“Praise Jah!”–Why?

Comment by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-10 18:47:45

Should Jehovah be praised? Yes. Should Jehovah be ignored? No. It seems to me WT has forgotten something: 'This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved, listen to HIM.' Jesus said, You will be witnesses of ME - not my Father. If people praise Jehovah but ignore His commands, that praise is hollow and meaningless.

Jesus said, Why do you call me "Lord, Lord" but not do what I say? He told Christians to bear witness to HIM.

How do JWs resolve this? They don't even bother calling Christ "Lord, Lord". They ignore him, and give all praise to his Father - even praise He didn't ask for. They give praise that doesn't even belong to the Father, but to His son. The Bible tells us to give honor to those deserving of honor. Christ gave up his life for us - that is why he deserves honor. But, by WT thinking, we are supposed to ignore that command, too.

Perhaps there are readers of this forum who can explain to me how WT can portray direct and deliberate disobedience to both God and Christ as an honorable thing. Personally, I can't understand it.

• Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-13 13:04:05

  Robert-6512,
  There is no explanation for such deliberate disobedience. I don't care how you slice and dice it, shake and bake it.

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:46:28

    This is the result of over half a Century of blind acceptance and obedience. Anything else is considered disobedient and rebellious against God himself.
    ?

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:43:50

  Only because we've been taught to just accept, and been discouraged of thinking critically.

Comment by Phelps on 2017-09-10 22:25:22

Pensar en esta posibilidad en la que Jesús es el agente principal de salvación es para los testigos de Jehová algo muy extraño. Sin embargo,pensar en cómo jehova es remunerador de su propio hijo al ver todo lo que su hijo hizo por Él es espectacular. Jesús se merece alabanza y honra y honores sin par( y sí, adoración, porque no) porque es jehova quien en su agradecimiento hacia su hijo nos ordena hacerlo...Así de simple. No podemos ir en contra de su propio mandato. Como dices tú meleti: lo hacíamos antes por ignorancia...eso se acabó

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:41:28

  Meleti is there a translation tool on this site for those of us who do not speak Spanish?

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-14 08:59:43

    I will look into a plugin that allows for translations to be made. Oh boy! One more thing to do. :)

    • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-14 12:22:33

      Meleti could you ever imagined this site would blow up (sorry, slang for expanding) the way it has? It says to me, there are a lot of hungry Bro and Sis out here!!!

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-14 15:44:35

        No, I never imagined it. But it gives me great joy and purpose.

      • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-14 17:28:19

        Amen Eve

Comment by wild olive on 2017-09-10 23:25:28

Hi Robert
Don't know if phelps has covered my point but here goes.
I believe that the reason the WT leadership over stresses Jehovah to the virtual ignoring of Jesus ,is to camouflage the fact that they don't have a good response to what I regard as the number one false teaching,the trinity.
The trinity is the center piece of just about every "Christian" religion today,and I have to say I took a good hard look at it because the churches that stress the born again experience all seem to have the trinity front and centre,and I was seeking that experience.
What I found is that to establish the trinity doctrine a lot of manipulation of scripture goes on,and expressions that don't exsist in the bible are needed to give it foundation. Sadly the WT engages in the same techniques to establish its doctrines, to give a quick sampling.
The bible speaks of the son of god , or gods son, but not god the son. Trinitarians take the words rearrange the order , and now create a concept that makes it almost legitimate to believe.
The WT did this with Isa 43:10 . You are my witnesses says Jehovah, not you are Jehovah's Witnesses ,by just changing the order of the words a concept is created.
This to me seems the only logical explanation , to make sure the name Jehovah is yelled all the time helps to keep the deception in place and appears righteous, the thing that's grown out of that is now , Jehovah's organisation, I don't think is going to be much longer and the organisation is going to replace Jehovah himself , it seems already JWs equate one with the other . If Jesus was brought back into the picture it all falls apart, therefore he will remain where he is right now ,off to the side somewhere with a fake crown and half baked authority .

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 09:02:26

  I agree with you, Wild Olive, but would go further. I agree that part of the reason for the emphasis on Jehovah is to counter the Trinity. However, by taking their position to the opposite extreme, they do a disservice to the true relationship between Father and Son which lies somewhere between these extremes, IMHO.
  
  However, there is another reason, I believe, for this overemphasis on God's name. When we look at Korah, we see a man with followers who tried to replace Moses as God's channel of communication. Today, the greater Moses is our Lord Jesus. He is God's channel of communication with humans, or as John calls him, God's Word. By replacing him, the Governing Body is mimicing the actions of Korah.

  • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-11 09:20:01

    When someone shows God disrespect, subverts His word and purposes, and assumes for themselves a role in the divine purpose that they do not deserve, it is blasphemy.
    
    Think of Simon in Acts, trying to buy the gifts of the spirit. At least Simon repented when he was shown to be in the wrong. In contrast, when people trying to gain Herod's favor said "a god's voice and not a man's, Herod was struck dead for not renouncing such undeserved glory. Yet today, WT goes around proclaiming that the FDS in the role of the GB is God's sole channel of communication. When rank and file JWs go along with this, in what way is it ANY different than those people telling Herod, "a god's voice and not a man's"?
    
    Like Simon, WT tries to use its strength and resources to "buy" itself a position that replaces the role of savior that they don't deserve. They are blind and deaf to the wrong they are doing, and (unlike Simon) never repent about anything.
    
    WT says that salvation requires being part of a human organization, and they downplay the verse that says for Christians there is no salvation in anyone else besides Christ.
    
    The Bible says there is one Mediator between God and man, that being Christ. But WT says, No, unless you are "anointed" (or maybe unless you are a member of the GB?) you have no Mediator at all - all you have and all you need is jw.org.
    
    These things constitute blasphemy. For a human organization to assume such a role that properly belongs to God and Christ makes them a god. All who obey this man-made god are guilty of idolatry.

  • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-11 16:20:12

    So then the greater Korah would be the Governing Body. Now that is a good type/antitype!

  • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-12 02:23:04

    Thanks Meleti for the added clarification,yes absolutely the insertion of the GB into the equation is also a factor .
    I suppose what I would add is that to successfully counter the trinity one has to do serious study, something that starts to unravel JW teachings. Also no real examination of the arguments and scriptures used to support the trinity have ever been undertaken in a meeting part or in assembly programs to my knowledge, the trinity brochure was the only specific effort,but it's been withdrawn and is not on JWorg or in print,I believe because it has a number of misquotes . If the org is going to grow in the 1st world then I would think that it has to be a priority to give the publishers the weapons to deal with this dominant false teaching, don't see that happening for all the previous reasons in above commments.

    • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:39:31

      Yes Wild Olive, we're not being fed meat. Haven't been for quite some time now. Most of it is superficial at best while alternating with articles emphasizing the authority of and demand of loyalty to the Organization.

      • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-14 12:20:53

        Don't forget a ton of videos!

        • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-14 23:36:24

          Yeah those videos.
          Best cure for insomnia .
          Just a bit more on the superficiality of the "meat" that's been handed out,as Thaddeus said is always used to push the org in some shape or form, hardly anything is published that doesn't in some way get back to the org,which makes it all sound the same.
          Something I believe this is teaching us is to seperate truth from the "politics" and "propaganda" of the org, and that's happening for a different reason,this only an opinion, so take it or leave it.
          It seems to me that the great western democracy is in decline,and I have to say I have very much enjoyed the freedoms it has given me, but it's collapsing ,and something else is going to replace it ,and my feeling is it's going to be an overarching form of totalitarianism. A totalitarian new world order that will seek to control every detail of your life, what you buy, what you eat, where you will live,even what you think, and if your thoughts don't line up you will be accused of thought crimes, that's almost what goes on now within in org , we are learning already how to deal with such an entity and remain spiritually clean and not be deceived as Eve was in the garden of Eden. The bible says that those of us who take up the true witness of the Christ will be at war with satan and his seed , I think the worst is yet to come and the real fight has not yet begun, as who qualifys as a group to carry the true spiritual utensils? How many of us have a 3 part ministry like Jesus , where we preach the true good news,cast out demons,and heal others? This would be a real contest, who is doing it ?

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:35:24

    Wow!
    I never considered that.
    Interesting indeed.

• Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-11 21:13:32

  I believe the biggest flaw with WT regarding the Trinity is that they had (and still have) no good answer for John 1:1. There is no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek anywhere that believes "the Word was a god" is the correct translation. They say with almost total agreement that it is properly rendered, "the word was God".
  
  WT's only recourse is to accuse scholars of being unqualiied, or religiously biased, or being influenced by other religions, or that they're making a technical mistake in translation. They then throw out a jumble of hypothetical objections about the true nature of Greek articles, using obscure grammatical jargon to confuse people, since few readers will be able to follow their arguments. This approach is a time-honored technique, often referred to as "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B---".
  
  Believe me, WT had very little brilliance to go around here. By all accounts, the main author of the original NWT was Fred Franz, along with 3 assistants. In this group, Franz took two years of classical Greek in college before dropping out of school. One person knew modern Greek, and the others knew various non-Bible languages. So, NO ONE actually knew the common Koine Greek of the Bible. None of these people were experts on the subject matter at hand. They had to rely on the advice of others, and examine and compare existing translations to guide them; they had little to no expertise of their own to bring to the table. When modern experts of Koine Greek read the proposed justifications for this translation from WT, they view them as absurd, laughably naive and amateurish.
  
  Since there was such a great risk of their translation of John 1:1 being dismissed as wrong, why did they do it? Primarily, they saw no other choice if they were going to stick with their anti-Trinity stance. As it turns out, that approach wasn't even necessary.
  
  As I see it, "the word was God" is not a support of the Trinity because "word" in John 1:1 is not referring to Jesus. In the beginning of God's relationship with mankind, He was represently only by His "word" - that is, God's pronouncements, as made by angels, prophets or on the stone tablets. Everything that people knew about God was based on those words. But, when Jesus came along, he became the living embodiment of God's "word" - a man of flesh that could explain God's purposes in a personal way. Jesus was not originally the word of God; he only became that later after being sent to earth.
  
  With this understand, it becomes perfectly possible to say "the word was God" and yet not support a Trinity.
  
  Why did WT not see this? Why did they force a translation not supported by the original text? Primarily because WT had no faith. They were unwilling to allow the Bible to speak for itself, unable to wait until they learned and understood more Greek grammar. To them, the ends justified the means, and if disproving the Trinity were to be done on their timetable and schedule, they were more than willing to corrupt the NWT translation to get the job done.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 22:50:31

    An interesting theory Robert-6512, but can you prove it?

    • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-11 23:21:28

      What aspect of this do you want proven? What would you accept as proof?

      • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-12 01:02:33

        Hi Robert
        Yes I feel the same John 1:1 is not talking about a person but about the word of god.
        It's interesting that in nearly all bibles the word at john1:1 is always caplitalised turning it into a proper noun,the inconsistency then comes in that then they don't capitalise the word him in :3 because correct grammar would require it,if word with a capital is a proper noun then so should him at :3 also be. This has helped me distinguish the difference that neither trinitarians won't accept or the translators of the NWT also won't accept.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-12 10:11:00

        I would start by recommending a change in argument style to better get across your message.
        
        For example, you say:
        
        "There is no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek anywhere that believes “the Word was a god” is the correct translation."
        
        This is an argument by authority. It is like saying "no reputable scientist anywhere rejects evolution, so it must be true." It is better to prove why the Greek grammar cannot allow for "the Word was a God". (You might want to check out this article.)
        
        The next three paragraphs are just an attack on the Watchtower and Fred Franz. Ad hominem attacks are not beneficial when one is trying to establish truth. They are most often used when one's own case is weak, and so are best avoided so as not to undermine your argument.
        
        In the fifth paragraph you say: "Jesus was not originally the word of God; he only became that later after being sent to earth." This is what needs to be proven. You need to show how the Bible supports this assertion.
        
        In the final paragraph you return to an attack on the Watchtower. I'm not defending them, but there are already many sites out there that do little more than attack the organization. We want to go beyond that, and build up; building upon a foundation of Bible truth which will inevitably lead to our disagreeing with Watchtower teachings, and pointing out their errors in both doctrine and conduct. In this we imitate our Lord who taught truth while unmasking the wickedness of the Jewish religious leaders.

        • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-12 11:36:28

          Meleti,
          
          I asked you what you wanted proven, but most of your reply is what I would term "unresponsive". Your primary issue seems to be that you disagree with my "style". Changing my "style" to conform to what might be called a brand of 'political correctness' would not advance the discussion at hand, and is beside the point anyway.
          
          I said that no reputable scholar of ancient Koine Greek accepts the NWT wording of John 1:1. I stand by that statement. In like manner, no reputable historian believes the WT story that Jerusalem fell in 607 BC.
          
          These people are indeed "authorities" because they have the training and experience to make authoritative claims about the subjects they are qualified for. You call that an "argument by authority".
          
          In contrast, WT holds a position against "argument by authority" in their own translation, because none of the participants had the education, training or experience to be considered qualified to engage in Bible translation. It is almost like saying 'experts must be wrong for the very reason that they are experts'.
          
          We are living in an age where "argument by ignorance" seems to be preferred. Uneducated people fear experts and attack them, because they themselves are not conversant or qualified to argue against those experts. For instance, people disagree with the global warming/climate change issue for that reason, so rather than listening to experts, they accuse them of lying while having no proof for their accusations.
          
          Since the matter at hand is the question of being qualified to translate the Bible, what possible reason would I have for not considering the views of experts on it? I make no apologies for doing so.
          
          I reject your false analogy about evolution. In addition to being beside the point, it's wrong. There are reputable scientists who do indeed reject evolution. Not many, but some do. Additionally, scientists involved in that field often restrict their definition of "evolution" to perceived changes in species over time, without necessarily addressing the "big question" of the ultimate origin of life. The topic of evolution is a broad spectrum of studies, not a simple philosophy that one must either agree or disagree with without any nuances. You used a poor example to try to make your case, and in my eyes, you haven't made it.
          
          Neither Fred Franz nor his assistants were trained in the languages of the Bible. That is not an ad hominem attack; it is a fact. The irony is, for you to even frame this as an "attack" against Franz is kind of an attack against me. (Indeed, nearly your entire response is an attack against me. Perhaps you should consider following your own advice and avoid attacking others.) If you can prove that Fred Franz and his team had the language training and qualifications necessary to do justice to a translation of the Bible, then I would retract my statement. Lacking that, it is your own case that is weak. I have stated the facts about this, and I have undermined nothing by doing so.
          
          I did indeed say “Jesus was not originally the word of God; he only became that later after being sent to earth.” That is my opinion. So are nearly all comments posted on this forum. Can I "prove" it, in some rigorous mathematical-like sense of the word? No. I could make arguments and I could make a case for believing it is a good possibility, but I can't prove it any more than I could prove God exists or prove Jesus was the product of a virgin birth. One can cite biblical testimony, but testimony is not the same thing as proof.
          
          WT has shown, over the entire course of its existence, its distain for authorities and "experts", whenever those authorities hold a position that differs from WT doctrines and dogma. If you did a search for words like "expert" and "scientist" in the WT CD, you would find an enormous number of articles where these persons are criticized. That's how WT operates; they always have. Pointing this out is not an "attack" on WT, unless you believe that telling an unflattering truth is an attack. I make no apology for stating the facts.
          
          As for the original question about proving my opinion, I believe I could make a good case for it, but I wouldn't do so in this particular article. The subject matter is too large, and these BP articles only have a "shelf life" of a few weeks, and then 'drop off the radar'. Formulating a comprehensive proof would take more effort than I could justify for such a 'disposable' article on this website. The task requires a different venue and a different approach.

          • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-12 17:40:45

            Jason BeDuhn’s Response: This is a theological, not a linguistic argument.
            ***************************
            Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars, and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!
            =====================
            Jason BeDuhn’s (who is NOT one of Jehovah’s Witnesses) Response: I hope you can see that I do not "ignore" these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues with greater objectivity and desire for accuracy and truth, wherever it may lead us, rather than prejudging the outcome in advance of any attention and thought to the matter...
            Hello Robert-6512,
            the link within the reply to you is quite telling and the main gist of the reply is, I think, mainly referring to your method.
            This web site is very unique in it's "tone" so to speak- and it would be nice to keep it that
            way.

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-12 20:51:13

            Robert-6512,
            
            Based on the link I shared in my previous email, there are reputable scholars who do not share your view, so I would respectfully suggest your statement is incorrect.
            
            As for your reasoning for not providing proof, you start by stating: " Can I “prove” it, in some rigorous mathematical-like sense of the word? No. I could make arguments and I could make a case for believing it is a good possibility, but I can’t prove it any more than I could prove God exists or prove Jesus was the product of a virgin birth. One can cite biblical testimony, but testimony is not the same thing as proof."
            
            You appear to be redefining what I've asked for. I'm not asking for a "rigorous mathematical-like sense" of anything. Why would you think that? Was I not being clear? To be clear, I'm asking for Bible proof. I am troubled by your final statement that Bible testimony is not the same thing as proof. Are we not discussing the Bible testimony concerning the "The word of God"? Since this comes only from the Bible, specifically John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13, from where else can we derive an understanding of what it means? And from where else can we get proof for what we think it means? You don't think it refers to Jesus in his prehuman existence, yet you're not willing to tell us why you believe that based on what the Scriptures reveal.
            
            While we appreciate that everyone has a right to their personal opinions, the purpose of this forum is to build up our faith in God's word, and improve our understanding of truth. Neither can be achieved by teaching personal opinions, which is why we ask anyone expounding a new idea or Bible understanding to provide the proof thereof from Scripture. I'm saddened that you feel this forum is inadequate to the task.
            
            Your argument that these are disposible articles is not accurate. I get comments every week from readers who are remarking on points from articles or comments written three and four years ago.
            
            So I would ask that you review the commenting guidelines for this site posted under the Frequently Asked Questions link. I've posted them at the end of this comment for your convenience.
            
            -----------------------------
            
            Commenting Guidelines
            
            We welcome comments. However, as with any responsible web site, there are acceptable rules of conduct that are maintained for the well-being of the user community.
            
            Our main concern is to preserve an environment of trust, supportive companionship and encouragement, where Jehovah’s Witnesses who are awakening to the reality of the Organization can come to feel both understood and secure.
            
            Because the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, like the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day, will persecute by expulsion anyone who differs with their personal interpretation of the Scriptures, it is advisable that all commenters use an alias. (John 9:22)
            
            Since we will be approving all comments in the interest of ensuring an up-building environment, we will require all commenters to provide a valid email address which we will treat with the strictest confidentiality. That way if there is any reason to block a comment, we will be able to inform the commenter to enable him/her to make the appropriate adjustments.
            
            When making a comment in which you wish to expound some particular Bible teaching, please note that we require all to provide proof from Scripture. Stating a belief that is nothing more than a person opinion is allowed, but please state that it is your own opinion and nothing more. We do not want to fall into the trap of the Organization and requires others to accept our speculation as fact.

            • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-13 11:41:48

              Apologies in advance for the length of this post ...
              
              Abut the issue of translation, that is easy enough to resolve. Show me a list of scholars of ancient Greek that agree with the WT translation of John 1:1. These scholars must be alive, have published works that are accessible, and have no association with WT. Johannes Greber does not count. If you find one out of a thousand, that would technically prove me wrong, but in practice it would not change the fact that WT translation is distained by persons who are experts in that language and who also have no religious axe to grind about it. My point is, if we assume that in all likelihood the experts are right, yet there is no trinity, how can we reconcile those two things? My answer was the one you disputed. Wt resolves this by saying that all experts are wrong and they (while having no expertise in the language) are right. Which of those two assumptions is more believable?
              
              About the nature of your forum, I have brought up this objection before, so it shouldn't surprise you. At present, BP amounts to a "criticism of the week", where you pick apart a WT article or CLAM meeting, everybody 'piles on', and then the cycle repeats itself over and over. What you don't have is a web site organized by categories, like a Wiki or even like the Insight volumes. Only, these entries would have contained resolutions of debated topics.
              
              No doubt the reason you do not support such a site is because you never resolve anything. Instead, you take every WT article and beat it to death, then there is a frenzy while commenters agree (or not), and then you do it again. Yes, someone might be able to scour hundreds of articles and many thousands of remarks, if they had the luxury of that much free time available, but they would still find no conclusions or resolutions of anything. And, a week later, it starts all over. That's why I don't want to embark on some grand theological expose here. A few people might read it, a few might find it by accident two or three years from now, and for the rest it would be just a 'blip' that is soon forgotten. That's not what I had in mind.
              
              As for the rest of it, you misunderstand me, Meleti. You seem to take offense when I say the Bible is testimony but not proof. When someone believes the Bible and has faith in it, they are likely to say, "that is all the 'proof' I need". And that is probably true: for THEM, that IS all the 'proof' they need. But, statements in the Bible are 'testimony' - words on a page - in a book you believe and have faith in. For someone that did not especially believe the Bible, its statements provide historical information and moral insights, but they would not consider them as "proof".
              
              For instance, the Israelites that saw the 10 plagues on Egypt would have considered them as undeniable proof of God's existence. Are the words in Exodus, preserved from that time until now, the same kind of "proof" as those eye-witnesses had so many centuries ago? No. The words are a testimony as to what they saw. Testimony is not proof. For a Bible believer, they believe these words and have faith in them. It is a tenet of their faith; they simply believe it because that is what they do. Is that 'wrong'? Am I criticizing people for having faith? No. It's simply that testimony is not proof in the objective sense. Real proof stands on its own. It does not require an observer to also believe a body of doctrines in order to make that 'proof' believable. What objective reason would an atheist or agnostic have to believe the story of the 10 plagues? If you could find archeological evidence, that might be taken as proof. Otherwise, it's just a religious story, one that they happen to disbelieve. What could you offer to convince someone like that?
              
              The closest analogy to the nature of the Bible being 'proof' is Euclidean geometry. Euclid devised a list of axioms - concepts that were assumed to be true. Then, drawing off those axioms as a foundation, he formulated theorems and postulates to explain more complex concepts. His reasoning was sound, and has proven useful. But after Einstein, it was found Euclid's ideas were flawed when attempting to explain geometry on a galactic scale. This happened because modern research about the universe showed that some of Euclid's axioms - the original assumptions - were incorrect. Thus, people who believed Euclid and his geometry could point to his ideas and rules as 'proof', but they were wrong (at least, not entirely correct). The moral of the story is that Euclidean 'proofs' were not real proof at all. They were a testimony about the framework of the Euclidean world.
              
              In like manner, Bible testimony is not proof. That should in no way to be assumed as disrespectful of the Bible. It is simply recognition that the truth compels us to be completely honest about everything, even things we love and are fond of. It is like a parent having only good and flattering things to say about their children, while knowing full well that they made mistakes and get into trouble at times. Faithful, religious people love the Bible so much that they view its words as 'proof', when in reality those words are testimony. No matter how much you love that testimony, or how much you have dedicated your life to living up to the words in that testimony, it's still testimony.

              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-13 12:23:31

                I provided a link in my first response which I referred to in my second response. You have yet to address that. You now ask for a list of scholars. You are ignoring the evidence and returning to an argument by authority.
                
                You may not be aware that this site is part of a forum. Beroean Pickets does provide the category-based format you seek. Admittedly, this is a work in progress. If you are looking for a site where you can debate doctrine, I would recommend Discuss the Truth which I support and which will allow you to provide the proof for your argument.
                
                I'm sorry if the site does not meet your "theological expose" requirements, but I didn't create it with you in mind. Your complaints are akin to someone walking into an Italian restaurant and complaining that they don't serve good curry. If our site is not to your liking, then go elsewhere. No hard feelings. We're just not right for you.
                
                You state: "But, statements in the Bible are ‘testimony’ – words on a page – in a book you believe and have faith in. For someone that did not especially believe the Bible, its statements provide historical information and moral insights, but they would not consider them as “proof”."
                Also: "No matter how much you love that testimony, or how much you have dedicated your life to living up to the words in that testimony, it’s still testimony."
                
                Eye-witness testimony is considered proof in a court of law. Men have been condemned to die based on eye-witness testimony. True, witnesses can lie, but in the case of the Bible, it is God's inspired word, so the testimony for, say, the existence and miracles of Jesus Christ, is proof. If you cannot accept this tenet, then why are you here? I mean no disrespect, but since we accept the testimony of God's word as proof and you do not, would your time not be better spent elsewhere, talking with those who believe as you do? After all, we have no basis for convincing you of our position, because you do not accept the foundation of our belief, the testimony of God's inspired word. In fact, you cannot believe the Bible is inspired of God, because God cannot lie so his testimony is absolute proof of all things.
                
                "...in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie..." (He 6:18)

            • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-13 13:52:09

              I am one of those who goes back to the articles in 2011. LOVE THEM!!!!!

              • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-14 00:23:40

                Me too!

            • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:30:36

              I too have gone back to discussions from months and years past, even commenting on them.
              I'm relatively new to the Beroean Pickets so naturally I've gone to read past articles and reviews.

              • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-14 17:23:43

                Hi Thad,
                
                Me too

  • Reply by tyhik on 2017-09-13 18:26:54

    Hi Robert. Regarding reputable scholars' opinions on translating John 1:1c then the consensus seems to be more or less the following:
    
    - On purely grammatical basis, the translations "God", "a god", and "divine" are all correct. There is no consensus though, which translation should be preferred based on purely grammatical arguments.
    - To translate this verse, the grammatical arguments are not enough. The choice should be made, rather, based on other (for example, theological) arguments.
    - Translation of this verse is not critical to support or disprove the trinity doctrine.
    
    It seems that many koine Greek scholars are Christians and as the trinity doctrine prevails, many of them will readily go with "God". Some scholars recommend "divine" over "God". The "a god" choice seems to have indeed almost no support at all. Still, WT is right by translating it as "a god". In my layman's view, "divine" would have been a better choice, completely serving the unitarian purposes.

Comment by Dajo on 2017-09-11 03:32:48

I love these articles, devour them, and love checking for new comments. The encouragement and demeanour found here is superlative tomsay the least.
I am still going through the uneasy process of "extracting" myself and have now very little in common woth my dear wife of many decades.
Whenever we get anywhere like a spiritual discussion she always just makes a bold statement like "you know Jehovah has ALWAYS had an organization. ..." and Quotes Acts 15:14 - that Jehovah would ".. take out of the NATION'S a people for his NAME..!
When I used to go in the ministry I would use Acts 15:15,17 a lot myself.
Please, does anyone have a simple easy response as to why that is not "proof" that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are NOT a chosen, special application of that scripture today? I need help with this one.
Thank you in advance,
David

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 09:24:09

  One tactic is to start by getting her to define what it means to be a "people for God's name".
  
  For example, could a people be considered a possession of God if they do not represent his name in an honorable way?
  
  The "What does the Bible Really Teach?" book lists six things that qualify a people as God's. All six have to be met for them to claim they belong to God. You might start with each one and work your way down to see if JWs meet their own criteria.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 09:29:01

    Actually, I just realized another flaw in her argument. Jehovah has not ALWAYS had an organization. For 2,500 years prior to the formation of Israel there was no "organization". He has always had people, from Abel down to the Patriarchs, but any claim to an organization can only reasonably start with Moses.
    
    It's not a major point, but it undermines her key premise, ergo, we cannot serve God unless we belong to an organization.

    • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-11 16:01:58

      Yes, I've just now reviewed those 6 points in the "Teach" book.- Chapter 15- It can be reasoned that the statements there could apply to many groups.
      The narrow focus however of the JW mindset has the average publisher like my wife (who will only consider WT publications) being convinced that only "Jehovah's People" do those things.
      Your 2nd point is valid as well, thanks Meleti.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 18:02:10

        The UN membership violate the neutrality requirement. The child abuse scandal and the disassociation of victims violates the John 13:34, 35 requirement. And the 1914, 1919, overlapping generations, vow of dedication, and other sheep doctrines violate the adherence to Bible truth requirement. Of course, that will not convince your wife if she chooses not to see.

        • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-13 14:42:36

          I agree Meleti. Dajo it is sad many choose not see because they have the "truth". I was reading in the book of Acts. When the people thought Paul and Barnabas were gods because of the miracles being done, even though Paul and Barnabas THEMSELVES were trying to tell the people they were not gods, the people chose to believe otherwise. Acts 14:14-18 So that being said as the saying goes "A man forced against is will is of the same opinion still. Maybe in time she will wake up. Just gently keep nudging as we do when trying to wake some one up from a literal sleep. We don't just pull them out the bed. That might be grounds for a good fight :)

          • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-13 17:21:58

            Thanks eve04, that's good advice. If you knew me you would realize why! I'll take it to heart.

            • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:18:20

              Dajo, I'm really beginning to think we are kin!

              • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-14 12:13:57

                Well, I guess we are...you seem to have the same brother as me, and going by your comments we have the same father.

        • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:16:20

          Dajo that last sentence in Meleti's comment is the key.
          If she is dug in and refuses to look at the facts, don't push. It'll end badly.

    • Reply by Eleasar on 2017-09-15 11:07:59

      It is challenging from Adam to Moses. They were organised as large extended patriarchal families.
      
      From Moses onward the bible teaches nationhood not ORGANISATION. Interestingly, the nation was divided into tribes, clans and families.
      
      The Christian congregation is also referred to as a family.
      
      All the above were organised just as the heavenly family is also organised.
      
      If ORGANISATION was the key idea, why is it never mentioned in scripture? Why does it only start from the 1920s with Rutherford and crystallised in the late 1930s. None of the inspired writers ever seem to have understood this concept!

• Reply by Menrov on 2017-09-11 10:36:43

  I ask (real story): Which name? The name Jehovah is just one option, same as Yahweh or El or other variations. Then I continue, who said in Greek books "you will be witnesses". Then I ask, who were according to the scriptures called Christians? After which person is a Christian called a Christian? So, yes, scriptures are right, there is a people after his name: Christians ,around 2 billion I believe now

  • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-11 15:53:28

    Thanks Menrov, Yes the scripture in Acts about those first CALLED Christians.... was in Antioch and didn't come from some organizational governing body.

    • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:11:58

      Now that is food for thought. It saddens me that one single occasion, taken totally out of context,is the sole basis for a "Governing Body" today.
      Also, does anyone know WHY the literature capitalizes the GB in the "modern" Governing Body yet always write lower case gb when refering to the so called 1st century governing body?

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-14 08:57:47

        Capitalizing turns the noun into a proper noun. Essentially, it becomes a name. By calling the first century group of apostles and older men in Jerusalem, the governing body (without caps) they acknowledge that it was not used then as a proper name. Ergo, they can describe them now as a governing body, but they cannot claim that they were known by that name or designation back then.

        • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 19:17:33

          Makes sense.

      • Reply by Devora on 2017-09-14 17:42:20

        Capitalized first letters(i.e.in specific names;as descriptive pronouns as being addressed to singled-out personages)become a TITLE...Jesus said in his warnings,"neither be called'leaders' for your Leader is one,the Christ".Mt.23:10 and Mt.10:24,25a.that means as-in a position of authority(ex:Mr.President;Rabbi so and so;our Judge Smith).I was already actively fading when I saw this too...the Elevations.This follows the course...But am meditating upon 2Corinthians 10:7-12.Much Love,D.

        • Reply by Eleasar on 2017-09-15 07:46:42

          It seems like prior to 1972 the term governing body was an adjective. Post 1972 the term becomes Governing Body is capitalised and becomes a proper noun I.e a name. These can also be picked up on the WT library CD Rom.Two points of interest are as follows:
          1. In the February 2017 Study WT they maintain the same distinctions pre and post 1972 in the "Who are leading God's people today?" article.
          
          2. In the " Organized to Do Your Will" book in chapter 8, paragraph 28, they state that the Governing Body has a conscience.
          
          My question is when did the GB become an individual creation with free will? How do all the 7 individual consciences come together to form this one conscience.
          
          Sounds a bit like One Ring to rule them all!

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-15 08:32:02

            In Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, he explains how the Governing Body as we know it today come into existence. Under Rutherford there was an executive committee and an editorial committee. He did away with both, though not all at once. Under Knorr there was presidential rule, with input from the de facto directors of the corporation. Fred Franz wanted to keep the presidential rule which explains his anti-governing body discourse at one of the Gilead Graduations, but he lost that fight, and the GB as we know it today was born.

• Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-12 18:44:04

  Hi IOHAB
  Just a side point to what you stated.
  Around the time the org changed definitions of who the faithful and discreet slave is , the Bible Students of America proved in court that Charles Russell was not the originator of the JWs , that was when the judge became the FDS, because now by law the JWs can't call Russell their founder.Of course the GB weren't going to say anything about that because they have tied everything to 1914 and Russell is the 1914 prophet,cant touch that sacred cow.
  This was show to me by some Bible Students that I was meeting with a few years ago, if you go on their site you can find it . Which adds more impetus to your above reasoning.

  • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-13 14:27:53

    Was it the SDA or the Millerites?

    • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-13 23:45:04

      Hi eve
      It was the actual Bible students of America that took it to court and have won.
      JW leadership can't by law call Russell their founder anymore. It should be Jesus Christ anyway.

      • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-14 12:10:31

        Thank you WO. Also a comment to your comment below. Sad thing is, many including myself did not know of a court battle over who the founder of JW was. (Maybe I did and was told Apostates) Of course any Jehovah's Witness will say the founder was Jesus Christ (tehethe). Very interesting.

  • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-13 23:41:19

    Hi again
    It's not so much that the JWs don't like Russell ,they have to hang on to him because 1914 is his creation,and if they came out and said Russell was wrong then the whole 1914 doctrine collapses, same for the Judge ,they have to paint him in a good light ,because he's the one who came up with the moniker Jehovah's witnesses,if they came out and said he was wrong ,then the foundation of the religion is shaky. So a connection has to be made somehow to both these false prophets to maintain the status quo, the problem is the Bible Students,those pesky evil slaves , have proved ,in court ,that Russell is not the founder of the JWs , the Judge is. Up until the Judge everyone was known as a Bible Student, so they had to abandon poor old Charles as the FDS ,how could he be when it's been proven that he's not the founder of the only true faith? ?
    And yes to what you say, Jesus would be DF if he was around today, Jesus was a witness of Jehovah,but not a Jehovah's Witness, ha ha to that one.

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:04:42

    What is that Web address?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-13 15:23:05

  Don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but you could ask her to name Jehovah's first earthly organization. She'll likely say Israel. Then ask her if that organization always enjoyed his favor? Obviously not. In fact, it was out of favor far more then it was in favor, right from the start. Then ask about Elijah. Was he obedient to the leadership of the organization? What about the 7,000 who had not bent the knee to Baal? (Romans 11:4)
  
  So the question is, when Jehovah's organization is not being loyal to Jehovah, should we be loyal to the organization or loyal to Jehovah?

  • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-13 17:16:36

    Yeah ...! That's the one I reckon is the clincher, the simplest.
    My deceased dad used to say (never spoke to me when I became a JW) - "Simplicity is the essence of perfection".
    I think that reasoning will make her think, Meleti.

    • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-13 19:35:42

      I hope that it helps you reason with your wife DJ. Another reason I like this web site- a free exchange of ideas and support for one another. Hats off to Meleti for providing this format!

      • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 01:01:59

        Amen

  • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-13 17:24:06

    Hi Meleti,
    Wow, that line of reasoning sums up the matter perfectly. Until now, I had never thought about it like that in particular. It cuts right through to the heart of the matter very simply, but also very succinctly.

• Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-14 17:21:51

  Hi Brain,
  
  Basically a type/ antitype application. The Judge loved those!

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-09-11 04:14:37

Robert, you highlight the position well. It is not wrong to praise Jehovah but it is wrong to forget Jesus. It is much the same as when speaking to someone, we still make a big thing of Jehovah's name, highlighting how it has been hidden for years. We highlight the big basics, and then add on a lot of things which we now realise are not well supported in scripture, but a person does not find out about these things until he has been well indoctrinated, by which time he is stuck (except at that point he probably does not realise it).
If disciples are much harder to come by now, is the reason because new ones can check out our beliefs all over the internet and get at the truth ?
What would happen when the truth about 1914/607, other sheep, judicial matters, f & ds, as well as certain matters which have been deliberately covered over, surface before the rank and file ? And will this happen ? We shall see.
Otherwise short and sweet Meliti. Thank you for keeping us all alert.

Comment by Dajo on 2017-09-11 06:01:18

Hi again, Meleti, the experiment you suggest is a good reminder- I'm sure you mentioned it in another article sometime back. I have been doing that and when I first started it... well it felt awkward! And I got surprised looks duh! But it shouldn't be like that and the more I did it the better it felt, but it made the person/persons I was talking to uncomfortable. I have realized that "Jehovah" is the most used word by JWs and it should not be as it is a code for the "Organization". Proof? The mere fact that the mention of the word "Jesus" can make some squirm and feel embarrassed. I would suggest and encourage all to try what is suggested and see what happens. To start with you will feel like you are overusing the name Jesus.. but you won't. You have been trained, conditioned and dare I say coerced and brainwashed, indeed hypnotized to use Jehovah that it takes real effort to change that ingrained habit.

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:54:12

  Dajo, I think you are absolutely right.
  And it's an unfortunate reality.

Comment by Speedy50 on 2017-09-11 06:25:05

Because I am fading I am still able to speak to good friends, make some points and ask some questions without them being concerned.

Regarding your "little experiment", I was chatting to a sister, who I have known for 25 years, about world conditions etc. and I said to her at the end "Come, Lord Jesus!" (Re 22:20).

She replied: "I don't get that!"
Me: "What don't you get?"
Her: "What you just said."
Me: "What?"
Her: "Sounds christendommy!"
Me: "Don't you want Jesus Christ to come? Is Jesus Christ Lord or not?"
Her: "Yes but the overuse of 'Lord Jesus' is their trade mark! You quoted the scripture right but we don't often use it, so it sounded creepy."

I haven't heard from her for six weeks :)

To one of Jehovah's Witnesses mentioning Jesus Christ is "creepy".

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 09:39:47

  You made me laugh out loud. Thanks Speedy50. I needed that on a Monday morning. But isn't is sad that this is the case. Witnesses have now been conditioned to associate the use of Jesus' name with false religion, something to be avoided. What a great job the organization has done. How effective their campaign.
  
  Obviously, such a program does not originate with God, so from where does it come?

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:51:37

    My personal feeling is that this has happened unintentionally.
    I was impressed with the July 2017 JW Broadcast where Tony Morris stated/admitted that Jesus is the head of the world wide Congregation/Organization and that Jesus is guiding the Governing Body.
    Him saying that of course in itself doesn’t make it true, after all they are not infallible ? but that statement sure surprised me that they admitted it. Surely I'm not alone.
    What I can't understand though is that in one breath they state Jesus is the head, Jesus is directing them yet in the very next breath they revert back to the same old idea that it's Jehovah's Organization, Jehovah is directing them. It's as if no one, even them, see the contradiction.
    Perhaps they are breaking it in slowly so as not to confuse the diehards.
    Something else that interests me is the BOE letter several months ago surveying the baptism years of current members of the Congregations. It makes me think about big departure of some long held doctrine is coming but they first must wait till the long timers pass away.
    Any ideas?

• Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-11 16:33:49

  Awesome Speedy!

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-11 17:58:37

  If you get a chance to speak with your friend again about this, you might ask her to read 1 Corinthians 12:3 and ask her what that implies.
  
  “Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.” (1Co 12:3)

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:39:44

    Good one!

• Reply by BrotherNicodemus on 2017-09-12 00:36:40

  Hi all, interesting comments regarding using Jesus name more often. Agreed. May I ask, can we talk to Jesus?

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-12 10:12:12

    In a family, surely we can talk to our older brother.

    • Reply by BrotherNicodemus on 2017-09-12 12:54:02

      Thank you Meleti. Nice, comforting answer. I'm still struggling to put everything together since I have been "in" a while. I appreciate your help and this website. I have been studying the Bible again with the points in this site in mind for a few months. I have spent many hours considering most of your articles from recent to years ago. Thanks again

      • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:38:23

        Brother Nicodemus,
        It seems you and I are at the same mile marker on this road.
        I too appreciate this site and have been reading many of the past articles, especially the commentaries/reviews of WT articles. While I don't accept all of the reasoning, I have found an abundance of insight that has me reevaluating what I've learned.

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:32:42

    I'm reminded of John 14:6 "No one comes to the Father except Through me."
    Although I'm aware of the verse that shows that Stephen spoke directly to Christ, I don't belive there's any reference to Jesus being the "Hearer of prayer" or of anyone praying to Jesus.
    I'd say no, we can not talk/pray to Jesus.
    I understand Meleti's comparison to talking to our big brother in a family situation, however what Scriptual reason is there to say yes, we can talk/pray to Jesus?
    Sincere question.
    I await your replies.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-14 08:52:06

      Some might say it's a play on words, but to me there's a difference between talking to someone and praying to them. I talk to many people, but I only pray to God. The distinction to me is that Jesus doesn't become my father. He is my brother. Jehovah is my father and Jesus opened the way for that to happen. I respect and appreciate that and will not undo it by giving undue prominence to the Son.
      
      I know it's a delicate line to walk, but we have to try each in our own way. Jehovah's Witnesses err by giving all the prominence to Jehovah. Yet most of Christendom errs by giving all the prominence to the Son. Jehovah's Witnesses go to one extreme to combat the Trinity doctrine and make God all things and Jesus just a footnote. Trinitarians go to the other extreme and make Jesus into God, while the Father is nameless.
      
      Jesus came to make it possible for us to call Jehovah, the Almighty, by an intimate term, Abba. (John 1:12) We must find the way to preserve that intimate relationship without undermining the role of the Son.

    • Reply by Dajo on 2017-09-14 12:08:08

      Hello Thad,
      somedays I have, depending what I am doing, a day when I approach things with a "prayerful attitude". That is, I approach whatever I am doing prayerfully.
      On those days I have caught myself talking to Jesus, running things by him, pondering his actions and even conscientiously talking to him about something.
      I am the oldest of 7 siblings and don't have an older brother or sister so it's great now I can actually quote a scripture where I can actually say I am Jesus brother.
      However, when I pray to "our Father" - my father, Jesus father- that, to me is different. It is more respectful, reverent and deliberate.. it usually has a definite beginning and end and can be more intense.
      That is when I seek out a quiet time for myself.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-14 08:44:36

    I resisted the idea for a long time due to JW indoctrination, but why shouldn't we talk to our older brother?

  • Reply by Jabez on 2017-09-14 22:26:35

    Hi Nicodemus I think John 14:14 should answer your question it seems to me that Jesus was inviting us to converse with him he said ask me and I will do it .That sure sounds like prayer to me.

  • Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-14 23:10:35

    Just to add to what's said already .
    As you said Stephen made a direct request to Jesus. Paul spoke directly to Jesus on the road to Damascus. John speaks directly to Jesus all through the Revelation. I believe you have clear scriptural reason to do so your self. If Jehovah was touchy about such conversation I would think that the previous examples would come with a disclaimer of some kind, I mean what's the point of a mediator if you can't talk to him ? If it comes with the understanding that all things happen ultimately for Jehovah's glory, how could you be doing something wrong talking to Jesus who Jehovah supplied as a visible representation of himself? What would be wrong with saying to Jesus at the beginning of prayer that you wish to ask him something as your mediator not your Father?
    As a side point,that's the only time in scripture where a visible representation of Jehovah is allowed ,as Jesus said you see me you see the Father, not a visible organisation.
    Just an opinion .

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:23:14

  Hi Speedy,
  I haven't tried the "little experiment" yet but many times I've refered to Jesus as leading the Organization, Directing the Governing Body or said "Jesus will take care of it." Without fail, especially from brothers, I get counseled that since Jesus "always" gave credit to Jehovah then it's appropriate that I should do the same. They've said this is Jehovah's Organization not Jesus' and that Jehovah leads and directs the Governing Body etc..
  Even after the July Broadcast when Tony Morris said that Jesus directs and leads the Governing Body, they still insist that it's Jehovah. Even when Tony Morris also said "This is the best IMPERFECT Organization on the planet" my group Overseer insisted that it's imperfect men but a perfect Organization. I asked "Did you hear Br. Morris say IMPERFECT?" His reply was "yes, but..."
  I'm thinking the terminology is so deeply ingrained that he/they don't even realize what they're saying. During the same conversation I reminded him of a recent WT that stated "we sometimes error in doctrine and policy" He replied that we should obey instruction and accept doctrinal adjustments without questioning is it right or wrong.i then asked "Do you hear what you just said??" He just gave me a blank stare.
  Now THAT is creepy.

  • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-14 12:02:39

    Hi Thaddeus
    Hum the music of the Twilight Zone. :)

Comment by Phelps on 2017-09-11 07:12:06

Hace poco meleti dijo algo que me gustó mucho. La organización en su presunción de querer separarse de la religión "falsa" ha ido en contra de la palabra de Dios. Cuando leemos que Jesucristo gobierna durante mil años y que después él entrega el reino a su padre sólo me hace pensar que para jehova es tan importante Lo que hizo Jesús que no le importa que él sea la persona mas importante para ser honrada y adorada durante los mil años... No es por doctrina, no ; es remuneración, es agradecimiento de jehova por lo que ha hecho su hijo. Les recomiendo éste artículo que explica mejor lo que quiero decir .es muy muy reflexivo: http://www.musingsaboutgod.com/trinity.htm

Comment by vinman on 2017-09-11 08:56:15

It is very difficult for a JW to understand Christ's true role. This is mainly due to the number of times Jehovah's name appears in the OT. It is the way Jehovah sometimes expresses himself. Such as "besides me there is no Savior". Or the fact that he repeatedly mentions how he will make known his name. Such as "the nations shall know that I am Jehovah".

I know it was these things that blinded me. In fact I couldn't comprehend Jesus role for almost two years after I left. I would talk to ones who did not believe in the trinity but would always speak about Jesus. I would think that they had forgotten Jehovah. It seemed they were worshipping him. I just couldn't understand. But then one day it hit me out of the blue. Your articles have helped greatly in this matter. Now it is to the point that it is obvious that the overuse of the name is disrespectful. In fact, it should distance us from the father. We speak as strangers when we do that. I now know that there is no such thing as over emphasizing Jesus. He is EVERYTHING.

Comment by Menrov on 2017-09-11 10:27:58

My view: It started with the desire to be different from mainstream Christian organisations. Second, in their view, the anointed ones are brothers of Christ. So, gb members are viewing themselves as equal to Christ but then on earth. They view Jesus as the agent used by His Father when on earth. Now they think they occupy that role. The do not need a mediator as they are now sons of the Father. Now, for the rank an file it is far more complicated as the WT teaches that Chris is only mediator for the anointed. Not for others. But brothers of Jesus do not need a mediator as they are already son of God. In other words, why do anointed ones need a mediator? Therefore, according to WT doctrines, there is actually no role Jesus. Not for the anointed and not for rank and file. As a result, hardly any attention to Jesus. And if you do (I did) they see you as weird. Well....who knows.

• Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-11 16:41:48

  Good point Menrov.
  Judge Rutherford had to make the Org stand out from others. 1 Tim.2:5 seems so plain to understand- Jesus is our Mediator. But we have to remember, the Society's publications are better than the bible.......

Comment by huang on 2017-09-11 23:47:16

One way to "restore" Jesus Christ to the meetings where he rightfully belongs is to mention him in our answers.
Eg. - Even before the Internet we had the Bible (in book form) and the clear teachings of Jesus are always available in it. eg. Jesus Sermon on the Mount - thrilling discourse with 9 ‘happinesses’
• Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need / those mourn / mild-tempered / those hunger - thirst for righteousness/ merciful / pure in heart / peaceable / persecuted for righteousness’ sake/reproached and lyingly spoken against. “Rejoice and leap for joy, since your reward is great in the heavens. These clear teachings of Jesus form foundation of the Christian way of life. This will make them sit-up.

Comment by Gogetter on 2017-09-12 22:48:05

Robert-6512
It is often difficult to read true intentions and emotions of the composer of a phone text message or short letter but I must admit in your case I do not find myself with that difficulty. I respectfully would like to offer my opinion on your post.

I read all your comments as you do seem to have some solid scriptural knowledge,As well as Watchtower history, although you tend to move off topic most of the time which obscures the point you are trying to make.
When reading your comments I always feel like I'm listening to an angry, combative person and needless to say many of us have good reason to have those feelings.
I recognize this style of commenting from exjw sites I spent too much time on after my initial awakening because I was full of anger for giving most of my life to the Org. Sadly I enjoyed attacking anything and everything watchtower and especially the GB!
I don't remember exactly how I found beroeans, but once here I never went back to those sites, because that atmosphere doesn't exist here. I want the constructive, up building, Bible based discussions that validates why I started seeking the REAL truth in the first place.

In this thread you are complaining about the format here, I would like to suggest you start your own forum and set the format the way you see fit and certainly advertise the link here for those who would like to participate.

This is not counsel as we do not really know each other, it's just an opinion.

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-13 21:12:42

  Well said and seasoned with salt "Gogetter".

Comment by eve04 on 2017-09-13 12:59:45

Meleti,
I have tried on several occasions your experiment. It is always meet with a dead silence a strange look and then a response. As I read each paragraph I thought surely they would make mention of Jesus. I saw so many opportunities to do so. Para 5, 7, 8,9,13,18 even if it was a sentence, the opportunity was there. I have listened to a couple of Minister outside of JW and the love they preach about Jesus is beautiful. All that is embodied in Jesus and they do not give him the glory he deserves, they miss the whole beauty of why Jesus came.
You dishonor the Son, you dishonor is father. Scary situation to be in!!!

• Reply by Devora on 2017-09-14 08:46:50

  Dear Meliti,Eve,Menrov,Others here:My sentiments...exactly.As I was'waking up'since 3 years ago,in the last car field service groups;meetings, and when being visited I would also always back up my attentive focus on Christ..with a pause,smile...and a Scripture...or 2;3,even.Some would 'protest/contest'!besides the discomforts described here.Related to this,I've studied the Freemasons(on the inside-basics,not deeply)---most disturbing,the parallels-to the Org.'s purposes and how this wt article/patterns in their other'teachings' reveals it...Both in what they say,and in what they DON'T say.Thank You again for this review.

  • Reply by eve04 on 2017-09-14 12:00:17

    Hi Devora,
    It could be because, as I understand, Russell was a Freemason.

Comment by eve04 on 2017-09-13 14:22:35

Hi Brain,
I often wonder how many of the stories/experiences are true. They just seem so....

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:56:58

  I've been wondering the same thing. Many of them simply don't have the ring of truth.

Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2017-09-13 19:35:09

Just a quick response to the John1:1 debate. Regardless of whether God be capitalized or not (and I see both sides of the argument), it's nothing to do with translating as it is understanding what Jehovah gives to whom he chooses. As stated in Exodus 7:1, if Jehovah could make Moses God to Pharaoh of Egypt, then surely He could make Jesus God to the rest of the world, could He not?

• Reply by wild olive on 2017-09-14 22:57:15

  Fair call SW
  You don't think that's one of the ways that the trinity was constructed? Calling Jesus God?
  Your thoughts please.

  • Reply by Smoldering Wick on 2017-09-16 01:58:48

    Well spoken Wild Olive. And I guess it's how some are lead to believe when reading Jesus words in John 10:29, 30 or Matthew 28:18. Whether "I and the father are one" or "All authority has been given" entitles him to the title or not is an argument used by some, constructing something that does or doesn't exist is really just opinion. Personally, I view Moses as the 'typical' initiator of the Abrahamic promise to be later fulfilled in the 'antitypical' coming of Jesus for the entire world. Whether the Godship of either is capitalized or not is of no consequence to me.
    But again, that's just my opinion at this time.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-16 09:17:54

      Capitalization is a way of turning a noun into a name, or of using a noun to represent something specific beyond its generic use.
      
      It would be incorrect grammatically, or perhaps I should say, syntactically, to write, "The Word is a God.", because capitalizing God in that sentence indicates you are speaking of the one true God, so the indefinite article is not called for. Therefore, if I am to use the indefinite article "a", I must write it in lower case: "The Word was a god." indicating someone with Godlike characteristics, but distinct from the one true God. I'm talking a point of grammar here, not theology.
      
      When translating John 1:1, the translator must decide whether the Greek text calls for a proper noun or not. This is not a theological decision, but a grammatical one. If the translator goes against the rules of grammar, that would be an indication of bias.
      
      In Greek the phrase is "the Word was with [the] God." The definite article in front of "God" is not rendered into English. That would produce a stilted translation. The phrase "ho theos" in Greek is used when speaking of God. To render this into proper English, the translator drops the definite article and capitalizes the noun.
      
      The question--and the basis for this age-old dispute--is why didn't John write "and [the] God was the Word"? Why did he leave off the definite article which in Greek grammar would have conveyed the idea that English capitalization does when we read: 'the Word was God'.
      
      If he wanted to say that the Word was a God or that the Word was divine, then writing "theos en ho logos" as he did was just the way to do that. However, if he wanted to tell us that "Jesus is God", he would have written it properly as "ho theos en ho logos".

    • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-16 10:35:11

      This is a matter where you need to understand the original language and its grammar. The rationale for asserting that a plural means "majesty" for a singular object (God, in this case) is that like many languages, Hebrew employs noun-verb agreement, where they are supposed to be either both singular or both plural. Like in English, "I am" but "we are". In Hebrew, Elohim is a plural noun, but the verbs used with it are singular. If God were a trinity, the verbs would have to be conjugated as plural to be grammatical, but they're not.
      
      I am the first to agree that WT expertise is limited, but they are not wrong about this particular issue.

• Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-15 14:50:38

  SM, The original Greek did not use lower case letters, and did not even have spaces between words; those were later developments. Hebrew worked the same way. All capitalizations in present bibles are translator choices. Those choices are influenced by biases. Find some relatively long verse in ithe NT and go on Bible Hub to compare translations. You will see a wide variety of choices in capitalization.
  
  We must be careful in interpreting this difficult verse. The wording does not say that Jehovah "gave" anything or "made" the "word" into a "god". The clearest statement the Bible makes on the subject is that God made Christ a king, not a god. That much is certain. The "godship" part for Christ, and what it might mean, is less certain.
  
  God did not literally make Moses a "god" in the sense that that Hebrews viewed Jehovah as a "god". Rather, Moses became someone of authority who had command over powerful works (for a time). Moses never actually performed any miracles himself. His role was basically to 'announce' that some supernatural event was going to happen, and then God is the one who really did it. A real god does not depend on others to manifest his power over people. Moses eventually ceased those powerful works, and so any role he had as a "god" over Pharoh was temporary. A real god is not one temporarily.

  • Reply by Smoldering Wick on 2017-09-15 20:48:54

    I won't argue your point Robert-6512 since you've already made up your mind. Just learn a little more ancient Hebrew since much is lost in translation by scholars who make their translation based on their own preexisting dogma and we believe because we were already convinced by their community to regard them as 'experts,' which makes their interpretations more accurate. If you question them you insult them as I hope I'm not insulting you.
    ???

    • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-15 23:08:32

      I am not insulted, but I don't understand what point you think I made up my mind about. Real translators do not use 'dogma' to guide the translation process. They use accepted rules of grammar and syntax. They are not supposed to make 'interpretations', either. An honest translator welcomes questions, since the process is a difficult one, and is not an exact science.
      
      Finally, you should not doubt yourself so much. While it's true that I have indeed made up my mind about certain things, that is not true of every opinion I hold, and even ones I feel great certainty over could be swayed, if I were shown convincing evidence that I was wrong about something.
      
      Don't be so sure that I won't listen.
      
      
      P.S. You can me Robert. 6512 is something I use to make my name unique for WordPress. 6512 is the day my wife died.

      • Reply by Smoldering Wick on 2017-09-16 01:16:12

        I'm so very sorry for your loss, my brother. And please understand that I'm not being critical of you or translators since they must follow the stricter guidelines you describe. I just try to simplify what the spirit says for the sake of a more simple-minded lover of Christ. While some might see my personal opinions seem somewhat obtuse, I'm not about winning arguments except in my own mind where Ockham's razor speaks louder.
        In Christ

        • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-16 10:59:48

          Hi SW,
          
          I had to google Occam's Razor. Is it possible that I'm even more simple-minded than you?LOL
          
          WS

      • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-16 10:33:10

        Hi Robert,
        
        Right out of the gate I want to acknowledge that you are the superior intellect to me. You have the ability to write what is on your mind very eloquently. When you say "real translators don't use dogma but only accepted rules of grammar and syntax", I think that might be just a bit naive to the reality of the current human condition. No matter how objective these scholars might try to be, pre-conceived ideas will come thru to at least a certain degree. I believe we have to read all the NT writings and then determine the whole context of who Jesus really is.
        
        To me, what comes thru, is that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. Jehovah is his Father, and the Holy Spirit is Jah's active force. The Org got that one right at least.
        
        To continue to debate about John 1:1 and certain other bible texts in isolation is to miss the point about what the real purpose of Christ coming to earth, teaching us, and ultimately sacrificing his life for us.
        
        Hope you aren't offended, but that to me sums up this whole debate in simple terms. If I'm not mistaken, that is how the greatest teacher ever taught, so simpletons like me could understand.
        
        I am very sorry about the passing of your wife. You are in my prayers Brother,
        
        Your Brother,
        
        WS

        • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-09-16 14:14:21

          WS (sorry for length of post here),
          
          I really would not call myself any great intellect, and to be honest, I am uneasy when such words are applied to me. I neither want nor deserve praise of this sort. Mainly, I have a reasonable grasp of English and can write. This in no way means I am especially smart or understand everything. That's why I told the other poster than I didn't understand the point they were making.
          
          Somehow, my words seem to be taken in a way I didn't intend, and people seem to dislike them. It's a situation I don't understand. Let me try to make one thing clear. When I say I don't understand why someone wrote something or other the way they did, that is NOT AT ALL the same as dismissively saying 'I don't understand how you could be so mistaken or misguided to disagree with me'. But, I fear some people are looking at it that way, and that's not what I mean. Please take me at my word without reading more into it. All it means is that I don't understand. Period.
          
          Despite my unease on this subject, I want to address the general idea of intellectuals and experts, since this seems to be a source of friction and conflict, both on this forum and in the world in general. Without doubt, we live in an Information Age, where knowledge and expertise are valued, at least by some. However, the ability to learn and reason, and the opportunity to obtain additional education, are things that vary from one person to another. (That is unfair, but is a fact of life.) This has had the unfortunate side-effect of creating a class distinction. People of greater education are seen as arrogant and dismissive of others, treating "lesser" persons in a demeaning way. People of lesser backgrounds can be fearful and suspicious of the methods, motives and agendas of the "experts", and may believe they try to dominate others for selfish reasons, to make themselves look good and to be looked up to, and so on. The attitudes of both groups are stereotypes, but some of the criticisms underlying them have a valid basis. "Experts" can look down on those they view to be "lesser" as ignorant and prejudiced, while the lesser educated view the "experts" as manipulative liars who are out to harm them. If someone feels they don't have strong-enough skills to engage in a debate with an "expert" whom they happen to disagree with, it only adds to the fear and hostility felt towards those experts. (It will make them feel "out-manned and out-gunned".) That is a bad situation, one that is presently doing real and serious harm to the entire world - a much bigger problem than having feelings ruffled on the Beroean Pickets forum. It's a problem I can't solve. All I can do is to try not to make a bad situation worse. And, at the moment, I don't seem to be doing too well on that score :-(
          
          I see that someone has voted down my post above, for reasons unknown, and I don't understand that, either. Someone dislikes something I said about John 1:1 (I think), but for the life of me I don't really know what that is. I really wish people that vote down posts would say why they disagreed. A vote alone does nothing to foster understanding, which is something that Beroean Pickets is supposedly here to encourage. Despite what you might imagine about my intellect, I really am dependent on plain English to understand, like anyone else. I wish someone would just say in a few sentences what they think I am wrong about so I could reply. However, this particular BP article already has over 125 posts, so it's nearing the point where there is too much back-and-forth in it to easily follow it. I am not completely sure what the argument is even about any more.
          
          Perhaps I wrote something wrong or didn't explain it the way I should. Let me try again, one last time.
          
          I said that real translators do not use ‘dogma’ to guide the translation process. I stand by this statement. That is not what "translation" is. By definition, translation is the accurate conversion of one language to another, using established and accepted rules of grammar and syntax. If "dogma" were a part of the translation process, it would mean that a deliberate bias was used AFTER the translation, in order to corrupt the meaning. Do I deny that such corruption sometimes occurs? No. WT has clearly done this, as have many other translators. But, when they practice this as a matter of course, that is not true translation. Whether that corruption has resulted innocently from preconceived ideas or from more malicious, intentional deception, those practices are NOT those of real translation, but from an inferior version of it.
          
          Since I claim to like plain English, here is my plain English about the trinity and John 1:1. This is what I believe:
          
          1. The trinity doctrine is false. There is one Almighty God, known in the OT as Jehovah, Yahweh or YHWH.
          2. Jesus is not "God". He never was, and never will be.
          3. Verses that appear to attribute godhood to Christ are referring to his position of elevated authority, not any equivalence with the almighty God the Father.
          4. Much of the debate over the trinity is caused by the word "god" having more than one meaning. As someone noted, Moses was a "god" to Egypt when it received the ten plagues, because Moses was given authority. That did not make Moses the Almighty God of eternity; he just had authority for a time.
          5. Trinitarians try to say, "no, there are not three gods, there are three persons inside one god". That doesn't help. The Bible never says such a thing exists, nor any concept of the sort. The idea is "discerned" by theologians who see it "implied" in various verses.
          6. I believe the correct translation of John 1:1 is, as the vast consensus of translations show it, "the word was god". In saying this, I in no way change my view that the trinity is false. In my opinion, the "word" is NOT Jesus - not as of the point of time referred to as "in the beginning". Rather, the "word" is the express will and purposes of Almighty God Jehovah/Yahweh. The "word" of God consists of actual words and sentences that were spoken or written to God's people at various times.
          7. There was a time when only that "word", as expressed through angels, prophets and other means, was the way that God made known what he wanted to convey towards mankind. But, when Jesus showed up on earth, he could personify the words of God. In that way, "the word became flesh". The manner that Jesus did this is the same as how John the Baptist, for a short time, went forth as God's "representative". Jesus then replaced John the Baptist as God's representative.
          8. The Bible says that a matter should be confirmed by two or three witnesses. The matter of Jesus being the Christ is so important that there are four witnesses - the four gospels - in addition to all the other testimony of the NT. If John 1:1 is really revealing God as being a three-person Godhead with Christ being one of those 3 persons, it would be an extremely important matter that likewise requires two or three witnesses - and more - and yet this statement is only in John. That violates the Bible's own rules. This fact argues against John 1:1 being any sort of definition of a trinity. On the other hand, the fact that Jesus was sent as God's representative WAS referred to many times in several Bible books, and that DOES conform to the two-or-three witness requirement.
          
          That is certainly not all that could be said on the subject, but it pretty well covers what I think about it. Maybe this will help.

          • Reply by Warp Speed on 2017-09-16 14:43:53

            Hi Robert,
            
            Thanks for your reply. It sounds like you have basically come to the same conclusion as I have about the roles of Jehovah and Jesus. Psalm 133:1 comes to mind.
            
            Christian love,
            
            WS

Comment by Thaddeus on 2017-09-13 21:09:44

Interesting suggestion. I believe I'll give it a try. I'm at the midweek meeting right now, I also have closing prayer. I'm going to conclude the prayer with the words " we offer this prayer in the Name of our Eternal Father, reigning King and Savior, Jesus Christ".
Reckon I'll end up in the infamous "backroom"?

• Reply by Phelps on 2017-09-13 22:49:32

  Por favor cuéntanos como te fue, si creo que vas a estar en el "hellroom"?

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-13 23:57:04

    I don't understand Spanish.

    • Reply by Phelps on 2017-09-14 07:16:44

      Alright ... Although I do not know English, I enjoy all your comments because I have to translate them into my language always ...

• Reply by BrotherNicodemus on 2017-09-13 23:25:14

  Thaddeus. How did your conclusion to the prayer go? I wouldn't think much of it if I heard it. Other than being different than the usual.

  • Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-09-14 00:02:58

    I was pleasantly surprised. No one said anything. Yes, it's certainly different than the usual though I'd dare say most would quickly answer that Jehovah is our Father if asked although the official teaching is that He is not our Father. I honestly expected someone to say something. Maybe they weren't listening? Perhaps I misjudged and all felt it was accurate?
    I'll try it more than once and see what happens.

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-09-15 05:16:51

Hi everyone. As I have not seen any reference to the "friendly settlement in Bulgaria" on this site, I thought I might throw this letter up for examination. Just google "Bulgaria Friendly Settlement JWs" for further information. Sorry it is not much to do with this week's Watchtower Study.

On July 4 2017 we discussed a number of cases in our God's Kingdom Rules book, one of which, in paragraph 13 involved a friendly settlement involving Brother Stefanov in Bulgaria in 2001.
Information found states the following :-
To achieve this and to gain legal recognition in Bulgaria, Jehovah's Witnesses signed a document before the ECHR stating that it does not sanction followers for taking blood transfusions.
The taking of blood transfusions was one of the main issues behind JWs being recognised as a religion.
For Jehovah's witnesses to be recognised as a religion a Watchtower press release dated April 27 1998 stated that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives. Also the letter states ".the terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. Rather, the agreement reflects an increased understanding of the concerns and actions of both parties".
It seems from an interview on Finnish radio in 1998 that a Watchtower representative made the following comment :-
"...this deal by Bulgaria is such that when the European human-rights court gave two weeks ago a decision, that the Bulgarian government must register Jehovah's Witnesses, that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be classified as a destructive sect or religion, so Jehovah's Witnesses do not tell what a particular individual does, so this deal means this, that every individual has a full freedom of conscience to do, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not tell in a centralized way what someone does or does not do. And that's what that deal means."
How is it possible to not change a doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses and yet allow each individual freedom to choose the medical treatment he receives, when taking blood transfusions (knowingly) will be subject to judicial action leading (probably) to disfellowshipping or disassociation.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-15 08:27:25

  It would appear that they are classifying blood transfusion as they do voting in national elections, joining a political party or the military. All such actions are not dealt with by judicial committee. Instead, the elders meet and determine what has transpired, did the individual really vote, or join the army, and then they read an announcement that he is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If called on the carpet by the authorities for this action, they can deny any action taken against the individual stating only that by his actions he chose another path apart for the organization which he is free to do. No one is forced to remain a member of the organization. Of course, what isn't mentioned is that he is treated exactly as if he had been disfellowshipped.
  
  Disassociation is a legal distinction created to avoid running afoul of secular laws while enforcing the ultimate authority of the organization. To date it seems to have been a successful ploy, but the growing awareness of the community due to the internet makes me think its days are numbered.

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2017-09-16 08:55:58

Meliti, what was upsetting was not the fact that someone can be cut off for having a blood transfusion, but the deceptive way it appears to have been done in order to get past the situation in Bulgaria, whereby WT implied everyone could have a free choice in the matter, with no consequences, and then to have the nerve to call it a friendly settlement.
Please correct me if I have got this wrong.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-09-16 09:54:36

  You are quite right. This is just one more example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees taking place within the Organization.

Comment by kyaecker on 2017-09-17 15:02:31

I found it interesting (and sad) that in this article about showing praise to Jehovah they did not mention a thing about his son. They have us all running in a loop in hopes we don't really find out what's going on. Our talk today was showing honor to Jesus Christ the head of the congregation. But then this was supplanted by giving us the thought that he installed the Faithful and Discreet slave to be our leaders. To follow their direction, the elder direction etc. when you get down to it, they just looped it all back to Jehovah's organization. Like Christ is just a figurehead or something. Just amazing.

Comment by “May He…Give Success to All Your Plans” | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-09-17 18:07:24

[…] the Governing Body faithful to the Christ.  In last week’s study we saw that they emphasized Jehovah 53 times but failed to give praise to Jesus even once!  Is […]