I've been presented with an extremely unique opportunity to attend an upcoming Jehovah's Witness meeting, with some significant JW leadership expected to be present. What makes this particularly interesting is that I was personally invited, and one of the main subjects being discussed is why Christians shouldn't worship Jesus. Of all the topics I could've walked into. This will be my first real opportunity to engage in public apologetics, and I have no intention of turning their meeting into a debate or being disrespectful. I was invited, so I'll respect that. My plan is simply to respond with questions rather than arguments and see where the discussion goes. A few questions I'm considering: 1. If Jesus explicitly says in John 5:23 that we must honor the Son just as we honor the Father, how does worshiping the Son dishonor the Father? 2. If Isaiah 45:23 records Yahweh declaring that every knee will bow to Him, why does Paul apply that same declaration to Jesus in Philippians 2:10–11? 3. If Philippians 2:11 specifically says that acknowledging Jesus as Lord glorifies God the Father, how does honoring Jesus somehow mean we're ignoring the Father? 4. If Hebrews 1:6 commands God's angels to render proskyneō to Jesus, how do we determine that it means something different from the worship given to God? I'm also planning to bring a lapel mic so I can review my interactions afterward, I will probably post on here for feedback, and hopefully learn something from the experience. I'm under no illusion that I'm going to walk into a Kingdom Hall and change anyone's beliefs, but hopefully just one small seed can be planted. But I do think this is a pretty rare opportunity to have meaningful conversations about Scripture, especially with experienced JW leadership present. I'm really hoping to hold by Ephesians 5:11"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." For those who have engaged with Jehovah's Witnesses before, particularly in a Kingdom Hall setting, I'd genuinely appreciate any advice or suggestions.

I witnessed something pretty interesting at Bible study last night, and I figured this group would appreciate it. We were in Matthew 11:10, and I mentioned that Muslims will sometimes try to use that verse to try to claim Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. Which is obviously ridiculous and I called Muhammad a false prophet and basically said that if you’re ever going to talk to Muslims about Christianity, these are arguments you should at least know how to respond to. What caught me off guard, but at the same time Not surprised, was their reaction. The room got noticeably uncomfortable, and someone immediately felt the need to point out that Muslims are very nice people and that most of them are good people. Obviously this is true. I never said they weren’t. Some of my best friends are Iraqi Muslims. But lying to them also isn’t loving either. Ii guess it just highlighted something I’ve noticed more and more with Christians. Our default position has become almost theological pacifism. Even Paul preached “in weakness and in fear and in much trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3). Christianity was never supposed to be comfortable. If Paul could preach the truth while uncomfortable, I think we can survive an awkward room when the truth needs to be said. You can genuinely love someone and still tell them they’re wrong. In fact, if you believe the Gospel is actually true, I don’t know how refusing to be honest about it could be considered loving.

Muslims often argue that the Bible is reliable where the Qur’an confirms it, but corrupted where it contradicts the Qur’an. Fair enough. How does the Quran confirm the Bible? Believe it or not, in some very trinitarian ways. In Surrah 3:45 the Quran says "When the angels said, ‘O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, distinguished in this world and the Hereafter, and among those brought near.’ What's interesting is that the Quran itself doesn't provide any explanation of the way in which Jesus is the Word. It's also interesting that this Word is personal and has a name. Since the Quran is confirming the Bible in this passage, I think the natural place to go to understand what it means for Jesus to be the Word, is John 1. That's where we see the Word as both God and with God. So it at least seems like the Quran is confirming that aspect of Jesus' nature. Surrah 4:171 is also very interesting in the way it confirms the Bible. It says "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the messenger of Allah, and His Word which He cast to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say, “Three.” Stop; it is better for you. Allah is only one God." How interesting is this? We get Jesus identified as Allah's Word again, but now we also see the "Spirit from him". Obviously, Him in this verse is Allah. But here's the even more interesting part, the author of the Quran seems to understand the relationship between Allah, His Word (Jesus), and the Spirit. Immediately before this statement, Allah reminds them that there's a boundary to the religion that shouldn't be crossed. And then after it says "Do not say Three." Stop. It is better for you. Allah is only one God." So we see here that even though you have Allah and Jesus, His Word, and His Spirit, we still only have one God. And the boundary that shouldn't be crossed is saying that there are three. That's extremely trinitarian.

Let's start discussing Islam apologetics here. It would be good to share what we've encountered. Let's try to keep each thread on a single topic, and then we can organize the threads into the Islam category to find them later. Let's also try to be mindful of how dense a single comment is. Try to be precise and focused. I will go first because I have something on my mind that I want to work through with you guys. Mark 13:32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father." So the question I am asking is does the Son actually know in some sense? If so, what sense? And how would we defend that from the Bible? I will tell you upfront that right now I am exploring what it would mean if He actually did not know. I think a plain reading is that He does not know. The fact that His knowledge is lumped with the angels leads me to believe that over other explanations (since we would not try to reconcile the angels knowledge in the same way). So the question is what follows if it's true that the Son doesn't know? The OT passage he's alluding to is Zech 14:7 "And it will be a unique day which is known to Yahweh..." @Tim Tant asked me if I believe the Son can learn a fact. That was a good question and my gut reaction was no. The problem is I don't know why. I think our first instinct is to say God knows everything, so if Jesus is God he must know everything exactly as the Father does. But is that true? Which made me ask why is omniscience rooted in the being of God? So I looked into it. That idea comes from the classical doctrine of divine simplicity, developed through Augustine and later systematized by Aquinas. It's a product of classic theology. Scripture clearly teaches that God knows all things, knows hearts, knows the future, and possesses knowledge in a way creatures do not. But Scripture does not say: 1) God’s knowledge is identical to his essence. 2) Every divine person must therefore possess every item of knowledge identically.

There had been an earthquake that led to a dam breaking causing massive flooding and loss of life not too long ago in China or India or on the border not sure. Anyway you could see the videos on social media of people getting swept away. Not sure of the numbers but many died. I’ve heard often claimed that natural disasters, as well as suffering, get lumped into the problem of evil. But are these things really evil? Something that can be levied against God or something to discredit his goodness? Of course we as Christian’s apologists deny this. I personally have used the butterfly effect. What’s evil or bad here may be the cause of great good elsewhere and we could never truly know but I admit this is nebulous and may not be a sufficient answer for many. But the thought occurred to me, I don’t think natural disasters can be categorized as evil. They are a part of a natural cycle of the world we live in. Yes sometimes people get caught in the crossfire so to speak but to use people dying in natural disasters as a discredit for a good God to me seems no different from using death in general as a contention against God since it too is a natural process. That is to say there is no morality behind nature nor death itself. They are simply processes thus they cannot be evil. Idk if this idea has been fleshed out more deeply anywhere else but I wanted to throw it up here to ask what y’all think and if there is any errors in my thinking.