JaniceM

Jehovah's Witnesses against Child Abuse. Official Announcement.

Whatever type of vision or imagery Satan presented to Jesus, it certainly doesn't say the earth is flat.  That would be a personal interpretation and incorrect.  If for example, I watch a movie or slideshow of different countries or continents, just because the screen is flat, I can't conclude the rest of the world is flat.  It would have been senseless for Jesus to say wait a minute, the kingdoms you showed me are all on flat land. 
 
"In the Hebrew Scriptures the earliest mention of Satan is in the first two chapters of the book of Job, where he is shown holding a conversation with Jehovah God and admits having gone to and fro upon the earth and having observed God’s friend Job. Surely Jehovah was not here holding a conversation with an imaginary person, a mere principle, nor could a mere principle have afflicted Job the way the account shows that Satan did. Incidentally, that Job was a historical and not an allegorical figure is apparent from his being linked with Noah and Daniel, both of whom Jesus referred to as having existed. (Ezek. 14:14) Also James 5:11 points him out as an example of endurance. . ." 
 
"Regarding Satan Jesus said that he saw him “already fallen like lightning from heaven.” He saw falling an idea, or an evil principle? Plainly indicating the Devil’s personality are the remarks Jesus addressed to the clergy of his day: “You are from your father the Devil and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” Was the principle of error at one time the same as the principle of truth?—Luke 10:18; John 8:44, NW.

"Those religious leaders in Jesus’ day knew there was a Devil and so they accused Jesus of doing his work by the power of the prince of devils, to which Jesus replied, not by denying the existence of a Devil, but by showing he had personality: “If Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26, NW) And further, regarding Jesus’ being tempted in the wilderness, is it reasonable to conclude that the perfect, loyal and ever-obedient Son of God would have been so tempted by thoughts originating in his own mind? And if the Devil were merely an evil principle or the personification of wickedness in ourselves, how could he have said to Jesus, “All these things [the kingdoms of the world and their glory] I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me”? Do an act of worship to a principle? No, it simply does not make sense to rob the Devil, Satan, of his personality.—Matt. 4:9, 10, NW."  Watchtower 1954/06/01
 
Lastly, we recognize many words in the Bible are personified including the holy spirit, but the holy spirit is not allegorical.  It is real and comes from the Father and Almighty God.  Also anyone can have an evil thought including Satan and his angels that rebelled against God and were removed from the heavens.  They also wage war with the remaining ones of the woman's seed on earth. 
Rev 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. (NWT)
 
These are real events that occurred behind the scenes with real persons or spirit beings.  They are not allegorical.  Jesus and the angelic hosts are not fighting with some allegorical evil within themselves.

Telling people I was a Jehovah’s Witness at school was always hard but with pray and a lot of preparation I was ready to give a witness to the people on my table when I was asked “who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and what do we believe” ? @caitlin.h.00 thank you
View the full article

No...I think I'm dealing with an Internet bot, also known as web robot, WWW robot or simply bot, is a software application that runs automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone.

So did Abraham not name that place? 
Gen.22:14. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh ( יְהוָה יִרְאֶה ): as it is said to this day."

It is an academic book (it is based on the Greek text and concentrates on the Greek vocabulary) - you will primarily find it in universities or theological schools.  There appear to be copies all across America including Southern California.  
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation-1-5/oclc/37812629&referer=brief_results
and
https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation/oclc/37686762&referer=brief_results
Word Commentaries are written by reputable theologians with expertise in Biblical languages.
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A%22Word+biblical+commentary%22
D

Dear brothers! Nice that you have such a site where one is encouraged. Here is a picture of my husband and me as we of our city have cart witnessing for the first time.
Have a nice day. Our Sister Michelle @mich3ll3_s thank you
View the full article

God's name appeared originally in the Bible almost 7,000 times, so I don't think it was God's decision for His name not to be spoken or excluded from the Bible or pronounced only as Elohim/God. 
 
I recall speaking to some Jews and they often refer to God as "The Name" ("haShem").  They will also write G-d, instead of God.  Maybe they felt God's name was too sacred to be spoken or disrespectful to be mispronounced, however, I think it's very disrespectful not to acknowledge God's name or deny even the correct spelling and title of God.  We do have a short form of God's name in scripture, Yah/Jah.  Despite their best objective not to say God's name or keep it hidden, God's name is not entirely lost as they fail to realize, many Jewish names include this short form or sound which they speak regularly: 
 
(Isa'iah) [Salvation of Jehovah]; (Jeremi'ah) [possibly, Jehovah Exalts; or, Jehovah Loosens [likely from the womb]]; (Obadi'ah) [Servant of Jehovah]; (Zephani'ah) [Jehovah Has Concealed (Treasured Up)]; (Zechari'ah) [Jehovah Has Remembered]; Jesus (Greek, I.e.sous’; Hebrew, Jeshua, (Yeshua); Jehoshua (Yehoshua) meaning “Salvation [or Help] of Jah (Yah) [Jehovah/Yehovah].”  (Hal·le·lu jah).

The patriarchs knew God's name.  However, they did not know what God's name meant until God reveal this information to Moses.
Gen 12:7 Jehovah now appeared to Abram and said: “To your seed I am going to give this land.” After that he built an altar there to Jehovah, who had appeared to him. 8 Later he moved from there to the mountainous region to the east of Bethel and pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. Then he built an altar there to Jehovah and began to call on the name of Jehovah.
 
Exo 6:20 Now Amram took Jochebed his father’s sister as his wife. Later she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of Amram’s life were a hundred and thirty-seven years. (Jochebed means “Jehovah is glory.)

Whatever type of vision or imagery Satan presented to Jesus, it certainly doesn't say the earth is flat.  That would be a personal interpretation and incorrect.  If for example, I watch a movie or slideshow of different countries or continents, just because the screen is flat, I can't conclude the rest of the world is flat.  It would have been senseless for Jesus to say wait a minute, the kingdoms you showed me are all on flat land. 
 
"In the Hebrew Scriptures the earliest mention of Satan is in the first two chapters of the book of Job, where he is shown holding a conversation with Jehovah God and admits having gone to and fro upon the earth and having observed God’s friend Job. Surely Jehovah was not here holding a conversation with an imaginary person, a mere principle, nor could a mere principle have afflicted Job the way the account shows that Satan did. Incidentally, that Job was a historical and not an allegorical figure is apparent from his being linked with Noah and Daniel, both of whom Jesus referred to as having existed. (Ezek. 14:14) Also James 5:11 points him out as an example of endurance. . ." 
 
"Regarding Satan Jesus said that he saw him “already fallen like lightning from heaven.” He saw falling an idea, or an evil principle? Plainly indicating the Devil’s personality are the remarks Jesus addressed to the clergy of his day: “You are from your father the Devil and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” Was the principle of error at one time the same as the principle of truth?—Luke 10:18; John 8:44, NW.

"Those religious leaders in Jesus’ day knew there was a Devil and so they accused Jesus of doing his work by the power of the prince of devils, to which Jesus replied, not by denying the existence of a Devil, but by showing he had personality: “If Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26, NW) And further, regarding Jesus’ being tempted in the wilderness, is it reasonable to conclude that the perfect, loyal and ever-obedient Son of God would have been so tempted by thoughts originating in his own mind? And if the Devil were merely an evil principle or the personification of wickedness in ourselves, how could he have said to Jesus, “All these things [the kingdoms of the world and their glory] I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me”? Do an act of worship to a principle? No, it simply does not make sense to rob the Devil, Satan, of his personality.—Matt. 4:9, 10, NW."  Watchtower 1954/06/01
 
Lastly, we recognize many words in the Bible are personified including the holy spirit, but the holy spirit is not allegorical.  It is real and comes from the Father and Almighty God.  Also anyone can have an evil thought including Satan and his angels that rebelled against God and were removed from the heavens.  They also wage war with the remaining ones of the woman's seed on earth. 
Rev 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. (NWT)
 
These are real events that occurred behind the scenes with real persons or spirit beings.  They are not allegorical.  Jesus and the angelic hosts are not fighting with some allegorical evil within themselves.

In an earlier post I drew your attention to 
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)
In this sentence construction there is only one instance of the verb, and it has two objects - Jehovah, and the king.  It is one act.
You replied:  " I do not consider this equal."
In the passage the act of worship is made for different reasons - to Jehovah because He is God, and to the king, who is His representative.
Yet in Rev 5, you argue exactly the opposite, where the context makes it even clearer that the attribution of honour, glory, worth etc to the one who sites on the throne and to the Lamb is for different reasons.    The words "same" or "equal" do not appear in the text.  
Your argument therefore appears to be inconsistent, and the "nuances" you try to introduce are based on a theological dogma instead of what the text actually says.
 
D

An interesting comment from a reputable scholarly (trinitarian?) commentary:
David Aune in Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentaries, Nelson, Dallas, 1997, page 365:

“A comparison between the analogous lists of prerogatives  in I Chon 29:11 (prerogatives of God) and Dan 2:37 (prerogatives of the king bestowed by God) with Rev 5:11 suggests that the ascription of these prerogatives to the Lamb means, not that the Lamb is thereby venerated as God (similar prerogatives could also be ascribed to kings) but that these qualities are bestowed upon the Lamb by virtue of his investiture.” 
DAVID AUNE is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.A. from Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his publications are The New Testament in its Literary Environment and Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (editor).
Food for thought
.
 
D

There is nothing here that talks about "equal" honour, glory, worth, power etc.    
Rev 5:9  And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain,.....
The Lamb receives these accolades for doing something that God could not do i.e. die.  But God and the Lamb are worthy for different reasons.   The writer is not concerned about "quantities" or "sameness".  
D

Shiwiii said:
"How do you honor one more than the other?"
Just an additional thought. The context of this assigning of honor to the Son as to the Father in John 5:23 is of course in Jesus assigned role as judge. It is particularly when judging that Jesus is to be shown honor commensurate with that shown to the Father, as Jehovah has given complete authority to Jesus in this aspect. John 5:22 :"For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son." . Jesus' judgement is as if Jehovah was judging and is as binding.
As an example, the account of Joseph in Egypt indicates how a ruler (Pharaoh) could assign such honor to a deserving subject without relinquishing his own superior position. Compare Gen.41:44 with Gen.45:16-20.
Although the discussion seems to have diverged somewhat from the original question, I think the answer to it is actually a resounding Yes! because the Scripture indicates clearly that God has a personal name regardless of how it is pronounced.
We must understand and appreciate the unique personal differences between Jehovah and His only-begotten Son, identified as Jesus (English pronunciation), which includes their personal names,
Only then can we possibly assign them their due, relative honor, and ensure that we follow the instruction Jesus gave as recorded at Luke 4:8:
“It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’ "
 

Dagobert Duck seems to be German version of Scrooge McDuck.  Wikipedia says  "He was in his first few appearances characterized as a greedy miser and antihero (as Charles Dickens' original Scrooge was), but in later comics and animated shorts and the modern day he is more often portrayed as a charitable and thrifty hero, adventurer, explorer, and philanthropist." 
The picture above is of a toy version of a popular superhero called Northstar.
Wikipedia says of this character:  "The character is one of the first openly gay superheroes in American comic books, and the first openly gay character to come out in a book published by Marvel Comics. He married his husband, Kyle Jinadu, inAstonishing X-Men #51 (June 2012), which was the first depiction of a same-sex marriage in mainstream comics."
I agree entirely with this point, but just feel it is necessary to make the point that in order for the conscience to work effectively, it needs to be informed.

Its ok. your opinion... but you've to accept other opinions too !  For some things we've all our conscience. Its the same by the blood questions, many JW have a little different opinion for their own body, we know that and its ok. Thats also a case of our own conscience and no other brother or sister has to say anything against that ! Satan has nothings to do with my decisions, only Jehovah. Many JW watching *STAR WARS* and similar movies too... We got a conscience from Jehovah and we can use it. Thats my last word to this discuss theme ! 
PS. My son was playing in the past often the character figure Dagobert Duck, from Mickey Mouse...  Today he is a good, successful Banker, but also a JW !  Wish you a nice day ;o)

I'll be wrapping things up by the end of the week, so I'll get the other mail out to you tomorrow perhaps.
1.  My experiences growing up among the churches was being surrounded by teachings of my soul floating away to heaven or burning in hell.  I never heard anything about the kingdom of God until I started studying with JWs.  I have had experience with Mormons visiting our home maybe once in my lifetime, but it wasn't to preach about God's kingdom.  I think that the gospel of the kingdom was one of the essential gospel messages of Christ and a duty for all to declare.  So when I speak of truth, it's about the kingdom of Christ and the benefits it would bring to mankind.  I prayed to God to show me the truth and his people and he did, and for the most part my questions were answered.  There is no religion or denomination totally correct about everything or they would be perfect, and there is no denomination I agree with on everything.  They are all imperfect bodies of people.  However, when I left the churches, just as many others, I was determined to never set foot in one again.  Turning away from a spiritual paradise would be like a dog going back to its vomit.
 
2.  From my view, I have seen a lot of neglect, hurt feelings and some major problems needing major corrections, however, I see no urgency or crisis as for as those anointed are concerned.  They are in God's hands to put in whatever rightful position he desires, not mine. 
 
3.  I don't see where a person can be disfellowshipped for quoting the Bible.
Witness said:
If you were to approach the elders and say, “I believe the only way to serve God is through Christ, for he said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ and I believe this is the accurate way to God
 
We realize there is some judging of serious matters within the congregation, but we don't want to be judging or finding fault continuously with the imperfections of each other or picking at straws.
 
I understand you are on the road so I'll cease here.  If there are any further issues feel free to reply when you can.  I still have a reply for your 04/19 posting, which I will post within the next day or two.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
"yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?"
Based on John 5:23:
"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."
So, this, (depending on motive) is actually a very good question.
As the meaning of the verb "to honor" is similar to that of the Greek word used (form of timao), the definition of the English word is relevant:  
"honor" verb: to regard with great respect.
So actually the honoring is not greater or less. You either honor someone or you do not. It is what it is: honor.
However, what the honor is due for is related to the role of the subject. For example, the scriptures exhort children to honor their father and mother at Eph. 6:4. Whilst the honor is the same i.e. not less for the mother over the father, it is expressed within the parameters of the role assigned to each parent. e.g. to assign the mother the role as head of the family, and respect her wishes and/or direction over and above (possibly in contradiction to) those of the father, would be DIS-honoring the mother (and the father) within the theocratic structure (1Cor.11:3), regardless of the motive of the one showing such "honor".
Similarly, showing honor to the Father would mean, respecting Him alone as the Sovereign Lord of the Universe (Ps.83:18); the Creator of all things (Is. 42:5), including His Son Jesus Christ (Col.1:15); the provider and acceptor of the Ransom Sacrifice of His Son's perfect human life (Rom.5:8); the originator of the Kingdom administration (Eph.1:10) which includes the extending of the benefits of that Ransom Sacrifice to all obedient former children of the rebellious Adam and Eve (Acts 25:15); and many other things too numerous to mention here.
Showing honor to the Son would include (among many other things not mentioned), acknowledging his unique role in: providing his perfect human life as the Ransom Sacrifice (2Tim.2:5-6); in acknowledging that his reward for faithfully carrying out all that was required of him includes his elevated status now in heaven as the King and High Priest (Ph.2:9; 1Tim.1:15; Heb.6:20; Matt.28:18); and recognising that he would never, never place himself on equal footing with his Glorious Heavenly Father, Jehovah (1Cor 11:3; Ph.1:6).
In fact, to suggest that Jesus would consider himself equal to God would do him the greatest DIS-honor (Ph.1:6; comp. Jo.8:49).
As I said, this was a very good question.
 
 

Sorry for delay in replying.   The text simple says that in relation to authority over judgement and raising the dead, we should honour the delegatee as we would the delegator.   That is not a difficult concept.  
The problem you need to deal with is that supreme authority is an essential attribute of God.  Try reading from chapter 40 of Isaiah and you will see that repeated chapter after chapter.  So it is simply not possible for the Father and Son to be equally God while not being equal in authority.   IMHO you are putting the false accusation of the Jewish leaders ahead of the plain statements of Jesus.
As I have pointed out before, your argument leads to two god persons, one of whom is dependent for his authority on the other.  I cannot see that in scripture.
D

It could be tempting to speculate on some sort of heavenly judicial scenario in the spirit world, incorporating scriptural glimpses such as Job 1;6; 2:2, and maybe ancient Jewish commentaries, alternative renderings of scripture (such as De.32:8), and much earlier writings about pantheons of angelic gods in an antediluvian or other setting.
For a number of reasons, I prefer a more "down to earth " understanding.
Brown-Driver-Briggs states that the word elohim used at Ps:82:1 can mean  rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.
Other Bible references such as Paul's words at 1 Cor 8:5-6 show that there are many viewed as "gods" on earth and the crowd's attribution to Herod at Acts 12:21-22 underlines that humans with power over others could be viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods" regardless of their deserving that description.
So the gods referred to in Psalm 8 appear to be humans with power of judging over other men (thus viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods"). From Moses onward, judges existed among God's people for good (1Ki.10:9) or bad (Mic. 4:11) depending on the historical  circumstances. As such, Psalm 8 indicates they would be called to account for any injustice in exercising that office by their Supreme Judge, Jehovah.
In the account recorded at John 10:31-39, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 when rebutting the Jews' accusation of blasphemy for calling himself a "god",(their inference on the fact he had said he was God's son). He showed that as the scripture actually referred to humans rightly as gods, there was no crime in his reference to himself as Gods son.

Psalm 82:1, 6
God takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges:
...
 “I have said, ‘You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.
 
Is the psalmist talking about false gods here? Are the angelic 'gods' legitimate or not?

Wonderful!

A BEGGAR BECAME A CONGREGATION ELDER...
WHAT  a  blessing  from  our  God  Jehovah ❤    but,  read  the  story...
One Sunday morning, two brothers were preaching on the streets, could not talk to anyone, the brothers decided to talk to a beggar who sat on the bench in the square, who ate trash heaps that were there.
The brothers began to talk to him about the hope of a new world where there would be no more misery, there would be no more hunger, no violence, etc. The beggar was very much interested in the message and he accepted a study of the Bible with the brochure "does God require of us? And the brothers made arrangements to continue studying in the same place. When the day came, that beggar I was anxious to see the brothers were falling behind a bit, but came and went with the study. This beggar continued to study for two months ... one Saturday morning, the brothers were doing the preaching from house to house in that same territory when suddenly they saw the beggar also talking with people about the Bible, the brothers went to where the beggar to say that could not be doing this, on the doors, because it was necessary to have a good appearance and fill certain requirements.
Then the brothers took him to his home, where he bathed, shaved, cut his hair, nails, teeth brushed, and told them got him right clothes ... This beggar began to attend all meetings, without missing one, he began to participate in the theocratic ministry school; shortly thereafter he made one of his two dreams: he began to preach the good news from house to house. By that time this beggar was an example for all in the congregation and everyone who knew him knew of his history. After studying for 8 months was baptized at an international meeting held at Morumbi stadium in Sao Paulo Brazil.
The brother who had this experience in speech concluded: know what the result of that experience That beggar who became a brother? 'ME !!! and today I am having the privilege of being here telling my own story, for all the brothers.
Currently, in addition to serving Jehovah, I have my family, I have my house, I have a son and I serve as an elder in my congregation (... kept the audience not to applaud ...) so brothers have well in mind that in this world we all preach to all kind of people!; We demonstrate Christlike humility and willingness to give help to those in need, knowing that before God we are all beggars....
 

Hi Witness, I didn't want to quote your whole post as these writings go on for miles already.  I will try to respond to your other mail later today if I don't get bogged down with others here.  I also have to work 2 jobs next few weeks, so please excuse me if I don't answer right away.  I do try to read all your responses to me and everyone.  Also, it appears you may be getting some of my quotes mixed up with Shiwii. 
 
I guess I'm not fully understanding your concern or I don't see it as a major problem.  I try not to sweat the small stuff.
 
I read all the verses you quoted how the Lord or Jesus has stars in his hand, and the society stating he directs the stars/elders, or something to that effect.  Then you mentioned something about the anointed.  It got a little confusing for me.
 
Witness said:
Firstly, the stars do not only mean anointed elders, but all anointed ones within the Body of Christ, his Temple priests.  1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 6:19,20
 
We're all directed by God's holy spirit in different ways.  If the society speculates on what certain verses mean toward the anointed or bodies of elders, I may agree with their speculations or not.  As long as they are not telling me I need to worship them, they can make whatever speculations about the way they feel God or Christ is directing us, the elders, the anointed, or the organization.
 
I do however have a problem with being told I can't speculate on some verses because someone decides their speculations have changed.  But it's still not a bone of contention to cause me to dismiss my faith as others have done because I do agree with the main tenets of faith if not all in their entirety or my views have changed somewhat on certain issues.
 
I've read older publications of the society that I have not totally agreed with or completely understood.  The society has also rejected some earlier views as well.  Often I look at commentaries online for opinions of certain verses.  Some are similar, but of the hundreds/thousands, with their different speculations, I can agree or not, as their speculations can change over time as well.  It's my choice what to accept or believe.  No one can reach inside my mind.  I don't have to be overly discontent and write letters to the editor to tell them they are going above their authority about what some verse means.
 
There is a problem with outside views which I've had problems with, family, co-workers, neighbors etc., which caused me to stumble quite a bit, and it took me a long time to get back on my feet where I needed to be.  Their complaints constantly buzzing in my ears and nit-picking everything in every publication, made me more concerned about what they said rather than my faith and relationship with Jehovah and focusing on the commandments and work Jesus instructed us to do.  So now I say to anyone, tell me what you feel is the right way to go.  They might suggest their faith or denomination, but usually, they can't give me an answer, other than list all the so-called cults to stay away from.  They also say nothing of the preaching work or kingdom which was the main focus of Jesus' message.
 
Lastly, I'm not sure what the solution would be to these statements below, whether the anointed ones should commence the operations of the society or not. 
 
Witness said:
In the house of the Lord, his Temple, only chosen priests were to serve.  The house of the Lord today is Christ’s Body, his Temple members, holy priesthood which are the anointed ones. Since the early temple was a shadow of the heavenly one, it takes the spiritual eye to see that the transgressing of the Temple today is through the elder arrangement esteemed to be the “stars” in Christ’s right hand.
Witness said:
The elder body are the “others” who have taken the place of the anointed ones; by doing so, God’s sanctuary is profaned. The have “entered” it by replacing God’s choice of whom should serve the people. 
Witness said:
It is my opinion that not only is God’s name being profaned in this way, but through such actions, Christ and his Temple are rejected by the organization.

You may not agree (which is fine).   However, you appear to be arguing that the Son was claiming to be equal with God, while you also maintain that the Son was NOT equal to the Father in authority,    That is a self contradictory argument.  The fact that you can't see that is disappointing.  
I have specifically addressed the question you ask here.  We are told to honour the Son as we honour the Father because the Father has granted the Son authority over the judgement and raising the dead.
John 5:22, 23 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. (ASV)
I feel you have not addressed any of my arguments which directly deal with the points you made.  However, I am happy to leave it for the readers to make up their own minds.  
D