Donald Diamond

But you just agreed with me when you said:
" I do not believe that the Father and the Son have equal authority. The Father is over the Son.  "
So your argument is that Jesus was claiming equality with God, even though you accept that Jesus was not equal in authority.  Am I the only one who finds your argument self-contradictory?
D

Quite agree. Prostrating oneself involves more
Prostrate oneself
1. Lit. to lay oneself out in respect or obedience in front of someone or something.
Fall down
 
to drop or topple.

Falling down and prostrating oneself are not the same thing.   
D

I usually watch the baptisms from my seat, but when I was baptized I clearly heard the brother(s)say before I was submerged, in the name of the Father, son, holy spirit.  I never heard anyone say you are baptized in the name of Jehovah's organization.
 
The society does believe they have the truth to show the path to the small cramped road to life to be protected by Jehovah through the time of Armageddon.  Being that all religions pretty much say the same or proudly proclaim they are the right way, I've found the only problem is they abhor when JW's say it, which is very hypocritical.   Actual deliverance or salvation is only by means of Christ. 
 
The society has also admitted to incorrect understandings, which they have never said they were perfect or infallible as other religions have done.  I can respect that even though I may not agree with everything.  I can agree more with their understanding of scriptures than the churches I attended, so it's not a big point of contention for me although I understand it is for others.  The churches I attended taught to defend the country by engaging in war, becoming slaves to pagan traditions and taught me God wanted to burn me forever if I didn't give freely when they passed the collection plate.
 
You also engage in a twisting of words which I find very deceitful.  I believe I mentioned any wrongs we've done (or injustice), may God correct us and refine us to do better in the future to try and make amends and continue to carry out the work Jesus gave us to do.  Please try to engage in an honest discussion.
 
Actual Quote:  " Whatever wrongs we have done or committed, we have to live with as we are not perfect even though people expect us to be, and pray that God corrects and refines us to continue the work Jesus gave us to do and try to correct those wrongs and repair broken trust."

1.  I'm not sure what the implication is other than what I stated below, but feel free to elaborate just for argument sake:
I did mention the majority of Bibles may have variant or spurious text.  That doesn't mean all Bibles contain the same variants or spurious text, even if they are in the minority.
 
2.  There is the public opinion among Christendom (including mainstream misinformed individuals who have failed to read their Bibles in its entirety or researched how Bibles are translated), that the KJB is the only correct translation or that the majority of translations are correct in their renditions of certain verses; that any translation that deviates from a common verse practice is heretical, even if those scholarly translators have just as much education and degrees, dismissing hundreds or thousands of hours of training, which is insulting to them and dishonest just for people to want to have their ears tickled.
 
 
12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
But this is not what the scripture says now is it? It clearly states that one must honor the Son inasmuch as one honors the Father. From John chapter 5 verse 16 through to 28 is dealing with the equality and authority of Jesus. 
 
3.  The scripture also states why the son is to be honored as Judge or the one that renders judgement, which is being disregarded to support the idea of worship instead.
John 5:22-23 New American Standard 1977  - “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him"
 
12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Who said that Jesus was equal with God? was it Jesus? yes, but more so it was John recording what the Jewish leaders understood Jesus' words to mean.
 
4.  Jesus never said he was equal to God, which you'd rather believe the lies of wayward Jews instead; ones Jesus called children of the Devil and a Synagogue of Satan.
Lies go on for miles with more twists and turns; and the more crooked they get, the more confusing. 
Since I can't get a clear sense out of the remainder of your words, I don't see a need to respond to the rest of whatever that was. (smile)

It is very simple.   I honour my mother as I honour my father.  I honour my mother for different reasons than I honour my father.   In both cases, I honour them, but it is not the "same" honour as it is for different reasons.    Scripture tells us to honour those to whom honour is due - the reasons for that honour is different in each case.   Receiving honour is not a definition of deity.   In scripture we honour the Father for being God - we honour the Son for dying for us - something God could not do as He cannot die.
I do not see in scripture the concept of "equal worship".  The derivation of the word sometimes translated "worship" is simply "to bow the knee".  Sometimes it ids bowing to God, sometimes to humans beings.  The Israelites worshipped Jehovah (YHWH) and the king (I Chron 29:20) 
1Ch 29:20  And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king. (ASV)
- it is describing one act.  Do you consider this "equal worship"?  It clearly doesn't  mean that the human king is Jehovah.
 
D.
 
 
 

Hello  Shiwii,
 
I am glad that you can see that the passage gives us the reason why we honour the Son as we honour the Father.   But the passage is clearly saying that the Son and the Father God are not equal because the Son derives his authority from the Father.  We honour both the Father and the Son but for different reasons.   It is because the Son derives his authority from the Father, that we honour the Son,  not because they are intrinsically equal in authority which is what you appear to be claiming.   I don't see how you can read this passage in any other way.  The Father does not derive His authority from the Son.
D

It seems you are not reading the context of John 5:23.  The context gives the reason WHY we honour the Son as we would the Father:
 
Joh 5:19  So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
Joh 5:20  For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.
Joh 5:21  For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
Joh 5:22  The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
Joh 5:23  that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
Joh 5:24  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Joh 5:25  "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Joh 5:27  And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
 
This passage is about honouring the Son because of the authority in judgement and raising the dead, which the Father has granted to the Son.  It is not about the equality of the Father and Son.
D

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.
I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.