Is it Clearly a Bible Teaching 06/19/09

As an introduction, my family has felt the prompting of the Holy Spirit to witness to someone in need of the truth of the gospel. She came to us tring to share her message from the Watchtower Society. Since last October, we have been meeting searching for truth. Out of respect for her existing beliefs, we use only the Watchtower publications and those they have allowed their members to read to help her and her companions see the truth of the gospel. At this time, I would like to post some of those notes hoping they may be of value to other seekers or other Society members brave enough to search for truth.

To bring you up to speed, We began working through their "What does the Bible Really Teach" publication. For several chapters, we showed where the New World Translation has either retranslated God's word, or added to it in order to create a plausible case for their beliefs. However, they have always been insistent on discovering the truth of the trinity together. SO we started studying "Should you Believe in the Trinity" three weeks ago. So far, there has been some enlightening moments.

When I pointed out that most of their quotes contained elipses and that the text within the elipses negated the claim they were making, they dismissed this by stating" the author was just trying to make the point that different people have different opinions. However, I think it is always important to express someone's opinion as they stated it. When I pointed out that most of the "scholars" they were using to refute the trinity also refuted many of the central beliefs of the Society, they also stated that they were sure that was isolated to only possible one or two of the authors. However, a simple exploration of almost all of the scholars will reveal that they are anti-Christian. Below is a summary thus far.

Should you believe in it?

This first section basically poses the question, "If there are two systems of belief which one should you choose. " It quotes anti-Christian authors as stating that the trinity isn't correct. However, that is like asking an evolutionist for his view on creationism. The results are predictable.

 
 

The statement is made that if the trinity were genuine, there should be no question. This implies that all truths create no question to anyone. The logic is ludicrous. Gravity is fairly straightforward, yet thousands fall to their death each year.

 
 

The challenge is made that "our entire future hinges on our true nature of God." This is at the heart of why we are seeking TRUTH.

 
 

Next they create this blasphemy paradox that if you believe in trinity, you blaspheme God and if you don't you blaspheme God.

 
 

As an introduction, this section is just that, a teaser. No real evidence is given

 
 

 
 

How is the Trinity Explained

There is a short explanation of the trinity from the catholic church and the Greek orthodox church

 
 

Beyond the grasp of Human Reason

Continuing in their pursuit of quoting authors out of context, they attempt to back their confusion claim with the Encyclopedia Americana supports the argument. This out of context claim is an embarrassment for the Society when the encyclopedia passage is read in context.

 
 

The article goes on to identify several people who either state or believe the trinity is a "mystery" It is important to note that no scripture is used at this point. The general statement being projected is that all believers in the trinity don't even know what it is, setting the reader up for the next section.

 
 

Not a God of Confusion

This section puts forth the argument that because 1 Cor. 14:33 read out of context states "God is not a God of confusion" and since the trinity is confusing, therefore, the trinity cannot be correct. Of course, we all know that there are numerous doctrines in the Bible that are confusing. By reading the 1 Cor 14 account, we can clearly see that the scripture is in reference to multiple christians speaking in another language at the same time without an interpreter. Hardly a case for "no confusion allowed.

 
 

For example, when I asked to be shown where the 144,000 Society members that will go to heaven is in the bible, I immediately got a response that it was so confusing that it would require several bible studies to understand. So much for the confusion argument.

 
 

The closing argument is that God makes things so simple, a fisherman could understand it. Then they cite numerous verses that attempt to support this dubious claim. Unfortunately, they do not cite the scriptures where the "fishermen couldn't reason out the simplest concepts Jesus was teaching or the times Jesus got angry at their stupidity.

I Love It.

The headline reads "Obama Orders Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending." That's hysterical. After blowing 1.5 TRILLION dollars his first month in office, now he wants to sound frugal. That's about like you and me going out and buying a house worth 1.5 million dollars and telling our kids to cut out electric bill by 30¢ by turning off the bathroom light. Now that's "change we can believe in."

 

Just remember, my friend, you voted for him.

 

Curiosity

2/7/09

I'm just wondering, should a company in financial trouble abandon their contracts? The legal answer is no. The strategic answer is that they should try to renegotiate them. Either way, they have a legal obligation to complete those contracts regardless of whether they make money on them. That is what drives capitalism. Risk. Every time a company enters into an agreement, there is a level of risk on either side that they will come out of the contract unsatisfied. To minimize risks, companies hire teams of lawyers to fashion contracts that attempt to forsee the likely events that would result in a loss. Companies insure against the risk they can't contract away.

When a contract is complete, the company experiences one of two outcomes. First they emerge with more than they entered with. This can be monetary or otherwise. It is called profit. Second, they can emerge with less than they entered with. This is called loss.

This logic is also true of the company's contacts with their employees. The company agrees to exchange a formula of salary benefits and sometimes bonus in exchange for the employee's performance. Sometimes that employee performs far above the expected standard. The company profits. Sometimes the employee's performance is lackluster. The company suffers a loss. But either way, the company is contractually bound to pay the employee their wages. In most states, they, of course, have the right to cancel their contract and fire the employee if they consistently underperform. In like manner, they may also promote a superior employee. But there is little case for paying employees after the work is done whatever the company sees fit to pay them. Unless. Unless there is a preexisting contract as in the case of profit sharing whereby the employee receives a bonus measured on the company's performance. Also in the case of commissions, where the employee is paid in proportion to their performance. But these features are negotiated at the point of hire, not after the work is complete.

Having said all that, why would an ailing company refuse to pay a top management official their contract. Of course, if their stock option or bonus is tied to performance and the company doesn't perform, there is nothing to talk about. But what about the management contract that states that after the first year the employee will be paid a bonus without conditions. If that employee works for the year and is not fired, they have met their obligation in good faith. Failure to pay them is a breach of contract.

I'll be the first middle-class person to jump up and down and cry that it isn't fair that these elite few make so much money. But I also know that if I ever became one of those elite few, I would see things quite differently. I am as confused as to how a baseball player is worth $25 million a year or a CEO worth $55 million a year. But according to the laws of supply and demand, if someone is willing to pay the price, that's all that is necessary.

In the corporate view, when a CEO is appointed and they receive a hefty package, the corporation posts it in an 8-K for all stockholders to see. The stockholders then have the opportunity to vote with their wallet by selling their stock if they believe the investment was a poor one. Likewise, those purchasing the stock going forward have the ability to weigh the asking price against the top management's packages and choose not to invest.

Here’s your “Change” you can believe in.

You voted for him. Now good luck. Keep your obama bumper sticker on your car so I know who fell for the "change" bullshit line and who to blame for the mess my grandkids will have to pay for.

 

"I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less..."

-- Denver

Barak Obama AUGUST 28, 2008

 

"I'll pay for every part of this job-creation agenda by ending this war in Iraq that's costing us billions, closing tax loopholes for corporations, putting a price on carbon pollution, and ending George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

-- Lorain, Ohio

FEBRUARY 24, 2008

 

"Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."

-- Obama's "The Change We Need In Washington"

 

"Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere."

-- Obama's Blueprint for Change

 

"I will always be a strong advocate for a market that is free and open."

-- New York City

SEPTEMBER 17, 2007

 

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

 

$1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years

$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts

$400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons

mass transit ($6 billion) When the spending spree is over, municipalities will be saddled with subsidizing the future budget shortfalls through increased taxes. No public transportation system has ever had a balanced budget.

$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. I guess those 12-20000 car sales will stimulate the automakers economy. But if that is economic stimulus, That banks have a few houses you can have for a song Mr. Obama.

The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million.

There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. Please tell me how this encourages Americans to go back to work.

$54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago

Our New President is Already Hard at Work…

…Promoting the massacre of countless babies on a global scale. There has been a stipulation since Reagan that nongovernment agencies receiving government money can't conduct or promote abortions. Every democrat has repealed the order and every republican has reenacted it saving thousands of lives. You can read the entire order form your commander in chief below:

MEMORANDUM FOR

THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."  The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the "Mexico City Policy" directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.  The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton.  President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted.  Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations.  Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning).  In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law:  (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived.  I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

Worshipping Christ

1/4/2009

In recent discussions with a Jehovah's Witness, the subject of the deity of Christ has continued to be the focus. JWs are careful not to admit to worshipping Jesus. In their belief system, Jesus was the first creation of God, not God himself. According to them, as God's creation, he is not to be worshipped. Of course, I and most of the conscious Christian community emphatically disagree. What follows is my proof texts. In an effort to avoid a circular argument of semantics, I have chosen not to use any of the over 200 references to Christ as Lord unless they are confirmed by OT accounts. This way we don't get entangled in the interpretation of the word Lord. But when it comes to worship, there can be no dispute. God is very clear in Exodus when He says " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;" Therefore, if Jesus is not God, but is in heaven above and we bow down to him, we have clearly broken this command. However, if Jesus is God, then worshipping Him should be part of our natural expression of belief.

SO the logic goes like this. If the Bible tells us to worship Jesus

    And if the Bible is the Word of God

        Then Jesus must be God

Otherwise, we are left with two choices. Either God's word is flawed in which case God is flawed. The Bible is the biggest hoax in the history of man and it never was God's Word and therefore is null and void. Or finally, Jesus is God and meant to be worshipped.

1. Matthew 2:2 the Magi came to worship Jesus when he was born. While this hardly proof that Christ is God, it is the beginning of a series of passages that display man worshipping Jesus in God's inspired Word (2Tim. 3:16) without any indication that this practice is improper. In fact, they clearly brought gifts in an act of worship Mat. 2:11.
   
2. Herod's deception- In Matthew 2, Herod attempts to deceive the Magi into reporting to him the location of Jesus so that he may kill the newborn. In his deception he told the Magi that he wanted to worship Christ. No king would risk being accused of blasphemy if worship of the Christ wasn't acceptable.
   
3. Jesus says in John 5 that "He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the father." That reference in verse 23 doesn't use the word worship. But if God "the father" is the only God, why would he permit honoring anyone but himself unless he is both the father and the son. What other passage can be found in God's word where man is asked to honor an angel?
   
4. Jesus is not an angel- Perhaps the most compelling argument comes at the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews which in itself is significant. Because the Jews would be the first ones to cry "foul" if someone tried to alter the accepted order of worship, what it said to them directly falls under extraordinary scrutiny. It is one thing to preach the good news to a Corinthian pagan and far another to preach Jesus to the Jews. But look at all of chapter one. Clearly, God's Word does not declare that Jesus is the first angel.
   
   1. v.3 "the son is the radiance of God's glory."
      
   2. V. 5 "for to which of the angels did God ever say, you are my son; today I have become your father. This is a rhetorical statement.
      
   3. V. 6b. Let all God's angels worship him. " Here we have angels worshipping Jesus. Why would God allow worship to anything that was not God?
      
   4. V.8 "But about the Son, he says, "Your throne, oh God, will last for ever and ever,…" The JW version has been altered to "But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever and ever," How would God be a throne. The throne is subject to the ruler.
      
   5. V. 10 "In the beginning, Oh Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This is God referring to Jesus using a reference to Psalm 102:24,25 "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years [are] throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. One says the Lord laid the foundations of the earth, the other God. The only way to reconcile this is that they are one and the same. Unless you take the long road by trying to explain that God is taking credit for Jesus work in the Psalms. Why would he do that? Here's the JW versions
      

      v. 10 NWT And: "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands
      

   PSA 102:24.25 NWT I proceeded to say: "O my God, Do not take me off at the half of my days; Your years are throughout all generations.
   25
   Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself,
   And the heavens are the work of your hands. Even the JW version declares that Jesus is God. I'm sure this will be corrected in future versions.
   

   1. Any attempt to misinterpret v. 9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory…" to mean that Jesus was created misses the point that. This verse is clearly indicating that Jesus left the glory of heaven to put on flesh to pay the price for our sins. In doing so, He humbled himself on our behalf.
      
   2. A glimpse of heaven- In Revelation chapter 4 we see John getting the lay of the land of heaven. In it, there is a throne with a figure seated on it. Around it are 24 other thrones (elders), four living creatures also were around the throne. These creatures worship the figure on the throne without ceasing (v. 8,9). The elders also worship the figure. Next in chapter five there is a scroll that cannot be opened. And then we see the Lamb of God "in the midst" ) of the throne and He is the only one who can open the scroll. Not only that but this lamb had seven horns (the number of completion) representing the seven spirits of God. Now in verse 8 after the Lamb had taken the scroll from the right hand of God, the elders and creatures worshipped the Lamb. Why would God allow worship to anything that wasn't God? Right after that countless angels worshipped Christ v.11. If there is any doubt look at the praise they say in v. 13 "to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb. Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Clearly, John was meant to understand that the elders and creatures were worshipping and giving praise to God and the lamb!
      
   3. Rev. ch 7 verse nine has the "great multitude worshipping the one on the throne and the Lamb.
      
   4. Rev. 14:7 an angel commands those who live on the earth"…worship him wh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and the springs of water.
      
   5. Rev. 20:6 claims that those who are resurrected in the first resurrection will be priests of God and of Christ. Either Christ is a second god or he is God.
      
   6. Rev. 21:22 describes the millennial city as having no temple. God and the Lamb are its temple. Again, Jesus is either a god or God.
      
   7. Rev. 21:23 the light of the city is from God AND the Lamb. How can that be unless they are one.
      
   8. Rev. 22:1 the river of the water of life flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the entire book of Revelation, the throne is only discussed in two contexts: the throne of God and the twenty four thrones of the elders surrounding the throne of God. Jesus has to be on God's throne.
      
   9. Rev. 22:3 and 4 Look at the wording of this verse: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads. God and the Lamb are referred to in the singular. In the beginning of Genesis, God refers to himself as we indicating his triune state. At the other end in revelation, John refers to God and Jesus as the personal pronoun he indicating exactly who makes up the Godhead.
      
   10. Rev. 22:12-16 is the spoken word of Jesus. He tells us so in verse 16. He calls himself the Alpha and the Omega. If there is any argument left as to whether Jesus sits on the throne, look back at 21:5,6. Notice the first person there when the speaker says "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." SO we have Jesus calling himself the Alpha and Omega and the one sitting on the throne calling himself the Alpha and Omega. Either Jesus is committing the same sin as Satan by proclaiming to be first or he is God.
       
   11. Matthew 28:9 the women grabbed Jesus feet and worshipped him. Jesus made no mention not to. He only told them not to be afraid.
       
   12. Matthew 28:17 when the disciples saw Jesus, they worshipped him. Jesus did not stop them. JW trades the word worship for obesience whenever they don't want to discuss Jesus being worshipped. This word obesience (worship) comes from the greek word prŏscuněō(Strong's 4352). The word is used 59 times. When it is used to describe worshiping God or something other than Jesus (idols, the beast, satan), the JW Bible translates the word "Worship"
       

Mat. 4:9	1Cor. 14:25	Rev. 14:7	John 4:22	Rev. 9:20	Rev. 19:4	Acts 8:27
Mat. 4:10	Hebrews 11:21	Rev. 14:9	John 4:23	Rev. 11:1	Rev. 19:10	Acts 24:11
Luke 4:8	Rev. 4:10	Rev. 14:11	John 4:24	Rev. 11:16	Rev. 19:20	Rev. 13:12
John 4:20	Rev. 5:14	Rev. 15:4	John 12:20	Rev. 13:4	Rev. 20:4	Rev. 13:15
John 4:21	Rev. 7:11	Rev. 16:2	Acts 7:43	Rev. 13:8	Rev. 22:8	Rev. 22:9

 

Curiously, EVERY TIME the exact same Greek word is used to describe worshiping Jesus, the JW Bible translates the word "do obesience".

Mat. 2:2	Mat. 20:20	Mat. 9:18	Mark 15:19
Mat. 2:8	Mat. 28:9	Mat. 14:33	Luke 24:52
Mat. 2:11	Mat. 28:17	Mat. 15:25	John 9:38
Mat. 8:2	Mark 5:6	Mat. 18:26	Acts 10:25
		Rev. 3:9	Hebrews 1:6

This cannot possibly be determined to be a matter of grammatical interpretation. This is a systematic rewriting of the scriptures not for the sake of accuracy. If it were, we would see worship to God sometimes being translated "obesience" and worship to Jesus sometimes translated "worship."

Thanks

Dear Lord:

I want to take a minute to praise you for all that I am blessed with. First, my wife and my best friend. Thank you for her caring heart. For her gentle touch. Thank you that you have given me someone who supports me, and loves me even though I am as unlovely as can be. Life without her is unimaginable. She personifies many great things about you. She is forgiving. She is patient, She is kind.

Thank you for my oldest daughter. It honors me that she wants to be like me. It is perhaps the most uplifting compliment I could receive. She is funny. She is fruity. She is beautiful and smart. She is caring and gentle and kind to others when they may not even notice. She harbors no malice.

Thank you for my second born. Her beauty is in her bliss. Teach me, Lord through her bliss how to unplug and just be. She befriends anyone.

Thank you for my third born. She is feisty and full of life. She is energetic, passionate and a treasure to be with, even when she is angry. I pray that you would open her eyes to more of the veauty in life and less of the injustice.

Thank you for my youngest girl. She is so overflowing with love she is like a new puppy bouncing around ready to love on anyone who will make eye contact. She brings vibrancy to this home.

Thank you for the opportunity to finish school. I have learned so much even though I don't want to admit it.

Thank you for each new day and my less than perfect heart as a reminder that each one is a gift.