Some Qs about the JW view of Jesus and angels

[Deeje]

I have been meaning to get back to you on this.....

The belief that Christ is an "archangel" is attested by the early church father Epiphanius in the fourth century, who attributed it to a sect among the Ebionite branch of early Christianity: one of two strains in the early church (the other being the Nazarenes) that were known to be Torah-observant and majority Jewish in extraction.

One of the things that undid Judaism was sectarian divisions. The apostle Paul confirmed that Christians were NOT to become divided into "sects" as the Jews had done.
He said..."Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose." (1 Corinthians 1:10 NRSV Catholic Edition) Those who sought to teach their own "truth" by deviating from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, would only succeed in leading worshippers away from the truth.

One of the 'Ebionite' sects are described as follows:

They do not say that he was born of God the Father, but that he was created as one of the archangels, that he rules both the angels and all those things created by the Almighty.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30.16.4-5

The Bible speaks of only one Archangel. The Bible speaks of Princes, and in the book of Daniel, (chapter 10) Michael is introduced as "one of the chief Princes" but only Michael is called THE Archangel. (Jude 9)

Angels can indeed be Princes, as the angel who was sent to Daniel spoke of what appeared to be demon Princes of nations, fighting with by the Princes of those nations who were appointed by God. What goes on behind the scenes in our world, we can only imagine from this angel's words to Daniel.

Revelation 3:14 says....“The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation."
Jesus was "the beginning of God's creation". He is a creation of his Father. Reinforced by Paul who wrote....

Colossians 1:15-17" He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation". All things were created "through" him and "for him". Jesus is not a co-creator but he is the agency through whom God created all things.

He is described in Proverbs 8:30-31..... "then I was beside him, like a master workman;
and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men."

God's "master workman" was rejoicing in God's" inhabited world and delighting" in his human creation.

Another group of Ebionites - who seem to have occupied the mainstream of the movement - preached an entirely human Jesus Christ (as a unitary person) without any reference to this angelic doctrine and they, moreover, denied his pre-existence in any form.

John 6:37...
"Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."
If Jesus said that he came down from heaven as one "sent" by his Father (John 5:36-37; John 17:3)....one who is described as God's "servant", then he cannot be God himself. (Acts 3:13)

But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner

Jesus was 100% human but not born of any union of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was informed by an angel that the child Mary was carrying was holy...God's son. He respected her virginity until after the birth of this special son. Confirmed in Matthew 1:24-25 "Then Joseph woke up from his sleep and did as the angel of Jehovah had directed him, and he took his wife home. 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus."
Where does the Catholic church get the idea that Mary was ever a virgin? Jesus was the firstborn of a large Jewish family. He was just 'Jesus the Carpenter's son' until the age of 30, when he presented himself at the Jordan River to be Baptized by John. Only then did he become "the Christ" (Anointed One)

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

What men did in the church after the death of the apostles has meaning for those who came to Christianity after the first century, because Jesus foretold that an apostasy would take place. He said that the devil would plant "weeds" among the "wheat" and that both would exist in the world until the harvest time. The apostles foretold it too. The conduct and practices of "the church" from the second century onward was a slow and steady descent into apostate teachings. (2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3)

They adopted doctrines like the trinity, which is not taught anywhere in scripture, but is in fact a breach of the First Commandment. They put other "gods" in place of, or on equal footing, with the Father. It is actually blasphemous to suggest such a thing....yet it stands as Christendom"s foundational belief. (Matthew 7:13-14; 21-23)

As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

Paul taught that 'Christ is the end of the Law'. (Romans 10:4) Jewish Christians were not required to observe the letter of the Law regarding things like circumcision or the Sabbath observance, but there was no prohibition either. The Law was not binding on Gentiles who came to Christ.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are, thus, a bit similar to the 'angelogical' Ebionites - a form of Christianity which does have an ancient pedigree in Christian theological speculation.

Actually we are nothing like any other denomination.....we disagree on practically every teaching that Christendom holds. For us it is a matter of leaving an apostate church and returning to what first century Christianity was all about. In the first century, Christ led his followers out of a corrupted religious system...it wasn't a new religion, but a restoration of pure worship under a new covenant....one that they were expecting. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) We believe that he has done that again. (Matthew 7:21-23)

We know who God is.....we know who Jesus is, and we know what the holy spirit is and what God uses it to accomplish. We are followers of Christ's teachings in that we shun idolatry, we will never engage in political bloodshed, and we will never elevate a clergy class in royal garments over the common people. Our leader is Jesus, not any man.

My personal theory is that this 'angelic' Christology (a form of Arianism, really, which carefully differentiated non-divinised Jesus from the one God, Yahweh) developed in the first instance amongst Jewish Christians as a means of exalting Jesus as Messiah - and giving him a semi-divine status - but without equating him in some sense with 'God', in a way that would dilute Judaic unitarian monotheism, as St. Paul seemed to do in his letter to the Philippians:

though he [Jesus] was in the form of God,
he did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.

(Philippians 2:6-11)

Reading this verse from an Interlinear we can see how it has been skewd to suggest that Jesus did not "exploit" his equality with God, but that is not the case.

"who hos, although he was hyparchō in en the form morphē of God theos, did hēgeomai not ou regard hēgeomai equality isos with God theos a thing to be eimi grasped harpagmos, 7 but alla emptied kenoō himself heautou, taking on lambanō the form morphē of a servant, being born ginomai in en the likeness homoiōma of man anthrōpos. (Mounce Interlinear)

Jesus never even thought of being equal with his Father, whom he called "the only true God". (John 17:3)
Being 'in God's form' simply means existing as a spirit being in heaven. All spirit beings are "in God's form".

And in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 8:6

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

(The above statement is not thought by scholars to have been invented by Paul, rather they believe he was referencing an already well-known creed of the primitive church, which tells us that early Christians had already come to regard Jesus as a pre-existent divine agent of creation co-eternal with God, here incorporating him into the shema.)

I have never heard it explained like that before....but reading the scripture as written, it is apparent that the apostles knew that there is "one God the father" and a separate person who is Jesus Christ.
The shema at Deuteronomy 6:4 declared....
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one. דשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה | אֶחָֽד:"

The "one" Lord God of the Jews was יְהֹוָ֥ה YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah.

ʼElo·himʹ means, not “persons,” but “gods.” So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists.....worshipers of more than one God because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods, but rather they suggest that there are three persons in one "Godhead"....but his idea is completely absent from the scriptures.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So, to know more about Jehovah's Witnesses go directly to www.jw.org

Excellent recommendation, as was Israel Kahn's recommendation to check out "Insight into Scripture" (Vol. 1 and 2). So, now that there's really no need to ask a JW a question here in RF, when wwwjworg is a much more trustworthy source for JW theology, and since it is a well-established fact that JWs don't believe, much less accept, what non-JWs believe or think, the great mystery here and now is: Why would a JW, in his or her right mind, become a member of RF? Unless, of course, they're here to proselytize and/or voice their objections to things said in RF?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Excellent recommendation, as was Israel Kahn's recommendation to check out "Insight into Scripture" (Vol. 1 and 2). So, now that there's really no need to ask a JW a question here in RF, when wwwjworg is a much more trustworthy source for JW theology, and since it is a well-established fact that JWs don't believe, much less accept, what non-JWs believe or think, the great mystery here and now is: Why would a JW, in his or her right mind, become a member of RF? Unless, of course, they're here to proselytize and/or voice their objections to things said in RF?

FYI

Notice, I am using the OFFICIAL JW WEBSITE. Read the articles as well an the links and scriptural references to see whether I am taking the quotes out of context or not:

Question Box — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

- "Therefore, publishers should not go online to seek out people from another country with whom to share the good news."

Question Box — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magaz...d-august-2018/publications-personal-websites/

- "In addition, if we post our material on websites where people can make comments, this allows apostates [edit: I am an apostate. This writing in red is not part of the quote.] and others to criticize Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers then argue with these people, and that brings even more dishonor to Jehovah. Such discussions on the Internet are not the proper way to correct someone’s thinking and help him understand the truth. (1 Timothy 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 2:23-25) "

 

[Clear]

Clear asked Pegg : John 1:1-2 in the New World Translation says "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. In Jehovahs Witness theology, does this verse mean that Jesus as "the Word" who will, after birth, become known as Jesus) was, in some way, a god who was with the Lord God in the beginning of creation? (post #3)

Pegg answered : "Yes, Jesus is most certainly a god according to scripture and if we look at what the term 'god' actually means in hebrew, ʼEl, its likely meaning is “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Post #4)

Clear asked "... to make sure that I understand correctly :
1) Jehovahs Witnesses believe that the Lord God (i.e., God, the Father; the God Almighty, etc.) is one God and that the pre-creation Jesus is a second god (i.e. God #2, the Son, the lessor god).

And, if I am correct;

2) Jehovahs' Witnesses believe that God #1 (i.e. the Lord God) directs god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) and god #2 (pre-creation Jesus) does not direct God #1 (i.e. the Lord God).

"Is this correct or am I misunderstanding this basic relationship according to Jehovahs Witness theology?

Hi Clear,

Yes that is correct.....

...ʼElo·himʹ means, not “persons,” but “gods.” So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists.....worshipers of more than one God because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity.

Hi @Deeje
If the trinity of Gods in some of the more modern Christian movements is polytheism (it may be...), why is not a duality of Gods in Jehovahs Witness Theology not a form of polytheism?

Did the J.Witness Pegg explain it incorrectly, or did I misunderstand her meaning, or are there other principles involved which make dual Gods not polytheism in J.Witness theory?

Thank you for any information on this specific question you can give me.

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

You are most welcomed Katzpur, I appreciate hearing from those who would know, what they teach on this.


Thanks.
I am not clear on the view though.
The question @Harel13 wanted to know was... If he did have his physical body, does that mean he had two bodies simultaneously?
What do LDS believe Jesus spirit (that he gave up, and returned to him) is? So that I can understand.

Maybe I'm not following the OP's question. The short and simple answer was that Jesus had only one body. Since Genesis 2:7 says (with respect to Adam as the first man), "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," it appears that there was a two-step process. The physical body was created and then it was given life. The Greek word "pneuma" refers to the breath of life, the spirit, or the life force which, when infused into a body results in a "living soul." When the spirit leaves the body at death (Jesus acknowledged that He was commending His spirit into His Father's hands), the body dies. It is an empty shell, so to speak, an entity without awareness or consciousness that was laid in a borrowed tomb. When the spirit re-enters it, it once again becomes a "living soul." Mormons believe that this new soul is sustained entirely by the spirit which gives it life. It is no longer mortal in the sense that it a mortal relies on a beating heart circulating blood through the body, but on the spirit which will never again leave it. It is now a resurrected being. I'm not sure how this could possibly imply the existence of two bodies. Perhaps @Harel13 could explain where he got this idea from.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Notice, I am using the OFFICIAL JW WEBSITE.

Not that I doubted the truth of your statements, but ... I went to each of your links and bear witness to the accuracy of your claims. Fascinating.

 

[Link]

Hebrew words have multiple meaning based on context. Exalted and God use the same word, and sometimes exalted ones should be the translation but it get's translated as God or gods, and so which one should be the translation depends on context.

Also in the Gospels, a proper translation of what is seen as proof of trinity can be "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the exalted ones, and the exalted ones were the word."

 

[Deeje]

Hi @Deeje
If the trinity of Gods in some of the more modern Christian movements is polytheism (it may be...), why is not a duality of Gods in Jehovahs Witness Theology not a form of polytheism?

Because the “god” (mighty one) who is Jesus is not worshipped but honoured as the divine son of “the only true God”, we have no duality and hence no polytheism. Just because one is described as “theos” in Greek, doesn’t naturally assume that worship is given, as in the case of Jesus referring to human judges as “gods”. A person with divine authority is a “god” in the biblical sense. Divine authority is bestowed, not by men, but by God.

In the first Commandment, Israel was instructed to have ‘no other gods but Jehovah’. That means worship, as is clarified by the next instruction. Jesus never sought worship, but as Jehovah’s representative, his most trusted servant, he directed all worship to his Father.

Thank you for any information on this specific question you can give me.

I hope that helps.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not that I doubted the truth of your statements, but ... I went to each of your links and bear witness to the accuracy of your claims. Fascinating.

Which is what should be done.

This is what 'exes' could and should present, the information the members haven't presented up front, or they are ignorant of, with verifiable evidence to back the claims up, and an alternative perspective. This is why speaking to those who have left a group can possibly be enlightening with regards to that group.

 

[Clear]

Thank you for your reply Deeje

Regarding the 2 main Gods in J.W. theology, Deeje explained : "Because the “god” (mighty one) who is Jesus is not worshipped but honoured..."

So, if I understand you correctly, God #1, i.e. God the Father is "worshipped" in J.Witness theology, but God #2 i.e. Jesus is "honored" (but not "worshipped").

1) Can you then explain the difference between the "honor" that you give to one God and the "worship" you give to another God and why, having two Gods, does not make this polytheism.

2) If there are two Gods, does this not make polytheism REGARDLESS of whether a God is worshiped or not? Can you elucidate?

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for your reply Deeje

Regarding the 2 main Gods in J.W. theology, Deeje explained : "Because the “god” (mighty one) who is Jesus is not worshipped but honoured..."

So, if I understand you correctly, God #1, i.e. God the Father is "worshipped" in J.Witness theology, but God #2 i.e. Jesus is "honored" (but not "worshipped").

1) Can you then explain the difference between the "honor" that you give to one God and the "worship" you give to another God and why, having two Gods, does not make this polytheism.

2) If there are two Gods, does this not make polytheism REGARDLESS of whether a God is worshiped or not? Can you elucidate?

Clear

Unless I'm mistaken, @Clear, JWs don't believe Jesus Christ is divine in the first place. They believe that God is Jesus' Father, but that it is inaccurate to think of Him as "God." Because He is "the mighty one," they honor Him, but stop short of giving Him the same title His Father has.

 

[Deeje]

Did you get your questions answered?
I ask because, I'm still unclear about "the science" involved in Jesus' movement from being the Archangel Michael in heaven to being the "fully human" Jesus on earth before his death to being the flesh-and-blood spirit Jesus on earth after his death but before his ascension to being the exalted Michael-Jesus in heaven?

If that is how you interpreted things, then no wonder you are confused. Pre-conceived ideas, that have no basis in scriptures, can get in the way. And since “science” is the study of what God created.....do we really have any idea of the possibilities?

Spirit beings inhabit the spirit realm....simple. This realm existed before material creation took place as the angels who observed the construction of the universe are said to have applauded the finished product. (Job 38:4-7)

Material beings habit the material realm, but the Bible informs us that angels possess the ability to materialise fleshly bodies in order to deliver important messages to God’s servants on earth. (Genesis 18; Luke 1:26-28)

In order for Jesus to fulfill the role of a redeemer, he had to be fully human, but not a sinful son of Adam. He had to be a son of Abraham, i.e. born of a Jewish mother, but without sin. There was only one way to produce a human with those qualifications.....to bring in a life from outside the now defective human race to become a “ransom” for them. (Matthew 20:28) There was only one person whom God trusted to fulfill that role. Materializing would not have fulfilled the criteria.

Sinless life was lost for all of Adam’s children, so the redeemer had to have an equivalent “price” to pay for the release of these ones, held captive to sin and death through no fault on their part. So, by transferring the lifeforce of his son from the spirit realm to the womb of Mary, he created a divine son who would be born as a sinless human child.

As part of his credentials as Messiah, Jesus had to fulfill the Messianic prophesies. Part of that was the tribe into which he would be born and a lineage that stretched back to Abraham and David. The genealogies recorded in Luke prove that Jesus had the correct lineage.

Why is it difficult to imagine that God can transfer life from the spirit realm to the material realm and back again? He created it, after all.....

So, if you got your questions answered and I'm still confused, I'm concerned that I may well be in early-to-middle stage senile dementia and need a thorough mental health check-up.
Note: I'm not asking you to try to straighten me out; just asking if you got your questions answered to your satisfaction.

Since you have concerns about your mental health and don’t really want to be ‘straightened out’.....perhaps the explanation will assist others who might have wondered about those questions as well.....

 

[Terry Sampson]

This is why speaking to those who have left a group can possibly be enlightening with regards to that group.

I agree.
Elsewhere cataway posted:

ah ,then in your thinking all that would be selected to be part of the first resurrections must all be dead and in the grave waiting ,as it were , to be resurrected . and then off to heaven with those that have not yet died .
but since the presents of Jesus has happened and Jesus is ruling as king. what makes you think that those that are to be resurrected first have not already been resurrected and taken to heaven ?

So I posted:

Because, if the first resurrection has already occurred and "the Little Flock" (i.e. the 144,000) have been given spirit bodies and are now in heaven, ruling somewhere in a spirit realm alongside Michael-Jesus or otherwise keeping busy until the second resurrection, then no JW, from the first resurrection on, can hope to be in anything more than a physical body among "the Great Crowd" on earth. Moreover, JWs who think they have been "chosen in a special way" and are, thereby, entitled to partake of the bread and wine at the annual JW Memorial Supper, are deluded or missed the first resurrection.

So, which is it? Has the first resurrection occurred and JWs haven't realized it? or is Michael-Jesus is still waiting until all of the 144,000 come along? BTW, how many years do you suppose a complete first resurrection took/takes/will take?

cataway answered:

only the dead ones get a resurrection.

Seems odd to me: Elijah wasn't dead when he was taken up in the fiery chariot, was he? And yet he was with Jesus and Moses in the transfiguration.

 

[Deeje]

the great mystery here and now is: Why would a JW, in his or her right mind, become a member of RF? Unless, of course, they're here to proselytize and/or voice their objections to things said in RF?

Why are any posters on RF here? Isn’t it to listen and to learn about what others believe, and to correct misinterpretations of their beliefs, should they be posted by those who have been influenced by those who often deliberately misinterpret their beliefs and practices? The truth is the truth.

Explaining our beliefs can help correct misunderstandings.
Gaining deeper insights into what others believe and why they believe it is a good platform for debate on various subjects upon which we disagree. It’s about information exchange. Let the readers decide who has the better argument.

The exchange doesn’t have to be acrimonious, but some people see it as an excuse to be hostile, rather than to just examine the cold, hard facts. Emotional responses do not belong in debates. Just stick to the facts. It isn’t personal unless the poster makes it or takes it that way.

Why are you here?

 

[Deeje]

Seems odd to me: Elijah wasn't dead when he was taken up in the fiery chariot, was he? And yet he was with Jesus and Moses in the transfiguration.

Elijah wasn’t taken to heaven.....he was transferred to another location and even wrote a letter to King Jehoram after that event. (2 Chronicles 21:12-15)

No one went to heaven before Jesus. (John 3:13)

 

[Terry Sampson]

Spirit beings inhabit the spirit realm....simple.

Oh, so you're one of those who has the remarkably odd notion that a spiritual being is immaterial. In that case, you and I have an irreconcilable difference. Good to know.

In order for Jesus to fulfill the role of a redeemer, he had to be fully human, but not a sinful son of Adam. He had to be a son of Abraham, i.e. born of a Jewish mother, but without sin. There was only one way to produce a human with those qualifications.....to bring in a life from outside the now defective human race to become a “ransom” for them. (Matthew 20:28)

Only one way? Horse-****.
All Jews, since Sinai, are born without sin, i.e. without the moral contamination that Adam and Eve brought into the world and that non-Jews are born with. Ergo, Jesus, as a biological descendant of Jews who were at Sinai , was born sinless. The challenge for him was to remain sinless until his death. I suspect that you and I agree that he did.

There was only one way to produce a human with those qualifications.....to bring in a life from outside the now defective human race

Malarkey.

Why is it difficult to imagine that God can transfer life from the spirit realm to the material realm and back again?

Because you don't have a clue what the spirit realm is. I don't have difficulty believing that water can be changed into wine; I just don't know how to do it. I think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that wine can be created out of nothing called spirit.

 

[Terry Sampson]

No one went to heaven before Jesus.

So where were Moses and Elijah hiding between their last sighting by men and the transfiguration?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree.
Elsewhere cataway posted:

So I posted:

cataway answered:

Seems odd to me: Elijah wasn't dead when he was taken up in the fiery chariot, was he? And yet he was with Jesus and Moses in the transfiguration.

To clarify the above from your discussion with Cataway, below is the current JW position:

JW's do not believe that all the 144 000 are in heaven yet. Since Jesus started ruling as king in the early 20th century, anointed ones who have died have been resurrected spiritually immediately after dying. The first resurrection happens gradually from Jesus being King until during the the great tribulation sometime. It is sort of like a rapture actually.

"19 We also know that the majority of the 144,000 are already united with Christ. Only a relatively few remain on earth."

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20070101/The-First-Resurrection-Now-Under-Way/

15 Gathering of anointed ones. Both Matthew and Mark recorded Jesus’ statement about the “chosen ones”—spirit-anointed Christians—as part of a series of events that will occur before the outbreak of Armageddon. (See paragraph 7.) Speaking about himself as King, Jesus prophesies: “Then he will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) To what act of gathering is Jesus here referring? He is not speaking about the final sealing of the remnant of anointed Christians, which will occur just before the great tribulation begins. (Rev. 7:1-3) Instead, Jesus refers to an event that will take place during the coming great tribulation. Thus, apparently at some point after the start of Satan’s all-out attack on God’s people, anointed ones who still remain on earth will be gathered to heaven.

God’s Kingdom Removes Its Enemies — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY


12. Why should we not worry about the number of those who partake of the emblems at the Memorial?

12 “Jehovah knows those who belong to him.” (2 Tim. 2:19) Unlike Jehovah, the brothers who count the number of those partaking at the Memorial do not know who truly is anointed. So the number includes those who think that they are anointed but are not. For example, some who used to partake later stopped. Others may have mental or emotional problems that make them believe that they will rule with Christ in heaven. Clearly, we do not know exactly how many anointed ones are left on earth

We Will Go With You — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

It isn't only the dead anointed who get a resurrection, but those 144 000 who are alive during the great tribulation, like the governing body members, will get ressurected while alive possibly.

As with the last quote, and when you read the article, there has been an increase in the numbers of those who declare themselves anointed, but to solve this problem the organisation says that many are mistaken or have mental or emotional problems, which is why they are doing such a thing.

 

[Deeje]

So, if I understand you correctly, God #1, i.e. God the Father is "worshipped" in J.Witness theology, but God #2 i.e. Jesus is "honored" (but not "worshipped").

1) Can you then explain the difference between the "honor" that you give to one God and the "worship" you give to another God and why, having two Gods, does not make this polytheism.

The word “pro·sky·neʹo” can be translated as either “worship” (of the sort given to a deity) or “obeisance” given to a person whose position calls for honour. Context determines the correct rendering and understanding. Agreed?

One example I can think of is when Australians (British system) used to address a judge in court as “your worship”. This in no way implied that worship be given to such judges and in other countries a judge is addressed as “your honor”. That is what we understand can happen when people misinterpret a word. A “god” isn’t always worshipped.....but they can be given due respect and honor.

2) If there are two Gods, does this not make polytheism REGARDLESS of whether a God is worshiped or not? Can you elucidate?

Did Israel worship their judges? If God himself called them “gods” when he told Israel NOT to have any other gods but him....isn’t it obvious that the problem is in the interpretation, not the actual word?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Why are you here?

Since you asked: I came here looking for someone and haven't found that person. Since I was here, I have able to state my anti-relativistic objections to my satisfaction, to state my anti-Trump objections on occasion, joke around with some folks, arm-wrestle with a few, and exchange friendly words with others, pick up some interesting info from some Jews, and keep myself somewhat entertained until I fall off my horse and get sent to the recycle bin.