Jehovah's Witnesses are proud when a child dies because of refusing blood.

 

https://jwvictims.org/2016/07/06/jehovahs-witness-governing-body-member-applauds-boy-who-died-refusing-a-blood-transfusion/

CHRIST’S BODILY RESURRECTION ‘I have power to take it again’ Jn 10:18

CHRIST’S BODILY RESURRECTION ‘I have power to take it again’ John 10:18

Watchtower Teaching: ‘Jesus was raised to life as an invisible spirit. He did not take up again that body in which he had been killed . . .’ ‘Let your Name be sanctified.’ (p.266).

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus’ body was disposed of by God.

The NWT mistranslates I Peter 3:18 as ‘being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit’ to teach merely a spiritual resurrection of Christ.

Bible Teaching: I Peter 3:18 refers to when Christ died. His Spirit went and preached to spirits in prison (v. 19,20). After three days, Christ’s physical body was raised.

I Peter 3:18 (KJV) correctly reads: ‘being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.’

Which Scriptures best teach Christ’s bodily resurrection?

1. ‘They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.’ (v.37) He said unto them, ‘Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.’ (Luke 24:37, 39)

Notice that the resurrected Christ says here that:

(1) He is not a spirit;

(2) His resurrection body has flesh and bones;

(3) His physical hands and feet are proof of His physical resurrection;

Jesus is trying to convince them that He, ‘I myself’ has a permanent physical body which still had the nail scars in His hands and feet. This is opposite to the WT teaching that Christ’s body was disposed of and that He became only a spirit. If the WT claim was correct, then Jesus would be deceiving the disciples here in showing them His body.

2. ‘Then saith he to Thomas, . . . reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.’ (John 20:27)

Here Jesus says that He has a physical side that He challenges Thomas to touch.

3. ‘Neither did his flesh see corruption.’ - Acts 2:30,31

Notice the following:

a) God promised David that ‘according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ’ to sit on his throne.’ (v.30). This is a bodily resurrection of Christ, not spiritual. The NWT omits this because of its corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek text. Well over 38 manuscripts have it.

b) ‘neither did his flesh see corruption’ (v.31) means that Christ’s body did not decay.

Why? Because Jesus was raised from the dead in a material, fleshly body.

4. ‘I will raise it up . . . he spake of the temple of his body.’ - John 2:19-21

‘Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (v.19). But he spake of the temple of his body.’ (v.21)

Jesus here promised that He Himself would raise up His own body after three days.

Notice how Jesus uses the word ‘body’ meaning a bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection.

5. Christ promises to eat of the fruit of the vine in the Kingdom. Only a body can eat.

‘I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come.’(Luke 22:18)

Jesus here showed that his resurrected body would be able to eat and drink even in the Kingdom of God. Notice that a non-material spirit cannot eat and drink. Jesus promised the disciples in Luke 22:30 ‘that ye may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom.’

Question: If Jesus expected to become an immaterial spirit, why would He promise the disciples that they would eat and drink with Christ at His table in His Kingdom?

6. Christ ate a broiled fish and a honeycomb in front of them. Luke 24:41,42.

7. ‘he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies’. Rom. 8:11

As Christ’s body was raised physically from the dead, so shall our mortal bodies be raised.

8. His resurrection body could ‘breathe on them’(John 20:22). A spirit cannot breathe, can it?

9. ‘His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives...’ Zechariah 14:4

A spirit does not have feet. Only a physical body has feet as Jesus has at His second coming.

10. ‘One shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands?’ Zechariah 13:6

Question: How can a non-material spirit have wounds in his hands which can be observed?

11. The resurrected, glorified Christ touched John, laying his right hand on him. Rev. 1:17

Watchtower Objection: JWs quote I Corinthians 15:44,50 to support their claim that Jesus was raised from the dead as a spirit creature:

a) ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.’ (v.44)

b) ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.’ (v.50). JWs claim that Jesus must have had a spiritual resurrection, because flesh-and-blood bodies cannot exist in heaven.

They claim that mortality and corruption belong to the fleshly body.

Bible Teaching:

a) The Greek word for body, ‘soma’ (4983), always means a material body, an organised whole made up of parts, when used of a person (Zodhiates, NT Word Study,p.1358). The spiritual

body in I Cor.15:44 is not an immaterial body, but a supernatural, spirit-dominated body.

It is a body directed by the spirit, as opposed to a body under the dominion of the flesh.

There are no exceptions to Paul using ‘soma’ for a material body.

Paul even refers to a believer as a ‘spiritual’ man who judges all things (I Cor. 2:15), yet Paul did not mean an immaterial invisible man with no physical body.

He meant a spirit-controlled man with a flesh and blood body.

QUESTION: In I Corinthians 2:15 (‘He that is spiritual judgeth all things’), is Paul discussing an invisible spirit creature or a material, flesh-and-blood human? Can you see that being ‘spiritual’ does not demand a non-material body? The same is true in I Corinthians 15:44.

b) Key: In v.50 ‘flesh and blood’ is an idiom meaning that mortal, perishable, earth-bound humans, as we are now, cannot have a place in God’s glorious, heavenly Kingdom.

c) ‘this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.’v.53

Nothing is taken away from us (materialness). Instead immortality is ‘put on’ or added to us.

Question: Don’t the words ‘put on’ mean adding something to humanity (that is immortality), not taking away something from humanity (our material body)?

Conclusion: Since Christ’s resurrected body could eat, drink, breathe (John 20:22), show His hands and feet with scars (Luke 24:40), be touched, and have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), it is certain that this body was a material body. This is especially true since Jesus corrected the disciples’ misconception that they had seen a spirit (Luke 24:37).

For the JWs to say that a body is not a body, is their last resort of redefining common words.

Reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper.   http://www.keithpiper.org/

Dean. www.calvarystudy.info

http://calvary-study.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-53GaMT9JMtMPzukkeD6MA

Psalm 110:1 ‘The Lord (YHWH3068) said to my Lord (Adonai136) sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’

Psalm 110:1 ‘The Lord (YHWH3068) said to my Lord (Adonai136) sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’

Watchtower teaching: JWs say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse and since the ‘Lord’ is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be Jehovah God Almighty.

In Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the ‘Lord’ referred to by David in this Psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but the one Jehovah speaks to.

Bible Teaching: This verse proves the deity of Christ.

Question 1: Christ asks the Pharisees, ‘Whose Son is he (Christ)?’ regarding the deity of the Messiah. (Matthew 22:42)

Answer: The Pharisees reply, ‘The son of David’. Their answer was correct but incomplete. II Samuel 7:12-16 shows the Messiah to be the human son of David.

Psalm 110:1 shows the human Messiah also to be God (Adonai), a fact that Christ wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge. Christ anticipated the Pharisees’ half-answer.

That’s why Christ then asks a question regarding Psalm 110:1.

Question 2: ‘The LORD (YHWH 3068) said unto my Lord (Adonai 136), sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. If David then call him (Messiah, Christ, Son of David) Lord (Adonai 136), how is he (Adonai=God) his (David’s) son?’(Matt 22:44,45)

Answer: Here the first person of the Trinity (God the Father) invites the second person of

the Trinity (God the Son) to sit at His right hand.

It seems odd that David would call his own son ‘My Lord’ (Adonai, a title used exclusively of God). The Messiah would be David’s son, but He would also be David’s God. He would be both God and man.

Question 3: Jesus drove the point home to the Pharisees by asking,  ‘If David then call him Lord (Adonai, Deity), how is he his son?’ (Matthew 22:45)

Answer: The Pharisees should have replied that ‘David called his son Lord because He is God as well as man.’ But they would then be trapped into allowing Christ to be the Messiah, being both man and God. The Pharisees realised their dilemma, so they refused to answer.

Key: Psalm 110:1 proves the undiminished deity of Jesus Christ, because the same word used for ‘Lord’ (Adonai) in Psalm 110:1 of Jesus Christ (Adonai the Son) is also used of the Father (Adonai the Father) many times in Scripture, such as:

1) ‘Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord (Adonai) God (YHWH 3068)’. (Exodus 23:17).

2) ‘For the Lord (YHWH 3068) your God (Elohim 430) is God (Elohim) of gods, and Lord (Adonai 136) of lords, a great God (El 410), a mighty, and a terrible’(Deuteronomy 10:17)

3) ‘Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord (Adonai 136) of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan’. (Joshua 3:11)

4) ‘And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord (Adonai) God (YHWH)...’ (Joshua 7:7)

5) ‘I prayed therefore unto the Lord (YHWH 3068), and said, O Lord (Adonai) God (YHWH 3069), destroy not thy people . . .’ (Deuteronomy 9:26)

Other references to Lord (Adonai136) God (YHWH) are:

Deuteronomy 3:24; Exodus 34:23; 15:17; 4:10,11; 5:22; Judges 6:22; 13:8; 16:28;

II Samuel 7:18,28,29; I Kings 2:26; 8:53; Psalm 68:20; 69:6; 71:5,16; 73:28; 109:21; 141:8;

Isaiah 3:15; 28:16; 22:5,12,14,15; 25:8; 40:10; 48:16; 49:22; 50:4; 52:4; 56:8 etc.

Ask: Did you know that ‘Adonai’ (Lord) used of Jesus Christ in Psalm 110:1 is also used of the Father in Exodus 23:17; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 3:11?

Ask: Can you see that Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-45 was that the Messiah (Christ) would be David’s son as well as David’s God (Adonai)?

Question: Does ‘Adonai’ mean Jehovah God?

Answer: Yes, for these reasons:

1) It is linked together with ‘YHWH’ (Exodus 23:17).

2) Jehovah calls himself ‘Adonai’ in Isaiah 8:7, ‘The LORD (YHWH) spake also unto me again saying:. . . Now therefore behold the Lord (Adonai) bringeth up ...’

3) WE Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of OT and NT Words, p.140 states that ‘Adonai’ applies to God:

The JW claim that Jesus cannot be God because Jehovah spoke to Him, is faulty because we who are from the finite earthly realm cannot assume that God who is of infinite heavenly realms must fit into our earthly logic patterns with which we are familiar. God’s ways aregreatly above our ways. For example, in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’

(18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33).

Note: JWs often mockingly ask the question when Jesus prays to Father: ‘Does God talk to Himself?’ Yes He does, as in Genesis 18:17-19 where God asks Himself a question: ‘And Jehovah said, Am I keeping covered from Abraham what I am doing?’ Later in v. 22 Jehovah separates.

Hence the Father can talk to the Son, with the Son still being 100% God.

Ask: If you reject the Trinity because you can’t understand it, then how do you explain how a brown cow by eating green grass gives white milk?

THE 144,000 ANOINTED CLASS and OTHER SHEEP

THE 144,000 ANOINTED CLASS and OTHER SHEEP

Watchtower Teaching:

They claim that only 144,000 JWs go to heaven, as the ‘Anointed class’.(Rev. 7:4 & 14:1-3).

They claim that all other JWs are part of God’s ‘other sheep’, and will live forever on a paradise earth.

They claim that only the 144,000 are born again as sons of God to share in the heavenly Kingdom. 

These will have a spiritual existence in heaven, not a physical resurrection, as they claim that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom’.

JWs teach that only a few enter this spiritual Kingdom as a ‘little flock’ of believers (Luke 12:32).

JWs claim that this 144,000 began with the apostles and was filled in 1935.

The WT claims that the 144,000 will rule from heaven over the great crowd on earthly paradise (Rev 7:9), where the earth will remain forever (Ecclesiastes 1:4; Psalm 104:5).

The great crowd (Revelation 7:9) is the same as the ‘other sheep’ of John 10:16, who hope to survive Armageddon and enjoy Christ’s rule on a perfect earth.

Salvation for both classes is by works of witnessing or distributing WT literature door to door.

Consider these verses the WT uses and the correct Bible replies:

1. Luke 12:32 - The ‘Little Flock’ as the 144,000 ‘Anointed class’

Watchtower teaching: ‘Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give

you the Kingdom.’ JWs claim that only this group go to heaven . WT teaches that Old

Testament saints such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and prophets are not part of this ‘little

flock’, but are part of the ‘other sheep’ of John 10:16, the ‘great crowd’ of Revelation 7:9.

Bible Teaching:

1) The WT interpretation of Luke 12:32 violates the context. Luke 12:22-34 shows Jesus

speaking to His disciples on earth in the first century, not to another 144,000 anointed

class that might develop from 30 AD to 1935. JWs are reading something into the

passage that is not there.

2) Elsewhere Jesus referred to His disciples as sheep in His flock:

(a) Matthew 10:16 - ‘I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves’

(b) Matthew 26:31 - ‘I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.’ (Spoken to the disciples before His crucifixion.)

Jesus called His disciples a ‘little flock’ because they were a small, defenceless group that could be easily preyed upon. They need not to worry because Christ would protect them.

Ask: In Luke 12:22, who is Jesus speaking to? (His 12 disciples)

Ask: Where in Luke 12:32 does it say that the little flock is the 144,000 of Rev 7:14?

Ask: How do you know that the 144,000 was completed in 1935?

3) Jesus never once restricted the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven to 144,000 people.

Ask: Can you think of any verse in the Bible where Jesus limits the citizenship of heaven

to 144,000?

4) I John 5:1 ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.’. The words

‘whosoever believeth’ are open ended, including everybody who believes, not just

144,000.

Ask: Doesn’t the ‘whosoever’ in I John 5:1 include everyone and not just 144,000?

5) The Watchtower teaching that Old Testament saints are not part of the heavenly class is wrong, as seen from Hebrews 11:13-16 where Abel, Enoch, Noah and Abraham all sought a heavenly country (v.16), not an earthly one.

6) Matthew 8:11 shows Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sitting down in the Kingdom of heaven.

Ask: Who is right here, the Bible or the Watchtower?

Revelation 7:4 and 14:1-3 - Are the 144,000 in the ‘anointed class’?

Watchtower Teaching: The WT claims that the 144,000 are a literal number of people, but that  12,000 people from each of the 12 tribes of Israel are not literally national Israel.

We ask,‘Why would 144,000 be literal, but the 12,000 in each tribe be figurative?’

WT reply:

a) There never was a tribe of Joseph in the OT, even though it is mentioned in Rev. 7:4-8;

b) The tribes of Ephraim and Dan are not included in Revelation 7;

c) The Levites, not reckoned as an OT tribe, are mentioned as a tribe in Revelation 7.

Bible Teaching:

1) Ask: Why does the WT switch interpretation in Revelation 7:4 from literal (144,000 as a precise number of people) to figurative in the last part of the verse where they say the 12,000 do not represent precise numbers of people from each of Israel’s 12 tribes?

2) Women are excluded from this group of 144,000 in Revelation 14:4 ‘These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.’ Masculine pronouns used show that this group are all men.

3) Heaven awaits all who believe in Christ, not just the 144,000. Check these verses:

1. Philippians 3:20 ‘For our conversation is in heaven; . . .’

2. Colossians 3:1 ‘Seek those things which are above.’

3. Hebrews 3:1 ‘Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’

4. Hebrews 12:22 ‘But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . .’

5. II Corinthians 5:1 ‘We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved (physical death),we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’

6. Colossians 1:5 ‘For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel.’

7. Hebrews 11:16 ‘But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly . . .’

8. Hebrews 10:34 ‘Knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.’

9. I Peter 1:4 ‘To an inheritance . . . reserved in heaven for you.’

10. Revelation 19:1 ‘I heard a great voice of much people in heaven.’

11. Matthew 6:20 ‘Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.’

12. John 12:26 ‘. . . where I am (heaven), there shall also my servant be.’

13. John 14:3 ‘I go and prepare a place for you...that where I am (heaven), there ye may be also.’

Key: Making a difference between those with an earthly and heavenly destiny has no warrant in the Bible anywhere.

1. God has chosen the poor of this world who are rich in faith to inherit the kingdom, not just the 144,000. ‘Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him.’ (James 2:5). There is no distinction made here between 2 classes, only the poor of this world,(more than 144,000).

2. All who believe in Christ receive God’s righteousness. ‘The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.’ (Romans 3:22)

3. John 10:16 ‘there shall be one fold (flock), and one shepherd.’ - not two folds, one on earth and one in heaven, but ONE FLOCK (NWT).

Ask: How do you reconcile WT teaching of two flocks (WT: one earthly and one heavenly) with John 10:16 which says that all believers will be together in one flock (NWT)?

Question 1: ‘Are the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelation 7:14 literal or figurative?

Nowhere else in the Bible are references to the 12 tribes of Israel figurative. They are always a literal, ethnic group.

Ask: Can you see that the WT interpretation of Revelation 7:4 goes against common usage of literal ‘tribe’ and literal ‘Israel’?

Question 2: Why are the OT tribes of Dan and Ephraim omitted in Revelation 7?

The OT has 20 varying lists of tribes of Israel.

a) Dan’s tribe was omitted because they were guilty of idolatry, and were largely wiped out. (Judges 18:1,30). Dan became one of two centres of idolatry in the Northern Kingdom (I Kings 12:29).

b) Ephraim is omitted from Revelation 7, while Joseph and Manasseh are included. Why? Ephraim was also involved in idolatry and pagan worship (Judges 17; Hosea 4:17).

Ask:

1) What is the Watchtower’s position on idolatry?

2) If the tribes of Dan and Ephraim were guilty of idolatry, do you think that these tribes should be listed in Revelation 7 as God’s servants? (No).

3) So you agree that there is a good reason for omitting Ephraim and Dan in Revelation 7?

4) Can you see that the Watchtower’s figurative interpretation of the 12 tribes is wrong, because it is based on the rightful omission of Dan and Ephraim?

Question 3: Why was the tribe of Levi included in the Revelation 7 list?

In the Old Testament, the tribe of Levi were not part of the 12 tribes because of their priestly separation under the Mosaic Law. Now that their tribe’s priestly functions have ceased with the first coming of Christ, our Great High Priest, there is no further need for their services as priests. Hence there is no reason for keeping them separate from the other tribes any longer.

They will be properly included in the tribal listing in Revelation 7 and 14.

Therefore the WT’s view of the 144,000 as a specially anointed class is twisting of scripture.

Note: JWs insist that the 12,000 from each tribe of Israel are figurative or symbolic.

Question: How is it that the sum of 12 symbolic numbers equals a literal 144,000? How can 12 times a symbolic 12,000 equal a literal 144,000? The total should also be symbolic, according to their reasoning, to be consistent. 

Their interpretation again gives a contradiction.

3. John 10:16 - The ‘Other Sheep’

'hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’

Watchtower Teaching: JWs believe in two classes of people: the 144,000 heavenly class, and the ‘other sheep’, great crowd class who will receive eternal life and live forever on an earthly paradise.

Bible Teaching: The ‘other sheep’ in John 10:16 refers to Gentile believers, as opposed to Jews who are the ‘lost sheep of Israel’. (Matthew 10:6 and 15:24).

The one flock and one shepherd of John 10:16 agrees with Galatians 3:28 with ‘neither Jew nor Greek . . . ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’

All believers will dwell together as ‘one flock’ under ‘one shepherd’.

There will not be one flock of believers in heaven, and one flock of believers on earth.

Ask: How do you reconcile WT teaching of two classes, ,when the Bible clearly states that God’s people are one in Christ, and are part of ‘one flock’ under‘one shepherd’?

4. Revelation 7:9 - The ‘Great Crowd’ as the ‘Other Sheep

‘After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude (‘great crowd’ in NWT), which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb . . .’ (Revelation 7:9)

Watchtower Teaching: JWs teach that in 1935 God stopped calling people to a heavenly hope with Christ. They say that in 1935 he began gathering a secondary class of believers, outside the body of Christ, who would live forever on earth in the flesh, as the great crowd of Revelation 7:9-17.

This is one of the WT’s major doctrines, because it is the basis for convincing JWs that:

1) They cannot become members of the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:27)

2) They cannot be born again (John 3:3)

3) They cannot go to heaven (II Timothy 4:18)

4) They cannot be baptized by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13)

5) They are not entitled to share in the communion loaf and cup (I Corinthians 10:16-17)

6) They are not in Christ’s New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24)

7) They cannot be fully justified by faith in Christ (Romans 3:26)

Hence the WT uses this ‘1935 Doctrine’ to rob its followers of the NT relationship with God.

Ask: Where does the Bible teach that entrance to the Christian congregation would be closed in 1935, with a secondary great crowd being gathered after that? Nowhere!

They can find no Biblical support for the 1935 date.

They refer to Rutherford’s ‘flash of light’ on 31 May 1935 at the Washington JW Convention.

Note: The verses JWs cite actually locate the great crowd as ‘before the throne and before the Lamb’ (Revelation 7:9), ‘before the throne of God’ (7:15), and ‘in his temple’ (7:15), all heavenly locations, rather than on the earth as the WT teaches. 

This is similar to the wording of the only other mention of the ‘great crowd’ in Revelation 19:1 ‘I heard . . . a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven’ (NWT).

Ask: Where is this great crowd? In heaven! Emphasize that the WT has taught them wrongly. Jesus in John 17:20-24 prayed that all His present and future disciples would ‘be with me where I am’ in heaven regardless of whether they were saved before or after 1935.

Consider the following conversation with a JW:

Q1: You: I’ve heard that you believe that you are part of a great crowd who will receive everlasting life on earth, instead of going to heaven. Is that true? Can you show me the Great Crowd in the Bible?

JW:Yes, it is in Revelation 7:9,‘look! a great crowd...before the throne and before the Lamb’

Q2: You: But Revelation 7:15 places the great crowd before the throne of God in heaven, doesn’t it? ‘...they render him sacred service day and night in his temple’.(NWT).

JW: Well, the throne of God is in heaven, but the great crowd is on the earth. All creation stands before the throne of God.

Q3: You:Would you read Rev 19:1 in your Bible to see where it locates the great crowd?

JW: It says, ‘After these things I heard a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven.’

Q4: You: A great crowd where?

JW: The great crowd is on earth.

Q5: You: Is that what the verse says? Read it again.

JW: It says heaven, but the great crowd is on earth.

Q6: You: How can you say that the great crowd is on earth, when your Bible plainly says ‘a great crowd in heaven’?

Conclusion:

Ask: Where in the Bible does it say that the great crowd is exempt from heaven?

Ask: Where does it say that the great crowd is relegated to live on earth?

Ask: Since the great crowd serves God in His temple (7:15), where is God’s temple located?

Answer: Revelation 11:19 and 14:17 say ‘the temple which is in heaven

Reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper.   http://www.keithpiper.org/

Dean. www.calvarystudy.info

http://calvary-study.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-53GaMT9JMtMPzukkeD6MA

John 17:3 ‘know thee the only true God’

John 17:3 ‘know thee the only true God’

The Watchtower says that, because the Father is called ‘the only true God’, then Jesus cannot be the true God.

The context is Jesus as a man, praying the great high priestly prayer to the Father, and as such it was proper for the man Christ Jesus to call the Father ‘the only true God’.

Christ would not have said this if it was spoken from the viewpoint of His deity.

Ask: Since Jesus being called our only Lord (Jude 4 NWT) does not exclude the Father (Matthew 11:25) and the Holy Spirit from being called Lord, why must the Father being called ‘the only true God’ exclude the Son and Holy Spirit from being called God?

Ask: According to John 17:3, how many true Gods are there? (One).

Do you agree that whatever is not true is false?

If there is only one true God, all other gods must be false gods.

In John 1:1 NWT says that Jesus is a god, right? Is Jesus a true God or a false god?

He cannot be a false god, can He, since that would mean John was guilty of falsely honouring Jesus as a god. Therefore Jesus must be a true God.

But Jehovah is the only true God. Therefore Jesus must be Jehovah.

Reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper.   http://www.keithpiper.org/

Dean. www.calvarystudy.info

http://calvary-study.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-53GaMT9JMtMPzukkeD6MA

John 14:28 - ‘The Father is greater than I’.

 John 14:28 - ‘The Father is greater than I’.

Watchtower teaching: The JW book Let God be True, 1946, p.110 says that Jehovah is greater than Jesus in his office and person. Jehovah they say is intrinsically greater than Jesus, and hence Jesus cannot be God Almighty. The JW book Reasoning from the Scriptures, p.410, says, ‘The fact that Jesus is lesser than Jehovah proves that He cannot be God in the same sense that Jehovah is’.

The Bible Teaching: In John 14:28 Jesus is not speaking about His nature or being (Christ had earlier said in John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one’), but about His lowly position of incarnation as a man. The Athanasian Creed says that Christ is ‘equal to the Father as touching His Godhood, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood’. Christ was here contrasting His human humiliation, shame, suffering, rejection, opposition by enemies, and soon crucifixion, with the Father’s majesty, glory and worship by the angels in heaven.

Key: Jesus said, ‘The Father is greater (Greek: meizon) than I’, not ‘The Father is better (Greek: kreitton) than I’. ‘Greater’ refers to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), not to a greater nature. If the word ‘better’ had been used, this would indicate that the Father had a better nature than Jesus.

i) The distinction is made clear in Hebrews 1:4 where ‘better’ (Gk: kreitton) is used to teach Jesus’ superiority over the angels in His nature and position.

ii) This difference between ‘greater’ and ‘better’ is seen in this example:

‘The President of a country is greater (Greek: meizon) in position than his people, but as a human being he is not better (Greek: kreitton) in nature than his people’.

iii) Jesus in becoming a man, not only took on a lower position than the Father, but also took on a lower position than the angels. ‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death’. (Hebrews 2:9)

QUESTION:‘Do you agree that a President is greater in position but not better in nature than his people?’

QUESTION: ‘In view of greater (meaning higher in position) and better (meaning higher in nature), is it not clear that in John 14:28 Jesus is speaking of the Father’s temporary higher position and not his higher nature than Jesus?

QUESTION: How did Christ make Himself of no reputation when He became a man? (Phil. 2:6-9)

1. He veiled His preincarnate glory in order to dwell among men, but never surrendered His deity or divine glory. On the Mount Transfiguration He allowed His glory to shine briefly. If Christ had not veiled His glory, mankind would not have been able to look at

Him. When John saw His glory on Patmos he said, ‘I fell at His feet as dead’. (Rev. 1:17).

2. He submitted to a voluntary non use of some of His divine attributes (on some occasions) in order to achieve His objectives. He never surrendered His attributes, but He did voluntarily cease using some of them on earth. Jesus showed His divine attributes of:

i) omniscience (‘He knew all men’ John 2:24; 16:30;‘Lord thou knowest all things.’ 21:17

ii) omnipresence (John 3:13 ‘the Son of man which is in heaven’).

As God He was everywhere at once, but as man He chose to walk there.

iii) omnipotence (Matthew 28:18 ‘all power is given unto me’.)

3. He condescended to take on the likeness (form, appearance) of man and the form of a servant. (Phil 2:7). His becoming a man involved gaining human attributes (subject to weakness, pain, sorrow and temptation), but not giving up his divine attributes.

Conclusion: ‘The Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28) said Jesus from the vantage point of His incarnation as a man. This verse relates to Christ’s voluntary subordination to the Father to accomplish His work on earth.‘Greater than’ refers to His greater position not His nature.

Reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper.   http://www.keithpiper.org/

Dean. www.calvarystudy.info

http://calvary-study.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-53GaMT9JMtMPzukkeD6MA

Greek Scholars & The Watchtower: Julius Mantey

Greek Scholars & The Watchtower: Julius Mantey

Julius Mantey was arguably the greatest Greek scholar of the 20th century. He was co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, a Greek grammar that was in use for half a century to teach Greek in prominent schools. Along with other Greek grammar book authors A. T. Robertson and Daniel Wallace, Mantey disagreed with the Watchtower’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses’) book, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). For several years, Mantey was quoted in a footnote to the NWT, with the Watchtower trying to use Mantey’s grammar book to support their view of the bible. Mantey took offense, and wrote the letter below.

The significance of this letter is that it is from a respected author of a Greek grammar. We live in a free country, and Wathtower supporters have, and likely will continue, to disagree with any point they desire.

I am not in a position to defend Mantey; a scholar of his caliber does not need a defense from me. I am not a language scholar, do not pretend to be one, nor will I hide my ignorance of the languages. Concerning grammar and translation, too many arguments are made from those who should have remained silent, and I do not wish to contribute to the problem by adding my words to the conversation.

But I know enough to use the tools and quote the scholars. Of the three Greek grammars I mentioned, all specifically disagree with the NWT. The Watchtower can protest all they want, but their disagreement is with the unified opinion of all the language scholars. If the Watchtower ever publishes a Greek text that is used in accredited schools to teach Greek, or can find one that is in agreement with them, they will be taken seriously. Until then, they will not. Below is a top-tier scholar’s view of the Watchtower and their book.

Anyone can write a book claiming to know what they are talking about, but this does not make them true. The only objective reference we have for language is the recognized grammars. If the Watchtower claims all of the grammars are wrong, they have made a self-refuting statement.

Julius R. Mantey
414 Palmette Road
New Port Richey, FL 33552
July 11, 1974

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
117 Adams St.
Brooklyn
New York 11201

Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.” There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply at “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. Your quotation from p.148 (3) was in a paragraph under the heading: “With the Subject in a Copulative sentence.” Two examples occur there to illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these examples.” But we made no statement in the paragraph about the predicate except that , “as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos.” And isn’t that the opposite of what your translation “a god” infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: “without the article theos signifies divine essence . . . theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature.” Our intepretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: “What God was, the Word was”; and with that of Barclay: “The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God”, which you quoted in your letter to Caris.

(2) Since Colwell’s and Harner’s articles in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly  nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 “The Word was a god”. Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.

(3) Your quotation of Colwell’s rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of the his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: “A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article.”

(4) Prof Harner, vol. 92:1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell’s research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended the gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated “a god”. Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

(5) your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and “not just someone’s rule book”. We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the “sacred text” differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistrnalstion of ego eimi as “I have been” in John 8:58. The addition of “for all time” in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes ktiseos “beginning of the creation” when he is magnified as “the creator of all things” (John 1:2 and as “equal with God” (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived in a human body here on earth. Your quotation of “The father is greater than I am” (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil. 2:6-8. When Jesus said that, he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after “today” in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) — “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” 2 Cor. 5:8, “to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.” These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. Cf. Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1:10.

The aforementioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God’s Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote from the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.

Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance in the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my “rule”. On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: “All rights reserved — no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher.” If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.

If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Respectfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey

Greek Scholars & The Watchtower: Julius Mantey

Greek Scholars & The Watchtower: Julius Mantey

Julius Mantey was arguably the greatest Greek scholar of the 20th century. He was co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, a Greek grammar that was in use for half a century to teach Greek in prominent schools. Along with other Greek grammar book authors A. T. Robertson and Daniel Wallace, Mantey disagreed with the Watchtower’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses’) book, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). For several years, Mantey was quoted in a footnote to the NWT, with the Watchtower trying to use Mantey’s grammar book to support their view of the bible. Mantey took offense, and wrote the letter below.

The significance of this letter is that it is from a respected author of a Greek grammar. We live in a free country, and Wathtower supporters have, and likely will continue, to disagree with any point they desire.

I am not in a position to defend Mantey; a scholar of his caliber does not need a defense from me. I am not a language scholar, do not pretend to be one, nor will I hide my ignorance of the languages. Concerning grammar and translation, too many arguments are made from those who should have remained silent, and I do not wish to contribute to the problem by adding my words to the conversation.

But I know enough to use the tools and quote the scholars. Of the three Greek grammars I mentioned, all specifically disagree with the NWT. The Watchtower can protest all they want, but their disagreement is with the unified opinion of all the language scholars. If the Watchtower ever publishes a Greek text that is used in accredited schools to teach Greek, or can find one that is in agreement with them, they will be taken seriously. Until then, they will not. Below is a top-tier scholar’s view of the Watchtower and their book.

Anyone can write a book claiming to know what they are talking about, but this does not make them true. The only objective reference we have for language is the recognized grammars. If the Watchtower claims all of the grammars are wrong, they have made a self-refuting statement.

Julius R. Mantey
414 Palmette Road
New Port Richey, FL 33552
July 11, 1974

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
117 Adams St.
Brooklyn
New York 11201

Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.” There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply at “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

C. Your quotation from p.148 (3) was in a paragraph under the heading: “With the Subject in a Copulative sentence.” Two examples occur there to illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these examples.” But we made no statement in the paragraph about the predicate except that , “as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos.” And isn’t that the opposite of what your translation “a god” infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: “without the article theos signifies divine essence . . . theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature.” Our intepretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: “What God was, the Word was”; and with that of Barclay: “The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God”, which you quoted in your letter to Caris.

(2) Since Colwell’s and Harner’s articles in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly  nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 “The Word was a god”. Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.

(3) Your quotation of Colwell’s rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of the his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: “A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article.”

(4) Prof Harner, vol. 92:1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell’s research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended the gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated “a god”. Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

(5) your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and “not just someone’s rule book”. We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the “sacred text” differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistrnalstion of ego eimi as “I have been” in John 8:58. The addition of “for all time” in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes ktiseos “beginning of the creation” when he is magnified as “the creator of all things” (John 1:2 and as “equal with God” (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived in a human body here on earth. Your quotation of “The father is greater than I am” (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil. 2:6-8. When Jesus said that, he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after “today” in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) — “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” 2 Cor. 5:8, “to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.” These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. Cf. Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1:10.

The aforementioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God’s Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote from the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.

Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance in the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my “rule”. On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: “All rights reserved — no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher.” If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.

If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Respectfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey