Search For Bible Truths

In Jude 9, why couldn't Michael the Archangel make a judgement against the Devil?

2012-01-26T08:00:00.001-08:00

Jude 1:9 is one of the most common arguments presented in a desperate attempt to disprove Michael being Christ's prehuman name. Yet, to say this one must misconstrue Jude 9 and also require us to be ignorant of the Greek words used in these verses.

First, in Greek Jude 9 does not say that Michael COULD NOT "rebuke" (EPITIMAO) Satan. Rather, what he refused to do was to "judge abusively" or bring a "railing accusation" (KRISIS BLASPHEMEO) against Satan.

This is something that Jesus never did of anyone while he was on earth.

"Krisis does not come under category of accusation. But signifies a passing of judgement, a decision given concerning anything."—Vine's Greek Expository Dictionary; 28

The NIV says: "But even the archangel Michael, ...did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Although more powerful than humans, angels also do not use harsh abusive language (KRISIS BLASPHEMEO) even of human opposers (2Pt. 2:11).

And when Jesus did "rebuke" (EPITIMHSAI) the demons (Mt 17:18), it is made clear by the parallel account (Mr 9:29) that it still was not done on his own authority but through prayer to God (Jn.8:15,16,28; Jn.5:19,30). This is a different Greek word than that which Christ refused to do in Jude.

So Christ's rebuke of Mat 17 was not the same as that spoken of in Jude. This rebuke did not equal a final judgement, a KRISIS BLASFHMEW, something even Christ will not do until God's future time (Jn.3:17; 12:47; 2Tim.4:1; Heb 2:7-9; 10:12,13; Jd.1:6).

Further, these same words are used by “The Angel of the LORD (YHWH)” at Zech 3:2. And most Trinitarians agree that the "Angel of Jehovah" is the Christ, a so-called theophany. So even Christ as the Angel of the LORD refused to rebuke Satan, but said at Zech 3:2: "Jehovah rebuke you," exactly the words of Michael. The angel of YHWH and Michael both reacted the same way to Satan, saying 'Jehovah rebuke you' because Michael is 'the angel of YHWH'.

Also Jesus had to be GIVEN the power to judge (KRISIS) (2Pet. 2:11; Heb. 2:7-9; 10:12,13). Yet, even then it would not be of his own authority (Jn 5:19,30). So, Jesus didn't run ahead of Jehovah's appointed time for dealing with Satan. He also waited on God in heaven after resurrection.

So, while both Michael and Christ refused to directly rebuke Satan, now they BOTH do! In Rev 12:7 Michael rebukes Satan in the most forceful way, defeating him in battle with HIS angels, casting him down to the earth and then hurling him into the abyss (Rev. 20:1-3). This is something that the Scriptures said Christ would do (Mt 8:29).

Therefore, Jude 9 does not preclude Jesus from being Michael. Again, *both* Michael and Jesus had to wait for God to sanction their action against their enemies.

Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is not affected in the slightest if Michael is not Christ. Therefore, it is no problem if our logical conclusions regarding Michael are proved wrong when those new scrolls are opened! (Jn.17:3; 1Jn.4:15; Rm.10:9) On the other hand, Trinitarians are aware of the difficulties caused if Christ is identified as Michael due to the extremely strong implications of his inferiority.

While there is no evidence that Jesus is not Michael, the doctrine that Jesus is not God almighty is a very clear and explicit teaching in the Bible. At least 17 times scriptures say that Jesus has a God over him which clearly proves that Jesus cannot be Almighty God (Mic.5:4; Ps.45:7; 89:26; Mat.27:46; Mk. 15:34; Jn.20:17; Rom.15:6; 1Cor.11:3; 15:24-28; 2Cor.1:3; Eph.1:17; Heb.1:9; 1Pt.1:3; Rev.1:6; 3:2,12).

And Scriptures repeatedly show that Jesus is less than God at every point of his existence. At the highest position he will ever attain, Jesus still has a God over him and is "subject" to *GOD* the same way we are "subject" to him (Jn. 14:28; 1Cor.15:27,28).

Now, a comparison of Biblical statements lead to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Michael was Christ's heavenly name. Because of this solid scriptural evidence that Michael is Christ, even many Trinitarians have agreed that Michael is one of the names of the Christ, including most early Catholic and Protestant"Church Fathers," and many modern scholars.

Source: This is the Best Answer to this question from Yahoo! Answers

Additional Reading:
Archangel - Links to Information

Addressing The Claim That The New World Translation is "Biased"

2012-01-24T13:11:00.000-08:00

Some have made claims similar to the quote found in p. 65, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991, that, "the NWT is filled with faulty translations designed to make the Bible fit Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It is therefore legitimate to say ... that the NWT is doctrinally biased."

Ususally what many of these opposers apparently mean by "doctrinally biased" is that the NWT translates passages that may have more than one possible interpretation in a way that does not support the trinity doctrine (or certain other "orthodox" doctrines of modern Christendom). Just because they support some of these doctrines (particularly the trinity doctrine) does not make them true. Jehovah's Witnesses have determined through proper, honest scholarship that a number of these teachings are actually unscriptural additions by scholars and philosophers made hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ and his Apostles. - See the HIST; CREEDS; ISRAEL; IMAGE; etc. study papers.

For Jehovah's Witnesses to choose honest alternate translations and interpretations which refute these unscriptural doctrinal additions or questionable translations may make them biased, in a sense, but it certainly does not make them dishonest or guilty of "faulty translations"!

Being "biased" does not necessarily make a person dishonest or unscholarly. Being biased against illegal drug usage and drug pushers does not make you a villain. Being biased against abortion or biased against having children out of wedlock or adultery, etc., does not automatically make you wrong, dishonest, unscholarly, or evil! We are all biased in many ways and often in good, proper ways.

All Bibles are doctrinally biased in their translations. For example, it is doubtful that you will easily find one for sale today which is not strongly biased toward a trinity doctrine. That is, when more than one honest rendering exists for a particular verse, these Bibles will purposely choose the one which best presents evidence for a trinity. This is solely because of the tradition of a three-persons-in-one-God trinity doctrine which was officially begun by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A. D. (hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ, his Apostles, and the inspired Bible writers) and continues down to today in 99% of the churches of Christendom.

This trinitarian doctrinal bias is not based on proper Scriptural evidence (see the IMAGE; PRIMER; I-AM; etc. study papers). It is not based on proper historical evidence (see ISRAEL; HIST; and CREEDS study papers). It is not just "doctrinal bias," it is unsupported doctrinal bias.

So for the NWT to be virtually the only Bible to be consistently translated with its properly-supported bias for a single-person God is certainly not dishonest or false!

Additional Reading:
Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly? (In Defense of the NWT)

Robert Hommel's Comments on the New World Translation (Bible Translation and Study)

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending the NWT)

At Job 40:17, is the "Behemoth" a Dinosaur or a Hippopotamus?

2012-01-23T08:00:00.001-08:00

Not only does the context Job 40:17-23 describe the behemoth as similar to a hippopotamus, but a number of Bible translations (AT, La, Ro, NW, JB, RS) actually use the word “hippopotamus” in the main text or in footnotes to identify the creature referred to by God.

The tail of a hippopotamus is fairly short, measuring about 18 to 20 inches. But verse 17 says that it's the actions of its tail that are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar. This corresponds well to the hippopotamus because the animal has the ability to set its thick tail rigidly upright or swing it about like a tree.

Additional Reading:
Animal Creation Magnifies Jehovah (Scroll down to heading, "Behemoth Glorifies God") WBTS

Dinosaurs - When Did They Live? (SFBT)

John 5:18 "...making himself equal to God"

2012-01-20T15:52:00.000-08:00

Some point to the latter part of John 5:18 as proof that Jesus is God. But here is how John 5:18 appears in its entirety:

"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal [ison] with God." - NIV.

The Jews were wrongly accusing Jesus of making himself equal to God in the authority to change the Law.

Jesus had just healed a man on the Sabbath. Jewish tradition had added numerous restrictions to the Sabbath law over the years.

Jesus would certainly not break the Law which was still in effect until his sacrificial death.

So, when the Jews accused him of making himself equal to God (by "breaking" the Sabbath traditions of the Jews and claiming that it was not wrong to heal on the Sabbath), they were insisting that their tradition of not healing on the Sabbath was actually God's will. And, therefore, Jesus' claim that it was lawful to do so was "making himself equal to God" (in this case of healing and "changing" the Law - which would be God's right alone).

It seems reasonably certain that the Jews didn't really believe Jesus was actually claiming to be God but attempting to usurp God's authority in this one respect. But, since these were Jesus' enemies who were making this false charge at John 5:18, it really matters very little what they claimed.

What does matter, however, is what Jesus claimed. How did Jesus answer this false charge by his enemies?

"To this charge Jesus replied, `In truth, in very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he does only what he sees the Father doing....'" - John 5:19, NEB.

So Jesus did not claim that he was Almighty God or even equal to Him. He clearly told the Jews that he was not God, but that, even as God's spokesman, he could not act upon his own initiative. Can we really picture the Almighty God of the universe saying that he could do nothing on his own initiative?

We find, then, that the Jews made a charge, and Jesus refuted it. He never claimed to be God. He never claimed to be equal to God.

For more, see:
John 5:18 ("Equal": Ison) (Examining the Trinity)
Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity Proof Texts (Examining the Trinity)

Dinosaurs - When Did They Live?

2012-01-19T08:00:00.001-08:00

The following is an excerpt from the 2/8/90 Awake!: "Discovering `The Great Reptiles' of the Past" pp.7-11; Heading: "When Did They Live?"

When Did They Live?

Dinosaurs played a dominant role in life on earth during their age. But then they came to an end. The rock layers containing human fossils consistently occur above those layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists generally conclude that humans came on the earthly scene later.

In this regard the book Palaeontology, by James Scott, states: "Even the earliest species of Homo sapiens (man) lived long after the disappearance of the dinosaurs . . . After tilting (through earth movement) has been allowed for, rocks containing fossil men consistently occur above those preserving the bones of the great dinosaur reptiles and it follows that the latter belong to an earlier age than the human remains."

In the Red Deer River valley, there is a layer of sedimentary rock that contains dinosaur bones. Just above this, there is a purplish-brown layer that follows the contour of the hillside. On top of the purplish-brown layer is a layer of brownish siltstone containing fossils of subtropical ferns, indicating a hot climate. Above this, there are several layers of coal. Farther up the hillside are coarser-grained layers of earth. There are no dinosaur bones in any of the higher layers.

The book A Vanished World: The Dinosaurs of Western Canada states that "all of the 11 major kinds of dinosaurs . . . ceased to exist in the western interior at about the same time." This, and the fact that human bones have not been found with dinosaur bones, is why most scientists conclude that the Age of Dinosaurs ended before humans came on the scene.

However, it should be noted that there are some who say that dinosaur bones and human bones are not found together because dinosaurs did not live in areas of human habitation. Such differing views demonstrate that the fossil record does not yield its secrets so easily and that no one on earth today really knows all the answers.

(For additional reading, see the Dinosaurs category.)

Why, while hanging on the stake, did Jesus Christ cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

2012-01-16T08:00:00.000-08:00

At Mark 15:34, Jesus' final recorded words were: '"Eìli, Eìli, laìma saqbachqthaìni?" which means, when translated: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

From the 4/15/1972, WT, p. 256:

Why, while hanging on the stake, did Jesus Christ cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"—U.S.A.

Jesus' question was a quotation from a psalm of David. (Ps. 22:1) In David's case the question related to a momentary condition of abandonment. Surrounded by enemies, David found himself in a situation that made it appear that he was completely forsaken by Jehovah. The tremendous strain resulting therefrom moved David to ask why it had happened despite his being unaware of any guilt. But David had not lost faith, for in the same psalm he prayed: "Do make haste to my assistance."—Ps. 22:16-19.

Similarly, when uttering the words of Psalm 22:1, Jesus keenly sensed that his Father had momentarily withdrawn his protection and "forsaken" or released him into the hands of his enemies, to die as an accursed criminal on a stake. (Gal. 3:13) In asking "why," Jesus did not imply that he did not know the reason for this abandonment nor was he expecting an answer from his Father. The situation is comparable to that of a Christian who knows the reason for human suffering but is moved, under the weight of intense difficulties, to ask "why" either silently or audibly. The questioner thereby reveals that he has no reason to think that the suffering is due to his transgressions. Thus, besides fulfilling Psalm 22:1, Jesus' outcry evidently served to confirm his innocence and focused on the real purpose for his suffering.—Matt. 27:46; compare John 12:27, 28, 33.
--------------------------------------------------------

From this article at JWitness Forum:

Why did Jesus cry out that God had "abandoned him" as he died?

Firstly, note that Matthew (the same author that reported Jesus final cry of 'abandonment' ALSO reported (in the same book) that some time earlier Jesus has said he would be killed but that on ".. the third day he will be raised up.” (See Matthew 17:23; Mark 10:45b) and both Matthew and Mark report Jesus' agony in Gethsemane which show he knew the events that were going to unroll.

So why did Jesus cry out that God had 'forsaken' him? (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34)? Jesus was first and foremost fulfilling prophecy as seen in Psalms 22:1 but this prophecy likely full reflected his feelings at the time. As was the case for the patriarch Job, Jehovah had removed his protection from Jesus; His father at that moment did not protect him from the feelings and effects of Satan's full attack and perhaps for the first time Jesus was totally vulnerable and exposed.

The Bible also says that Jesus indeed 'learned' things from his experiences on Earth (Hebrews 5:8). So while he [must have known] what his Father was going to allow, he obviously did not know how it would FEEL to experience them until he did. When he died, Jesus carried the burden of the "sins of the world" (John 1:29; see also Isaiah 53:4) and doing so learned what it meant to feel totally abandoned.

Remember, feeling and BEING abandoned are not the same thing. To illustrate: Many of us have felt misunderstood or unloved at some time or another. This may or may not be an actual statement of fact. Nevertheless, exclaiming "Why does nobody love me?!" is usually less a statement of fact [than it is] a reflection of how we are FEELING at the time.

Psalm 22 shows that the Messiah, even though he was perfect, would truly learn what it felt like to be an imperfect human cut off from his Creator. Amazingly, even in his agony, Jesus fulfilled this final heart-breaking prophecy.

What is Colossians 2:16 Really Saying?

2012-01-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

Colossians 2:16 in the King James Version reads:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

On occasion, opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses will attempt to cite Colossians 2:16 out of context in an attempt to falsely accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of unscripturally condemning others for partaking in holidays - something that Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in. For more, see: Should We Celebrate Holidays? (From the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

However, Colossians 2:16 actually refers to the God ordained festivals and observances of the Mosaic Law, not to "holidays" in general. The context of the verse shows that Paul was saying not to judge those who chose not to celebrate those observances, not the other way around. Paul was discussing the end of the Mosaic Law - that Christians didn't need to observe it anymore. It is not dealing with pagan and/or secular holidays at all.

Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses fully understand and agree that it is God alone who has the right to set standards and rules for salvation. (Isaiah 33:22; Luke 12:5) Jehovah's Witnesses understand full well that it is not their prerogative to judge and condemn others. They are in complete agreement with James when he asked, “Who are you to be judging your neighbor?” (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 14:4, 10)
For more, see:
Holidays - Links to Information

Did Humans Eat Meat Before The Flood?

2012-01-09T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Bible shows that God gave permission for humans to eat the meat of animals after the Flood of Noah's day, supplementing the diet of vegetation they were originally given. (Genesis 3:21; 4:4; 9:3)

Consider Genesis 9:3,

"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU."

If the eating of animals as food was already in practice, there would have been no need for God to have even said this.

By saying, "I do give it all to YOU" suggests that at that point, both of these options of food were now available when one option wasn't before.

Other Bibles echo this suggestion:

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (NRS)

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (RSV)

"I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables." (NLT)

Conditions Attatched to The Eating of Meat

God states that the soul (life) of the fleshly creature is in the blood and is therefore sacred to Him. (Le 17:11-14) Not only is eating blood prohibited in the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament the governing body of the early Christian congregation restated this prohibition, forbidding the eating of animals strangled or not drained of blood:

"That you abstain from ...blood." (Acts 15:29)

As has been addressed, originally, vegetation and fruit, and not flesh, were given man as his diet. But after the Flood, God added animal flesh, commanding, however, that "flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." (Gen. 9:3, 4)

So God commanded that, before eating the flesh of an animal, his people were to pour out its blood on the ground and cover it with dust, being careful not to eat the blood, on pain of death. (Deut. 12:23-25; Lev. 7:27)

The eating of flesh by Christians is proper, but the apostle Paul pointed out that flesh is not absolutely essential to man as food when he said that if his eating of meat was a source of stumbling to other Christians, he would "never again eat flesh at all." - Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 8:13.

God Himself told us that we could eat meat from "every animal". "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU." (Gen. 9:3)

So when someone carefully takes the strict precautions that God outlined by making sure that an animal is properly bled before consumption, they wouldn't be breaking God's command of eating blood. Since God Himself has issued these directions, obviously, if properly done, God does not have a problem with eating the meat from "every animal". Additional Reading: The Red Juice in Raw Red Meat Isn't Actually Blood

Also see:
Blood (Search For Bible Truths Network Search Engine)

Meat (Search For Bible Truths Category)

Meat (Search For Bible Truths Network Search Engine)

What Happened to Those Who Have Died Before Jesus Christ Came to Earth?

2012-01-05T08:00:00.000-08:00

Those who have died in the past will have a resurrection.

Many think that all good people went to heaven when they died and all bad people when to a fiery hell of torment. Both these ideas are incorrect according to what the Bible teaches.

First of all the Bible does not teach that hell is a place of torment. The Bible teaches that the definition of death is a return to the “dust” and an unconscious state (Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 3:20; 9:5,10; Ps. 6:5; 115:17; 146:4; Isa. 38:18,19; 63:16; Job 14:21; Ezek. 18:4; etc.). Eccl. 9:5,10 explicitly states that those in “hell” (Hebrew SHEOL) are unconscious and that everyone who dies goes there.

So the Bible clearly shows that everyone, good and bad, go to the same place; "Hell" (HADES/SHEOL) (Job 14:13; Gen.37:35; Ps.16:10; Acts 2:27, 31). This fact is hidden in many translations like the KJV which translate SHEOL 31 times as "grave" and 31 times as "hell" due to theological bias.

Second, the Bible explicitly states that nobody went to heaven before Christ (Jn. 3:13). Jesus was first be to ascend to heaven. The way to heavenly life was first opened up to imperfect humans only after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:20; Acts 26:23; Jn. 14:2, 3; Heb. 9:24; 10:19, 20).

All those who have died, good and bad, are "asleep" waiting for the resurrection (2 Pet. 3:4; Jn. 11:11-14; 1 Cor. 15:18; 1 Thes. 4:13-17). But those unconscious in death are not forgotten. The Word of God explicitly says that those in HADES (hell) will come out in the resurrection and that Hell is not eternal (Rev. 20:13,14; 21:4; Ac. 24:15). God will empty the “memorial tombs” by bringing the dead back to life (Jn. 5:28).

Scriptures plainly state that the resurrection of chosen humans to eternal life with Christ would only occur after Christ's return. God did not promise anyone that they would be rewarded at death. Instead, when humans died they would be asleep in death (1 Ki. 2:10; Dan. 12:2,13; Jn.11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6,18) and only receive their reward at the time of Christ's second presence (coming: KJV) in "the last days" (Mat. 16:27; 24:3; Lk. 14:14; Jn. 11:24; 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:22,23,51,52; 2 Tim. 4:8)

We do not even have to worry about any who have died in the past because Acts 24:15 states that “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” The “unrighteous” individuals that will be resurrected include the billions who died without having an opportunity to learn about God (Acts 17:30,31).

In past centuries many people died who did not know how to read and who had never seen a Bible. But they will be raised from Sheol, or Hades. Then, in the paradise earth, they will be taught God’s will, and they will have the opportunity to prove that they really do love God by doing his will. For their resurrection to be everlasting they must accept Christ’s ransom sacrifice (1 Tim. 2:3-6) and prove to be obedient through the final test (Rev. 20:7-10).

All those living will then experience what the psalmist said of Jehovah: “You are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:16). There will be no war, violence, or crime (Psalm 46:8, 9; Proverbs 2:22).

“[God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

Source: This is the Best Answer to this question from Yahoo! Answers

Also see:
Resurrection (Search For Bible Truths Category)

Resurrection (Search For Bible Truths Network Search Engine)

Hebrews 1:8 - “Thy Throne, O God”

2012-01-01T08:00:00.000-08:00

(In addition to the research below, even more information concerning Heb. 1:8 can be found by scrolling down to the Heb. 1:8 listing and clicking on the links at the Search For Bible Truths - Scripture Index.)

Hebrews 1:8 - “Thy Throne, O God”

Hebrews 1:8 is one of the more commonly used scriptures for trinitarian “evidence” in spite of (in reality, because of) its obvious ambiguity. This is because on the surface (at least as found in some trinitarian-translated Bibles) it looks clear and straightforward. Also not many people have the means or the inclination to examine it more closely.
Heb. 1:8 in the King James Version (AV or KJV) is rendered:

“But unto the son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

Since “he saith” and the second “is” (found after “righteousness”) in the above verse are not actually found in the original manuscripts and have been added by the KJV translators, they are found in italics in most printings of the KJV.

But more importantly (as a quick glance into any interlinear Greek-English New Testament will show) the first “is” (found after “God”) in the above verse is also not in the original manuscripts but has been added by some modern translators.

Yes, literally the original NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

No one should deny that the title theos (NT Greek word meaning “God,” “god,” “mighty one,” “divine,” etc.) can be applied to Jesus (at least in the writings of John - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies), just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels, judges of Israel, Moses, and (according to some trinitarian authorities) even the kings of Israel.

But theos is never applied to Jesus with the most high sense that is given only to the Almighty, Most High, only true God. So it could, perhaps, have been used at Heb. 1:8 in its positive secondary sense: “Your throne, o mighty one [theos], is ...”. This seems even more probable when we remember that Paul is really quoting from Ps. 45:6.

Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).

So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God ...” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?). In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

“The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for this passage:
“God .... here the writer might be using the word ‘God’ as a title for the king.” (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)

(And the revised 1991 ed. of the NAB actually translates Ps. 45:6, 7 as “Your throne, O god.”) The NAB (1970 ed.) goes on to explain, however, that others have translated this verse as, “Your throne is the throne of God” and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 “where Solomon’s throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [Jehovah].”
Now we’re getting closer to the most likely intention of Heb. 1:8. There is good evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever” or “God is your throne forever.”

For one thing, the definite article (“the”) is used in the NT Greek with “God” in this scripture. Not even John (who does, rarely, use theos for Jesus) uses theos with the definite article for anyone except the Only True God - the Father. - See the DEF study.

Also, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.

Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”
And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”

Another world-acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,

“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”

Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.” But worse yet (for those wishing for evidence of a trinity from the Book of Hebrews), Dr. Barclay comments as follows:

“The letter [of Hebrews] was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders.” - p. 6. “Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group [who] ... had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith.” - p. 7.

And just what was this passage that includes Heb. 1:8 (Heb. 1:4-14) intended to prove to this group of long-term dedicated Christian scholars?

“[The author] is concerned to prove [Jesus’] SUPERIORITY OVER THE ANGELS.” - p. 16, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised Edition, 1976, The Westminster Press.

Yes, this world-acclaimed trinitarian scholar has (perhaps inadvertently) illuminated the truth of the doctrine of God which was understood by first-century Christians! They had absolutely no concept of the 3-in-one God idea which was developed in later centuries (see the HIST study). IF these learned 1st century Christians had really considered Jesus “equally God” (as 4th century Christendom began doing), it certainly would have been nonsensical for the writer of Hebrews to attempt to prove that Jesus was superior to all other angels!

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God” or “God is thy throne” may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.” - p. 339. He also tells us that the inspired Letter to the Hebrews was written to a church of Jewish Christians whose Jewish neighbors

“... have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism.... These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. [The writer of Hebrews] turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed.” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, pp. 331, 339.

Again, it would have been absolutely absurd for the inspired writer of Hebrews to devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as God Almighty! And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses and the angels. He would have dedicated the entire letter to proving absolutely that Jesus is God (if he had really believed such a thing himself)!

Furthermore, if those Jewish neighbors had any inkling that these Christians believed that anyone except Jehovah, the Father alone, was Almighty God, they wouldn’t have spent any time at all on these other relatively minor aspects. The clamor of the Jews against Christians who called Jesus “God” would have been deafening, overwhelming!

But there is no record of any such thing until after the Trinity Doctrine was declared by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A.D.! - See ISRAEL and CREEDS studies.

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”

Quoted From Ps. 45
In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate
reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”

The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”

The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”

The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.”

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”

And the NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:

“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’” - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”

Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is “not being honest or scholarly” with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated “God is your throne forever.”

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!

Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:

“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but, indeed, should be so translated!

Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:

“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” - RSV.

Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

The renowned trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:
“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne’ (or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Further evidence for the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 is found in the conclusions reached by the trinitarian United Bible Societies’ (UBS) Bible Text Committee. The United Bible Societies (composed of the American Bible Society, The National Bible Society of Scotland, The Netherlands Bible Society, and the Wurttemberg Bible Society) appointed an international and interdenominational committee (but trinitarian, of course) of textual scholars to determine the most accurate text possible of the Greek New Testament.

To do this they examined hundreds of variations in the many thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts and compared other existing texts by Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Bover, and Vogels.

In 1971 the UBS published A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which explained why the committee had chosen certain readings as being correct and rejected others. In choosing the text they believed to be closest to the original manuscript of the book of Hebrews, the UBS committee looked at the very oldest and best manuscripts still in existence today. Several methods helped them decide what is probably the original wording. One, of course, is how many of the very oldest and best manuscripts agree.

Another method is to determine which of the variations were most likely to have been changed by later copyists. For instance, when a NT writer is referring to an OT quotation, he often has it worded slightly differently from the exact quote in the Septuagint (Paul is especially noted for this).

So, if one NT manuscript has an OT scripture quoted exactly as it appears in the Septuagint, and another has a slightly different wording, the manuscript that differs slightly is more likely to have the proper, original wording. (Later copyists strongly tended to “correct” the original NT manuscripts by making their OT quotes conform exactly to the wording in the Septuagint version.)

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church.[1] Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!! If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou. [See end note 4]

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest and best manuscripts (p46 - circa 200 A.D.; 'Aleph' - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.”

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .)

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study paper.

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway!

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

Sou not only has “considerable degree of doubt,” it is nearly impossible. The UBS Committee’s own comments on the evidence make autou virtually certain as the original word, and, therefore, in the committee’s own word’s, Hebrews 1:8 “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God.” - (study pp. 662-663 in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.)

It might be worthwhile to see that that same UBS textual committee said (p. 522) when discussing Romans 9:5:

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].”

So, for those of us who believe that Paul wrote the Bible book of Hebrews, the UBS committee provides yet another reason why Heb. 1:8 must be translated “God is your throne” not “your throne, O God.” (But don’t forget that some scholars don’t consider Paul to be the author of Hebrews even though they may still consider Hebrews to be inspired scripture.)

Some trinitarians have objected that “it does not make sense [or even, ‘it’s ridiculous’] to call God a ‘throne.’”[2] However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ’s kingly reign (as in Westcott’s comment previously quoted).

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!

Many times he is called someone’s “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35).
He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2).
He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29.
He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the residue of his people” - Is. 28:5, ASV).
Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” - Ps. 90:1, KJV.
And “Jehovah is my ... song” - Ps. 118:14.

Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin”, NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house,” RSV).

Not only is it made very clear by many trinitarian translators [3] and text writers [4] themselves that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but all real evidence shows that it should be so translated!

So we find once more that Jesus cannot possibly be God. Just as we saw in the case of the Israelite king in Ps. 45:6, 7, if God is his throne (the one supporting him - giving him power and authority), then he cannot be that God!
............................................................................

NOTES

1. An example of this is the omission of the words “nor the son” in the majority of manuscripts at Matt. 24:36. However, the two oldest and best manuscripts, Aleph and B (as well as Manuscript A of the 5th century), do have “nor the son” after the word “heaven” (as it is in Mark 13:32). Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that the words were first omitted by a copyist sometime shortly after the development of the trinity doctrine by the Roman Church in the 4th century (see the HIST study) because it seemed to contradict the trinity doctrine: Jesus as equal to the Father. - See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 62, United Bible Societies, 1971. Also see The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum (quoted in the Feb. 1, 1984 WT, p. 7) or see the Manuscripts at .
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/ and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_02 and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

2. Bowman, in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, after explaining that Heb. 1:1-6 describes the Son as in essence God, says:

It should come as no surprise, then, that in verse 8 God the Father says “of the Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’” (translating literally).

To circumvent this plain statement, the NWT renders verse 8 as “God is your throne forever and ever....” On merely grammatical considerations, this translation is possible, and some biblical scholars have favored this rendering. According to such a reading, the point of the statement is then that God is the source of Jesus’ authority.

However, this seems to be an unusual, if not completely odd, way of making that point. In Scripture a “throne” is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules. Thus, heaven is called “the throne of God” (Matt. 5:34). Surely God does not derive his authority from heaven, or from anyone or anything! But, even assuming that “God is your throne” would be understood as having that meaning, in context this makes no sense. The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels, since this could be said of any of God’s obedient angels. - pp. 106-107, Baker Book House, 1991 ed.

To take things in the order Bowman states them,

(A) his “literal” translation of Heb. 1:8 is certainly not literal. As we saw at the beginning of this paper, the actual NT Greek literally says “the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The understood verb “is” may be inserted anywhere in the sentence, but it is not literally in the original manuscript, and to insist that it must be inserted and interpreted as Bowman has done is simply (literally) untrue! In fact it seems much more probable, whether one inserts it before or after “the god,” to mean: ‘the throne of you IS the God into the age of the age.’ (Although it is less likely, it is possible that ho theos could be considered a vocative [‘O God’] - but see trinitarian Dr. Westcott’s quote above). But, at any rate, Bowman is not being truthful when he says he is “translating literally” as ‘your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’!

(B) Bowman declares, “In Scripture a ‘throne’ is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules."

Isn’t it terribly strange that famed trinitarian New Testament scholars such as Dr. Westcott, Dr. Moffatt, Dr. Goodspeed (Smith-Goodspeed’s AT), and Dr. William Barclay (The Daily Study Bible Series) all prefer the interpretation “Thy throne is God”? (And highly respected trinitarian Bibles ASV, RSV, and NEB also give this rendering as a proper alternate.) Would these respected trinitarian authorities really render this scripture that way if “throne” could only be interpreted in a literal way?

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” - p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984. (Compare Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.)

And the equally trinitarian (and highly respected - by trinitarians) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia tells us about “throne”: “Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity .... It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, ... their majesty and power .... (2) The majesty and power of Jehovah as the true king of Israel; .... (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is Jehovah’s representative [so Jehovah is the Messiah’s ‘throne’ (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]....” - p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

Please examine the implied meanings of “throne” in the following scriptures: Gen. 41:40; 2 Sam. 7:13, 14, 16; 2 Sam. 14:9; 1 Ki. 1:37, 47; Ps. 94:20 (“rulers,” RSV, Mo; “tribunals,” JB, NAB) ; Col. 1:16 (compare the very trinitarian TEV and GNB: “spiritual powers” and the Phillips translation: “power”). These clearly do not exclusively mean just “a place” as Bowman insists. In fact, the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) actually renders the Hebrew “throne” at Gen. 41:40 as ”authority.” Also note that even IF Heb. 1:8 were translated “Your throne, O God, is forever,” it would certainly mean more than “the seat you sit upon is everlasting”! It still speaks of the kingly power and authority which will last forever! Bowman is clearly wrong in saying that ‘throne’ must mean the “position or place from which one rules” and denying many other figurative uses.

(C) “The writer of Hebrews is quoting Ps 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels [see quotes by Barclay and Robertson: HEB 2-3]. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels...” says Bowman.

However, the complete quote from Ps. 45:6, 7 which begins at Heb. 1:8 includes Heb. 1:9. This verse not only specifies that God is the God of the king (Jesus), but also concludes with “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Jesus was “anointed” (brought into a position he didn’t originally have) by God and, at that point, came to be above his fellows. This is why Heb. 1:8, 9 was quoted by the writer of Hebrews: to show that Jesus is now (after God appointed [Heb. 1:2, 4] and anointed him) higher than the angels (who had been his “fellows”).

Corroborating this is respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who wrote: “The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

And, again, the trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was “a pre-existent, heavenly ANGELIC being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

Similarly, that most famous of Jewish scholars and teachers of the first century A. D., Philo (see the LOGOS study), wrote about Hagar erroneously describing her seeing the Angel of God as seeing God:

“For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion [a ‘mock sun’ - an optical illusion, not the true sun - RDB] and [erroneously] take it for the sun, ... so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self.” - p. 423, Philo, vol. V, “On Flight and Finding,” Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.

“Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant.” - p. 39, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982.

“Angel of the Lord. ... Christ’s visible form before the incarnation.” - p. 40, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.

“ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [‘word’] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God” - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

“The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him” - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

It is not uncommon for a trusted servant to actually represent his master in dealings with others. “What a servant says or does is [sometimes] ascribed to the master” - Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation,” Eerdmans Publishing, 1978 printing.

The angel of Jehovah “is a heavenly being given a particular task by Yahweh [Jehovah], behind whom the angel’s personality entirely disappears .... because Yahweh’s holiness could have destroyed Israel, only his angel was to go with the people.” - [see 1 John 4:12; John 6:46.] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), Vol. 1, p. 101, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

[Even the person speaking to Moses from the burning bush was an angel! Even though he spoke Jehovah's words and seemed to Moses to be Jehovah, we know that it was an angel speaking and acting for Jehovah: Acts 7:30.]

Please compare the following scriptures: Gen. 16:10, 11 and 13; Gen. 31:11 and Gen. 31:13; Gen. 32:24-30 and Hosea 12:4; Judges 6:16 and 6:20-23.

It should be obvious that the Angel of Jehovah is NOT Jehovah himself! Even many trinitarian scholars admit the obvious here. However, some are unwilling to let any opportunity go by, no matter how poor, (since there is no real evidence for it to begin with) to insist that Jesus is Jehovah. So, although admitting that Jesus was (or probably was) the Angel of Jehovah in the OT (at least part of the time) they also insist that he was also Jehovah!

Consider, however, if “Angel of Jehovah” really meant that the one who had that title was Jehovah (even though the term literally means “messenger OF Jehovah”), no inspired prophet of God or inspired Bible writer would ever use that term for anyone else. And yet Luke used it for the angel Gabriel, and Haggai actually used it for himself!

Yes, Luke tells us at Lk 1:11, 19 “Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord [the very same wording as found in the Septuagint at Gen. 16:7] .... The angel replied, ‘I am Gabriel who stands in God’s presence, and I have been sent to you’” - The Jerusalem Bible, also see NJB and NAB (‘91).

And the prophet and inspired Bible writer Haggai writes at Haggai 1:13 “Then Haggai, the messenger of Jehovah, spoke Jehovah’s message to the people.” The words are identical to both the Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 16:7: “the messenger [or angel] of Jehovah”! And, of course, the NT shows that other angels [in addition to the “pre-incarnate” Jesus] may use the same title “angel of the Lord.” Even though the angel may, at times, actually identify himself as God (or Jehovah), it obviously does not mean he is Jehovah himself! He is perfectly representing Jehovah as his messenger and is speaking Jehovah’s very words at times.

(Let’s not overlook the fact that King David was described as being “like the Angel of God.” - 2 Sam. 19:28, NJB (c.f., 2 Sam. 19:27 in NASB, NEB, NKJV, AT, RSV). If this angel were really God Himself, such a statement would not have been made - or tolerated by David when he heard it. Instead, King David is often compared to the Messiah in Scripture!)

When Jehovah (God alone) created his workman, his firstborn, as his first and only direct creation (the highest of angels or servants of God: Jesus, the Word), he became the Father. This is why Jesus may be called the “Firstborn” and the “onlybegotten” (only direct creation by Jehovah himself). When Jesus (the Word), at the command and direction of Jehovah God (the Father), became the instrument by which the material universe was made, the other angels (his fellows) were present. When he spoke to men in behalf of Jehovah (often using Jehovah’s very words which his Father spoke through him), he was called “the Angel of Jehovah.” When he had finished his sacrifice on earth, he became much superior to his fellow angels by appointment and anointment from Jehovah (but even at this time he certainly did not become equal to God).

- - - - - - - - - -

3. A. Translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

“God is your throne” - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)

“God is thy throne” - Mo (Dr. Moffatt)

“God is your throne” - Byington

“God is your throne” - Dr. Barclay

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Westcott

“God is thy throne” - A.T. Robertson (Alternate translation)

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Young (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - RSV (Alt.)

“God is your throne” - NRSV (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - NEB (Alt.)

“Thy throne is God” - ASV (Alt.)

B. Translations of Ps. 45:6 (quoted at Heb. 1:8) by trinitarians:

“Your Divine throne” - RSV

“Your throne is like God’s throne” - NEB

“God is your throne” - Byington

“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB

“God has enthroned you” - REB

“Your throne is from God” - NJB

“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (Alt.)

“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (Alt.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. New Testament texts produced by trinitarians in which Autou (“His”) was chosen as part of the original text ("... the scepter of his [autou] kingdom":

Westcott and Hort Nestle’s

It has been admitted by respected trinitarian scholars (UBS text writers) that if autou ("his") were in the original writing of Heb. 1:8, the proper rendering earlier in the same verse must be “God is your throne”! – p. 663, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Even the highly respected NASB renders this as "... the scepter of his kingdom." The Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; AT (Smith and Goodspeed); Rotherham; Byington; C.B. Williams; etc. also render it using "his."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Note: Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian ‘proof’ being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the following information, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian “proofs,” may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics (especially when I have presented a number of alternates). Jehovah’s Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. – RDB.

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Celebrate New Year's Eve / Day?

2011-12-26T17:09:00.000-08:00

The Bible admonishes Christians to "walk decently, not in revelries and drunken bouts."
(Rom. 13:12-14; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 4:3) Since New Year's festivities are often characterized by the very excesses that the Bible condemns, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in these excesses. The Bible admonishes Christians to be moderate and self-controlled in their conduct. (1 Tim. 3:2, 11)

Granted, not everyone celebrates the New Year by drinking heavily and committing acts of violence. Many today feel that they share in New Year’s festivities without going overboard. So why shouldn't Jehovah's Witnesses be willing to participate in New Year's customs as long as they remain moderate and self-controlled in their conduct? Because Jehovah's Witnesses also consider the origin and significance of this popular celebration.

New Year's Celebrations are Rooted in Pagan Customs

New Year's festivities are not new. Ancient inscriptions indicate that they were held in Babylon as early as the third millennium B.C.E. The celebration, which was observed in mid-March, was crucial. "At that time the god Marduk decided the destiny of the country for the coming year," says the World Book Encyclopedia. The Babylonian new year celebration lasted 11 days and included sacrifices, processions, and fertility rites.

For a time, the Romans also began their year in the month of March. But in 46 B.C.E., Emperor Julius Caesar decreed that it should begin on the first of January. That day was already dedicated to Janus, the god of beginnings, and now it would also mark the first day of the Roman year. So on the first of January, people "gave themselves up to riotous excess and various kinds of heathen superstition." - McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia

Notice what the 1966 World Book Encyclopedia says:

"In ancient Rome, the first day of the year was given over to honoring Janus, the god of gates and doors and of beginnings and endings. . . . New Year's Day became a holy day in the Christian Church in A.D. 487, when it was declared the Feast of the Circumcision. At first, parties were not allowed on this day because the pagans had followed that custom. This was gradually changed and celebrations could again be held." - Volume 14, page 237

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Avoid Pagan Customs?

If pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them. (2 Cor. 6:17) Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

But some may still wonder why Jehovah's Witnesses consider customs that have pagan origins to be so bad. "After all," they may ask, "aren't there many things which originated, or are associated with paganism - pharmacies, calendars, etc.?"

Consider the two examples concerning Luke and Paul. When Luke wrote in Acts mentioning the Areopagus ('Ares Hill' - Ares is the Greek god of war; 'Mars' is the Latin god of war), he didn't feel the need to change its already established name to something no one would recognize. Furthermore, Paul actually went to this place devoted to a pagan god and preached. And Paul accepted the Areopagite, Dionysius (Greek name for 'god of wine') and had him join him - Acts 17:19-34. Luke and Paul certainly did not become participants in something associated with pagan origins.

So these necessary things are not a celebration of pagan gods. But it would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name.

While we today have no practical option but to use things like the Gregorian calendar (which uses the names of pagan Roman gods), we do have a choice whether or not to participate in customs which were originally devoted to honoring these gods. And according to Scripture, we should take advantage of that choice.
Additional Reading:
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gregorian Calendar
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be MADE Acceptable to God?
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

But Would Having Some Fellow Christians Over To One’s Own Home on New Year’s Eve Be Wrong?

What about arranging for a group of Christians to gather together on that day because it is an occasion when they are free from secular work and are able to do so anyway? If someone is planning a gathering for December 31, or is planning to attend one, it would be good for that one to examine their motive as well as the situation involved. For instance, is the gathering being planned simply because it is New Year’s Eve? Is there special enthusiasm about the gathering because it 'just happens to fall on New Year’s Eve'? Will the planned activities mimic what the rest of the world does on that day? If so, regardless of how some may rationalize against it, it still would be a celebration of New Year’s.

However, if it is out of the proper motive for the gathering, and if their conduct in every way befits Christians, then they certainly do not need to avoid one another’s company on any day simply because it is a day that the rest of the world generally misuses. Each Christian can take into consideration their own motive in harmony with their Bible-trained conscience. (1 John 2:15-17; Rom. 14:13; 1 Tim. 1:19)

Additional Reading:
Should We Celebrate Holidays?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

-----------------------------------------------------------

To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and practices you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/.

Christmas - Links to Information

2011-12-15T08:00:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Celebrate Christmas? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Christmas - It's Origins and Associations (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

The Date of Jesus' Birth (SFBT)

Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be MADE Acceptable to God? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Did Jesus Christ or his disciples or his apostles celebrate Christmas? (SFBT)

Examining Romans 14:6 (SFBT)

Did Jesus Want His Birthday Celebrated? Did His Followers Celebrate It? (SFBT)

Birthday/Christmas Quotes & Resources (Jehovah's Witnesses Redefended)

Hanukkah—Is It a “Jewish Christmas”? (JWQ&A)

Hanukkah (Festival of Dedication) - Significance for Christians (JWQ&A)

Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate CHRISTMAS? (jwitnessforum)

Did Jehovah's Witnesses Hide Fact That Bible Students Celebrated Christmas? (Jehovah's Witnesses Stand Firm)

Christmas at Bethel (Jehovah's Witnesses Redefended)

What Does Christmas Music Really Teach? (SFBT)

Online Articles from the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses:

Christmas Customs - Are They Christian? (WBTS)

Has Christmas Lost Christ? (WBTS)

How Should Christ Be Remembered? (WBTS)

Jesus' Birth - The Real Story (WBTS)

"Was Luke in Error about When Jesus was Born?" (WBTS)

Take Your Stand for True Worship - CHRISTMAS—NOT CELEBRATED BY EARLY CHRISTIANS; THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTMAS (WBTS)

Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian? (WBTS)

A Birth to be Remembered - The Spanish Christmas (WBTS)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Celebrate Christmas?

2011-12-11T10:12:00.000-08:00

Jehovah's Witnesses only celebrate the one event that Jesus commanded his followers. The memorial of his death (1 Cor. 11:23-26). They also celebrate other events which are referred to favorably in the Scriptures such as marriages, anniversaries, the birth of a baby, graduations and many other happy occasions.

But why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate Christmas? Jehovah's Witnesses take their worship very seriously and insist upon keeping their worship of God undefiled (James 1:27). So Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas simply because Christmas has pagan origins and associations; Christmas is based upon falsehoods and Christmas also promotes idolary, a practice the Bible condemns. Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to offend God by imitating these celebrations which incorporate so much falsehood and are associated with the most horrible beliefs from the past.

This article will further address these reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas.

Christmas Has Pagan Origins and Associations

Christmas is a corruption of Christianity and was adopted from terribly pagan customs and celebrations:

"December 25 was already a major festival in the pagan Roman world, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or `Birthday of the Unconquered Sun,' a feast honoring the renewal of the sun at the winter solstice. Pagan celebrations on December 25 had included feasting, dancing, lighting bonfires, decorating homes with greens, and giving gifts. So when this became a Christian [?] festival, the customs continued, but with a Christian [?] meaning imparted to them." - p. 414, Vol. 4, Encyclopedia International, Grolier, Inc., 1966.

"Most of the Christmas customs now prevailing in Europe [and America] ... are not genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church... The Saturnalia in Rome provided the model for most of the merry customs of the Christmas time.... Christmas inherited the general merriment in a more restrained form (excessive only in eating and drinking) [but see 1 Pet. 4:3, 4]: games, giving of gifts (especially to children), abundance of sweet meats and, as more ceremonious elements, burning of candles..." - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings, Vol. III, pp. 608, 609.

Concerning Christmas trees:

"It is believed that the custom is a survival of the tree worship of ancient German tribes." -- "Tree worship was common in Scandinavian countries.... When the pagans of Northern Europe became Christians [?], they made their sacred evergreen trees part of the Christian festival, and decorated the trees with gilded nuts, candles (a carry-over from sun worship), and apples to stand for the stars, moon, and sun." - pp. 1429, 1425, The World Book Encyclopedia, 1958 ed.
Additional Reading:
Christmas - It's Origins and Associations
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
Christmas Customs - Are They Christian?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Avoid Pagan Customs?

If pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them. (2 Cor. 6:17) Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

But some may still wonder why Jehovah's Witnesses consider customs that have pagan origins to be so bad. "After all," they may ask, "aren't there many things which originated, or are associated with paganism - pharmacies, calendars, etc.?"

Consider the two examples concerning Luke and Paul. When Luke wrote in Acts mentioning the Areopagus ('Ares Hill' - Ares is the Greek god of war; 'Mars' is the Latin god of war), he didn't feel the need to change its already established name to something no one would recognize. Furthermore, Paul actually went to this place devoted to a pagan god and preached. And Paul accepted the Areopagite, Dionysius (Greek name for 'god of wine') and had him join him - Acts 17:19-34. Luke and Paul certainly did not become participants in something associated with pagan origins.

So these necessary things are not a celebration of pagan gods. But it would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name.

While we today have no practical option but to use things like the Gregorian calendar (which uses the names of pagan Roman gods), we do have a choice whether or not to participate in customs which were originally devoted to honoring these gods. And according to Scripture, we should take advantage of that choice.

Additional Reading:
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gregorian Calendar
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be MADE Acceptable to God?
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Christmas is Based on Falsehoods

First, consider what is regarded as the basis for the Christmas celebration. Was Jesus really born on December 25th? No, it's a total falsehood:

"Neither scripture nor secular history records the date of Jesus' birth. .... In A. D. 350 Pope Julius I formally designated December 25 as Christmas. He chose that date because it coincided with important pagan festivals. These, in turn, were linked with the winter solstice [the shortest day of the year]." - How it Started, p. 54.

The Bible never mentioned that Jesus nor his followers ever celebrated his birth. In fact, the early Christians and Jews of Bible times did not celebrate birthdays at all:

"Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus - for the same reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by ALL Christians that the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord's) was a custom of the PAGANS." - The Christian Book of Why, by Dr. John C. McCollister, Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1983, p. 205.
Additional Reading:
The Date of Jesus' Birth
(Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Many of the details of Jesus' birth that are widely accepted as heartwarming facts are untrue and are actually sinister in nature. For instance, when Joseph, Mary, and Jesus received an unexpected visit from a number of foreigners, the Bible writer Matthew does not specify how many of these men came, nor does he call them "wise men," much less "three kings." He uses the Greek word ma'goi, which means "astrologers." This alone should give us a clue that something evil is at work here, for astrology is an art that God's Word condemns and that faithful Jews scrupulously avoided. (Deut. 18:10-12; Isaiah 47:13, 14)

And the "star" that these astrologers followed? It first drew them to Jerusalem and to Herod the Great who had great motive to harm young Jesus. Disturbed to hear of the birth of a future "king of the Jews," he dispatches the astrologers to find that One. The "star" then lead these pagan worshipers right to Jesus. The unwitting astrologers likely would have reported back to Herod, leading to Jesus' destruction. But God intervenes through a dream and sends them back home by another route. - Matthew 2:9-12.
Additional Reading:
Jesus' Birth - The Real Story
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

And what about the popular myth that so many parents intentionally tell their children? Many adults feed children dishonesties and distortions which eventually may lead to atheism. The anticipation of a mythical gift-giver ends up taking on much more importance to young ones than Jesus Christ. And when children eventually realize that they have been lied to, they very well could also conclude: "Since Santa is a myth, why couldn't Christ be also?"

"But," some may ask, "why should it matter if not all of the details are correct?"

Because if true Christians really wished to celebrate an occasion in honor of Jesus Christ, matters should be presented truthfully. Jesus said at John 4:23 that true worshipers shall worship "in spirit and truth". So anything to which Christ's name is attached should therefore be factual. Christmas really does not measure up to this primary identification of Christ's teachings and true Christians.

Those who honestly wish to be true worshippers of God would do well to consider - Would the "God of truth" (Ps. 31:5) really appreciate having people worshiping Him with so many lies and distortions?
Additional Reading:
Christmas Customs - Are They Christian?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Christmas Promotes Idolatry

Regardless of what the motivation may be, participating in Christmas customs perpetuates practices rooted in ancient idolatry, something that is also forbidden in the Bible. (1 John 5:21) Santa, stars, solar worship, birthdays of Gods, tree worship... they are all idols that were and are still used by non-Christian worshipers. Many of these are still used by Satan worshipers today. (1 Cor. 11:14)

The celebration of Christmas has also promoted the worship of Jesus in place of his Father, Jehovah God. This is another form of idolatry since the glorified Lord Jesus Christ never claimed to be God Almighty. Instead Jesus declared: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) He directed all worship to his Father, saying: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10)
Additional Reading:
Worship That God Approves
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)
Is Jesus Almighty God?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)
Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Not Use Images in Their Worship?
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

How Should "True Worshippers" Respond When Learning The Truth About Christmas?

There are many who, before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses, celebrated Christmas at one time in their lives. They fully understand how enjoyable and sentimental this time of year can be. However, after they learned the truth about Christmas they acted upon what they knew. (Eph. 5:10, 11) They accepted God's word over the desires of their hearts and the traditions of men. By rejecting the pagan associations, idolatry and falsehoods that Christmas has to offer and modeling themselves after the first-century disciples of Jesus who observed no such holiday, they can aspire to be counted among the "true worshippers" that Jesus said worship "in spirit and truth". (John 14:23)

Additional Reading:
Take Your Stand For True Worship
(Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

(Also see the December 2010 Awake! magazine "The Truth About Christmas".)
-----------------------------------------------------------

To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and practices you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/.

Christmas - It's Origins And Associations

2011-12-07T18:57:00.000-08:00

There are many things or occasions where it is proper for a Christian to observe or commemorate. Not all beliefs and customs are bad. However, God does not approve of customs if they come from false religion or are against Bible teachings. (Matthew 15:6) If a holiday or custom is being deliberately participated in by a Christian, it must have absolutely no known pagan religion associations.

The majority of this page contains quotes and references concerning the pagan origins and associations in connection with: DECEMBER 25, JESUS' BIRTHDAY, GIFT-GIVING, FEASTING, MERRY-MAKING, CHRISTMAS TREES, MISTLETOE, HOLLY, and YULE:

DECEMBER 25 -

"Neither scripture nor secular history records the date of Jesus' birth; even the season of the year is not stipulated. Some evidence points to spring, but it is not conclusive. The only thing reasonably certain about the coming of the Christ Child is that his birth did not take place in winter. .... In A. D. 350 Pope Julius I formally designated December 25 as Christmas. He chose that date because it coincided with important pagan festivals. These, in turn, were linked with the winter solstice [the shortest day of the year]." - How it Started, p. 54.

"It was noted later that this date [Dec. 25] would fall within the rainy season in Palestine, so that the shepherds would hardly have been in the fields as they were when Jesus was born." - p. 1425, The World Book Encyclopedia, 1958.

Isaac Asimov in an article for Saturday Review tells us that the ancient pagan Romans celebrated

"a week-long Saturnalia [honoring the Roman god Saturn] from Dec. 17 to 24. It was a time of unrelieved merriment and joy.... gifts were given all around." Asimov continues, "the worship of Mithra, a sun-god of Persia, was becoming popular, especially among the soldiers. The Mithraists celebrated the birth of Mithra at the winter solstice, a natural time, and fixed on the day December 25 so that the popular Roman Saturnalia could build up to the Mithraist `Day of the Sun' as a climax.

"At that time, Christianity was locked in a great duel with the Mithraists for the hearts and minds of the people of the Roman Empire. .... Sometime after 300, Christianity managed the final coup of absorbing the Saturnalia, and with it scored its final victory over Mithraism. December 25 was established as the day of the birth of Jesus and the great festival was made Christian. There is absolutely no Biblical authority for Dec. 25 as having been the day of the Nativity." (Cf. "Sol Invictus", p. 725, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.)

"December 25 was already a major festival in the pagan Roman world, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or `Birthday of the Unconquered Sun,' a feast honoring the renewal of the sun at the winter solstice. Pagan celebrations on December 25 had included feasting, dancing, lighting bonfires, decorating homes with greens, and giving gifts. So when this became a Christian [?] festival, the customs continued, but with a Christian [?] meaning imparted to them. Throughout the [Catholic] Middle Ages, Christmas was a richly varied religious holiday. However, during the Commonwealth, the English Puritans, repelled by both the pagan practices and the religious ceremonies, forbade any religious or secular celebration of Christmas. The English celebration returned with the return of the Stuarts ["near-Catholic" Church of England monarchs], but Christmas observances were still outlawed in Puritan New England for many years; and not until the 19th century did Christmas become a legal holiday in America." - p. 414, Vol. 4, Encyclopedia International, Grolier, Inc., 1966.

(Also see: The Date of Jesus' Birth; SFBT)

JESUS' BIRTHDAY -

"Early Christians [from time of Christ until the 4th century] frowned on [celebrating anyone's birthday], which was too closely linked with pagan customs to be given the approval of the church." - How It Started, p. 213.

The Christian Book of Why, by Dr. John C. McCollister (Lutheran minister and university professor, graduate of Trinity Lutheran Seminary), Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1983, tells us on p. 205:

"Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus - for the same reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by ALL Christians that the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord's) was a custom of the PAGANS. In an effort to divorce themselves from ALL pagan practices, the early Christians refused to set aside a date marking Jesus' birth. As a result, the first celebration of Christmas by Christians [?] did not take place until the fourth century."

Think about it for a moment. Exactly who were included in "ALL Christians of the first century" (1 A. D. - 100 A. D.)?

Yes, the Jews themselves never celebrated birthdays until long after the death of Jesus. They considered it a purely pagan custom and detestable to the God they worshiped. Jesus and his Apostles continued this belief and so did their followers for centuries!

"As late as 245 [A. D.] Origen (hom. viii. on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, `as if he were a king Pharaoh [Gen. 4:19-22].'" - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., p. 642, Vol. 5.

(Also see: The Date of Jesus' Birth; SFBT)

GIFT-GIVING, FEASTING, MERRY-MAKING -

The Saturnalia, a pagan Roman festival honoring the Roman god Saturn, has supplied many of the elements found in Christmas.

"Most of the Christmas customs now prevailing in Europe [and America] ... are not genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church... The Saturnalia in Rome provided the model for most of the merry customs of the Christmas time.... Christmas inherited the general merriment in a more restrained form (excessive only in eating and drinking) [but see 1 Pet. 4:3, 4]: games, giving of gifts (especially to children), abundance of sweet meats and, as more ceremonious elements, burning of candles..." - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings, Vol. III, pp. 608, 609.

"Saturnalia presents included wax dolls, given to children. A charming custom, no doubt, by times of record, but with a macabre past: even contemporaries thought this probably a vestige of human sacrifice, of children, to aid sowing." - History Today, as quoted in 22 Dec. 1992 Awake!.

"The early Church in Rome had a particularly hard battle against two other great pagan festivals, the week-long Saturnalia, which began Dec. 17, and the Kalends, which greeted the New Year. The first festival was a time of licensed misrule, often presided over by a lord of merriment, not so much Santa as fat Saturn himself, the orgiast of eating, drinking and other kinds of naughtiness. It was during Kalends, when the year changed, however, that gifts were ritually exchanged, often tied to the boughs of greenery that decorated houses during the festivities.

"The attitude of the early church toward all this indecent jollity was predictably frosty. Its fathers, notably the fulminating St. John Chrysostom, urged no compromise with heathen abominations." - Simon Schama, professor of history at Harvard University, in a feature article of the 24 Dec. 1991 issue of The New York Times.

CHRISTMAS TREES -

"Many countries claim the distinction of having launched the custom of erecting Christmas trees, but it may have begun independently in several parts of Europe. Ceremonial worship of trees in ancient pagan rites almost certainly led to the decoration of trees at the time of the winter solstice. German emigrants [coming to the U.S.] brought with them the custom of setting up trees in their houses at Christmas." - How It Started, pp. 52, 53.

"It is believed that the custom is a survival of the tree worship of ancient German tribes." -- "Tree worship was common in Scandinavian countries.... When the pagans of Northern Europe became Christians [?], they made their sacred evergreen trees part of the Christian festival, and decorated the trees with gilded nuts, candles (a carry-over from sun worship), and apples to stand for the stars, moon, and sun." - pp. 1429, 1425, The World Book Encyclopedia, 1958 ed.

"I will stretch out my hand against [those worshiping me falsely in] Judah and against all who live in Jerusalem. I will cut off from this place every remnant of Baal, the names of the pagan and the idolatrous priests - those who bow down on the roofs to worship the starry host, those who bow down and swear by the LORD [Jehovah] and who also swear by Molech, those who turn back from following [Jehovah] and neither seek [Jehovah] nor inquire of him." - Zephaniah 1:4-6, NIVSB. The footnote for verse 1:5 reads: "swear by the LORD ... by Molech. Syncretism (worship of one's own god along with other gods)."

So again we see God's absolute hatred of "every remnant" of pagan worship mixed in with his true worship. Obviously this includes remnants of sacred tree worship and pagan worship of "the starry host" (stars, moon and sun)! But what were the decorations on the sacred evergreen tree intended to represent? "decorated the trees with gilded nuts, candles [electric lights today] (a carry-over from sun worship), and apples to stand for the stars, moon, and sun."

"From the earliest times the worship of trees has played an important part in the religious life of European peoples.... tree-worship is well attested for all the great European families of the Aryan stock. Amongst the Celts the oak-worship of the Druids is familiar to everyone. Sacred groves were common among the ancient Germans, and tree-worship is hardly extinct amongst their descendants at the present day. How serious that worship was in former times may be gathered from the ferocious penalty appointed by the old German laws for such as dared to peel the bark of a standing tree. [In times of famine starving peoples subsisted on the inner bark of certain trees.] The culprit's navel was to be cut out and nailed to the part of the tree which he had peeled, and he was to be driven round and round the tree till all his guts were wound about its trunk. The intention of the punishment clearly was to replace the dead bark by a living substitute taken from the culprit.... Proofs of the prevalence of tree-worship in ancient Greece and Italy [including Rome itself] are abundant." - pp. 106, 107, 108, The New Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, Revised and edited by Dr. Theodor H. Gaster, Mentor Book, 1964 printing.

Is it any wonder that any trace of pagan worship is abhorrent to God?

MISTLETOE -

"Why mistletoe [for Christmas decoration] instead of some other plant? Because this parasite which draws its nurture from oaks and other trees was regarded by the Druids of ancient Britain as endowed with supernatural power. .... Christians tried for centuries to discourage any use of mistletoe at any season of the year. The deeply ingrained practices rooted in [pagan] festivals around the time of the modern Christmas proved too stubborn to be eliminated, however." - How It Started, pp. 53, 54.

"Mistletoe is the famous Golden Bough, honored in Norse legend and worshiped by the Druids." - p. 337, Celebrations - The Complete Book of American Holidays, Robert J. Myers, Doubleday & Co., 1972.

HOLLY -

"The Druids of prehistoric Britain revered the plant we know as holly. .... It was all but inevitable that the use of the semi - sacred plant should become linked with the Christian [?] celebration that supplanted the older pagan one. Many scholars even think that `holly' is an adaptation of an early form of the word holy." - How It Started, p. 56.

YULE -

"In most of Europe [Christmas] is known as `Christ's Birthday.' Scandinavian countries still use the pagan name `Yule Day.' .... The Druids blessed [the Yule log] with great ceremony at the winter feast. (See Druid.)" - pp. 1425, 1426, The World Book Encyclopedia, 1958 ed.

"Yule (yool) n. Christmas. ¦< OE geol, originally a twelve-day heathen feast" - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1973, Dell.

"The burning of a huge log in the fireplace on Christmas day is a tradition followed by many European Christians that was borrowed from the Norsemen who burned a huge oak log called the Juul (pronounced `Yool' or `Yule') in honor of Thor, the God of thunder. After Christianity became the accepted faith of many Norsemen, they retained this custom as a part of their Christmas celebration. Later, the Scandinavians adopted the practice and even referred to the season as the `Yule season' or `Yuletide'." England and other European countries later adopted the tradition. - The Christian Book of Why, Dr. John C. McCollister (pastor and university professor, graduate of Trinity Lutheran Seminary), p. 215, Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1983.

------------------------------------------------------

"What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? .... `Therefore come out from them and be separate,' says the Lord. `Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you ...' says the Lord Almighty." - 2 Cor. 6:16, 17, NIVSB. [NIVSB f.n.: "agreement...between the temple of God and idols. There can be no reversion to or compromise with the idolatry they have forsaken for the gospel (cf. 1 Th. 1:9)."]

Articles From the WBTS Concerning Christmas / Holidays:

Beliefs and Customs That Displease God

Beware of Customs That Displease God

Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?

Christmas Customs - Are They Christian?

Has Christmas Lost Christ?

How Should Christ Be Remembered?

Jesus' Birth - The Real Story

Should We Celebrate Holidays?

What view do Christians take of religious holidays?

Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be MADE Acceptable to God?

2011-12-06T08:00:00.000-08:00

Many people today readily admit they already know that many origins of Christmas customs are often attributed to paganism. They know that pagans started some of these holidays and celebrations, and they may have corrupted some customs. (See: Christmas - It's Origins And Associations) But the standard reasoning seems to assume that a believer can make the holidays Christian.

It is just this kind of rationalization that prompts some to feel that, despite the pagan origins of Christmas, it is not wrong to heartily join in these celebrations. This holiday and it's traditions, they say, can be observed for the Lord. They may even point out, for example, that Paul wrote to the Romans, `He who regards one day as special does so to the Lord' (Romans 14:6). (Click HERE for a closer examination of this Scripture.)

They may reason that their perspective gives these holidays a godly purpose. Pagans may have offered these holidays to their idols, but if they offer them to their God then, therefore, they are God's days. After all, they may feel that they need celebration in their lives. So they become convinced that they need rituals, traditions and excuses to gather together.

Even though they may be totally unaware of it, these people are willing to accept any reasoning to keep these enjoyable traditions and will convince themselves with this emotional appeal. Most of these people will find a reason to keep on doing what their hearts desire no matter what evidence or Bible proofs are provided for them (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:20-23; Prov. 28:26, KJV, NASB).

This article, however, is written for those few who are willing to examine both sides of an issue and (in spite of the inclination of their hearts to follow enjoyable traditions) truly desire to follow God's word as expressed in the Bible.

Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be Made Acceptable to God?

We must accept God's word over the desires of our hearts and the traditions of men. And we must learn from the lessons found in the Bible concerning the disastrous results of man following his heart's desire (and his own "reasoning") instead of obedience to God's word. For instance, Adam knew God's word concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He knew absolutely that he was not to touch it at this time - this was God's command to him. And yet, the desires of his heart allowed false reasoning to convince him that this forbidden knowledge was in his best interests. (Gen. 2:15; 3:1-6)

Another example of "reasoned" disobedience to God's word: Moses was up on Mount Sinai for so many days that the Israelites feared that he must have died. So they made an idol in the shape of the golden calf that they had known all their lives during their Egyptian slavery. They made sacrifices to it and called it the very same God who had brought them out of Egypt. Even Aaron built an altar in front of the calf in order to have a festival to Jehovah.

(The highly-respected New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1984, Tyndale House Publ. tells us that this golden calf was intended to either actually represent Jehovah or, possibly, to act as "a pedestal over which he [Jehovah] was enthroned." - p. 504.)

Now God had commanded them to have only one God, Jehovah. So this festival and idol were really intended in His honor (or so they reasoned in their hearts). They were taking pagan religious customs and "making them clean and holy"! The only problem is, worshipers of the true God don't decide for themselves what is right or wrong in God's eyes. This is exactly the same terrible sin that Adam and Eve committed.

On the next day during the festival (to "Jehovah") God's wrath against such disobedient ones was partially fulfilled and thousands died. (Ex. 32.)

We may well understand the reasoning of the Israelites and their desire to fall back on customs and ceremonies that they had grown up with in Egypt and felt secure and comfortable with. But the whole point of this example is that they expressly disobeyed Jehovah's clear commandment (Ex. 20:4) and reasoned in their own self-deceiving hearts that they could make this action "clean and holy to God" by giving the pagan idol Jehovah's name and making the pagan celebration solely in HIS honor. Compromise, then, should have brought them the best of both worlds. Instead it brought the wrath of the only true God and death!

"The whole narrative of the golden calf (Ex. 32) reveals the extent of the contrast between the religion which stemmed from Mt. Sinai and the form of religion congenial to the unregenerate heart. These religions, we learn are incompatible .... it is a most significant thing that when Israel turned to idolatry it was always necessary to borrow the trappings from the pagan environment .... whenever the kings of Israel and Judah lapsed into idolatry, it was by means of borrowing and syncretism." - New Bible Dictionary, p. 504, Tyndale House Publ., 1984.

So Israelites didn't reject their God openly, but continued to "worship" him by adding (or reverting to) pagan customs in God's name. They "made" these customs, celebrations, etc. clean and holy to the one true God (or so they reasoned). But it was never acceptable to Jehovah who demanded pure, untainted worship.

Notice what the leaders of the only true religious organization on earth at the time of Jesus were doing. Jesus said to them:

"`Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." You have let go the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.' And he [Jesus] said to them: `You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!'" - Mark 7:6-9, NIV.

How many times has it been heard how hundreds of millions of members of Christendom can "make" pagan celebrations and customs pleasing to God? The emotional attachment to celebrations and customs we have grown up with can be understandable. There can be a strong desire to keep observing such things that have delighted us for so long and have provided feelings of security and bonding to loved ones all our lives.

Certainly the Israelites in their terrible hour of need at Mt. Sinai, when all seemed lost, understandably yearned for such things. And yet their reasoning is identical to that of those who wish to "make" pagan Christmas celebrations and customs pleasing to God.

But the only real consideration must be: Is it pleasing to God? Is it truly in line with His Word? We can know only by examining His word, the Bible! Obviously the Israelites learned that such reasoning was terribly wrong and worthy of death. They learned the hard way what Jesus emphasized to those religious leaders of his time who were also "setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" - These later Israelites would lose the opportunity for eternal life also, because of their reasoning and traditions of men.

Martin Luther wrote,

"Thus we, although having the right faith, fall into new disbeliefs. This is what the devil brought about in olden times when he misled the children of Israel from the temple at Jerusalem to innumerable other places. It was all done in God's name, and with every appearance of sanctity; all the prophets preached against it, and were martyred for doing so. But, nowadays, no one preaches against it...!" - p. 458, Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings, Dr. John Dillenberger, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961.

Moses concluded with this clear warning by Jehovah: "See that you do all that I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." - Deut. 12:32. In other words, we are not to decide what is good and evil in God's "food" for us! We must, unlike Adam, the Israelites, and those who wish to "make" pagan Christmas celebrations and customs pleasing to God, obey all of God's word in spite of what we want in our hearts or what seems "reasonable" to us.

"The pillars and the asherah were both forbidden to Israel [and they were both frequently returned to time and again by the Israelites] .... The asherah was wooden, as we learn from its usual destruction by burning (Deut. 12:3; 2 Ki. 23:6), and probably originated from the sacred evergreen, the symbol of life. The association of these with Canaanite fertility practice sufficed to make them abominable to Yahweh [Jehovah]." - New Bible Dictionary, p. 504.

Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

Yes, idolatry includes anything even associated with pagan gods. This would even include merely speaking their names in a conciliatory manner or raising an asherah pole, symbol of the sacred evergreen, (even if you "cleansed" it by using it in a ceremony "honoring" Christ and calling it a "Christmas Pole," for example).

"In the New Testament the word ... (idololatria), afterwards shortened occasionally to ... (idolatria) [`idolatry'], occurs in all four times, viz., in 1 Cor. 10:14; Gal. 5:20; 1 Pet. 4:3; Col. 3:5. In the last of these passages it is used to describe the sin of covetousness or 'mammon-worship'. In the other places it indicates with the utmost generality all the rites and practices of those special forms of paganism with which Christianity first came into collision." - Encyclopedia Britannica, p.71, v.12, 14th ed.

Notice how strongly this idolatry (which includes "all the rites and practices of ... paganism") is condemned in the NT: Rev. 21:8; Gal. 5:20, 21.

Even in the first century of Christianity many of those who believed themselves to be Christians let their hearts and "reason" seduce them into making certain pagan practices "clean" for Christians. Notice this quote from the Roman Catholic Bible The New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph edition: footnote for Rev. 2:14-15 -

"Like Balaam, the biblical prototype of religious compromisers..., the Nicolaitans in Pergamum and Ephesus accommodated their Christian faith to paganism."

And notice how strongly this was condemned by Jesus: He would come and "fight against them with the sword of [his] mouth"! (Rev. 2:16)

Which View is Correct?

So are the few Christians who say "we must keep our religion unspotted from the world and worship God in truth with the pure worship He has commanded" correct in not mixing any paganisms into their religion? Or are the many who say "I can `make' pagan customs and ceremonies into acceptable Christian offerings on the altar of true worship" really correct?

Even Martin Luther tells us,

"The world and the masses are and always will be unChristian, although they are all baptized and are nominally Christian. [True] Christians, however, are few and far between, as the saying is. .... [True] Christians are always in the minority and are in the midst of non-Christians." - Martin Luther, p. 371.

"Wide is the gate and broad [easy-going, appealing] is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow [not so easy-going, not always appealing to the heart of many - Jer. 17:9] the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matt. 7:13-14, NIVSB.

The `many' spoken of here are actually self-deceived "Christians":

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he [the `few' above] who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" - Matt. 7:21-22, NIVSB.

Yes, these are people who really believe they are Christians. They believe they have taught God's truth in Jesus' name to others. (Footnote for Matt. 7:22 in NIVSB: "prophesy. In the NT this verb primarily means to give a message from God, not necessarily to predict.") They call Jesus "Lord" and did many things in his name. But these many "Christians" have deceived themselves and have not truly done the will of Jesus' Father in heaven. They are rejected by Jesus Christ: "Away from me, you evildoers!"

Many rejected the pure religion of Jehovah in OT times by mixing in various paganisms and "making" them clean to Jehovah. Only a relative few of them kept their religion as pure as Jehovah had commanded.

The same thing has occurred, as predicted in the NT above, in the Christian religion down to today. In spite of the Bible's clear counsel, only a few of those who believe they are Christians are actually on the Narrow Road that leads to eternal life. Many others think they can do it their own way - they, like Adam and Eve, want to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. The results must be, as for Adam and Eve, what is at the end of the Broad Road: Destruction.

"Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them [f.n. in NIVSB says `In spite of the remarkable privileges given to Israel, they failed to obey God, thus incurring his displeasure. Of the adults who came out of Egypt, only Caleb and Joshua were allowed to enter Canaan.']; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: `The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.'" - 1 Cor. 10:5-7, NIVSB.

The NIVSB f.n. for 10:7 tells us the last sentence by Paul is a quote that refers to the golden calf incident of Ex. 32. So here the Apostle Paul also uses the example of the golden calf to warn Christians about mixing paganisms with true religion!

But Paul continues - "Therefore, my dear friends [Christians in the first century Corinth congregation] flee from idolatry." And the NIVSB adds in its footnote for this verse: "flee from idolatry. Like that described in Ex. 32:1-6." Paul concludes with, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" Footnote in NIVSB: "arouse the Lord's jealousy. By sharing in pagan idolatry and worship." - 1 Cor 10:14, 21-22.

And in his second letter to these Christian Corinthians Paul again warns against ANY compromise with pagans and paganisms:

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [`Satan' - f.n.] .... What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? .... `Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you...says the Lord Almighty.' Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God." - 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1, NIVSB.

The footnote for 6:16 says,

"agreement ... between the temple of God and idols. There can be no reversion or compromise with the idolatry they have forsaken for the gospel."

So, how is it that the pure "unleavened" Christianity of Paul's time has deteriorated into the pagan-saturated religion of Christendom today?

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism." - The History of Christianity, Eckler.

"Christianity did not destroy Paganism; it adopted it" - The Story of Civilization: Part III, Will Durant.

Yes, God has always demanded that our "sacrifice" to him, no matter how small, must be pure and untainted. The principal was laid down repeatedly in the OT. E.g., "Do not sacrifice to the LORD [Jehovah] your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect or flaw in it, for that would be detestable to him." - Deut. 17:1, NIVSB, (Cf. Lev. 1:3,10; 3:1). Even in "grain offerings" when the grain was made into flour and baked before it was offered, there was to be absolutely no leaven or "yeast" in that offering. The leaven, then, was figurative of an impurity, comparable to a defect or flaw found in an impure animal sacrifice, and made such a flawed sacrifice detestable to God.

So, can we get away with a tiny bit of "leaven" in our "sacrifices" to God today? No more than we can get away with a tiny drop of cyanide in a glass of pure drinking water. Paul tells us of a saying that makes that very point:

"Have you never heard the saying, `A little leaven leavens all the dough'? The old leaven of corruption is working among you. Purge it out, and then you will be bread of a new baking. As Christians you are unleavened Passover bread .... So we who observe the festival must not use the old leaven, the leaven of corruption and wickedness, but only the unleavened bread which is sincerity and truth." Further explaining, Paul says: "you must have nothing to do with any so-called Christian who leads a loose life, or is grasping, or idolatrous.... You should not even eat with any such person." - 1 Cor. 5:6-8, 11, New English Bible.

No, God still tolerates absolutely no "leaven" mixed into the Christian "sacrifice" of true worship. "I the LORD do not change." - Malachi 3:6, NIVSB.

Note the example of the golden calf. It was made from the gold jewelry of the Israelites themselves. Obviously the Israelites were not allowed to keep that pagan image of the calf no matter how they "cleansed" it or "gave it a Godly purpose"! But surely they could recast that extremely valuable gold back into jewelry or even into utensils properly used in the worship of Jehovah!! But no, in spite of its great material value, it must never be used again by God's people in any form, for any purpose! - Deut. 9:21. What could be a more obvious demonstration of the exclusive devotion required by God and the lengths God's people must go to to ensure pure worship? We must not knowingly "purify" and "reuse" anything that has been made for paganistic false worship!

So, if pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use to honor God and Christ, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God! We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them! "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." - 2 Cor. 6:17.

Those who "make" pagan celebrations and customs pleasing to God are clearly, tragically, terribly wrong when they say things like: "My perspective gives these holidays a godly purpose. Pagans may have offered these holidays to their idols, but I offer them to my God and, therefore, they are God's days." If a holiday or custom is being deliberately participated in by a Christian, it must have absolutely no known pagan religion associations!

Related Articles:
Christmas - It's Origins And Associations (SFBT)
Christmas Customs—Are They Christian? (WBTS)
Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian? (WBTS)

Examining Romans 14:6

2011-12-02T16:23:00.000-08:00

Do those who wish to "make" pagan holiday celebrations and customs pleasing to God really examine God's word to come to their conclusion of what is pleasing to Him?Well, there is usually only one Scripture referred to (Rom. 14:6)! The other 95 % of their argument concerns their own feelings and conclusions about what must be acceptable to God according to their reasoning.

Examining Romans 14:6

Let's examine this single reference to God's word. A partial quote of Romans 14:6: "He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." This is a quote from one of Christendom's most highly-regarded Bible translations: The NIV Study Bible. Let's continue to use this same study Bible to analyze what Paul was telling us in Romans 14.

Romans 14:1, 5, 6 in this Bible says:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters .... One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." - NIVSB.

The footnote for Romans 14:1 tells us Paul is probably writing this about

"Jewish Christians at Rome who were unwilling to give up the observance of certain requirements of the [Mosaic] law, such as dietary restrictions and the keeping of the Sabbath and other special days [given to the Jews by Jehovah].... They were not yet clear as to the status of OT [Old Testament] regulations under the new covenant inaugurated by the coming of Christ... Fellowship among Christians is not to be based on everyone's agreement on disputable questions. Christians do not agree on all matters pertaining to the Christian life, nor do they need to." - NIVSB.

The footnote for Rom. 14:5 in the NIVSB tells us:

"Some feel that this refers primarily to the Sabbath, but it is probably a reference to all the special days of the [Old Testament] ceremonial law."

Obviously, Paul is saying, according to this mainstream study Bible, that it was no longer necessary to observe the special days that were given to God's people in the Mosaic law. However, Paul didn't think it was wrong for some of the Jewish Christians (at that time) to continue to observe special days that Jehovah himself had previously given them if they wished to.

So Paul is telling us that the man who considers a special day (of the Old Testament as given by Jehovah to the Israelites) more sacred than another is still acceptable to the Lord. (There is good reason to believe that Paul is specifically referring to Sabbath days here.) This in no way contradicts other commandments in the Bible to strictly avoid pagan customs; don't even touch the unclean things!

Even Martin Luther didn't feel it was wrong for Christians to observe special days given by Jehovah in the Old Testament. He wrote,

"Neither is it true that the Old Testament [Law] was abolished in such a way that ... it would be wrong for anyone to keep it in full.... It is indeed abolished in the sense that we are free to keep it or not keep it, and it is no longer necessary to keep it on penalty of one's soul, as was formerly the case." - Martin Luther, p. 376.

So we are free to observe or not many of the things of the Mosaic Law. We can circumcise our sons. We can rest on the Sabbath. We can do things that were once required in the Mosaic Law and not be condemned for it. But we cannot do things that God considers an abomination to him. We cannot include foreign gods in our worship. We cannot embrace pagan religious customs.

"Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah [also known as Astarte, Ishtar, or Eastre] poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places....be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, `How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.' You must not worship the LORD your God in their way." - Deut. 12:3, 4, 30, 31, NIVSB. The footnote for Deut. 12:4 says, "The rituals and accessories of idolatrous worship were not to be used to worship the Lord, the one true God."

What Does Christmas Music Really Teach?

2011-11-28T15:28:00.000-08:00

Whether sung by one voice or many, played on an organ or by an orchestra, the emotion-charged music of Christmas tends to program people for its celebration. On the surface, the power inherent in this music may seem good and beneficial. After all, many verses of these Christmas songs deal with religious themes and encourage kindness, generosity, goodwill and peace. Nevertheless, when Christmas music and its words are examined in the light of God’s truth as revealed in the Holy Bible, some startling facts come into view.

Are They Truthful?

It might surprise you that anyone would raise questions about the truthfulness of popular Christmas songs (carols). But as you will see, some oft-overlooked facts deserve our honest attention. ‘What facts?’ you may wonder.

For example, a number of carols declare that Jesus was born on Christmas Day, December 25. Is this true? To be frank, the facts answer no! Do not these musical verses about Christmas amount, then, to errors or distortions of truth? They might even be described as falsehood set to melody.

Obviously, these songs are not teaching the truth about the Christmas season. Could they be pleasing, therefore, to the One about whom the apostle Paul said, ‘God cannot lie’? (Titus 1:2) Further, is singing them the way to worship God “with spirit and truth,” which Jesus said is so important? (John 4:24) Actually, “Jehovah the God of truth,” and his Son, Jesus Christ, who is “the way and the truth and the life,” are honored by truth, not by melodic falsehoods. (Psalm 31:5; John 14:6) Furthermore, at Christmastime when these carols are sung, many clergymen quote Luke’s words about the shepherds as a basis for the December 25 celebration of Christmas. (Luke 2:8-14) However, neither this nor any other scripture gives support to the Christmas festive season. The Bible makes it clear that manipulating God’s Word to make it say something it is not saying leads to his adverse judgment. In the extreme case of the false prophets in Israel who “changed the words of the living God,” they paid with their lives.—Jeremiah 23:16-22, 29-32, 36; Deuteronomy 12:32; 18:20; Proverbs 30:5, 6.

Hence, no matter how beautiful Christmas music may sound, we cannot ignore the seriousness of its lyrics that contradict God’s Word. Jehovah is repelled by untruth, especially when it runs directly counter to his revealed truth. (Psalm 5:4-6) Many humans may be so moved by glorious harmonies and delightful melodies that they ignore any falsehoods being sung, but we can be sure that that is not the case with God and with his Son, Jesus. They do not desire praise to the extent that they will approve of lyrics peppered with flattering falsehoods.

Should We Commemorate?

Here is another aspect to consider: Do you know of any Biblical evidence that Jehovah God and Jesus Christ want us to commemorate Jesus’ birth, even if we intended to do it at the time of year that corresponds to Biblical evidence?

Like the good Father that he is, Jehovah God is always very specific about what he requires of his worshipers. He carefully spells out what we must do to gain his favor and blessings. He often repeats things to avoid any misunderstanding on our part. Why, then, do we find in God’s written Word no direct command or even a hint that we should commemorate his Son’s earthly birthday? Because Jehovah places emphasis on Jesus’ death and resurrection, requiring Christians to celebrate annually the Memorial of his death only. (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 5:7, 8; 11:23-26) Thus, Christmas carols that presumptuously call for the celebration of Christ’s birth “go beyond the things that are written” in the Bible. (1 Corinthians 4:6) So do you think that people who know this and yet sing these lines are pleasing Jehovah God? No matter how sincere a person may be, presumptuousness and disobedience never win God’s favor.—1 Samuel 15:22, 23.

Customs and Beliefs

Jehovah God explicitly warns against mixing pagan practices and beliefs with his pure worship. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) Pagan practices? Yes, as we shall now show, many pagan practices are tied in with Christmas. Such practices are repulsive to God, like the practices of the Canaanites of whom Moses said: “Everything detestable to Jehovah that he does hate they have done.” (Deuteronomy 12:31) Since ‘Jehovah does not change,’ how do you think he would view Christmas carols that, in the name of Christianity, encourage a mixture of pagan practices and pure worship?—Malachi 3:6; Deuteronomy 12:1-3, 29-32.

For example, the musical call to “Deck the Halls With Boughs of Holly” is rooted in ancient pagan superstition. In the booklet Discovering Christmas Customs and Folklore, Margaret Baker pointed out that decorating homes with evergreens was a Roman and a Norse custom. She further observed:

“Greenery brought into the house at the winter solstice seemed to be a charm to ensure the return of vegetation to the earth. . . . Holly had many associations with good fortune. In Louisiana berries were kept for luck. . . . A piece kept back from church decorations was especially lucky. . . . And a tree planted outside the house protected it from thunder, lightning, fire and the evil eye.”—Pages 29, 32.

If you study the lines of other Christmas carols, you will find that they endorse various superstitious customs. Jehovah God cannot approve of these practices, for they enslave people to fear and ignorance, which keeps them from turning to him. Music that teaches or promotes superstitions is simply not fitting for Christians seeking his favor.

Christmas music that deals with Santa Claus touches a very sensitive area—little children! Emotions may be stirred up, but the question must be asked, What do these tunes teach little ones? Misconceptions such as that a white-bearded mythological figure in a red suit is practically omniscient. He knows when all children are good or bad. And he brings toys to only good boys and girls, so they are encouraged to behave to get these materialistic gifts.

Here we must let our reason rule and not our deceptive hearts. (Jeremiah 17:9) Santa Claus is just another product of pagan tradition, and sparkling melodies with lyrics telling children that he is real do not change that fact. Furthermore, such music ascribes to Santa the all-knowing quality that only Jehovah God possesses. Should God-fearing parents teach their children to believe and sing such things? Should they pretend to their children that the pagan Santa Claus is linked to the Christianity of the Bible?

Wise parents do not bribe their children to be good. Yet Christmas music leads children to believe that if they behave an imaginary Santa Claus will leave them toys. The bribery is there—subtle, but unmistakable. You can appreciate that such ideas can damage the moral fiber of children in their formative years. Jehovah declares that “foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline [not bribery with Christmas toys] is what will remove it far from him.” (Proverbs 22:15) The conclusion should be clear—Christmas songs about Santa Claus are a gross deception. They can only undermine respect for true Bible principles.

Idealistic, starry-eyed little children need to feed on the “bread” of God’s truth. Their inquisitive minds cannot be satisfied with ‘stones’ of falsehood.—Matthew 7:9.

-12/15/83 Watchtower, "What Does Christmas Music Really Teach?"; WBTS
-------------------------------------------------------

More Articles Concerning the Inaccuracies and Pagan Connections to Christmas Carols:

Bishop says Christmas carols are nonsense (Digital Journal)

Christmas - It's Origins And Associations (SFBT)

The Date of Jesus' Birth

2011-11-23T10:01:00.000-08:00

Jesus' birth date not recorded in the Bible

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of N[ew] T[estament] origin. The day of Christ’s birth cannot be ascertained from the N[ew] T[estament], or, indeed, from any other source.” - (New York, 1871), Vol. II, p. 276.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges: “The date of Christ’s birth is not known. The Gospels indicate neither the day nor the month. - (1967), Vol. III, p. 656.

Jesus' birth was not in December

Though the specific date of Jesus' birth was not recorded in Scripture, it does give us sound reason to conclude that his birth did not take place in December.

The weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born is cold and rainy.

The Bible writer Ezra reported that this particular month in Jerusalem is known for cold and rainy weather. He wrote that people were “shivering . . . on account of the showers of rain.” (Ezra 10:9) Concerning weather conditions at that time of the year, the congregated people themselves said: “It is the season of showers of rain, and it is not possible to stand outside.” (Jeremiah 36:22) So it is no wonder that shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night when December came around.

But when Jesus was born, the Bible says that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus’ birth.

In fact, the Bible writer Luke shows that at that time, shepherds were “living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks” near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12) Notice that the shepherds were actually living out of doors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their flocks in the fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly and rainy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December? No, it does not. So the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth indicate that he was not born in December.

The book Daily Life in the Time of Jesus states: “The flocks . . . passed the winter under cover; and from this alone it may be seen that the traditional date for Christmas, in the winter, is unlikely to be right, since the Gospel says that the shepherds were in the fields.”—(New York, 1962), Henri Daniel-Rops, p. 228.

After mentioning that Jesus was born at a time when shepherds were out-of-doors at night watching their flocks, 19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes concluded: "It is clear from this that our Saviour was born before the 25th of December . . . At that time it is cold, and especially in the high and mountainous regions about Bethlehem. God has concealed the time of [Jesus'] birth. . . . Nor was it of consequence to know the time; if it had been, God would have preserved the record of it." - Barnes Notes on Luke 2:8

"Neither scripture nor secular history records the date of Jesus' birth; even the season of the year is not stipulated. Some evidence points to spring, but it is not conclusive. The only thing reasonably certain about the coming of the Christ Child is that his birth did not take place in winter. .... In A. D. 350 Pope Julius I formally designated December 25 as Christmas. He chose that date because it coincided with important pagan festivals. These, in turn, were linked with the winter solstice [the shortest day of the year]." - How it Started, p. 54.

"It was noted later that this date [Dec. 25] would fall within the rainy season in Palestine, so that the shepherds would hardly have been in the fields as they were when Jesus was born." - p. 1425, The World Book Encyclopedia, 1958.

"At that time, Christianity was locked in a great duel with the Mithraists for the hearts and minds of the people of the Roman Empire. .... Sometime after 300, Christianity managed the final coup of absorbing the Saturnalia, and with it scored its final victory over Mithraism. December 25 was established as the day of the birth of Jesus and the great festival was made Christian. There is absolutely no Biblical authority for Dec. 25 as having been the day of the Nativity." (Cf. "Sol Invictus", p. 725, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.)
Related Articles:
Christmas - It's Origins And Associations (SFBT)
Was Jesus Born in December? (WBTS)
THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT - When Was Jesus Born? (WBTS)

So Why is it Established That Jesus Was Born on December 25?

The Encyclopedia Americana informs us: “The reason for establishing December 25 as Christmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the ‘rebirth of the sun.’ . . . The Roman Saturnalia (a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and to the renewed power of the sun), also took place at this time, and some Christmas customs are thought to be rooted in this ancient pagan celebration.”—(1977), Vol. 6, p. 666.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges: “The date of Christ’s birth is not known. The Gospels indicate neither the day nor the month . . . According to the hypothesis suggested by H. Usener . . . and accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.”—(1967), Vol. III, p. 656.

“December was the major month of pagan celebration, and Dec. 25 was the high point of the winter revelries…Some believe the bishop of Rome chose Dec. 25 as the birth date of Christ in order to ‘sanctify’ the pagan celebrations. What resulted was a strange mixture of the pagan and the Christian festivals that the world now calls Christmas…The word ‘Christmas’ does not appear in the Bible. And Scripture gives no mandate for celebrating Jesus’ birth.” (Church Christmas Tab Magazine)

On the Road to Civilization, page 164: “The feast of Saturn, the Saturnalia, was a winter festival which lasted a week beginning on the twenty-fifth day of December, and was celebrated with dancing, the exchanging of gifts, and the burning of candles. The Saturnalia was later taken over by the Christians as their Christmas, and given a new significance.”

New Americanized Encyclopedia Britannica, 1900, Vol. IX, page 5236, says: “Saturnalia . . . celebrated on the 19th . . . lasted seven days. The time was one of general joy and mirth. The woolen fetters were taken from the feet of the Image of Saturn, and each man offered a pig. During the festival schools were closed. . . . Gambling with dice, at other times illegal, was practiced. All classes exchanged gifts, the commonest being tapers and clay dolls. These dolls were especially given to children. Varro thought that these dolls represented original sacrifices of human beings (children to the ‘Infernal God’).”

“Rev.” A. E. Palmer of Holy Trinity Church was reported by the Examiner to have said: “‘Why choose December 25 as the date of the sacred festival? Wouldn’t any other public holiday do just as well for this jollification?’ There was no evidence, he said, that Jesus was born on December 25 but the Church took over a great many of the ancient pagan festivals and gave them Christian meaning. On December 25 was celebrated the return of the sun, with the days becoming longer, and the Church chose this as being symbolic of the light that shone through the darkness. Christmas without Christ, he said, was nothing but a pagan festival.”

“It is a well-known fact that the popes and councils in the early Church deliberately placed a Christian festival on or near the day of a previously existing pagan carnival, with the purpose of ousting the heathenish and generally licentious celebration.” (James M. Gillis, C. S. P., editor of the Catholic World. December 2, 1945)
Related Articles:
Christmas - It's Origins And Associations (SFBT)
Christmas Customs—Are They Christian? (WBTS)
Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian? (WBTS)
How Should Jesus Christ Be Remembered? (WBTS)

Wouldn't the Bible specifically mention what month and what day Jesus was born if Jesus' birthday was meant to be observed?

Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived and he is the Exemplar of all true Christians. So one would think that if he or his disciples or any of the early Christians ever celebrated his birth, the date would have been clearly recorded in the Bible so future Christians would always be able to celebrate it.

Yet the Bible never mentioned that Jesus nor his followers ever celebrated his birth. There is a very good reason for this -

The early Christians and Jews of Bible times did not celebrate birthdays at all

Historian Augustus Neander writes: “The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period.” (The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries, translated by H. J. Rose, 1848, p. 190)

The Jews "regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship . . . , and this probably on account of the idolatrous rites with which they were observed in honor of those who were regarded as the patron gods of the day on which the party was born." -M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia (1882, Vol. I, p. 817)

"Early Christians [from time of Christ until the 4th century] frowned on [celebrating anyone's birthday], which was too closely linked with pagan customs to be given the approval of the church." - How It Started, p. 213.

The Christian Book of Why, by Dr. John C. McCollister (Lutheran minister and university professor, graduate of Trinity Lutheran Seminary), Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1983, tells us on p. 205:

"Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus - for the same reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by ALL Christians that the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord's) was a custom of the PAGANS. In an effort to divorce themselves from ALL pagan practices, the early Christians refused to set aside a date marking Jesus' birth. As a result, the first celebration of Christmas by Christians [?] did not take place until the fourth century."

Think about it for a moment. Exactly who were included in "ALL Christians of the first century" (1 A. D. - 100 A. D.)?

Yes, the Jews themselves never celebrated birthdays until long after the death of Jesus. They considered it a purely pagan custom and detestable to the God they worshiped. Jesus and his Apostles continued this belief and so did their followers for centuries!

"As late as 245 [A. D.] Origen [a writer of the third century C.E.] (hom. viii. on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, `as if he were a king Pharaoh [Gen. 4:19-22].'" - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., p. 642, Vol. 5.

“Origen . . . insists that ‘of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below.’”—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. X, p. 709
Related Articles:
Birthdays (SFBT Category)

For More Related Articles Concerning Jesus' Birth, See:
Jesus' Birth - The Real Story (WBTS)
Jesus' Birth—How and Why It Happened (WBTS)
Lessons From the Record of Jesus' Birth (WBTS)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Celebrate Thanksgiving Day?

2011-11-15T08:00:00.000-08:00

There are many wholesome occasions that Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate such as marriage anniversaries which are referred to favorably in the Scriptures. But some have wondered why Jehovah's Witnesses do not formally observe the national holiday of Thanksgiving.

There are several reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses do not formally observe the national holiday of Thanksgiving and these will be considered in more detail in this article. But first, it is important to recognize that there is only one occasion that Jesus commanded his followers to observe. He required his followers to memorialize his death. (Luke 22:19, 20) Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the one (and only one) event that Jesus commanded his followers. The memorial of his death (1 Cor.11:23- 26). For more, see: The Lord’s Evening Meal—An Observance That Honors God (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

To help understand Jehovah's Witnesses' position regarding the national holiday of Thanksgiving, this article will consider the following four aspects:

1.) Thanksgiving, Patriotism and Christian Neutrality.

2.) Thanksgiving and Questionable Associations

3.) How Christians are to be thankful every day - not letting political governments setting aside one day out of the year for us.

4.) How Christians should view the traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanksgiving, Patriotism and Christian Neutrality

It was not until 1789 that the first national Thanksgiving Day was proclaimed by George Washington. And, even after that precedent, this practice was not carried on by succeeding presidents. In addition to Presidents Jackson and Taylor, it is claimed that Thomas Jefferson refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, condemning it during his two terms. In a letter to the Rev. Mr. Miller, he gave his reasons for refusing:

"I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.... But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

Finally, it was Sarah J. Hale that influenced President Abraham Lincoln to issue his Thanksgiving Proclamation on October 3, 1863 in which Lincoln established a yearly national festival, which ensuing presidents have honored.

Many governors opposed the idea because they felt that it was an example of state interference with religion. Actually, in time the celebration itself became more political.

For example, Mrs. Hale and her supporters intended it to be both a day of patriotism and religion. She wrote in one article: “Then in every quarter of the globe our nationality would be recognized . . . every American . . . would thrill his soul with the purest feelings of patriotism and the deepest emotions of thankfulness for his religious enjoyments.” That this idea was held by others is noted in The American Book of Days: “It has frequently been the custom for clergymen to preach political sermons on Thanksgiving Day. In the early years of the nineteenth century their sermons were extremely partisan.”

So with all of the above in mind, what should be the attitude of Christians regarding patriotic ceremonies? Notice how the early Christians regarded patriotic or state ceremonies:

"First-century Christianity had no temples, built no altars, used no crucifixes, and sponsored no garbed and betitled ecclesiastics. Early Christians celebrated no state holidays..."—The Rise of Christianity, by E. Barnes, 1947, p. 333.

Concerning this, notice what the book On the Road to Civilization—A World History says of the early Christians:

“Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. The Christians . . . felt it a violation of their faith to enter military service. They would not hold political office. They would not worship the emperor.” When the Jewish high court “positively ordered” the disciples to stop preaching, they answered: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:27-29)

It is a fact of ancient and modern-day history that in every nation and under all circumstances true Christians have endeavored to maintain complete neutrality concerning factions of the world. (Luke 4:8; John 17:15, 16; John 18:36)

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not try to prevent others from taking part in patriotic ceremonies, for that is up to each individual as to whom or what he will serve, worship, or pledge his allegiance, but Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to remain neutral toward all national flags, symbols, or emblems and their patriotic ceremonies. For more, see: Christian Neutrality (Jehovah's Witnesses United) and "Religious Persecution - Why?" (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

Thanksgiving and Questionable Associations

It is relatively easy to discover that holidays such as Easter, Christmas or Halloween have been directly adopted from pagan celebrations. (For more, see the Holidays category.) But what about Thanksgiving?

Note what the publication Holidays Around the World, by Joseph Gaer says about Thanksgiving:

"Thanksgiving for the annual harvest is one of the oldest holidays known to mankind ... 'The Romans celebrated their Thanksgiving early in October. The holiday was dedicated to the goddess of harvest, Ceres, and the holiday was called Cerelia. 'The Christians took over the Roman holiday and it became well established in England, where some of the Roman customs and rituals for this day were observed ... "

Also note the following:

"Throughout the world harvest has always been the occasion for many queer customs which all have their origin in the animistic belief in the corn [grain]-spirit or corn [grain]-mother. This personification of the crops has left its impress upon the harvest customs of modern Europe. .... Throughout the world, as Sir J. G. Frazer shows, the semi-worship of the last sheaf is or has been the great feature of the harvest-home. Among harvest customs none is more interesting than harvest cries; the Devonshire reapers go through a ceremony which in its main features is a counterpart of pagan worship." - pp. 231-232, Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 11, 14th edition.

"The Pilgrims, who in 1621 observed our initial Thanksgiving holiday, were not a people especially enthusiastic about the celebration of festivals. In fact these austere and religious settlers of America would have been dismayed had they known of the long and popular history of harvest festivals, of which their Thanksgiving was only the latest. .... The harvest festival, with its attendant rites, seems to have spread out from ... Egypt and Syria and Mesopotamia. The first or the last sheaf of wheat was offered to the `Great Mother' .... Astarte [equivalent to Ishtar and Eastre] was the Earth Mother of the ancient Semites; to the Phrygians she was Semele; under the name of Demeter she was worshiped by the Greeks at the famous Eleusinian Mysteries..." - pp. 271-272, Celebrations - The Complete Book of American Holidays, Robert J. Myers, Doubleday & Co., 1972. For more, see: THANKSGIVING - Does It Have Any Known Pagan Religious Association? (Search for Bible Truths).

It would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name. So if pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them. (2 Cor. 6:17) Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

Be Thankful Every Day

Do true Christians need to set one day aside for Thanksgiving? Should the political governments tell us what day we should give thanks?

Jehovah's Witnesses give thanks every day and allow no one to tell them on which day they can thank God.

Also consider that genuine thanks should be accompanied by a deep desire to demonstrate gratitude in action. In contrast, how many observers of the national Thanksgiving holiday actually offer thanks to God? Are not their thoughts more on feasting and having a merry time than on the many gifts God has given? Can it be said that thanksgiving is offered to God by indulging in an extra-big meal? Thanksgiving to God does not come from the stomach but from the mind. It is verbally expressed. “I will praise the name of God with song, and I will magnify him with thanksgiving.” (Ps. 69:30) “In everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God.”—Phil. 4:6.

How Should Modern-day Christians View The Traditional Thanksgiving Dinner?

What about buying a turkey, which is on sale, and making a turkey dinner on that day?

Some may choose to take advantage of this opportunity to enjoy fellowship with family and friends. Yet, what “spirit” will a Christian manifest? It is true that God created turkeys and other foods, so these are not in themselves objectionable. But undoubtedly one who is a true Christian will want to be careful not to stumble others.

Consider what the apostle Paul says, as recorded at 1 Cor. 10. He reasons that Christians should wisely avoid eating before others a perfectly acceptable food if doing so would stumble them. ‘Respect your brother’s conscience’ is the message.

For more information, see the following reference and/or click on the following links:

"A National “Day of Thanks”—The Dream and the Reality" - Article from the 11/22/76 Awake!

Link: Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you not celebrate Thanksgiving? (Yahoo Answers)

Link: THANKSGIVING - Does It Have Any Known Pagan Religious Association? (SFBT)

Link: Is there anything wrong with buying a turkey, which is on sale, and making a dinner on Thanksgiving? Is Thanksgiving pagan? (JWQ&A)

Link: Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate THANKSGIVING? (JWitness Forum)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gregorian Calendar

2011-11-14T08:00:00.001-08:00

Some have suggested that because the Watchtower Society has adopted the use of the Gregorian calendar which uses the names of pagan Roman gods, that they are not totally untouched by the influence of paganism.

However, this is purely specious reasoning used as an excuse to participate in customs which are truly pagan celebrations with all the trimmings.

The calendar currently used by the Watchtower Society is the Gregorian calendar. This calendar is named in honour of Pope Gregory XIII. Its months are named in honour of the pagan Roman kings/gods Augustus (August), and Julius (July) as well as having months named in honour of Roman and Greek gods and goddesses such as Janus (January), Mars (March), Maia (May), Juno (June), and a pagan ritual- "febura" (February).

And some of the days of the week are named for Norse gods (and others): Woden's Day; Thor's Day; Freya's Day - but it is obtuse to think that, although these names are involved, that we are honoring these pagan gods by using the common day and month designations for our society. We have no practical option but to use them.

But as for customs which are devoted to honoring these gods, we do have a choice and, according to Scripture, we should take advantage of that choice.

There are many things which originated, necessarily, under paganism. Pharmacies, Doctors, and who knows what all, but that doesn't make these necessary things a celebration of pagan gods. What is being spoken to by Jehovah's Witnesses is the participation of Christendom in paganistic customs and celebrations which were deliberately borrowed by the Church from pagan celebrations and ceremonies honoring their gods.

There simply is no honest comparison between using necessary information such as the universal use of pagan names for days, months, cities, personal names, etc. with the personal CHOICE to celebrate completely nonessential pagan celebrations.

The early Christians didn't see the need to use their own alternate names for (nor to avoid going to) cities and places which had pagan-related names, nor using the paganistic personal names of individuals. (See Luke and Paul's examples below.) There is a place for reasonable avoidance of actual customs and celebrations devoted to pagan gods and the everyday use of common words.

It is the use of pagan things associated with pagan worship that is at the heart of the issue. It would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name. The mere reference to a day or month on a calendar is not.

Biblical Examples

The mere reference to a day or month on a calendar cannot possibly be equated to the making of unusual efforts to participate in customs with known pagan origins (like celebrating holidays).

For biblical examples, when Luke wrote in Acts mentioning the Areopagus ('Ares Hill' - Ares is the Greek god of war; 'Mars' is the Latin god of war), he didn't feel the need to change its already established name to something no one would recognize. Furthermore, Paul actually went to this place devoted to a pagan god and preached.

And Paul accepted the Areopagite, Dionysius (Greek name for 'god of wine') and had him join him - Acts 17:19-34. Luke and Paul certainly did not become participants in something associated with pagan origins.

The following article is taken from the 5/15/67 Watchtower, Questions from Readers:

"Why did the Jews use the name of the pagan god Tammuz as the name for one of their months?

"Tammuz was the name of a Babylonian deity. (Ezek. 8:14) And though the Bible does not apply the name in this way, postexilic works, such as the Jewish Talmud, use the name for the fourth Jewish lunar month of the sacred calendar, the tenth of the secular calendar. (Ezek. 1:1) So it would correspond to the latter part of June and the first part of July.

"The use of the pagan name Tammuz as applying to the fourth month of the sacred calendar may have been only a matter of convenience among the Jews. We should remember that they were then a subjugated people, obliged to deal with and report to the foreign powers dominating them. So it is understandable that they might utilize the names of the months employed by these foreign powers. Similarly, the Gregorian calendar used today has months named after the gods Janus, Mars and Juno, as well as for Julius and Augustus Caesar. Yet it continues to be used by Christians who are subject to the "superior authorities." - Rom. 13:1." (Emphasis mine.)

Why did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" at John 20:28?

2011-11-12T07:08:00.000-08:00

The context of John 20 (indeed, the context and testimony of the entire Bible) does NOT confirm the trinitarian belief that the Messiah is equally God.

Even the TRINTIARIAN NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son OF God, [NOT GOD] so that the readers may believe in him.”

The context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!”) show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God.

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (NOT, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (NOT that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29)

John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV.

If Thomas' statement truly meant that he believed that Jesus was God, surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is THE CHRIST, the Son OF God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:

"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)

For much more, see:

John 20:28 "My God" (Defending the NWT)

MY GOD (Examining the Trinity)

Why did the apostle Thomas exclaim "My Lord and my God!" at John 20:28? (JWQ&A)

John 20:28 - Is Jesus Given the Title 'ho theos'? (Bible Translation and Study)
(Scroll down to 3rd Scriptural Heading)

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? (WBTS)
(Scroll down to the 5th paragraph of the heading "No Conflict".)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity Proof Texts (Examining the Trinity)

Numerology - Why is it so Appealing and Does it Really Work?

2011-11-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

DO NUMBERS have hidden meaning? “Of course!” some exclaim, pointing to an intriguing example—the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

“The moment I heard the news,” says one numerologist, “I noticed the date: 9-11-2001.” The number 11 is generally considered to be one of the “master numbers” by numerologists. So numerology enthusiasts have compiled a list of various items related to the terrorist attack that point to the “master number” 11. This is just a portion of what they found:

· The tragedy occurred on the date 9/11. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

· September 11 was the 254th day of the year. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

· The airplane that hit the north tower was Flight 11.

· That flight had 92 people on board. 9 + 2 = 11.

· The airplane that hit the south tower had 65 passengers. 6 + 5 = 11.

· The Twin Towers resembled the number 11.

· In English the expression “New York City” has 11 letters.

Numerology—in which special significance is attached to figures, their combinations, and numerical totals—has been a widespread practice in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Why the allure? According to one Web site, decoding the letters of the alphabet used in names—one popular aspect of numerology—“yields accurate information concerning personality, nature, qualities and shortcomings.” According to this source, studying our “date of birth uncovers our life path, with its joys and trials.”

Are these claims true? Or could there be hidden dangers in the metaphysical study of numbers?

DOES numerology stand up under the scrutiny of science and reason? Are numbers the means by which our destiny can be revealed? Should you build your future around numerological findings and predictions?

One objection that numerologists have been unable to overcome is that different cultures use different calendars. For example, what if someone lives where the Chinese calendar is used? Consider the date mentioned in our opening article—September 11, 2001. According to the Chinese calendar, that was the 24th day of the 7th month of the 18th year of the 78th cycle. The Julian calendar would express the same date as August 29, 2001. According to the Muslim calendar, it was 22 Jumada II 1422, while the Hebrew calendar had it as 23 Elul 5761. How could there be numerical significance to a date that is expressed in so many ways? Another factor: Languages often have unique spellings of names. For example, the letters contained in the English name John have a numerological value of 2, but the letters in the Spanish spelling of the same name—Juan—have a value of 1.

It is one thing to recognize that many aspects of the universe can be explained by mathematical formulas. These formulas can be tested and demonstrated. But it is quite another matter to claim that your name was preordained to coincide with your date of birth and to be linked with certain numbers so that you can ascertain your destiny.

The conclusion is clear: To believe that numerological interpretations are accurate, when they are based upon such widely variable factors as calendar and language, is to stretch the limits of credibility to an absurd degree.

“Time and Unforeseen Occurrence”

Some become interested in numerology because they desire to make their life predictable. However, the Bible makes it plain that the details of human life cannot be mapped out in advance. We read: “The swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Yes, many events take place unexpectedly. Such chance happenings defy efforts to predict outcomes based on birth date or numerical value of a name.

Consider another example: In encouraging generosity, the Bible states: “Send out your bread upon the surface of the waters, for in the course of many days you will find it again. Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what calamity will occur on the earth.” (Ecclesiastes 11:1, 2) With few exceptions, calamities are things that people do not—indeed, cannot—know in advance. Hence, mathematics professor Underwood Dudley writes regarding numerologists: “They fail to give chance sufficient credit. Amazing things can happen at random.”

It is true that numerologists may make some predictions that come true. What accounts for this? In some instances, the outcome may be coincidental. Then, too, sometimes the language of numerologists is so ambiguous that it could apply to several outcomes. But there is something more serious to consider.

A Form of Divination?

The Bible does not mention numerology by name. But it does tell of Haman, an Amalekite who plotted the extermination of the Jews living in Persia during the fifth century B.C.E. The account says: “Haman ordered the lots to be cast (‘purim,’ they were called) to find out the right day and month to carry out his plot. The thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, was decided on.” (Italics ours.)—Esther 3:7, Today’s English Version.

In ancient times, casting lots was a legitimate way of settling a controversy. (Proverbs 18:18) But Haman cast lots to practice divination—something that the Bible condemns. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 states that God detests “anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events . . . Everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah.”

The Bible links divination and uncanny power to spiritism. Wicked spirits can maneuver events to suit their purpose. Whether this is the case in a specific instance or not, one thing is certain: The practice of spiritism is condemned by God, and it can bring one under the control of wicked spirits.—1 Samuel 15:23; Ephesians 6:12.

Numerology is devoid of scientific basis, and it fares badly when examined under the light of reason. More important, because it is a form of divination, numerology conflicts with Bible teachings. In view of that, numerology is not a beneficial means of regulating your life or planning your future. - 9/8/02 Awake!

More Articles:

Theomatics - Does it Work? Does the Bible Have a Hidden Code? (SFBT)

Does the Bible Have a Hidden Code? (pastorrussel)

Does the Bible Have a Hidden Code? (WBTS)

Is Colossians 1:15 really saying that Jesus Christ is the "FIRSTBORN of all creation"?

2011-11-08T08:00:00.000-08:00

Yes.

However, some trinitarians insist that the literal "firstborn of all creation" describing Jesus at Col. 1:15 really means "the pre-eminent one over all creation."

Prototokos ("first-born"), literally means "born first" - see Young's Analytical Concordance - or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The New Testament in the King James Version and most other trinitarian translations use this meaning throughout. Here are all the instances of prototokos in the NT: Matt. 1:25 (King James only); Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:5, 6; Heb. 11:28; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 1:5 (compare Col. 1:18). None of them clearly means "pre-eminent". Not only do all of these scriptures that use prototokos have either the certain or the most probable meaning of "first-born," but we rarely (if ever) see any Bible translate them as anything but "first-born" or its literal equivalent except at Col. 1:15-18 where the actual meaning would disprove a trinity concept! A few trinitarian translations force an improper interpretation for prototokos at this scripture only (e.g. NIV, NEB).

The use of the word prototokos in the Bible always means one who has come into existence first in time - before all the rest of his "brothers" - the beginning (arkhe) of his father's creative (or procreative) works. - see pp. 77-88 in Dr. Jason BeDuhn's Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.

Yet some trinitarians, however, still insist that the Biblical use of the Greek prototokos can, sometimes, mean "pre-eminent" because they dare not admit the obvious, true, literal meaning of Col. 1:15.

For much more, see:

Col. 1:15 "Firstborn of all creation" (Examining the Trinity)

'Beginning,' 'Wisdom,' and 'Firstborn' - BWF (Examining the Trinity)

God's "firstborn" (prototokos) Colossians 1:15 (JWitness Forum)

Why doesn't the Sahidic Coptic text see a "genitive of subordination" at Colossians 1:15? (Yahoo Answers)

Col. 1:15 in the NWT (In Defense of The New World Translation)

Wes Williams' Response to Dr. Keay on "Firstborn of all Creation." (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Wes Williams and Rob Bowman discussion concerning Prwtotokos (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Who Is Jesus Christ? (WBTS)

Son of Man Reaps Like An Angel - Rev. 14:14-20

2011-11-06T06:46:00.000-08:00

(Also see the Archangel Category.)

Rev. 14:14-20:
"I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

"Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested.

"Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia [about 200 miles]." - Revelation 14:14-20, NIV.

Noted trinitarian scholar William Barclay writes in his The Revelation of John, Vol. 2 (Revised Ed.), "The Daily Study Bible Series" that there are "difficult things" in this passage.

"... there is the fact that the one like a son of man reaps and also an angel reaps. We may regard the one like the son of man, the risen and victorious Lord [Jesus], reaping the harvest of his own people, while the angel with the sharp sickle reaps the harvest of those destined for judgment."

Dr. Barclay didn't go on to explain another difficulty: Why the scripture about the son of man reaping is so difficult for many trinitarians. So the purpose of this post is to explain why this scripture is so difficult for trinitarians.

Notice these statements by respected trinitarian authorities which also confirm that it is Christ being spoken of in the passage in question:
Rev. 14:14: "Christ is come for reaping this time (Heb. 9:28) for the harvesting of earth (verses 15-17). - p. 414, Vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson (extreme trinitarian).

`Crown': "Hence in the Apoc. [Revelation] a crown is represented on the conquering Christ (Rev 6:2, 14:14)" - p. 530, Vol. 1, A Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), James Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

`Crown' (Stephanos in NT Greek) - "Stephanos is the crown of exaltation bestowed upon Christ (Rev 6:2; 14:; He:2 9)." - p. 763, Vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (very trinitarian), Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.14

"The linguistic usage of Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 reveals affinities to Dan. 7:13. Both passages speak of `one like a son of man' as walking (`amidst the lampstands') or `sitting' on the clouds of heaven. Note too how Rev. differs from the Gospels in leaving out the article; this is apparently an imitation of the text of Dan. 7:13: the apocalyptic `Son of man' is the figure found already in Dan. 7:13, but now as a glorified ruler and judge." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Also examine Acts 1:9; Daniel 7:13,14; Acts 1:11; Mark 13:26, 27; and Rev. 1:7:

"[the resurrected Jesus] was lifted up, and a cloud removed him from their sight [`a cloud hid him from their sight' - GNB; `he disappeared into a cloud' - LB]" - NEB, Acts 1:9.

"[Daniel saw in a vision:] behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days [God] and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom." - NASB, Daniel 7:13, 14.

"`This Jesus, who has been taken away from you up to heaven [hidden in a cloud], will come in the same way as you have seen him go.'" - NEB, Acts 1:11.
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather [reap] his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." - NIV, Mark 13:26, 27.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" - NASB, Rev. 1:7.

Notice how one scripture tells us that Jesus' followers will be `gathered by the sickle' (harvested) from the earth by Jesus the king who is still seated on the cloud (Rev. 14):

"So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested."

Does it say Jesus will actually physically return to earth? No. It clearly says he will still be seated in the clouds when he harvests his people from the earth. In the same way that the clouds hid him when he left (Acts 1:9), they could well be hiding him on his harvesting return ("in the same way as you have seen him go.")

Furthermore, Jesus doesn't even do it firsthand, but, instead, while "in clouds," actually sends his angels to earth to do it! (Mark 13:26, 27.) So, when it also speaks of Jesus being `seen,' we may decide that it really means we `see' in vision, or even `see' by means of our own understanding of what is happening. - see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 678, `Presence.'

After all, other righteous people described in the Bible as having `seen' God, did not physically see him, but, instead, actually saw a vision or even a representative (usually an angel) of God - See SF study paper. Job, for example merely heard Jehovah's voice coming from a windstorm (`whirlwind' - NRSV), but later he said ... "now my eyes have seen you." Job 38:1; 42:5, NIV. And the footnote for Job 42:5 in the New International Version Study Bible tells us:

"... now Job has seen God with the eyes of faith and spiritual understanding" - NIVSB, 1985 ed.

In line with this understanding is the rendering by many translators of Heb. 9:26. Here the inspired Bible writer tells us that Jesus has already "appeared once and for all" [hapax - see the NWT study paper]. - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, Phillips; cf. RSV, NRSV, REB, NAB (1970 & 1991 revision). This would certainly seem to indicate that Jesus would not again physically appear to men.

But whether men actually, physically see him or not is not an important issue. Surely an honest misunderstanding of this would in no way threaten your standing with God.

An error in your understanding of who God is and, therefore, your worshiping God in truth (John 4:24), however, is a crucial issue which means everlasting life (John 17:3) or eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:8, 9, NRSV).

- - - - - -

It is strange that so many respected trinitarian scholars admit that Christ is the `son of man' in Rev. 14:14. Of course the evidence overwhelms any other theory, but that doesn't stop many trinitarian "scholars" from constructing other poorly supported context-defying statements in other areas of the Bible.

Of course, they usually just ignore the great trinitarian difficulty of Rev. 14:14. And what is this great difficulty concerning Christ on the clouds in Rev. 14:14?

He is in all respects like an angel (Dan. 10:5; cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:15 - `another angel' besides that of 14:14 [Christ])." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Notice that the "son of man" on the clouds is given a command by "another angel" and he obeys that command. The command, of course, comes from God (the Father alone) through the angel. Both the "son of man" and the other angel are servants of God (the Father alone).

The wording " another angel" (although not certain, because of the description of other angels before the appearance of the "son of man") at least strongly indicates that the "son of man" here is an angel of God.
But we find absolutely no indication whatsoever in this account that the angel who orders Christ to harvest the earth is giving orders to God Himself! Can anyone believe that an angelic servant of God would speak this way to the Most High God Himself? Or that he would have to tell the omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) Most High "God the Son" when and how to do anything?

Isn't it obvious that Jesus here is in the role of a reaping angel of the last days and performing a task similar to the other reaping angel? Would the Most High Only True God actually wait subserviently for a command from the Most High Only True God to be brought to him by an angelic servant of God and then obey like any other servant?

Isn't the great "difficulty" for trinitarians here the fact that this scripture is actually strong evidence that the resurrected Son (and installed heavenly King) is still not really God ?

Why Do Some Falsly Accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of Not Being Christians?

2011-11-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

Many dictionaries define "Christian" as someone who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or who follows the religion based on his life and teachings.

(Also see: The Bible’s Viewpoint - What Does It Mean to Be a Christian?; WBTS)

Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in Jesus and follow his teachings. They believe that Jesus is extremely important...in fact he is the second most important person in the universe next to God Himself. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe.

So yes, by every genuine definition, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Even disinterested theologians and secular dictionaries acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses are a true restoration of first-century Christianity.

The reason that some falsely accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of not being Christians is because they use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God Himself. Rather, they believe just as the Bible describes Jesus - as the "Son *OF* God".

Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that Jesus ever claimed to be God. Rather, he specifically called the "Father...the only true God." (John 17:1-3; Also see John 20:17; 2 Corinthians 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6)

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is God. Instead, the Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus as the "son of God". Because the Bible says that Jesus' "origin is from of old, from ancient days" (Micah 5:2), the Bible shows Jesus was created by God. Jesus is:

the "only-begotten Son" of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9)

"the first-born of all creation". (Colossians 1:15)

"the beginning of God's creation". (Revelation 3:14)

The Bible shows that Jesus is subordinate to God: "The head of the Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3) Jesus himself said: "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

For much more, see:

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus? (WBTS)

Is Jesus Almighty God? (WBTS)

Is God Always Superior to Jesus? (WBTS)

Why does the NWT at Col. 2:9 state that in Jesus "all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily," when other translations say, "dwells the fullness of Deity/Godhead?'"

2011-11-01T08:00:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from the Watchtower, August 1st, 1962, pages 479, 480(WTB&TS):

"At Colossians 2:9 the word in the Greek that the New World Translation renders "divine quality" is theótes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiótes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation there renders "Godship," as follows: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

"How so? In that there is basis for translating these words either as "Deity," "Divinity" or "Godhead" and so attributing personality to them, or as "Divine Nature," "divine quality," "Godship," and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God's Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

"That the New World Bible Translation Committee were perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."

"Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).

"Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ's followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: "It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority." - Col. 2:9, 10.

"It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, "the fullness of God's nature."

"To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt from the two volume encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures (WTB&TS):

"Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·o´tes] dwells bodily." Here, again, some translations read "Godhead" or "deity," which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning "divinity, divine nature." (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity." Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to quality, not personality.

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that "carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," and they are urged to "go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul's argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious "fullness," in Christ. -Col 2:10-12." (Vol. 1, page 629)

For MUCH more, see:
Does Col. 2:9 prove that Jesus is God? (SFBT)

Col. 2:9 - "Fulness of Deity" (Examining the Trinity)

"Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today..." (JWQ&A)

"The Fullness of the Divine Quality" in Colossians 2:9 (Bible Translation and Study)

Defending the New World Translation Index (Defending the New World Translation)

The Holy Spirit "Poured Out" (Ekxeo)

2011-10-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

In Acts 2:17,18, God pours out [ekxeo, ekxew] from [apo] his Spirit upon all people. This alone should be clear enough that the Holy Spirit is a thing not a person.

However, let's look at all other uses of ekxeo used in the NT as listed in Young's Exhaustive Concordance.

(Mark 2:22 does not use ekxeo in the best manuscripts.)

John 2:15, "poured out [ekxeo] the coins of the money changers."

Acts 2:17, 18, God "pours out [ekxeo] from [apo] His Spirit upon all people."

Acts 2:33, "he has poured out [ekxeo] this (thing) [touto, neut.] which you see."

Acts 22:20, the blood of Stephen was poured out [ekxeo].

Rom. 3:15, Feet swift to shed ("pour out" - ekxeo) blood.

Titus 3:6, "Holy Spirit which he [God] poured out [ekxeo] upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (RSV). [This is also translated by noted trinitarian Beck as "He poured a rich MEASURE of this Spirit on us through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Beck NT)].

Rev. 16:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, pour out [ekxeo] (the contents of) the bowls of the wrath of God. In other words "wrath" was being poured out.

Rev. 16:16, they poured out [ekxeo] the blood of saints and prophets.

Certainly in all other cases ekxeo ("poured out") refers to things. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from our bowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.

What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received holy spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the very trinitarian translations of the New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions ), the New English Bible, and the Revised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite supply.

Also see Numbers 11:17, 25. The literal "from the Spirit" here in the inspired Hebrew Bible language (see the trinitarian The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, Zondervan Publ.) also means "a portion" of God's Spirit was taken from one person and given to others. See these trinitarian translations of Num. 11:17, 25: RSV, NEB, GNB, AT, NAB, JB, NRSV, REB, NJB, Mo, and Byington. Spirit, then, is a thing that may be poured out in portions - you simply do not pour out persons in measured portions upon other persons!

For much more, see:

What Is THE HOLY SPIRIT? (WBTS)

Holy Spirit - Links To Information (SFBT)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Holy Spirit 'Proof-Texts' (SFBT)

Trinity Index (Examining the Trinity)

The King of the North, the King of the South and the "Time of the End”

2011-10-26T08:26:00.000-07:00

Chapters 10 through 12 of the Book of Daniel tells of Daniel's prophecy concerning the ongoing enmity between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South". The political identities of these two kings have changed as the battle between them continued for the past 2,000 years and down into our day. Considering that this prophecy also concerns "the time of the end" (Daniel 12:4), this should be of interest to us. This is because this prophecy could give us a clear view of where we are in the stream of time.

The following is specifically centered on the "time of the end” (Daniel 11:40 through Daniel 12:9). But some excellent information concerning the changing of the political identities of these two kings prior to the 20th century can be found in the Daniel's Prophecy book published by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society.

Concerning the "Time of the End”

Concerning the "time of the end”, Daniel 11:40a reads:

“In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him [the King of the North] in a pushing.”

If “the time of the end” here means the same as it does at Daniel 12:4, 9, we should look for the fulfillment of these words throughout the last days. What immediately comes to mind when a "pushing" is described between two major powers during the course of our past century? What two "kings" have targeted fearsome nuclear weapons on each other and have engaged in high-tech espionage as well as diplomatic and even limited military offensives? This kind of "pushing" has even adopted a name: The "Cold War".

Daniel 11:40b helps to identify the King of the North in “the time of the end”:

“Against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through.”

The identity of the King of the North in the time of the end seems apparent when considering that the history of the past century has well recorded the King of the North's expansionism. But, even though—from the viewpoint of his rival—the King of the North has loomed as a menacing presence, he has not achieved world conquest.

Events To Come

But what happens next? The following is a brief excerpt from the 11/1/93 Watchtower, "The Final Victory of Michael, the Great Prince", pars. 10-14:

"Does the rivalry between the two kings continue indefinitely? No. The angel told Daniel: “There will be reports that will disturb him [the king of the north], out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. And he will plant his palatial tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him.”—Daniel 11:44, 45.

"These events are yet future, so we cannot say in detail how the prophecy will be fulfilled. Recently, the political situation regarding the two kings has changed. The bitter rivalry between the United States and Eastern European countries has cooled. Further, the Soviet Union was disbanded in 1991 and no longer exists.—See the March 1, 1992, issue of The Watchtower, pages 4, 5.

"So who is the king of the north now? Is he to be identified with one of the countries that were part of the old Soviet Union? Or is he changing identity completely, as he has a number of times before? We cannot say. Who will be the king of the north when Daniel 11:44, 45 is fulfilled? Will the rivalry between the two kings flare up again? And what of the huge nuclear stockpiles that still exist in a number of lands? Only time will provide the answers to these questions.

"One thing we do know. Soon, the king of the north will conduct an offensive campaign that will be triggered by “reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north.” This campaign will immediately precede his “end.” We can learn more about these “reports” if we consider other Bible prophecies.

"First, though, notice that these acts of the king of the north are not said to be against the king of the south. He does not come to his end at the hands of his great rival. Similarly, the king of the south is not destroyed by the king of the north. The southern king (represented in other prophecies as the final horn to appear on a wild beast) is destroyed “without [human] hand” by God’s Kingdom. (Daniel 7:26; 8:25) In fact, all earthly kings are finally destroyed by God’s Kingdom at the battle of Armageddon, and this evidently is what happens to the king of the north. (Daniel 2:44; 12:1; Revelation 16:14, 16) Daniel 11:44, 45 describes events leading up to that final battle. No wonder “there will be no helper” when the king of the north meets his end!"

Halloween - Should You Celebrate It?

2011-10-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

Most people view the celebrations of Halloween as nothing more than harmless fun—an excuse for children and adults to dress up and lose their inhibitions. Some might argue that the origin of Halloween celebrations is of little consequence despite the fact that these celebrations are undeniably pagan in origin. But how should Christians view Halloween if they truly wish to worship and please God as best they can? Would even limited participation in the celebration meet with God's disapproval? The following will assist in determining the answers to these questions.

Halloween's Pagan Origin

"Its name means hallowed or holy evening." - The World Book Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 8, pp. 3245-6.

To really understand this "holy evening" you must realize that Halloween, as we know it today, has grown from several different sources. The main source has been traced back to religious ceremonies of the ancient Babylonians. - The New Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, edited by Dr. T. H. Gaster, p. 468, Mentor Book, 1964; and Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend, 1949, p. 38.

From Babylon, this pagan religious celebration spread throughout much of the world.

The Druids of ancient Britain also borrowed this Babylonian festival and celebrated it to honor Samhain, Lord of the Dead, whose festival fell on November 1. - Halloween Through the Centuries, Linton, p. 4. They believed this pagan god called together "certain wicked souls on Halloween" - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 11, p. 103.

In honoring this pagan god, his supplicators hoped to be protected from these "wicked souls." Therefore, many of the things done in celebrating this "holy evening" are in honor of the false gods of the Druids. For example, "When you light a candle inside the jeering pumpkin face, you are in a small way imitating the Celtic Druids" who lit "great bonfires on hilltops to honor the sun god" and thereby help keep away winter and the evil spirits. - The Book of Holidays, McSpadden, 1958 ed., pp. 149-153; and All About American Holidays, Krythe, 1962, pp. 214-215. Since the "Mother" Church (which was established in Rome about 200 years after the death of the last Apostle) embarked on a course of adopting and adapting pagan religious ceremonies into the Church, it is not surprising that elements of ancient Roman false worship were also added to the "Holy Evening" celebration. For example, "when you duck for apples ... you are doing as the Romans did - - honoring Pomona, the Roman goddess of orchards." - The Book of Holidays, pp. 149-153 and Collier's Encyclopedia, 1975, Vol. 2, p. 192.

Although Halloween poses as a Christian holiday, it is exposed as a pagan feast. One dictionary describes "pagan" as: "One of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion." "Polytheistic" means "the worship of or belief in more than one god." True Christians should consider these things as serious because God views these things very seriously. (Lev. 19:2) God Himself said: "You must not have any other gods against my face. Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:1-5) NWT

Yet some may wonder what harm could possibly come from letting children attend a costume party or simply participate in a superficial way. Yes, it is not Scripturally wrong for children to have a costume party or play games such as bobbing for apples. However, doing so as a part of Halloween would be celebrating that pagan religious feast. This would be compromising Christian principles. The Bible condemns the whole idea of putting a Christian mask on a pagan practice.

If pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them. (2 Cor. 6:17) Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB. Also see: What Does the Bible Really Teach? - Take Your Stand for True Worship from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS).

Halloween and Witchcraft

The real religion celebrated by the "Holy Evening" of Halloween is still a living religion. What is sometimes called "witchcraft" has had its ups and downs but is still practiced as a religion in nearly every country of the world.

"It began in the shadowy darkness of man's early religion. It lived and flourished through the ages and it is by no means wiped out even yet. Witchcraft in the Middle Ages was the `art' of controlling natural forces by power obtained from the Devil. Witches were people who made agreements with the Evil One." - Britannica Jr., 1957 ed., Vol. 15, pp. 131-132.

Whether deluded or not, these "witches" were (and are) making a public declaration: a demonstration of their faith and a defiance of the God of the Bible. They continued to practice their religion (in many different, varying sects) in spite of great persecution. This religion of the Middle Ages actually grew out of the earlier pagan Druid religion.

"These rites did not die .... When a monk or knight swore that in a clearing of the woods he had seen witches dancing around the devil, he did not lie. What he saw was ... people worshiping with a priest of the heathen religion. The prayer meetings of the witches were called witches' Sabbaths. .... Two nights especially were set aside - October 31, called Halloween and the eve of May Day, called Walpurgis." - Britannica Jr., pp. 131-132.

"Though the Church was able to destroy the temples and outward forms of worship of these heathen religions, it could not completely eradicate the faith and beliefs of their priests and worshipers. These found an outlet during the Middle Ages in witchcraft which was devoted to the worship of Satan. This cult included periodic meetings, known as witches' sabbaths, which were given over to feasting and revelry. One of the most important sabbaths was held on Halloween." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, Vol. 11, pp. 106-107.

"The witches' sabbat [sabbath], or Black Mass, was a mockery of the religious one. It began with the assembly of the witches' covens, always at night, in forests, open fields, at crossroads, and even secretly in churches.... The name `sabbats' for these meetings is believed to have come from the Old Hebrew Sabbath - the seventh day." - A Cauldron of Witches, Alderman, 1973, p. 9.

The Bible warns against the practice of spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The apostle Paul wrote: “I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22, New International Version) He also asked: “What common interest can there be between goodness and evil? How can light and darkness share life together? How can there be harmony between Christ and the devil? What can a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16, Phillips)

While it is true that the vast majority of those who celebrate Halloween would claim to reject Satanic practices, we should, nevertheless, be aware that historically this holiday has close connections with the occult. Therefore, celebrating Halloween can serve as a door leading to spiritism, especially for impressionable youths. Pagan rites and traditions tainted by spiritism simply have no place in Christian worship; they are far from harmless. (Also see: Dabbling in the Occult—What's the Harm? and What You Should Know About Witchcraft from the WBTS.)

Halloween - Based on Unscriptural Beliefs

Finally, Halloween, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day are all based on the beliefs that the dead suffer or that they can somehow bring harm to the living. However, the Bible clearly shows that such beliefs are not true, saying: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) For that reason, the Bible counsels: “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [the common grave of mankind], the place to which you are going.” (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Since the dead are unconscious and thus incapable of harming others or suffering themselves, we have nothing to fear from them. At the same time, prayers to help them are of no use whatsoever. But this does not mean that there is no hope for our dead loved ones because the Bible assures us that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) (Also see: The Bible's Viewpoint - What Happens at Death? from the WBTS.)

Should You Celebrate Halloween?

Clearly, God would not approve of any ceremonies or customs that have any pagan associations. The Bible also warns us about the practice of spiritism - of which Halloween historically has close connections with. And finally, Halloween is based on beliefs that run completely contrary to what the Bible teaches. So when it comes to celebrating Halloween - especially after considering what you have just read - what will you decide?
----------------------------------------------
(More information concerning Halloween can be found in the 10/8/01 issue of the Awake! magazine published by the WBTS.)

Also see:
Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate HALLOWEEN? (JWitness Forum)

(A 45 minute VIDEO by the History Channel titled "The Haunted History of Halloween" can be seen by clicking here.)

Does Genesis 10:5 really suggest that various tongues (languages) already existed BEFORE the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1)?

2011-10-17T08:00:00.002-07:00

Does Genesis 10:5 really suggest that various tongues (languages) already existed BEFORE the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1)?

"Speaking of Noah’s descendants through his grandson Javan, Genesis 10:5 says: “From these the population of the isles of the nations was spread . . . , each according to its tongue, according to their families, by their nations.”

"Genesis chapter 10 presents what is commonly known as the “Table of the Nations.” It lists 70 families or nations descending from Noah’s sons, giving some indication of where these eventually spread to and settled. Of course, Moses recorded this centuries after the Flood and the confusion of languages at Babel. So he was in position to bring together in what is now Genesis chapter 10 details of how things worked out over the centuries.

"After Genesis chapter 10 gives the details of the “Table of the Nations,” chapter 11 takes up the narrative or chronological history with Babel and shows how it was that many languages came about and why peoples spread over the globe.—Gen. 11:1-9.

"Thus the references in the 10th chapter to various languages are not to be understood as meaning that these developed prior to the confusion of languages at Babel. (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32) But those tongues were later found among Noah’s descendants, whose lineage is provided in that chapter." - Questions from Readers, 7/15/78 Watchtower (Emphasis mine)

Related Articles:

When was Ba'bel built and what became of Nimrod after that? (SFBT)

What Language did Adam and Eve Speak? (SFBT)

Languages - Bridges and Walls to Communication (WBTS)

How Could the Snake in the Garden of Eden Talk When Snakes Don't Have Vocal Cords?

2011-10-14T08:00:00.000-07:00

Some have proposed that the serpent only communicated with Eve through body language or gestures. However, the account tells us that Eve participated in a conversation, and actually answered the question raised by the serpent. The Bible clearly tells us that the serpent actually spoke to Eve. (Gen. 3:1-6)

But in addition to the serpent speaking to Eve, the possibility has been suggested that the serpent also ate of the fruit itself and showed that nothing immediately happened to it when that action was taken. This action (if it happened) may have proved to have been more powerful than any spoken words.

There is nothing to suggest that the literal serpent had vocal cords. But in another similar example, when God's angel spoke to Balaam through a she-ass, the animal did not need a complex voice box similar to that of a human. (Numbers 22:26-31) The power for this action came from the spirit realm. Reasonably then, the voice of the serpent must have come from some invisible person, who was using this snake as a ventriloquist uses a dummy. Possibly this was in order so Eve would not suspect that the inquirer was really an unseen spirit person that was determined to mislead her into breaking God's command and thus sinning. The spirit creature behind the serpent that spoke to Eve is identified in the Bible as "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan." (Revelation 12:9)

Also see:
Was Satan around at the time of Adam and Eve and was he responsible for the snake? (SFBT)

Who was the Serpent in Genesis 3? (JW United)

Satan the Devil (SFBT)

Windows and Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses

2011-10-13T08:00:00.001-07:00

Some opposers have claimed that all Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses do not have windows and insinuate that this is due to hiding nefarious activities. This could not be farther from the truth.

First, the claim that all Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses do not have windows is simply not true. While it is true that some Kingdom Halls do not have windows because of cost and for the sake of security, some Kingdom Halls do have windows. Generally, a Kingdom Hall is built without windows in areas which tend toward hate crimes and vandalism against houses of worship.

The following link shows pictures of some Kingdom Halls that *do* have windows:
http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=199&mforum=jw

Also consider: If Jehovah's Witnesses really had so many things to hide, then why do they continually attempt to invite interested persons to attend meetings conducted inside Kingdom Halls? Their book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom correctly notes: "Jehovah's Witnesses are in no sense a secret society. Their Bible-based beliefs are fully explained in publications that are available to anyone. Additionally, they put forth special effort to invite the public to attend meetings to see and hear for themselves what takes place."
Jehovah's Witnesses invite all interested ones to attend meetings with them at their Kingdom Halls. Just contact your local Kingdom Hall for times.

From the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site:

"Have you ever been curious about what goes on inside the houses of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

"You don’t need to make a hole in the wall to find out about our services. All meetings are open to the public, and visitors are welcome.

"Usually a Kingdom Hall is a modest structure that has an auditorium with chairs for the audience, a speaker’s platform, a lectern, a library, and an area where members can request or pick up literature for Bible study.

"You won't see religious symbols such as crosses or images in a Kingdom Hall. Why not? We follow the Bible’s command: “Guard yourselves from idols.” So we don’t use religious images in our worship—1 John 5:21.

"We do not pass collection plates or practice tithing. For any who may wish to contribute, small donation boxes are set up near the rear of the auditorium.—2 Corinthians 9:7.

"We usually hold services two times a week, and most of the programs involve audience participation similar to a classroom discussion. Worship starts and ends with prayer, and services normally include singing. All services focus on reading and discussing the Bible and seeing how to apply it in one’s life. Those in attendance—even the very young—are encouraged to read the verses being discussed in their own copy of the Bible." (Read the Full Article.)
Also see:
VIDEO - "A very fair and unbiased report from the BBC featured on a popular prime time TV show." (A look at a meeting conducted inside one Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

What Language did Adam and Eve Speak?

2011-10-10T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Bible says that before the Flood, all mankind “continued to be of one language and of one set of words.” (Gen. 11:1) The Bible indicates that the language later called Hebrew was that original “one language.” (See below.) This does not mean that all other languages stemmed from and are related to Hebrew but that Hebrew preceded all other languages.

(The following is a brief excerpt from Insight on the Scriptures, pp.1068-1077, Hebrew, II):

Origin of the Hebrew Language

Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of any of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean, and Egyptian. This is because these tongues appear already fully developed in the earliest written records men have found. The various views advanced by scholars concerning the origin and development of Hebrew—such as those claiming that Hebrew derived from Aramaic or from some Canaanite dialect—are therefore conjectural. The same may be said for attempts at explaining the derivation of many words found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars frequently assign an Akkadian or an Aramaic source for many of these words. However, as Dr. Edward Horowitz comments: “In the field of etymology [the study of word origins] there are wide differences of opinion among scholars, even among the very best of them.” He then cites examples of explanations by renowned scholars of the etymology of certain Hebrew words, in each case showing that other prominent scholars disagree, and then adds: “And so we have these never ending differences between equally highly respected authorities.”—How the Hebrew Language Grew, 1960, pp. xix, xx.

The Bible is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” (Ge 14:13), who, in turn, was descended from Noah’s son Shem. (Ge 11:10-26) In view of God’s prophetic blessing on Shem (Ge 9:26), it is reasonable to believe that Shem’s language was not affected when God confused the language of the disapproved people at Babel. (Ge 11:5-9) Shem’s language would remain the same as it had been previously, the “one language” that had existed from Adam onward. (Ge 11:1) This would mean that the language that eventually came to be called Hebrew was the one original tongue of mankind. As stated, secular history knows no other. - Insight on the Scriptures, pp.1068-1077, Hebrew, II

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E?

2011-10-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E?

Some who wish to accuse the Watchtower organization of being a "false prophet" claim that the 607 B.C. date chosen by the Society for the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon is proof. Christendom endorses and teaches the date of 587 B.C. (which is the opinion of secular historians today).

Most secular historians tell us that some captives were taken from Jerusalem in 598 B.C., but that the city was not harmed at that time. They also tell us that a later siege in 587 B.C. destroyed Jerusalem and that all but a handful of the inhabitants of all of Judah were deported from the land at that time.

"All archeologically studied towns of Judah (see Jer. 25:11, 17, 18) were DESTROYED at this time (587 B.C.)." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, v. 3, p. 9.

They also tell us that

"the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C., substantially confirmed by modern archeological discoveries, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland." - Americana.

Now if we insist on perfection in the statements of God's inspired prophets of the Bible concerning time factors, then either the inspired prophets who warned of the desolation of Jerusalem by Babylon must have proclaimed a 49 (or 50) year desolation of Jerusalem - from 587 B.C. to 538 B.C. (or 537 B.C. if we properly allow for preparation and travel time after Cyrus' edict)! OR the secular historians of today are wrong about the 587 B.C. date which most of Christendom (and apostate ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) accepts.

Now Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 538 B.C. date for the edict of Cyrus since the evidence produced "by modern archeological discoveries" is probably better established for it, and it certainly correlates more properly with Bible chronology. And since the date 587 B.C. for the beginning of the desolation period is probably more doubtful than that of the "substantially confirmed" 538 B.C. date for the edict which led to the end of the desolation period and does not fit proper Bible chronology, Jehovah's Witnesses have decided that the date of the desolation of Jerusalem must have been 607 B.C. Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the inspired prophets Jeremiah and Daniel are more likely to be correct than secular historians! (Be sure to read pp. 186-189 in Let Your Kingdom Come, 1981 Watchtower publication.)

Daniel wrote that he was "reading the scriptures and reflecting on the SEVENTY years which, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while Jerusalem lay in ruins." - Dan. 9:2, NEB. Also see Jer. 25:8-11, 17, 18.

Now isn't it interesting that Christendom (especially those most vocal dissident ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) condemns Jehovah's Witnesses as being false prophets for interpreting certain ancient dates (most notably the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 B.C.) based upon the clear statements of inspired Bible prophets which seem to contradict the conclusions of secular historians today?

Think about it. What's really happening when certain "Christians" insist that a figurative "prophet" be perfect in its interpretation of time and then turn around and say,

"Yes, Daniel was an inspired prophet (and so was Jeremiah), but, although he literally said Jerusalem would lie desolate for 70 years, HE REALLY MEANT 50 YEARS. We believe the authorities today who tell us it was really 50 years," these `Christians' say, "more than we believe the literal accuracy of the inspired prophet, Daniel (or Jeremiah)."?

In other words, it's o.k. to condemn those who have never claimed to be inspired prophets for an apparent error in the interpretation of a date and proclaim them false prophets, and, in so doing, indirectly (but necessarily) accuse the truly inspired Bible writers, who, they believe, made the very same kind of time "errors," of being false prophets .

Yes, those who insist on the secular historians' dates (which make a 50 year desolation) are, by necessity, insisting that the Bible prophets stated the wrong chronology (70 years of desolation). By their insistence on the 587 B.C. date they are saying the inspired prophets did not prophesy a literally accurate time!

The real difference is that Jehovah's Witnesses admit to being human, making nonessential errors at times, and not being an inspired "prophet." They truly believe the organization, as a whole, and over the long term, has the guidance of Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that every step, every thought, every utterance of every member will be perfect in this present system of things. The first Christians, who were obviously guided by Holy Spirit, admitted as much about themselves. And yet these Jehovah's Witnesses, imperfect as they may be, are courageous enough to say that Daniel and Jeremiah are inspired prophets of God and are certainly more likely to be correct than secular historians.

If Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on this nonessential "time interpretation," does that make them false prophets because they have chosen the literal accuracy of God's inspired prophets over the statements of uninspired historians? I think not! I believe, instead, a strong statement of their obedience to proper authority (the Bible in this case) is being made in spite of the ridicule and dishonest accusations of many false Christians.

On the other hand, what if the actual inspired prophets (Daniel and Jeremiah) are literally correct? Where does that put those "Christians" who are, in actuality, saying that Daniel and Jeremiah were false prophets? It seems we have a real test of faith and proper heart condition here.
------------------------------------------

(More information about this topic can be found through the Related Articles below and/or by reading, "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows" part 1 in the 10/1/11 Watchtower and part 2 in the 11/1/11 Watchtower ... either of which can be downloaded here.)

Related Articles:

Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E. (Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.)

Was 607 B.C.E. Actually the Year Jerusalem Fell? (From God's Word)

Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. (Pastor Russsel)

Seven Times - The Times of The Gentiles (Pastor Russsel)

1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy (Pastor Russsel)

Appointed Times of the Nations (Pastor Russsel)

1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy
How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians... (WBTS)

God’s Kingdom Superior in Every Way
This happened in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. During “ the appointed times” that were to follow, God would not have a government on ... (WBTS)

Links to more sources concerning 607 B.C.E. (Y/A)

Israel's Essential Knowledge of God - The God of Judaism and the First Christians WITHIN Judaism

2011-10-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

(This study refers to those who were faithful to the Law of Moses up to the time of the death of Jesus and beyond. It is very clearly revealed in the rest of the O(ld) T(estament) scriptures itself that much (even most) of Israel was apostate in various periods before the time of Christ. This included kings, priests, and much of the populace itself. This correlates with the vast apostasy of much of Christendom during the past 1800 years.)

Certainly any worshiper must know his God. This is essential in any religion, but emphatically so in the religion of the God of the Bible. So exactly who is this God?

Israel and Judaism has always taught that God is one person only, Jehovah, the Father. Christendom began teaching in the 4th century A.D. that God is three persons who are all equally the one God. (See: The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine)
God does not change (Malachi 3:6). He is the same now as he has always been. He revealed himself to many individuals as recorded in the Bible. So how did the first Bible writer, Moses, reveal God to His Chosen People, Israel? There can be no argument that the first 5 books of the Bible (the writings of Moses) revealed God (through God’s own direction and commandment) as a single person with the personal name of Jehovah.

Then, later, the Book of Joshua was written. Search through it as you may you will not find anything that clearly shows that God is anything other than a single person with the personal name of Jehovah!

These 6 books were the word of God for God’s chosen people for hundreds of years. In fact, if we carefully examine all the Old Testament, we find the same thing: There was never any indication that God was anything but Jehovah, the Father in heaven, the Creator of all. (See: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-trinity-doctrine-hist-part-7.html)

(“That all the peoples of the earth may know that Jehovah...is God; there is none else.” 1 Ki. 8:60, ASV. “You alone, Jehovah, are the God above all gods in supreme charge of all the earth.” Ps. 83:18, LB. “I am Jehovah and there is no one else. I alone am God.” Is. 45:6, LB.)

For thousands of years this has been the great distinction of the chosen people of the God of the Bible. They have always known that their God is one person only. Not only has the divine word itself (given to them alone) made this clear, but all the other writings, teachings, comments, etc. by their scholars, teachers, etc. throughout the ages have always confirmed this.

How can this be if the trinity doctrine that God is three persons is true? A people must know their God. The God of the Bible was very careful to inform his people of the things that would lead to eternal life and eternal destruction. He made his name known to them alone. God does not change. So how is it that for thousands of years God’s chosen people have always known that God is one person, Jehovah, the Father alone?

How is it that knowledge of God’s “plurality” was never noticed until hundreds of years after Jesus’ death (and many years after the Apostles’ deaths, of course) when Christendom was adopting the trinity doctrine? How come the “evidence” for the trinity in the OT are things that most respected OT Hebrew scholars view with scorn (even most trinitarian Hebrew scholars of Christendom refute their significance)? For example, the insistence by some trinitarians that the OT word for God, Elohim, is plural to indicate the plurality of persons within the “Godhead.” This is not merely ludicrous to respected Hebrew scholars, but an example of downright disgraceful “scholarship”! (See the ELOHIM study.)

The God of Judaism

“Judaism, rejecting alike the Trinity and the Incarnation, believes in a single universal God....” - Britannica, p. 166, Vol. 13, 14th ed.

“Jehovah was recognized by all the Jews as the Highest Master of their Fate, the only True God.” - The Story of Mankind, p. 29, Hendrik Willem Van Loon, 1940, Pocket Book Edition. Cf. Jeremiah 10:10 and Jn 17:1, 3, KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV; Ps. 83:18.

Jehovah was the Father only [never Son, Firstborn, Only-begotten, etc.] to the Jews. - Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:8, etc., ASV. Famed first century Jewish Historian Josephus tells us,

“[Moses] represented God as unbegotten [unlike the Son of God, 1 Jn 4:9, KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB], and immutable, through all eternity.” - Josephus, p. 630, Kriegel Publications, 1978.

And Philo, the famed early-first century Jewish philosopher,

“represents Jehovah as a single uncompounded Being .... the Father and Creator of the universe” - p. xx, The Works of Philo, Yonge, Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

In Judaism

“God was worshipped as a single personal, universal benevolent force, a loving Father-God whose care was for the well-being of his children, the human race.” - p. 5, The Portable World Bible, The Viking Press.

It is absolutely unbelievable that Jesus and his Apostles taught the trinity or even suggested that Jesus was God Almighty! There is no certain or undisputed scriptural authority for such a belief in New or Old Testament. The writings of the Christians of the first two centuries did not teach such a thing but consistently taught that the Father, alone, was the Almighty God - (See pp. 109-111, A Short History of the Early Church, Boer, 1976, Eerdmans Publ.).

The belief that Jesus is God and that God is three equal persons had to be forced upon most of Christendom starting at 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicaea. But the Jews never changed their knowledge of God. No one but the Father (Jehovah alone) has ever been God for them. The introduction of any other knowledge of God is treated as the worst of blasphemies. And so it was that Jewish writers didn’t even begin attacking Christendom for such a terrible blasphemy until after Christendom began to adopt a God of three equal persons during the 4th century A.D.

First Christians Were Within Judaism

It is certain that the Chosen People with the unique One-Person God would not have tolerated for one second any man in their midst who claimed to be God. Nor would they have allowed anyone to live among them who taught that their one God was “three persons”! (Also see: Did Those Who Knew Jesus Think He was God?)

And yet Jesus taught among them as one of them for three and a half years. His Apostles taught among them for another 50-70 years![1, bottom of this article]

"The believers in Jesus as the Messiah first preached to fellow Jews, so that the first Christians were pious Jews within the synagogue.” - The Story of Israel, p. 28, Levin, Putnam Publ.

“Henceforth, the group [first century Christians] had to reassure itself of its new identity through weekly celebrations in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection, even though its worship in the synagogues and the temple was already distinctive.” – p. 85, Christian Beginnings, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

“Except for the belief in Jesus as the Messiah, there was little that was radically contrary to Judaism in the teachings and practices of the Christ sectarians [a sect of Judaism].” - p. 87, The Jews: Biography of a People, Teller, Bantam Books, 1966.

“Consequently, the Early Church was primarily Jewish and existed within Judaism. The development of Christianity within Judaism and its progress to Antioch is described by Luke in the first twelve chapters of Acts.” - p. 59, Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns (trinitarian), Zondervan, 1977.

“In its earliest phase, the Christian movement had its center in Jerusalem, where it took shape not as a new religion but as a sect or grouping within the parent body of Judaism. .... That they saw themselves simply as Jews, as a renewed Israel, is made clear by the fact that they were faithful both in attendance at the temple and in obedience to the Law; and this being the case, they lived in peace with the religious authorities in Jerusalem.” - p. 23, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker (trinitarian), 1985, Macmillan Publ.

“In this period [1st century A. D.] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism [belief in the one God] in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures [‘Old Testament’], and they took messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted...” - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

“The roots of the Christian Church reach back deeply into the history of Israel. ‘Salvation,’ said Jesus, ‘is from the Jews’ (John 4:22). .... The earliest church was wholly Jewish, her Savior was a Jew, and the entire New Testament was probably written by Jews.”

....

“The baptisms recorded in Acts were all done in the name of Jesus only. It is this confession [only] that distinguished Christians from Jews. Belief in God was assumed [the God of the Jews, YHWH, the Father alone] and was not therefore a matter of special confession. As the gospel spread to the Gentiles, the name of God, especially as Creator, was added.” - pp. 3, 75, A Short History of the Early Church, Boer (trinitarian missionary and scholar), 1976, Eerdmans Publ.

“Jesus of Nazareth was well versed in the religion of his fathers and dedicated ... to worship of ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ Jehovah, who was now seen as the one God, omnipotent ruler of the universe and loving father of mankind.... Racially and religiously Christ was born, lived, and died a loyal Jew, He sought merely to ... widen his people’s understanding of the merciful, loving, Father-God whose Lordship was attested by the Jewish spiritual leaders who preceded him.” - The Portable World Bible, The Viking Press, pp. 228, 230.

If there had been any new knowledge of God being understood by this new Christian sect of Judaism, there would have been nothing else ever talked about by the Jews whenever they discussed the Christians. Even the claim that Jesus was the Messiah would have been completely overshadowed! Instead, the Christians remained a sect of Judaism for many years. The falling out between Christianity and Judaism occurred for several other reasons: (1) The claim that Jesus was the Messiah,[2, bottom of this article] (2) The strains caused by the Mosaic Law, (3) differences over “purity laws” and table fellowship, BUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT A DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE OF GOD! This simply could not be if there was even a rumor that Christians believed anyone but the Father alone (Jehovah) was God! This greatest of all blasphemies in the eyes of the Jews would not have taken second place to anything else!

“It is at this point [after Nicaea, 4th century A. D.] that the gulf between the Church and the Synagogue opens before us in all its depth and significance .... The teaching of the divinity of Jesus Christ is an unpardonable offence in the eyes of Judaism.” - The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, Jakob Jocz.

“Only gradually did the Christian understanding of Christ and the Spirit evolve to the point where it was incompatible with any Jewish understanding of monotheism, and this process was only finalized in the fourth century C.E.” - p. 104, Aspects of Monotheism, “Jewish Monotheism and Christian Theology,” by John J. Collins (Catholic professor of Hebrew Bible at Chicago Divinity School), 1997, Biblical Archaeology Society.

If the trinity or the divinity of Jesus had been taught or believed by the first Christians, the schism between the Jews (who considered such a teaching “an unpardonable offense”) and Christians would have been immediate, irrevocable, and incredibly intense. But that is not what caused problems between the first Christians and the Jews.

The Jewish belief that the parting of the ways came not at Stephen’s martyrdom but after Bar Kochba’s war against Hadrian [132-135 A. D.] is now gaining ground. Previously there had been no event sufficiently striking to sever the ties. Christians frequented the synagogues: they were still a Jewish sect. But Bar Kochba was hailed by Aqiba as the Messiah. This the Christians could not condone and they stood aside. .... The Jews regarded the Christians as renegades: the Christians would not fight for Aqiba’s Messiah. The die had fallen and there was no recalling the past. - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 167, Vol. 13, 14th ed. [See the 'Bar Kochba and the Christians' study.]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

It was the generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final rupture between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome [132-135 A.D.], when the Christians were unable to accept Bar Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was of the other world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything Jewish. The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity became strangers to each other .... A wall of misunderstanding and hate was erected by the narrow zealotries of the two faiths. [pp. 152, 153, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962.][3, bottom of this article]

Now examine this essential cornerstone teaching of the Jews since the time of Moses: the Shema of Deut. 6:4, 5 as rendered in the trinitarian Living Bible.

“O Israel, listen: Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone. You must love him with all your heart, soul, and might.”

Yes, Jehovah, the Father alone (Jn 8:54), was God. God’s chosen people were commanded to love and worship only him.

“I am Jehovah and there is no one else. I alone am God.” - Isa. 45:6, Living Bible.

Jesus and his Apostles believed and taught the very same truth (of course they would not contradict the Holy Scriptures): Jesus was asked,

“‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ Jesus replied, ‘The one that says, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord [Jehovah] our God is the one and only God. And you must love him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.”’” - Mark 12:28-30, Living Bible.

After Jesus’ death the first writings available to Christians (certainly long before John’s Gospel was written), in addition to the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) were the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Search them as carefully as you can. You will not find any new knowledge concerning the identity of God Almighty, the only true God. He is still the Father in heaven - -- alone. Can we really believe that thousands of God’s spirit-anointed Christian followers of the first century lived and died without being taught that God is “really” a three-persons-in-one God? In fact, the entire New Testament (including those writings that came much later than the very first Gospels - including the Gospel of John) still do not teach a trinity nor even that Jesus is the only true, almighty God. How can this most essential, cornerstone teaching of Christendom not be in the Holy Bible?

Some might say that just as the identity of the Christ was not revealed until the first century A. D. so the identity of God was not fully revealed until 325 A. D. (or 381 A. D. when the Holy Spirit was added to the creed). At that time a small minority of the Bishops present (but powerfully encouraged and supported by the pagan Roman Emperor with the backing of all his power and authority) decreed at the Council of Nicaea that Jesus was fully God with the Father. (See: The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine.)

Ah, but the knowledge of who the Messiah was simply wasn’t required for salvation until Jesus was on earth. At that time it was revealed with abundant clarity, emphasis, and repetition. (See Luke 2:11; 4:41; Mark 14:61, 62; Matt. 16:16; John 1:41, 42; 4:25, 26; 20:31 for a few of the many straightforward examples.) The knowledge of who God is, however, has always been essential to God’s people and has been known clearly and emphatically from the time of Moses at least (as shown in Deut. 6:4 among many others).

The God who wants no one to be destroyed has clearly and emphatically revealed who he is from the very beginning. Yes, the eternal God who does not change (Malachi 3:6) has been clearly known to his people for thousands of years as Jehovah, the Father! - -

“JEHOVAH .... This is my name forever.” - Ex. 3:15, NEB, ASV, MLB, NIV, RSV. “Jehovah, ... (This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations.)” - LB.

It should also be apparent to most people that the identification of the promised Messiah is in no way contradictory to the knowledge previously given to the Jews from the time of Moses up to the time of Jesus!

However, the “revelation” (finally “recognized” long after all scripture had been completed) of three persons being God is a direct contradiction of the knowledge revealed to and understood by the people of God for thousands of years.

If the trinity knowledge is true, God actually misled his people in an essential, life-saving area of knowledge for generation after generation for no reason whatsoever! How incredible that He would have chastised them so grievously for even relatively minor paganisms borrowed from their neighbors and completely ignored such a perversion of the basic, essential knowledge of God! Surely (if the trinity were true) His prophets would have been correcting the single Person “error” for thousands of years!

If Jesus or any of his followers were to have taught a three-in-one God or even that Jesus was God incarnate, the Jews would have driven them out immediately. They certainly would not have been tolerated as a sect of Judaism for so many years as they were. And, if, by some incredible miracle, they had been allowed to live among and teach other Jews, there would have been nothing that would have been talked about more than the incredible, new, most blasphemous conception of God that these people were trying to introduce.

The writings of the Jews of these times would have spoken of very little else in connection with this new sect. And the New Testament would have spent the major portion of its teaching on this “trinity” concept, especially when attempting to communicate with fellow Jews. But there is no such record among the Jews, among the Gentile historians and philosophers, nor in the record of the New Testament, nor in the writings of the Christians of the first two centuries![4, bottom of this article] - See the CREEDS study.

This makes the statement about the easy “acceptance” of the new trinitarian “revelation” by the very first Christians found in the highly-praised, highly trinitarian New Bible Dictionary absolutely ludicrous! If not so tragic, it would be laughable:

“What is amazing, however, is that this confession of God as One in Three took place without struggle and without controversy [even without comment] by a people indoctrinated for centuries in the faith of the one God, and that in entering the Christian church [the early first century Jews] were not conscious of any break with their ancient faith.” - p. 1222, second ed., 1984 printing, Tyndale House Publishers (trinitarian).

Yes, this would be more than just “amazing,” if these people really did understand and accept a new Three-in-One God! The complete lack of any struggle, the complete lack of Jewish attacks on this most blasphemous concept imaginable to them, the complete lack of any teaching or defense of this concept by those first Christians, and the complete lack of any contemporary comment on this incredible new teaching all combine to make the trinitarian idea that this concept was known and believed by the first Christians absolutely impossible!

No, the God of the Bible remained, as should be expected, completely unchanged from the time he revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush: “Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3:15, ASV, NEB, LB, MLB). This is exactly the same God revealed by Jesus and his Apostles.

“Jesus replied [to the Jews], ‘Your trouble is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and don’t know the power of God.... have you never read in the book of Exodus about Moses and the burning bush? God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and I am the God of Isaac, and I am the God of Jacob.”’” - Mark 12:24, 26, LB.

Immediately after that statement by Jesus one of the scribes came up to Jesus and asked, “Of all the commandments which is the most important?” And, as we saw above, Jesus answered by quoting that all-important declaration of the identity of the true God that all Jews have held sacred for over 3000 years, Deut. 6:4:

“The one that says, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord [Jehovah] our God is the one and only God. And you must love him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.’” - Mark 12:28, 29, Living Bible.

This Jehovah is the Father, the only true God (Jn 17:1, 3 - “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God.” - NEB). Jehovah is the God of Jesus (Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:17; Rev. 3:12). Jesus is not Jehovah (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:34-36; Micah 5:4; Is. 53:10; Ps. 2:2; Acts 4:24-29 - see footnote for Micah 5:4 in The NIV Study Bible). Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, but not God Himself.

The footnote for Mark 14:61 in the trinitarian NIVSB tells us that “Son of God” as applied to Jesus here

“would seem not to refer to deity but to royal Messiahship, since in popular Jewish belief [then and now] the Messiah was to be a man, not God.”

Therefore, God’s chosen people (even those many who became apostate) have never known their only true God to be a “multiple person God.” Since the faithful followers of God's word have always worshiped only a single person named Jehovah, their Father in heaven, it puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of trinitarians. Where is the overwhelming, crystal clear proof that somehow all of Israel (from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Moses to David to Isaiah to Malachi to Jesus) was always mortally wrong in their knowledge of the very God who revealed himself to them? [See 'Trinity Challenges' study]. The “proof” offered by trinitarians is always specious, vague, and/or ambiguous (see the DAVID, REDEF and TRIN-TYPE studies).

- “... the Lord Jesus shall be revealed...in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God....” - 2 Thess. 1:7, 8.

....................................................................
Note: Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research and conclusions to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian ‘proof’ being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the information in this paper, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian “proofs,” may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics. Jehovah’s Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. – RDB.
....................................................................

NOTES

1. Nowhere in the scriptures do the Jews ever accuse Christians of worshiping or teaching a false God. Even when the Jews deliberately made up false accusations in an attempt to have them killed, Jesus, Paul, and other Christians were still never accused of teaching a different God from that of the rest of the Jews! (Examine the Gospels and Acts.)

Examples of Christ and His followers Teaching in Synagogues (NASB)
　

Matt. 13:54 -

He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
Mark 1:21 -

And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach.

Mark 6:2 -

When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?

Luke 4:16 -

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.

Luke 4:20-22

And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. …. And all were speaking well of Him….”

Luke 6:6 -

On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching;

John 6:59 -

These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Acts 13:14 - 44 -

But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." ….

Acts 14:1 -

In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
Acts 17:1 -

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

Acts 18:4 -

And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:8 -

And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading {them} about the kingdom of God.
………………………………..........

Teaching in the Temple

Matt. 26:55 -

At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as {you would} against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.

Mark 12:35 -

And Jesus answering began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?

Luke 21:37, 38 -

Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet.
And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him.

Acts 5:42 -

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

2. This was obviously a severe problem for the first Christians as they taught among their fellow Jews in Israel. Acts 4 and 5 shows that the sole problem for the Jewish religious authorities was not any teaching about God but, instead, the teaching about Jesus as the Christ or Messiah! (esp. Acts 4:8-10, 18; 5:40-41; 9:17-23; 18:5-6, 28)

The final straw was added during the Jewish rebellion against Rome (135 A. D.) when the Christians refused to support the rebellion or acknowledge bar Kochba as the Messiah - p. 594, The History of Christianity (trinitarian), Lion Publishing, 1990; and pp. 152, 153, Jews, God, and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962; and p. 167, Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18, 14th ed.

3. “Cochba [bar Kochba] ... tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the Roman army.” - p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.

“Another Christian apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny and curse Jesus the Messiah.” - Ibid.

“After the war the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of Gentiles.” - Ibid.

4. Some of these earliest Christian writers even wrote specifically to the Jews in an attempt to show the major differences between Christians and Jews and, of course, defend the Christian faith. None of them mention a difference in the knowledge of God!

Two of the earliest Christian writings addressed specifically to the Jews are Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews written about 198 A.D. and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew written about 160 A.D.

Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews devotes three-fourths of its pages to examining the question of who is the Messiah. It also discusses the following points: the Law, Circumcision, the Sabbath, and Sacrifices. It does not discuss any different knowledge of God for Jews and Christians!

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew also spends much time discussing who the Christ is and other differences between Christians and Jews. But, again, there is no major discussion of who the One True, Almighty God is! If Christians had really understood God as three different persons at this time, Justin (and Tertullian) would have spent most of his pages defending the Christian knowledge of a three-in-one God against that of the Jews’ one-person God. The fact that this doesn’t happen shows that such an understanding simply did not exist among the earliest Christians. They worshiped the very same God as the Jews: the Father alone!

The word 'Man' in Hebrew - An Examination of the Hebrew Words 'Ish', 'Adám', 'Enósh' and 'Geber'

2011-10-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

"HOW does God view man? His Word tells us: “Look! The nations are as a drop from a bucket; and as the film of dust on the scales they have been accounted. . . . There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.”—Isa. 40:15, 22.

Truly, when we consider the matchless Personality, the glorious Person, the exalted position, the eternal existence and the sovereign authority of Jehovah God, the Creator, we must marvel as did the psalmist that He takes note of us.—Ps. 144:3.

Scriptural expressions such as these, showing how God views man, might be multiplied, but our interest at this time is in a certain unique way by which he also reveals this truth to us. And how is that? By the different words used in the Hebrew Scriptures in referring to man.

In the English language “man” simply means man. But in Hebrew a number of different words are used, each viewing man from a certain standpoint. Of these, the four main ones are ish, meaning simply man; adám, meaning human or earthling; enósh, meaning weak or mortal; and geber, meaning a physically strong or able-bodied man.

Many translators ignore the different shades of meaning that these words have, but when we once become aware of them we are struck with the care that the Hebrew Scripture writers time and again exercised in choosing just the right word when they wanted to make a point. For example, most translations render Psalm 8:4 quite like the Revised Standard Version does: “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?” Now the Hebrew word most logically translated “man” is ish, but in writing this psalm David did not use ish in either instance. He was making a contrast between Jehovah God the Creator and his creature, mere man, and so he wrote: “What is enósh . . . and adám?” Or, as rendered by the New World Translation, one of the few English translations doing justice to these fine shades of meaning: “What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man that you take care of him?” Yes, compared with the almighty, immortal, divine Spirit, what is this weak mortal creature made of earth, that He should take account of him?

“ISH” AND “ISHSHÁH”

Ish, together with its plural form anashím (which at times also serves as the plural of enósh), has primarily the thought of “man,” or a person, an individual. It has no such overtones as human, mortal or able-bodied, although inherent in it is the thought of strength as of a male. The word ish does not appear in the Scriptures until after the word for woman, ishsháh—a man with a womb—appears, for in the strictest sense of the word only then did an ish become apparent; before that he was called the human, adám. When in the Hebrew Scriptures man is mentioned in relation to woman or sexual intercourse, invariably ish is used, some seventy times in all, although the word for “male” is zakhár and occurs seventy-nine times from Genesis 1:27 onward. Typical is Leviticus, chapter 20, dealing with God’s law regarding sex relations.

Ish, with its emphasis on the person, the individual, is the choice of Bible writers when writing about a “man of God,” and a “man of discernment.” When Nathan confronted King David with his sin, Nathan used this word. Did he say, “You yourself are the”—mortal? human? able-bodied man? No, but, “You yourself are [the one] the man!”—Josh. 14:6; Prov. 10:23; 2 Sam. 12:7.

There are times when the other words for “man” simply would not be appropriate. Thus when the psalmist foretold that the names of those of the body of Christ who gain heavenly glory would be known he could use only ish. “‘Each and every one was born in her.’ . . . Jehovah himself will declare, when recording the peoples: ‘This is one who was born there.’” Also Moses, when exulting over Jehovah’s victory at the Red Sea, could not have referred to Jehovah as a weak mortal or a human earthling, and so had to use ish to convey his thought, even as rendered in the New World Translation: “Jehovah is a manly person of war.”—Ps. 87:5, 6; Ex. 15:3.

“ADÁM”

Adám, the human, the earthling, is the choice whenever Hebrew Scripture writers make reference to the creation of man: “I myself have made the earth and have created even man [the human] upon it.” Adám does not denote maleness any more than human does, and so we read that Adam, that is, the human, earthling man, called the first human pair, the ish and ishsháh, the man and the woman.—Isa. 45:12; Gen. 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Eccl. 7:29.

Adám, the human, is almost without exception also the word preferred when man is mentioned in the same breath with the lower animals or beasts. This coupling appears in the accounts of creation, the Deluge, the plagues of Egypt and the seventy-year desolation. The psalmist praises Jehovah God for preserving both adám (human) and beast. And it is the human that is shown to be like the beast by the Congregator: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind [adám] and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man [human, adám] over the beast, for everything is vanity.”—Gen. 1:26; 6:7; Ex. 8:17; Jer. 33:10; Ps. 36:6; Eccl. 3:19-21.

Fittingly, adám, the earthling, human, is also the choice when speaking of the general characteristics of humankind: “The inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up.” “There is no man that does not sin.” “Man, born of woman, is short-lived and glutted with agitation.” “Surely every earthling man . . . is nothing but an exhalation,” a breath. “There is no man having power over the spirit to restrain the spirit,” that is, to keep from dying. “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man [ish, to one] who is walking even to direct his step.”—Gen. 8:21; 1 Ki. 8:46; Job 14:1; Ps. 39:5; Eccl. 8:8; Jer. 10:23.

Even as adám sets man apart from the lower animals, so it also calls attention to man’s inferiority to the Creator, Jehovah God. Thus Moses was told that no human could see God and live. Samuel was reminded that a human can see only the outside, but God can see the heart. David prayed that he might not fall into human hands but into God’s hands, for having numbered the fighting men of his nation presumptuously. The temple of Solomon, David said, was to be built, not for humans, but for God. Jehoshaphat counseled the judges to remember that they were judging, not for humans, but for God. Elihu refused to give flattering titles to mere humans.—Ex. 33:20; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 21:13; 29:1; 2 Chron. 19:6; Job 32:21.

The psalmist twice asked why the great Creator should take note of mere humans; also, he said that, though certain ones were “gods,” they would die like earthling man. The fear of humans brings a snare, but he that trusts in Jehovah will be safe. Why go down to Egypt for help? The Egyptians are not spirits but mere humans, earthlings. And to highlight the seriousness of the selfishness of the priests in Malachi’s day, God asked: “Will earthling man rob God?”—Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 82:7; Prov. 29:25; Isa. 31:3; Mal. 3:8.

“ENÓSH”

The thought behind enósh, weak or mortal, shows, for one thing, that the Hebrew Scripture writers had no illusions about man’s being immortal. How could they, since they received their “theology,” not from pagan sources, but from God himself, who made plain man’s mortal nature both by warning him of death in the event he sinned and by sentencing him, after he had sinned, to return to the dust from which man had been taken.—Gen. 2:17; 3:19.

Enósh always has an unfavorable connotation and, therefore, is never used in a complimentary sense. Fittingly, it is frequently coupled with adám, human, when man is contrasted with his immortal Maker, Jehovah God. Psalms 8:4 and Ps 144:3 are typical of this coupling of enósh with adám when contrasting man with God. Thus also Moses wrote: “You make mortal man [enósh] go back to crushed matter, and you say: ‘Go back, you sons of men [adám].’” Because of the wickedness of man God warned that he would make ‘enósh scarcer than refined gold and adám scarcer than the gold of Ophir.’ Putting both enósh and adám in their places are the words of Jehovah to Isaiah: “I myself am the One that is comforting you people. Who are you that you should be afraid of a mortal man [enósh] that will die, and of a son of mankind [adám] that will be rendered as mere green grass? And that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth.”—Ps. 90:3; Isa. 13:12; 51:12, 13.

Particularly in the book of Job, which features God’s sovereignty in contrast to man’s puniness, is enósh a favorite term when making this point: “How can mortal man be in the right in a case with God?” “What is mortal man that you should rear him, and that you should set your heart upon him?” “Do you [Jehovah] have eyes of flesh, or is it as a mortal man sees that you see? Are your days like the days of mortal man, or your years just like the days of an able-bodied man?” “As one trifles with mortal man will you trifle with [God]? “ “God is much more than mortal man.”—Job 9:2; 7:17; 10:4, 5; 13:9; 33:12.

From his prayers we can see that David had a like keen appreciation: “Do arise, O Jehovah! Let not mortal man prove superior in strength.” “Judge the fatherless boy and the crushed one, that mortal man who is of the earth may no more cause trembling.” “As for mortal man, his days are like those of green grass.”—Ps. 9:19; 10:18; 103:15.

“GEBER”

The term geber means one able-bodied, well-developed, physically strong, that is, a mighty one in the case of a man. While it has complimentary implications, the way it is used by the Hebrew Scripture writers keeps man cognizant of his inferior relationship to his Maker, Jehovah God. Thus we find that, when at last Jehovah God called patient Job to account because of his mistaken view of things, God twice addressed Job, not as a mere ish, a mere adám or a mere enósh, but he used the term geber: “Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me,” since you were so sure of yourself as not to justify me! How fitting!—Job 38:3; 40:7.

Pharaoh, when beginning to yield under the impact of the plagues, at first only granted permission for the able-bodied men to go into the wilderness to worship. And when the Israelites finally left Egypt we read that 600,000 able-bodied men, above twenty years old and able to fight, left Egypt together with their little ones.—Ex. 10:11; 12:37.

Because an able-bodied man is inclined to be “self-assuming,” trusting in his own strength, he is repeatedly singled out for reminders of the folly of such a mental attitude: “Here is the able-bodied man that does not put God as his fortress.” “What able-bodied man is there alive who will not see death?” “An able-bodied man dies and lies vanquished.” Yes, “cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust,” not in Jehovah, but in what is, after all, a mere “earthling man [adám].”—Hab. 2:5; Ps. 52:7; 89:48; Job 14:10; Jer. 17:5.

Geber is frequently used to drive home a point by way of contrast. Thus the psalmist complains: “I have become like an able-bodied man without strength.” It would not have made much of a point had he said he became like a weak mortal, an enósh, because such a one does not have strength to begin with! Making the same point, Solomon observed that it is not good that “an able-bodied man should transgress over a mere piece of bread.” There might be an excuse for an enósh to do so, but certainly not a geber. The bad news he received caused Jeremiah’s bones to shake like “an able-bodied man whom wine has overcome,” hence a violent shaking. He also stressed the wretchedness of the men of Israel by employing this term: “Why is it that I have seen every able-bodied man with his hands upon his loins like a female that is giving birth, and all faces have turned pale?” Yes, this was serious when even able-bodied men, not mere enósh or weak mortals, were affected in this way!—Ps. 88:4; Prov. 28:21; Jer. 23:9; 30:6.

Logically we are told that “one wise in strength is,” not an adám, ish or enósh, but a geber, “an able-bodied man.” A wise geber trusts not in his own strength but in Jehovah: “Blessed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in Jehovah, and whose confidence Jehovah has become.”—Prov. 24:5; Jer. 17:7.

Truly, to note the way “man” is used in the Hebrew Scriptures strengthens our faith and helps us to get God’s view on man. It is wholesomely instructive to our maintaining our proper relationship with our Creator and gaining his approval and blessing." - The Watchtower, 1962, January 15th, pages 56-59

According to Trinitarian or Jesus-is-God Reasoning, Shouldn't These Persons Also Be God?

2011-09-30T08:00:00.000-07:00

"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor... in the Old Testament." - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropedia, vol. 11, p. 928.

Trinitarians themselves admit that "The Trinity...is an INFERRED doctrine, gathered ECLECTICALLY from the entire Canon". - page 630 of the highly trinitarian publication, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982

Not only is the word 'trinity' not found in the Bible, but the doctrine itself is nowhere to be found. Couple this with the fact that it is also beyond logical reasoning for 1+1+1 to =1. It is beyond logical reasoning for three or even two persons to actually be the same person. It is beyond logical reasoning for a "father" and a "son" to be the same person. Scripture does not allow for such a view of God: "God is not a God of confusion." -1 Corinthians 14:33 (RSV)

So because of this, the “proof” offered by trinitarians is always specious, vague, and/or ambiguous. So Trinitarians are forced to rely on a certain type of 'reasoning'. Yes, by employing Trinitarian's exact same 'reasoning', with a little research and imagination, many others in the Bible can also be rationalized as being God! Below are but a few examples:

Moses is said to be god to Pharaoh and Aaron. (Ex. 4:16, Ex. 7:1)

Paul said "I am" twice. (1 Cor. 15:10)

How about picking any one of Jesus' believers since his believers are supposed to be one as Jesus and his Father are one? (John 17:11, 22)

How about the judges in Israel since Jesus used them being called gods in his defence when they thought he was saying that he was god? (John 10:34-36; Psalms 82:6)

How about Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels")? Paraphrasing a trinitarian's case for Mt. 28:19, Luke 9:26 is also "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

How about Othniel or Ehud since God sent them as savior in the past? (Judges 3:9,15)

How about one of the apostles since they were authorized to forgive sins? (John 20:20-23)

How about one of Jesus followers as the King James shows that they will receive worship? (Rev 3:9; Luke 14:10)

How about the blind beggar? At John 9:9 the blind beggar that Jesus healed said "ego eimi", or I am.

(For many more ridiculous and comprehensive examples of this, look in the DAVID, REDEF and TRIN-TYPE study articles.)

1975 and Jehovah's Witnesses - The Opposers' Claims Vs. The Facts

2011-09-29T08:00:00.000-07:00

The following will address in order:

1.) The basis for the original speculation of 1975.

2.) How even though there were articles printed that were speculative in nature, not one
ever stated that Armageddon would definitely come in 1975 and, in fact, the then President of the Watchtower Society even instructed his listeners against saying anything as such.

3.) The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's acknowledgement of "implied" statements concerning 1975 and the significance of this.

4.) The reason opposers focus on this issue.

5.) How Jehovah's Witnesses accusers employ two sets of rules.

Understanding the Speculation Concerning 1975

"The Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. But when would 6,000 years of human existence end? The book Life Everlasting - In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975." - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom; pg. 104, Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)

Speculative Articles, But NO Definite Statement

While there was likely a lot of speculation surrounding 1975 by individuals, no publication ever provided a definitive statement saying that the end would come in 1975. Some articles seemed to say that it was highly possible, though they always qualified it.

For example, the 5/01/67 Watchtower says:

"...1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience.....Will it be the time when God executes the wicked?....It very well could be, but we will have to wait and see."

Other articles frequently used words such as "may", "could" and "possibly"," regarding this.

Even Frederick Franz (the then President of the WBTS) forcefully instructed:

"... don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975." - Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast; Heading: the Year 1975; 10/15/66 Watchtower

Acknowledgement of "Implied" Statements

"In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel (of Frederick Franz). However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (see quote below). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation." - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg. 104, Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)

"There were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year (1975) was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." - Watchtower, 1980 March 15, p.17, par. 5

Rather than to be met with scepticism or scorn, these acknowledgements of "implied" statements concerning 1975 is an obvious willingness to attempt to learn from them. And this is a relatively unimportant, non-essential issue when contrasted to the fundamentals Jesus laid out for the knowledge necessary for eternal life! (John 17:3)

In comparison, most other religions will not change doctrines(!) such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hell fire even though their own scholars admit that these beliefs are not taught in the Bible. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change any belief in order to harmonize better with increased knowledge of Scriptural teaching.

The Reason Opposers Focus on 1975

The primary reason Jehovah's Witnesses opposers even bring up the topic of 1975 is to try and paint Jehovah's Witnesses as 'False Prophets'. By a definition of their choosing, Jehovah's Witnesses critics ignore what is meant by the word 'prophet' and what was intended by WBTS publications.

(For more, see: "Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever claimed to be an INSPIRED prophet?)

Though some may accuse the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of claiming otherwise, from the beginning, the Watchtower has never claimed to be "inspired and infallible and without mistakes":

"[the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine, The Watchtower, are inspired and infallible and without mistakes." - May 15, 1947, page 157.

Admittedly, earlier WBTS publications have occasionally published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. However, these publications also had provided accompanying statements cautioning it's readers that there was no certainty as to what would happen.

Two Sets of Rules?

Some critics focus solely on Jehovah's Witnesses concerning non-essential, mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies. Yet at the same time, they ignore these high-profile religious figures who have made mistakes similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Protestant leader Martin Luther believed that the Turkish war in his day would be

"the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"? [John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken - Army Sermon Against the Turks]," Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.

He also said that

"Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door". - Ibid, p. 201.

And Methodist founder John Wesley wrote:

"1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan. - Wesley's Notes of the Bible

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in Los Angeles:

“I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.” - McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)

Would opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses condemn Luther, Wesley or Graham as false prophets? Or would they correctly conclude that they had simply interpreted Bible prophecy? Likewise, the WBTS is not a false prophet simply because interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Also see:

The Problem with "False Prophecy" Polemics (Bible Translation and Study)

Dates (1914; 1975) (SFBT)

Predictions (JWitness Forum)

False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? (Jimspace)

'False Prophet' - List of Links to Information (SFBT)

What is the authority for the use of the expression "magic-practicing priests" New World Translation of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel? (hhartumim')

2011-09-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Hebrew word translated "magic-practicing priest" in Genesis, Exodus and Daniel, as, for instance, in Genesis 41:8, is hhartumim'. This word is defined by the Lexicon in Old Testament Books by Koehler and Baumgartner, Volume I, page 333, column 1, as "epithet of magic practicing priests," and it shows the ancient derivation of the word. It also suggests rendering the word in translations as "soothsayer priests". This lexicon was published in completion in 1951.

This rendering of the New World Translation is therefore both literal and explicit, in keeping with its being a literal translation. - Taken from The Watchtower 1961 5/15 320

This Hebrew word ocurrs, always in the plural, at Gen.41:8, 24; Ex.7:11, 22; 8:7, 18, 19; 9:11(twice); Dan.1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:7, 9; 5:11. The New Revised Standard Version(1989) and the King James version(1611) translates it as "magicians."

The NIV Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible states under this word: "Hartom; from harah...engraving tool. Magician. Always occurs in the plural form. Denotes Egyptian and Babylonian sages who practiced sorcery."- Old Testament Lexical Aids, p. 1517, AMG Publishers, 1996.

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: "soothsayer priest, possibly an Egyp[tian] loan word." Volume 2, page 273, Paternoster Press, UK, 1997.

Strongs Number: 2748

Goodrick/Kohlenberger: 3033

Does Revelation 14:10, 11 prove the existence of a fiery Hell?

2011-09-26T08:00:00.000-07:00

Some point to Revelation 14:10, 11 as proof of the existence of a fiery Hell. It reads:

"He will also drink of the wine of the anger of God that is poured out undiluted into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest, those who worship the wild beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." - NWT

Is Rev. 14:10, 11 really proof of the existence of a fiery Hell?

First, it is clear that the book of Revelation is a book full of symbols and of figurative (not literal) language. So when the rest of the Bible clearly shows how when someone dies, they are not conscious of anything (Ps. 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5) and that the condition of the dead is one of inactivity - likened to a deep sleep (Ps. 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 7:39; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:13), it would seem reasonable to conclude that what was written at Rev. 14:10, 11 is indeed phrased in figurative or symbolic terms. (Also see: A Closer Look at Some Myths About Death)

(Also, it is important to note that it is the SMOKE that ascends forever...NOT the "torment".)

Below is a small excerpt from the WBTS publication Revelation - It's Grand Climax at Hand. It provides an excellent examination of the use of the words "fire and brimstone" and how some can be "tormented with fire and sulphur":

Some have viewed the mention here (Rev. 14:10b, 11) of fire and sulfur ("fire and brimstone," King James Version) as a proof of the existence of a hellfire. But a brief look at a similar prophecy shows the real import of these words in this context. Back in the days of Isaiah, Jehovah warned the nation of Edom that they would be punished because of their enmity toward Israel. He said: "Her torrents must be changed into pitch, and her dust into sulphur, and her land must become as burning pitch. By night or by day it will not be extinguished; to time indefinite its smoke will keep ascending. From generation to generation she will be parched; forever and ever no one will be passing across her."—Isaiah 34:9, 10.

Was Edom hurled into some mythical hellfire to burn forever? Of course not. Rather, the nation completely disappeared from the world scene as if she had been totally consumed with fire and sulfur. The final result of the punishment was not everlasting torment but "emptiness . . . wasteness . . . nothing." (Isaiah 34:11, 12) The smoke `ascending to time indefinite' vividly illustrates this. When a house burns down, smoke keeps coming from the ashes for some time after the flames have died down, providing onlookers with evidence that there has been a destructive conflagration. Even today God's people remember the lesson to be learned from the destruction of Edom. In this way `the smoke of her burning' is still ascending in a symbolic way.

Those who have the mark of the wild beast will also be destroyed completely, as if by fire. As the prophecy later reveals, their dead bodies will be left unburied for animals and birds to eat. (Revelation 19:17, 18) So, clearly, they are not being literally tortured forever! How are they "tormented with fire and sulphur"? In that the proclamation of truth exposes them and warns them of God's coming judgment. Therefore they vilify God's people and, where possible, slyly persuade the political wild beast to persecute and even kill Jehovah's Witnesses. As a climax, these opposers will be destroyed as with fire and brimstone. Then "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever" in that God's judgment of them will serve as a touchstone if ever again Jehovah's rightful sovereignty is challenged. That issue will have been settled for all eternity. - Revelation - It's Grand Climax at Hand, Chapter 30 "Babylon the Great Has Fallen!", par. 14-17

Also see:
The Biblical Hell (JW United)

What Really Is Hell? (WBTS)

Hell Category (SFBT)

The Holy One of God (John 6:69)

2011-09-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Holy One of God

A correspondent asked concerning the ‘Holy One of Israel’ (YHWH) and the ‘Holy One of God’ (Jesus):

"John 6:69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One [hagios] of God."

What say you? [implying that they must be the same person, God]

There are many ‘holy ones’ (hagios - Greek, Strong’s #40 and qadosh - Hebrew, Strong’s #6918) including all Jehovah’s angels. The ‘Holy One of Israel’ obviously means the one whom Israel worships as Holy (Jehovah God alone). The ‘Holy One of God’ means God’s Holy One (this includes those who are considered to be holy by God: angels, King David, Jesus, etc.

We would not consider God to be the ‘Holy One OF God’ any more than we would consider a ‘man OF God’ to be God, or the Prophet OF God, or the Angel OF God to BE God!

Here are some of the uses in the ASV:

Jude 1:14 And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones [Strong’s #40]

Deuteronomy 33:3 Yea, he loveth the people; All his saints [Strong’s #6918] are in thy hand: And they sat down at thy feet; [Every one] shall receive of thy words.

Psalms 34:9 Oh fear Jehovah, ye his saints [Strong‘s #6918]; For there is no want to them that fear him.

Psalms 106:16 They envied Moses also in the camp, [And] Aaron the saint [Strong’s #6918] of Jehovah.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard a holy one [Strong’s #6918] speaking; and another holy one [Strong’s #6918] said unto that certain one who spake, How long shall be the vision [concerning] the continual [burnt-offering], and the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Didn't Adam and Eve Already Have to Know What Was Bad in Order to Eat From the Tree and Disobey God?

2011-09-22T08:00:00.000-07:00

Some reason that Adam and Eve had to already have known what was good and bad before disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. After all, the reasoning goes, one would have to know that it was bad to disobey in the first place. So, is there something wrong with the Genesis account or rather is there a deeper meaning as to what sense it was that Man came to know "bad"?

How Adam and Eve came to know "bad"

Because God prohibited the eating of the fruit from the tree of "the knowledge of good and bad" from the first human pair, the tree became a symbol of God's right to determine or set the standards for humans as to what is "good" (approved by God) and what is "bad" (condemned by God).

So, for Adam and Eve, it became a test of their respect for God's position and authority. It became a test of whether or not they would choose to judge for themselves what was good and what was bad. A test that we all know our first human parents failed. Which resulted in all of us (their children) inheriting their imperfection and sin:

"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Rom. 5:12)

Below is a small excerpt from the Insight Book (Vol. 2, Section "Knowledge") by the WBTS that explains this further:

"After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah (God) said to his associate in creative work (John 1:1-3):

'"Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad." (Gen. 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God's commands to them. Furthermore, God's words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps. 92:14, 15) Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God's, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery. - Jer. 10:23." (Emphasis mine)