by bennyk 39 Replies latest jw friends
Okay, out of curiosity, I've called the main contact number at Patterson. I talked to a couple people, explained who I was, what my interest and connection to Jehovah's Witnesses is and posed the question.
They've confirmed that the more liberal view on the resurrection is current and gave me a list of additional references which I'll post here.
@bohm:
If i ask the elder i study with exactly this question: "Will a child living with unbelieving parents be killed by Jesus at armageddon?" and he says no, what will that signify? If i promise to ask that question, will you then ask your elder the same?
I'm not really sure what this would signify for you. And let me ask you this, assuming that you've read at least a few more of my posts than just the ones I've made to this thread here: If I should be an elder, demonstrating a deep knowledge of what I believe, what Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible teaches, then for what purpose exactly would I be asking someone else this question, considering that I was speaking here in this forum with frankness, whereas what I might teach others not in this forum would be the truth, would be honest, but wouldn't necessarily be as frank or insensitive? The ability to teach includes knowledge what and when to say a particular thing, taking into consideration your audience, just as Jesus told the Greek, Syrophoenician woman at Mark 7;27 that he had been sent to heal and feed the children of Israel and not "little dogs" or "puppies" as we might say today.
If anyone reading any of my posts should read them seeking to know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, what they will be learning is what things the Bible teaches, so that no one should get the idea that the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach is not exactly what the Bible teaches, when what we teach is exactly what the Bible teaches as the holy spirit has revealed these things to us.
None of your quotes, no matter how many times you repost them, says a child living with unbelieving parents will be killed at armageddon, because its simply not what the witnesses teach. Instead of copy-pasting, please help us connect the dots by elaborating.
Take the personalities out of all of this and you'll see that what things I say in my posts here -- whether someone not a Bible scholar, but with considerable experience being in and living the truth should disagree -- is the truth, and while, in a perfect world, I would be keeping my typos in check so that what I say should be complete in every respect, but I must confess that I am unable to bridle my entire body. (James 3:2)
I thought it appropriate to copy and paste those three articles I posted here, but you have to know that I did so specifically because you had specifically written the following:
This last article (#3) is also in response to your post (notice the date is 25 years later than 1951) and there has been to my knowledge no adjustment made to this viewpoint.
I had omitted to post article #3 in my original post, but when I attempted to edit my post that contained just the first two articles, the time to so edit it had expired, so that I had to repost the corrected post, which included the third article that I had failed to include in my original post. In the event you didn't notice, I fancy using my own words, rather than quoting something written by someone else in one of our publications to explain Bible truths to others. Reading my posts one should gather than I know the truth, in other words, that I know exactly what things the Bible teaches and I know what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
I also know that there are some things that some Jehovah's Witnesses believe that aren't based on their having an accurate knowledge of the truth, that some of those that have been in the truth 20, 30, 40 years are saying things today, and even teaching their Bible students, that accord with what we understood to be true 20, 30, 40 years ago, which are not what we believe to be true now due to the many adjustments that have been published in the Watchtower. Depending upon what was said, it may be appropriate to correct such outdated viewpoints from the podium and at other times to effect such corrections privately, but we "should all speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10), and hope that we do not discover later, because of an inadvertent typo or our omitting the context needed to understand what we have said, that we have ourselves proven to become causes of stumbling to others by what things we say. (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:3-10)
I'm not here to help you or to help anyone to "connect the dots by elaborating"; I'm here to discuss topics of interest with you and others here. Jehovah's Witnesses do not typically conduct Bible studies using mediums like this one, so if you should need some to 'connect some dots,' I would recommend that you seek out that elder with whom you are studying the Bible and let him know what needs connecting, ok?
What do you think of what djeggnog is saying? Do you agree?
And with this, do you really think that you could pressure me into changing any aspect of what things I have said here by putting the matter to a vote? Put me in a room of devout Catholics and ask us to vote "yes" or "no" on whether the Catholic view of Mary being "Ever Virgin" is scriptural, and if there should be 50 or even 100 Catholics in that room, I would expect that my "no" vote would be the sole "no" vote cast against this view.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the question, At Matthew 5:43, Jesus stated the following as part of his Sermon on the Mount: "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy?" Where would we find this command in the Bible? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would actually think that such a command existed under the Law of Moses.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the more difficult question, What did Jesus say to the Pharisees at John 8:7 to persuade them that adultery was no longer a capital offense? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would not realize that the premise of my question is just wrong, that this question is more of a trick question, a thinking question, for(a) the passage at John 7:53-8:11 is known to be spurious, and (b) Jesus had not come to abrogate the Law of Moses (and thus become guilty of sin!), but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), so if two witnesses had been brought to him as the Law requires, one of these witnesses being the woman's husband, who is conspicuously missing from this account, and the one with whom she had been "caught at adultery," then there might actually have been a legal case presented to Jesus. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22; Numbers 5:11-31) I'd say parenthetically here that one would need to totally suspend credulity and believe that the Pharisees would actually have been persuaded by anything at all that Jesus had taught them.
What is true is going to be true no matter how many people you find that should say that what is true isn't true. Why don't you take a right view?
@TD:
Okay, out of curiosity, I've called the main contact number at Patterson. I talked to a couple people, explained who I was, what my interest and connection to Jehovah's Witnesses is and posed the question. They've confirmed that the more liberal view on the resurrection is current and gave me a list of additional references which I'll post here.
That's fine. You clearly have the right to telephone anyone you wish in order to perhaps discuss anything that you wish to discuss. You clearly want to argue with me, but I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and "more liberal view" held by some on any Bible-related topic. Perhaps you are also of the belief that there is a more conservative view on the resurrection doctrine? There isn't; there is only one view; the truth. I'm done talking to you about this particular topic. You want to win an argument? Ok. Then I concede the win to you on this one. I'm willing to accept that I cannot win them all.
Djeggnog: So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
You wrote to TD: "but I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and "more liberal view" held by some on any Bible-related topic"
The question is if the statement above is the current view of the witnesses. Your changing the subject to what TD believe, which was never the question of interest.
Tell me, are you an elder or just a regular witness?
djeggnog,
There are some issues that come up regarding JW belief that I'm willing to argue about, but on this one, I was genuinely confused. I freely admit that there are nuances of JW belief that I miss sometimes.
You are the first person I've ever heard say something like this:
Children are deemed "holy" on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection.
The resurrection is a prominent part of the ministry of Jehovah's Witnesses. JW's go to the doors of non-JW's and specifically tell them that their departed loved ones will one day be resurrected and that the best way to actually be there for that wonderful event is to come to an accurate knowledge of the "Truth" now.
If Jehovah's Witnesses did not truly believe this, then it would not only be incredibly cruel to go around stirring up this hope, it would be dishonest as well.
This is not the first time I've called Patterson with a question and it probably won't be the last, but every time the people I have talked to have been courteous and kind. After our introductions had been made, I read the bolded part of the statement above and asked the JW gentleman if this is what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe.
I was emphatically told, "No" and given several references. The first was a two part article on the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses:
The Resurrection A Glorious Prospect
These articles tell of a little boy named Owen, the child of non-JW parents. The child has died and the father leaves his church in disgust, because he can't get satisfying answers about why Owen died and where he is now. The second article explains the resurrection and then tells how Owen's father, Percy learns that Owen did not become an angel in heaven when he died. Owen, along with all the rest of the dead are awaiting a resurrection. (These articles are from the 2005 Watchtower)
The next reference was a booklet entitled, "When Someone Dies" which is also available in part on the official website:
This article follows a similar pattern: A young woman lost her adoptive mother to cancer many years ago. This woman was not a JW and considered taking her own life to be reunited with her mother in heaven. Jehovah's Witnesses though helped her, through Bible study to see that her mother is awaiting a resurrection.
In neither of these articles is there any equivocation on whether or not these poeple will be resurrected. In other words, there are no caveats or provisos making their resurrections dependent upon step children, parents or other family members becoming Jehovah's Witnesses after the fact.
I mentioned to this gentleman that my wife had an extensive library and asked if there were additional references he could give me. He told me to find and read the May 1, 2005 Watchtower for more information.
That issue is a series of five articles on the subject. On page 17, it says:
"Many who read this will wonder about the situation of those who die during this "time of the end." (Daniel 8:19) Revelation chapter 6 describes the ride of four horsemen during that time. Interestingly, the last of these is named Death, and he is followed by Hades. Thus, many who die an untimely death from the activity of the preceding horsemen end up in Hades, there to await a resurrection in God’s new world."
If Jehovah's Witnesses did believe at one time that those who fail to "take their stand for Jehovah" during the time of the end will not be resurrected, even in cases where they died well before the Great Tribulation actually starts, (And it is not at all clear if that is what the 1951 quote is actually saying) it does not appear that they still believe this.
@bohm:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
Yes.
The question is if the statement above is the current view of the witnesses. [You're] changing the subject to what TD believe, which was never the question of interest.
I've not changed the subject at all.
Tell me, are you an elder or just a regular witness?
It's evident that you haven't been reading my posts very carefully, but I'm curious: Do you view elders as being somehow greater than the men and women that have not been and scripturally cannot be appointed to serve as such? I ask because in the world people lord the authority that they have been given over others, but in God's organization this is not done. People often mistakenly view the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as our leaders, but like the elders are merely taking the lead, for Jehovah's Witnesses have but one leader, Christ.
@TD:
It's clear that you didn't quite understand me when I told you in my previous post that "I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and 'more liberal view' held by some on any Bible-related topic." I conceded the argument to you as a win and I want nothing more to do with you.
You said:
There are some issues that come up regarding JW belief that I'm willing to argue about, but on this one, I was genuinely confused. I freely admit that there are nuances of JW belief that I miss sometimes.
You also wrote that I am "the first person [you've] ever heard say [the following]": "Children are deemed 'holy' on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection." (Emphasis yours)
In this response, I have decided to humor you again, since I have no real way of knowing whether or not you are "genuinely confused" as you claim to be.
You speak about "a little boy named Owen, the child of non-JW parents" and you go on to mention "[a] young woman [who had] lost her adoptive mother to cancer many years ago [who] ... was not a JW," and you tell me how "courteous and kind," and even how forthcoming with information pertaining to what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection the individual with whom you spoke on the phone at Patterson was to you, but what you aren't getting is that at 1 Corinthians 7:14, the apostle Paul is not talking about folks that are not Jehovah's Witnesses or the children of folks that are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Paul is talking about believers, about Jehovah's Witnesses whose children are considered "holy" on account of their believing parents.
Were you to sit down with one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have a Bible study, you might learn (and I realize it's possible that you might not learn this!) when considering what Paul goes on to say at 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 that you are sanctified on account of your believing wife, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but you are not saved on her account, and you will end up perishing "as a retribution ... because [you] did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness" by your rejecting God's salvation through Christ in building faith so that you might make the same dedication that your wife has made to serve God. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) If your being married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses were enough to save you (and it isn't enough!), Paul would not have said (at 1 Corinthians 7:16), "for, wife, how do you know but that you will save your husband?" (See 1 Peter 3:1, 2)
The children that are being raised in a home where there is at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God than the children in a home where there are no believing parents; according to the Bible at 1 Corinthians 7:14, these children are considered "holy" on account of the believing parent(s), whereas if the believing parent should follow the unbelieving course of his or her spouse, such children are no longer viewed as "holy."
However, what Paul states at Acts 24:15 is a very different case than the situation he describes concerning the children of believers, for when he stated that "[t]here is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous," he was referring to the following two categories of people:
(1) The "righteous": The faithful men of old and any of the great crowd of other sheep who may die before Armageddon.
(2) The "unrighteous": Those who have not lived during a judgment period and who did not know of Jehovah’s requirements.
Anyone that dies during this judgment period that (a) wasn't of the great crowd and (b) didn't know of Jehovah's righteous requirements will be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection. Hopefully the following will clear the matter up in your mind, @TD:
This means that those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers -- meaning that they were ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will receive a resurrection, along with their children. However, those that die during this judgment period before Armageddon as unbelievers -- meaning that they were not ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will not be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection because they will have rejected God's salvation through Christ for themselves and for their children, who would otherwise have been deemed "holy" had at least one of their parents been a believer.
I don't think of you as being "genuinely confused." I think of you as being stubborn, even perverse, but I realize that I could be wrong about you (and I want to be wrong about you).
Hold on djeggnog, your saying two different things. Your original statement was this:
Children are deemed "holy" on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection. Do you now feel you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches? of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Put this question to your wife and my hope is that she will be just as frank with you as I have been here.
There were no children -- not a single infant -- that survived the global deluge that occurred in 2370 BC, and there were no children that survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that occurred some 461 years later in 1909 BC, and just like the parents of these children, not one of their children will receive a resurrection during Judgment Day; they will all have fallen victim to the sword along with those on the side of your god when God's Executioner, Jesus Christ, brings to a climax the end of this wicked system of things at Armageddon.
I asked you this:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
And you answered catagorically yes. HOWEVER at this point you know you are wrong and its quite embarasing, so you try to wiggle out anyway by a semantical argument:
This means that those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers -- meaning that they were ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will receive a resurrection, along with their children. However, those that die during this judgment period before Armageddon as unbelievers -- meaning that they were not ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will not be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection (...)
You go from just two classes - believers and those who are not believers - to TREE classes: Believers, unbelievers and non-believers. Quite ingenious of you, really.
So let me ask again: Was your original statement, the first i quoted, wrong? Or let me reask:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of parents who are not believers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
By the way, for the attitude you show TD. Yah, your really teaching him about the deep things of the bible even though you cant expect him to understand it, all while you try to wiggle out of a complete and utter failure on your part in the understanding of what the witnesses actually teach.
@bohm wrote:
Hold on djeggnog, [you're] saying two different things. Your original statement was this:
Children are deemed "holy" on account of their believing parents; if neither is believing, then the child that you think to be so innocent will, in fact, perish at Armageddon, and if he or she dies before Armageddon and he or she has no believing parent, that child will perish in this life and will not receive a resurrection. Do you now feel you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches? of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Put this question to your wife and my hope is that she will be just as frank with you as I have been here.
There were no children -- not a single infant -- that survived the global deluge that occurred in 2370 BC, and there were no children that survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that occurred some 461 years later in 1909 BC, and just like the parents of these children, not one of their children will receive a resurrection during Judgment Day; they will all have fallen victim to the sword along with those on the side of your god when God's Executioner, Jesus Christ, brings to a climax the end of this wicked system of things at Armageddon.
I asked you this:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of unbelievers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
And you answered [categorically] yes. HOWEVER at this point you know you are wrong and its quite [embarrassing], so you try to wiggle out anyway by a semantical argument:
This means that those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers -- meaning that they were ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will receive a resurrection, along with their children. However, those that die during this judgment period before Armageddon as unbelievers -- meaning that they were not ignorant of Jehovah's requirements -- will not be among the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection (...)
You go from just two classes - believers and those who are not believers - to [THREE] classes: Believers, unbelievers and non-believers. Quite ingenious of you, really.
Actually, what I was discussing with @TD with such frankness here was "those who have been counted worthy of ... the resurrection from the dead." (Luke 20:35) I was never talking to @TD about the resurrection of those put to death at Armageddon, for those that perish at Armageddon as non-believers or as unbelievers will not be among the "unrighteous" to whom the apostle Paul refers at Acts 24:15 that will receive a resurrection. I was talking to @TD about those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers and as unbelievers, and saying that these persons and their children are not the "unrighteous" to whom Paul refers that would receive a resurrection.
So let me ask again: Was your original statement, the first i quoted, wrong? Or let me [re-ask]:
So do you 100% stand by the statement that Jesus will kill the children of parents who are not believers at armageddon, and that this is the official, current WT doctrine on that matter?
My response:
Yes, both "parents who are not believers" and their children will perish at Armageddon as well as parents who are non-believers and their children will perish at Armageddon, for only those counted worthy of gaining that system of things" (Luke 20:35) will survive Armageddon.
Let me emphasize to you here again that 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 states -- with no equivocation whatsoever -- that the "judicial punishment of everlasting destruction" -- which is called Armageddon -- is that which is executed upon (1) "those who make tribulation" for God’s people (apostates), (2) "those who do not know God" (non-believers) and (3) "those who do not obey the good news" (unbelievers) the same as Lot's sons-in-law and Lot's wife (unbelievers) perished because they rejected God's salvation through Lot for themselves and their children as to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah along with those that did not know God (non-believers), the same as those law-defying people in Noah's day to whom Noah preached (unbelievers) and to whom Noah did not preach (non-believers) perished due to their also having rejected God's salvation through Noah for themselves and their children as to the deluge of water that destroyed that ancient world.
This is not the same topic that @TD and I were discussing though. We were discussing "those who have been counted worthy of ... the resurrection from the dead" (Luke 20:35), discussing whether those who die during this judgment period before Armageddon as non-believers or as unbelievers and their children will become recipients of the resurrection. They will not.
[You're] really teaching [@TD] about the deep things of the bible even though you cant expect him to understand it, all while you try to wiggle out of a complete and utter failure on your part in the understanding of what the witnesses actually teach.
But I do expect @TD to understand what things I have said here, because unlike what I would normally do when discussing such things, he required frankness during this discussion, and so I have been frank during this discussion. But I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and know what it is we teach, so while it's true that there may be some among God's people today that do not know accurately what things the Bible teaches, which is what they ought to be teaching others, I happen to be one of those Jehovah's Witnesses that does know accurately what the Bible teaches as to these things that have been discussed in this thread. I feel absolutely no need to try to wiggle out of anything here. Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do know what things we teach according to the Scriptures.
In your post "1324 of 1328," you indicated that I was "changing the subject to what TD [believes], which was never the question of interest," and I understand now that your question pertains to who will be resurrected among those that perish at Armageddon whereas @TD's question pertains to who it is that will be resurrected that should die during this judgment period before Armageddon, which are two different questions.
I think this excursus as it relates to the question of "bloodguilt" was interesting.
If I'm driving my car too fast through a residential neighborhood and strike and strike and kill a child as a direct result of that negligent behavior, am I "bloodguilty?"
At this summer's Disctrict Convention, the audience was cautioned against even giving advice on matters of health and nutrition, because even bad advice could potentially result in "bloodguilt."
I'm not posting this in an attempt to pursue a conversation with someone who doesn't want to discuss it, I'm pointing out to all readers and "lurkers" that the "blood issue" is a very shap moral knife-edge.
It is not an issue where there are no moral repercussions *if* a mistake has been made
Oh but TD its fine if there has been mistake made on the understanding of acts 15:29. there is no blood guit. You see eggnug exlained it to me throughly in another thread. He pointed out that Jesus is able to resurect those who may have died. See? that fixes everything. No blood guilt, no problems.
