Seed Droppers: Simple (But Very Effective!) Ways to Talk to a Jehovah's Witness About Jesus 

I'm so happy for you! Praise be to our beloved Savior for fulfilling your life with the knowledge of who He truly is 😊

Wow. Praise be to God

Amazing!! ❤️

I woke up and left 6 months ago too and I am also growing as a Christian! So happy for you. From Virginia.

Hi there! Thanks for your feedback and valuable opinion. I actually did cover that in my previous five videos. I have an entire one about mind control and what really is the best method to reach them.

So glad it is a blessing! Truth in love 🙏

🙌🙌

John 9:38 the blind man worshipped Him / NWT “...did Obeisance* to him The asterisk footnote says “bowed down” Isn’t “bowing down”worship?

Oooooh good one! I'm going to back pocket that.

here's another double whammy for them: In John 2:19-21 where Jesus says that in 3 days, He will raise himself up and it goes on to say that He was talking about His body. So, it is a bodily resurrection, the double whammy part is, this also points out that if He resurrecting Himself, then He has to be conscious to do it and not in an annihilated state as they teach.

Ah, but unless they are from the anointed class of 144000, according to Watchtower, he is not their mediator. Many rank and file JWs don’t realise this even though 1 Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

In John 8 Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Unless you believe that I AM (εγω ειμι) you will die in your sins." They missed it the first time, they didn't get what he was saying because he said, "I AM" and they're like... 'I am what???? who are you?' This discourse goes back and forth. Finally, when Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus day, the Jews incredulously replied, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was (γενεσθαι), I AM (εγω ειμι)." Jesus was not simply saying that he existed before Abraham. He didn't say "I was" (ημην) but "I am" (εγω ειμι)-grammatically incorrect, theologically spot on! He was claiming to be Jehovah - the I AM of Deu 32:39 and Isa 43:10 (on this below). The Jews got it this time, they understood what he was saying, which is why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy (which was the “penalty for blasphemy (Lev 24:16)-blasphemy here is regarded as laying claim to the divine ineffable name.”(1) If JW's want to argue that Jesus was simply claiming to preexist before Abraham they have to explain the reaction of the Jews. If he was simply claiming to be older than Abraham they would have laughed at Him and thought He was crazy - Jews didn’t kill people for being crazy - but they understood He was claiming to be Jehovah. Why did they instantly know he was claiming to be Jehovah and picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy?? Because they knew their Bible and in Deu 32:39 in the LXX it says: “ιδετε ιδετε οτι εγω ειμι, και ουχ εστιν θεος πλην εμου” (Look! Behold, that I AM, and there is no God except me) and Isa 43:10 - "You are my witnesses," declares Jehovah, "and my servant whom I have chosen ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι” (that you might know and might believe and might understand that I AM). The Jews understood what Jesus was saying… but they refuse to acknowledge the crystal clear point John is making-Jesus is Jehovah, co-equal in nature to Jehovah the Father. Furthermore, A similar Greek construction to John 8:58 is found in Ps 89:2 which says,“before the mountains were, you are.” In Greek it says, προ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι (“came to be”)… συ εἶ (“you are” the second-person equivalent of εγω ειμι). “The Greek sentence here reflects the same grammatical structure as John 8:58 and uses the same verbs to make the same contrast between that which is created and temporal and the one who is uncreated and eternal.”(2) Murray Harris also says,“the timeless εἰμί points to the absolute, independent, and eternal existence of Jesus; it places Jesus ‘in God’s existence beyond time, in his eternal present’.”(3) The translators of the NWT understand the implications of this so they errantly translate εγω ειμι as a historical present, “I have been.” The NWT (1950 ed.) has a footnote that says, “It is not the same as ὁ ὤν (ho ohn’, meaning ‘The Begining’ or ‘The I Am’) at Exodus 3:14, LXX.” Dan Wallace points out that “this is a negative admission that if ἐγὼ εἱμί is _not_ a historical present, then Jesus is hear claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing ONe, Yahweh (cf. Exod 3:14 in the LXX, ἐγὼ εἱμι ὁ ὤν).”(4) Wallace demonstrates that there are several problems grammatically with seeing εγω ειμι as a historical present: 1) “historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) _indicatives,_ not infinitives.” 2) This would be the only historical present in the NT that uses εἰμί. 3) This would be the only historical present in the NT that is not in third person. For these reasons, Wallace says “The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees εἰμί as _ever_ being used as a historical present.”(5) JW’s will also object saying that εγω ειμι is used by people who were not claiming deity (cf. Joh 4:26, 9:9, etc.). This is correct, εγω ειμι “does not necessarily imply deity when it contextually implies, ‘I am (the one in question)’... [but] when ‘I am’ lacks even an implied predicate, however, it becomes unintelligible except as an allusion to God’s name in the Hebrew Bible or LXX….The absolute use of the expression in 8:58, contrasted explicitly with Abraham’s finite longevity, clearly refers to a Jewish name for God.”(6) Contextually, grammatically, and intertextually, there is no question that Jesus was claiming to be the “I AM” of Deu 32:39 & Isa 43:10, and Exo 3:14. In other words, Jesus claimed to be God. (1) Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015). (2) Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007). (3) Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015). (4) Daniel B Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 531. (5) Wallace, GGBB, 530. (6) Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John : A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2012), 769-770.

In Revelation 5 “the focus moves from God, enthroned in heaven and surrounded by adoring and worshiping elders and living creatures, to the Lamb who alone is worthy to open the scroll of destiny. The worship of God for his role in creation gives way to the worship of the Lamb for his work of redemption.”(1) In vv. 1-7 Jesus is presented as the Davidic Messiah who has conquered through his death and now is publically enthroned as vice-regent on the throne next to his Father. In v. 8 heavenly creatures prostrate themselves before Jesus and present him with the prayers of the saints (prayer is directed to Jesus). In v. 9 they sing “a new song” to Jesus, echoing the words of Psalm 98:1: “Sing Sing to Jehovah a new song, For he has done wonderful things. His right hand, his holy arm, has brought about salvation” (NWT). “In the OT a ‘new song’ is always an expression of praise for God’s victory over the enemy… The hymns in vv 9-12 emphasize Jesus’ deity more than most other passages in the NT, addressing the Lamb in the same way as God is addressed in 4:11 and 5:13, especially in the clause ‘worthy are you.’ The simple fact that worship is given to the Lamb in vv 9-13 demonstrates his deity, since John implies elsewhere that worship is due only to God (22:9).”(2) The whole scene echoes that of Daniel 7:9-14 where the divine Son of Man receives a kingdom from the Ancient of Days. In v. 13-14 we move to universal acknowledgement of Christ’s work and person, resulting in universal worship of _BOTH_ the Father and the Son (cf. Phi 2:9-11). Richard Bauckham points out that, “It is important to notice how the scene is so structured that the worship of the Lamb (5:8-12) leads to the worship of God and the Lamb together (5:13). John does not wish to represent Jesus as an alternative object of worship alongside God, but as one who shares in the glory due to God. He is worthy of divine worship because his worship can be included in the worship of the one God.”(3) In other words, John sees Jesus as a distinct _person_ from the _person_ of the Father but subsisting in the one God, ie. the trinity, which is why both Jesus and the Father can be worshipped. Robert Mounce points out that, “Nowhere else in the literature of worship will one find a scene of such unrestrained praise and adoration.”(4) This is significant because it is directed to _BOTH_ the Father and the Son equally, making it clear that Jesus shares in the glory of the Father (cf. Isa 42:8). (1) Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), ePub, 5:1-14. (2) G.K. Beale, Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 1999), ePub, 5:9. (3) Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (1993; repr., United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 60. (4) Mounce, Revelation, 5:1-14.

Amen! As far as communion goes, they take a rather odd position. They don't technically do communion. This would be an interesting conversation for you to have with them just to learn their beliefs on it. But they have the memorial every year which is kind of their version of communion. Virtually nobody partakes. to a Jehovah's Witness most of them don't consider themselves to be part of the New Covenant, which as you know is a huge salvific issue. One question I like to ask them is that if Jesus said to do this in remembrance of me until he returns, isn't it odd that they still hold the memorial if they believe he's already returned invisibly in 1914?

Melissa Dougherty I love that! I had the Bible study before I read this; but taking you advice from your other videos I was trying to plant small seeds I wish this was one but it will be; ultimately trying to win souls ❤️🙏🏽 thank you for responding to me❤️❤️

@@moniquemooreletstalk138 To me, a very straightforward Scripture on partaking of the emblems is John 6:53, 54: "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.'" After asking them to read this, I would ask them how they hope to ever be resurrected if they do not partake of the bread and wine.

Hi! Yes, they have many 'refutations' to certain things, which is why I consider this a 101 type series. Going down the rabbit hole to 'refute their refutations' one by one takes a *lot* of time. For example, just their 'defense' of John 1:1 alone is an entire series in itself. Most of the references they use for their defense are misquoted, misused, from a channeled source, or from independent Bibles. If they do have any other legit sources, it's in the minority. To break this down is something for each person to decide if they want to do. Most of the time, I find that it's the thinking and questioning jw's that do this type of research.

My friend, the Greek text of NA28 & UBS5 is ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω (If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it). There are two significant variants here. First, is the verse itself supposed to be here since it is missing in a few manuscripts. The support for the inclusion of this verse is P66, P75, א, Β, D, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, et al. UBS5 rates the inclusion of this verse as {A}, ie. the text is certainly authentic. Second, there is a varient at με (me). While it is absent in some manuscripts (A, D, L, Ψ, et al), it is supported by P66, P75, א, Β, W, Δ, Θ, et al. UBS5 rates the inclusion με (me) as {B}, ie. the text is almost certainly authentic. In other words, there is no question that Jesus was directing his disciples to also pray to him. Yet, the NWT excludes it from their translation while claiming to use the very best Greek texts. If this variant was a {D} rating then the NWT would be justified in excluding it but the inclusion of με (me) has very very strong textual support. This is an example of the theological bias of the NWT translators exerting itself over the textual evidence, which is not honest. Murray Harris says, “Requests addressed to either the Father (v. 13) or the Son (v. 14) will be answered provided they are offered in the Son’s name (vv. 13-14). In the early church, prayers of thanksgiving or petition were normally directed to God the Father…but on occasion an individual believer (Acts 7:59-60; 9:10-17; 22:16, 19; 2 Cor 12:8) or a group of believers (Acts 1:24; 9:21; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:22; Rev 22:20) apparently invoked the Lord Jesus directly.” Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: John (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2015), ePub, 14:14.

@@kevinfromcanada4379 Please explain why we would ask in Jesus name if it is Jesus whom we are asking? ~This is an example of the theological bias of the NWT translators exerting itself over the textual evidence, which is not honest. It explains in the NWT exactly why they chose to omit me. When "me" is used it is in complete opposition to the below scriptures. John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit-fruit that will last-and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

dom rizzo Psalm 89.27

They should not be posting letters due to the virus

I did too, about a month ago. It was addressed to my husband and me, and the greeting began with them calling us their local neighbor. Except their address is on the other side of our city

How many God's 1. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the biggening and the end, the first and last, the I Am.

Jesus is called the “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος) in Col 1:15. The word is found in both the Old Testament (Greek Septuagint) and the New Testament and is used both chronologically _and_ positionally. Chronologically: When this word is used chronologically, the meaning and emphasis is on birth order. For instance, in Genesis 35:23 Ruben is called the “firstborn” because he was, chronologically, Jacob's first child. Likewise, in 1 Samuel 17:13 Eliab is Jesse’s “firstborn” because he too was, chronologically, Jesse’s first child. Positionally: “Among the Israelites the firstborn son possessed special privileges. He succeeded his father as the head of the house and received as his share of the inheritance a double portion. For that reason, sometimes the meaning of the term is figurative, denoting priority or supremacy.”(1) So the word “firstborn” can be used positionally, and when it is, the meaning and emphasis is on the _position_ of the person-it is a title or rank. For example, “the firstborn of the lowly” (NWT) in Isa 14:30 is figurative, meaning that the poorest of the poor-a position. Then there is Ruben who, though he was chronologically the firstborn, because of sin he lost his _position_ of firstborn and the honor, favor and rank that was his because of his _position_ was given to Joseph (1Ch 5:1). Likewise, although David was the youngest in his family and the second king of Israel, Jehovah says, “I will place him as firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27 NWT). Clearly the word “firstborn” can be used as a positional title. Note: Psalm 89 was/is also considered messianic. So the question before us is, Is “firstborn” in Col 1:15 being used chronologically or positionally? Paul makes it clear by the context of the section that he intends for the word to be used as a title in a positional sense and not chronological. First, “if Paul wanted to say that Jesus was God’s first created creature, we would have expected him to use the adj. πρωτόκτιστος or πρωτόγονος (‘created first’) or πρωτόπλαστος (‘formed first’) instead of πρωτότοκος and v. 16 to continue the thought ‘for all other things were created in him’ ( ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη πάντα τα ά̓λλα).”(2) But Paul didn’t use πρωτόκτιστος or πρωτόγονος (“created first”) or πρωτόπλαστος (“formed first”), he used πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) which can be used positionally as a title. Second, in v. 16 Paul gives the reason Jesus is called the “firstborn.” He says, “ὅτι,” a Greek word which can range from a weak “for” to the stronger “because.” Murray Harris points out that here ὅτι is the stronger notion, introducing the reason for Jesus’ superiority over creation: “Because in him all things were created.”(3) ===The NWT translators inserted “other” into the text because their theology forces them to translate “firstborn” chronologically. But had Paul wished to convey chronology he would probably have used a different word than πρωτότοκος and continued his thought saying, “for all other things were created in him” ( ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη πάντα τα ά̓λλα) but he didn’t do that. Rather, Paul says that “by him all things were created,” emphasizing his position as creator of the universe. Furthermore, it is important to note that not only was everything created “by him” but they were created “for him.” Wait! Wasn’t everything created for Jehovah? Yes. Jesus is Jehovah-Jehovah the Son. Third, Paul reinforces v. 16 by stating that Jesus isn’t only the creator but he is also the sustainer of the universe-a position. Forth, v. 18 says Jesus is “the head of the body, the congregation” which is a position. Fifth, v. 18 says Jesus is “the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.” This second use of “firstborn” could be either chronological or positional since Jesus was the first to rise from the dead in an immortal body and has the ranking position as the risen Lord above all who will be resurrected. So which is it? Paul tells us in the same sentence saying, “that he might become the one who is first in all things.” The Greek word for “the one who is first” means “to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence - ‘to be the first, to have superior status.’”(4) Just as Jesus positionally ranks above all creation-because he is the creator-and positionally ranks above the church as its head, so too he ranks above those who will be resurrected. There is nothing in this entire section that supports interpreting “firstborn” in v. 15 chronologically. The word “firstborn” can be used chronologically or positionally. JW’s want to snatch the word from the context and give it a chronological meaning. But Paul clarifies in the subsequent verses what he means by the word “firstborn.” The entire passage is speaking about the preeminent position that Jesus has as the creator of the universe, the sustainer of the universe, the head of the Church, the risen Lord. Far from Col 1:15 being a proof text for the creation of Jesus, it actually speaks of his deity. 1) J.D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney, eds., “Firstborn,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). 2) Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2010), ePub, Col 1:15. 3) Harris, Colossians and Philemon, Col 1:16. 4) Eugene Nida and Johannes P. Louw, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition (United Bible Societies, 2002).

I think that it leads up to what you have referred to after you have their attention. Most people don't need preaching but good sound doctrinal teaching from God's word. If we cause them to reject Christ because of how we preached at them, then we lost their attention or interest in what we have to share causing them to think or ponder on it. Plus, if we share it with love then they will come to salvation by the Holy Spirit convicting their hearts not really by anything we have shared with them in the first place. I get what you say about modern so called Christians. You don't want to candy coat Christianity and not share the gospel of Jesus Christ! : )