution, like during the Nazi era, that would hamper the preaching work. Or Israel's literal warfare in ancient times. Or that Christians have an obligation to be truthful, but not necessarily forthcoming (giving information)to those with wicked intent. Would you like to read the full articles?
    To take these snippets and conclude JW lie whenever they like, i.e. when preaching God's word to others, is a great evil.
    Perhaps this will help to resolve this issue:

    Way back in July 24 of 1955 at the Triumphant Kingdom Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York, the vice president Frederick Franz had delivered a discourse named Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves. This speech would later become known as the Theocratic War Speech. In it he gave examples of several personages from the Old Testament including the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, the prophets David and Elisha and others, who had told lies to protect themselves or Gods people against harm from enemies.

    Franz really was advocating lies under certain circumstances. However, when listened to carefully, toward the end of the speech, the extension of this is stretched beyond violent situations to include proselytising. In the speech he had drawn attention to Jesus words in Mat 10: 7, 10 when he had said:

    “As YOU go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near... Look! I am sending YOU forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves”

    The reasoning then presented was that the implication of being “as serpents” included the action of lying when necessary, as it was a serpent who lied to Eve in Eden. Franz added that the commission to spread the news of the Kingdom was linked to this serpentlike attribute under certain circumstances as indicated by that scripture, but that one would be “innocent” of lies if the motives were in the interests of Gods work.

    In the latter part of his discourse, the vice president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society extended the application of the validity of lying from actual life and death situations as portrayed in the Old Testament accounts, to normal promotion of the organizations work, announcing that it is not improper to use deceptive trickery, diverted manoeuvres and the outwitting of deceivers. This he concludes promotes no harm and is not done out of a liars hatred.
    It is interesting that a definition of the word ‘lie’ is provided in Watchtower literature in a Bible dictionary, which has a slightly different meaning to the minds of most people, and to that provided in other dictionaries. This is the definition:

    Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person. (Insight On The Scriptures p.244)


    Frederick Franz would eventually become the next president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But even as vice president for almost the entire term of the third president, Nathan Knorr who was a management specialist, Franz was chief theologian, and all published literature if not written by him had to pass through him and gain his approval. So for many decades this influential man was behind the printed word of both magazine and book. One must wonder indeed just to what extent this mindset of 'deceptive trickery, diverted manoeuvres and outwitting of deceivers' may have found its expression in the fashion of the content of his writing. How much of this work, particularly when refuting doctrine contrary to the organizations own, was completely honest, open and truthful, absolutely free of evasion, diversion, and deception?

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    35,134
    Blog Entries
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    Perhaps this will help to resolve this issue:

    Way back in July 24 of 1955 at the Triumphant Kingdom Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York, the vice president Frederick Franz had delivered a discourse named Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves. This speech would later become known as the Theocratic War Speech. In it he gave examples of several personages from the Old Testament including the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, the prophets David and Elisha and others, who had told lies to protect themselves or Gods people against harm from enemies.

    Franz really was advocating lies under certain circumstances. However, when listened to carefully, toward the end of the speech, the extension of this is stretched beyond violent situations to include proselytising. In the speech he had drawn attention to Jesus words in Mat 10: 7, 10 when he had said:

    “As YOU go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near... Look! I am sending YOU forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves”

    The reasoning then presented was that the implication of being “as serpents” included the action of lying when necessary, as it was a serpent who lied to Eve in Eden. Franz added that the commission to spread the news of the Kingdom was linked to this serpentlike attribute under certain circumstances as indicated by that scripture, but that one would be “innocent” of lies if the motives were in the interests of Gods work.

    In the latter part of his discourse, the vice president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society extended the application of the validity of lying from actual life and death situations as portrayed in the Old Testament accounts, to normal promotion of the organizations work, announcing that it is not improper to use deceptive trickery, diverted manoeuvres and the outwitting of deceivers. This he concludes promotes no harm and is not done out of a liars hatred.
    It is interesting that a definition of the word ‘lie’ is provided in Watchtower literature in a Bible dictionary, which has a slightly different meaning to the minds of most people, and to that provided in other dictionaries. This is the definition:

    Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person. (Insight On The Scriptures p.244)


    Frederick Franz would eventually become the next president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But even as vice president for almost the entire term of the third president, Nathan Knorr who was a management specialist, Franz was chief theologian, and all published literature if not written by him had to pass through him and gain his approval. So for many decades this influential man was behind the printed word of both magazine and book. One must wonder indeed just to what extent this mindset of 'deceptive trickery, diverted manoeuvres and outwitting of deceivers' may have found its expression in the fashion of the content of his writing. How much of this work, particularly when refuting doctrine contrary to the organizations own, was completely honest, open and truthful, absolutely free of evasion, diversion, and deception?
    Obviously lying was not limited to saving your life by doing so as TBax claims (1955 being long after WWII was over.) So instead of admitting this is a part of their literuature, he tells untruths about it. Hmmmmmm
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Obviously lying was not limited to saving your life by doing so as TBax claims (1955 being long after WWII was over.) So instead of admitting this is a part of their literuature, he tells untruths about it. Hmmmmmm
    To be fair to TBax (yet I doubt he would afford me the same courtesy) it seems that not all of the content of this speech eventually found its way into official literature.

    Its still available to listen to today. Here it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9HgTu_yBec

    My main point is that it reveals a remarkable insight into the mind of the man who refined most of the still current doctrines of J.W.org, and the same man who compiled their dodgy Bible including the verses that include "a god"

  10. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jig View Post
    Have you noticed you completely ignored the scripture I cited which shows God has no need of anyone to hand over to Him anything? You're missing the point of what Paul is teaching.
    You are correct, that God has no need for anyone to do anything for Him. God has no need for our worship of Him. That is what we need.
    That God gave Jesus an assignment, and Jesus will faithfully fulfill that assignment is the point.
    Agape,
    TBax

Page 19 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •