@djeggnog wrote:
Do you know the truth?
@yknot wrote:
The official WTS definition, yes......I was drilled it as a child. I feel it is important that you identify yourself as knowing it too...... so could you please post the correct definition. If we are to talk things of the bible and the WTS don't you think you should demonstrate accurate knowledge of the foundational understanding that we call "THE TRUTH".
No, I do not. That would be your thought, not mine. Because the truth is progressive, it is not going to necessarily be found in older WTS publications, for adjustments to our understanding of certain doctrinal matters occur from time to time, which make some of things we may have published to others in our literature inaccurate, even obsolete. That is why "it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things [that we hear]," for by not paying attention, we end up at some point not taking in accurate knowledge of the truth, which leads us to answer questions inaccurately as you did the two I asked you in my previous post:
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you have a fundamental understanding of the resurrection, for example? At 1 Corinthians 15:36, the apostle Paul wrote: "What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies." What exactly is not made alive unless first it dies? Paul also says at 1 Corinthians 15:42- 44 that 'it is sown in corruption, but raised up in incorruption; sown in dishonor, but raised up in glory; sown in weakness, but raised up in power; sown a physical body, but raised up a spiritual body.' What does "it" signify?
@yknot wrote:
Organizational answer : Anointed must die in order to be raised to immortality and incorruption their labor is not in vain in connection with the Lord
I don't know about any "organizational answer"; I asked you if you possessed "a fundamental understanding" of the resurrection doctrine as to which the apostle Paul speaks starting at 1 Corinthians 15:35. You see, @yknot, either you know the truth or you don't know the truth, and, in your case, you don't know it.
At 1 Corinthians 15:36, Paul says what is sown isn't made alive "unless first it dies." Then, at 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, he goes on to say that 'it is sown in corruption, it is sown in dishonor, it is sown in weakness, it is sown a physical body.' I asked you what does "it" signify" and your answer to my question was disappointing because clearly were you speaking to someone, ostensibly to help them to better understand the resurrection doctrine, you would have provided something you call here an "organizational answer," rather than one based on the truth, rather than an answer based on what the Bible says.
Let me say this: The Bible study aids that have been published by the WTS are designed to help one to focus and brace their minds around the subject matter so as to enable us to give concise and accurate answers to Bible-related questions posed and that we are asked in our ministry.
The answer is in 1 Corinthians 15:37, the seed. Keep in mind that Paul is there in this passage talking about the resurrection, so what does he mean by "a bare grain"? Do you ever ask yourself questions like this when you read certain verses in the Bible containing words in them that you clearly do not understand? Or do you, as do many Jehovah's Witnesses, just reading words with no real interest in the meaning of the words you will have just read?
And what is this "bare grain" that is sown in corruption, sown in dishonor, sown in weakness, sown a physical body? To what does the apostle Paul refer? What is "it"? Paul is referring to one's life record or personality pattern. This passage we're considering here actually debunks the false doctrine of the immortal soul, for Paul says at 1 Corinthians 15:36 that the seed that is sown isn't made alive "unless first it dies," and in the very next verse at 1 Corinthians 15:37, he says that what is sown is really just "a bare grain" and not the body that will develop.
Recall that at Luke 20:28-38, in making the point regarding "the children of the resurrection," Jesus makes the point regarding the then-deceased men, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that during the interval of time between when each of these seeds will have been sown into the ground and their resurrection, they "are all living to [Jehovah]." At death, each one of these three seeds die as seeds, or, to put it another way, each of these souls were no longer alive, for each of them died as a soul.
So whatever the "kind" of seed that is sown, that seed itself bears no resemblance whatsoever to the embryonic plant it becomes after germination, when it becomes a seedling. Whatever the "bare grain" may be, God gives to that seed "a body just as it has pleased him" according to its kind. This is the point Paul makes with regard to wheat; this is Paul's point with regard to those made alive through resurrection, whether the resurrected body be "as the one made of dust is" or "as the heavenly one is." The "bare grain" that represents the life pattern of the seed that has died -- it's embryo -- is "planted" in God's memory, as it were, so that, during the re-creation, the "bare grain -- that is to say, one's personality, one's mannerisms, one's memories amassed over their lifetime -- can be restored, so that even though the resurrected person has a new body, those that knew the person before their death will be able to recognize the resurrected person because the "bare grain" that makes each of us the distinct individuals we are recognizable by those that knew us.
(Recall Jesus became known to [Cleopas and the other disciple with whom he travelled the seven miles to Emmaus after his resurrection] "by the breaking of the loaf" (Luke 24:35) and by his love of food as evidence by his question, "Do you have something there to eat?" (Luke 24:41-43), which was characteristic of the Jesus they had known and loved.)
In short, my question to you, @yknot, was --
What does "it" signify?
-- and your answer to my question was:
Organizational answer : Anointed must die in order to be raised to immortality and incorruption their labor is not in vain in connection with the Lord
I have no idea what an "organizational answer" is, except that you have made up your own extrabiblical doctrines, I don't know, but when Paul said that "what you sow is not made alive unless first it dies," the answer is found at 1 Corinthians 15:37, "what you sow," which is the seed that contains "a bare grain" that corresponds to one's life record or life pattern.
Now while it is true that the anointed must die before they can be raised up in spiritual, incorruptible bodies, given "the power of an indestructible life" so that they are "alive forever" (Hebrews 7:16, 24), but what you say here about the labor of the anointed being "not in vain in connection with the Lord" isn't at all responsive to the question I had asked, and, frankly, your answer is wrong. Why would you be quoting as part of your answer to my question a portion of Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 15:58? What bearing do these words have on the "seed" or to the resurrection? Put another way: Do you really know the truth?
@djeggnog wrote:
Matthew 9:17, Jesus talks about not putting new wine in old wineskins. About what is Jesus speaking specifically? Tell me: What is Jesus' point?
@yknot wrote:
Organizational answer: Christianity couldn't be retained by Judaism, that system was passing away (Jesus death).
Again, I don't know a thing about any "organizational answer," but either you know the truth or you don't know the truth, and by the answer you have to my question, you clearly don't know it.
Jesus was telling John's disciples that Christianity was something new that could not be made to conform with Judaism. I don't know what "Christianity couldn't be retained by Judaism" even means, since at no time had Christianity ever been fused with Judaism. What is suggested by your answer here is both incorrect and confusing. The Jewish system of worship, with its many traditions, did "pass away," but it wasn't at Jesus' death in 33 AD that the "great tribulation" came against that 'old wineskin," but in 70 AD that it was discarded. (Matthew 24:15-22)
The new covenant became operative at Jesus' death, rendering the old Law covenant obsolete for Christians, but when Jerusalem became surrounded by encamped Roman armies in 66 AD, it was at that time that the Christians in Judea began fleeing to the mountains, for it was then that the "flesh" of the "chosen ones" was saved for whom those days of tribulation were cut short, whereas the worship at Jerusalem by the Jews continued for four more years until the Roman armies returned in 70 AD at which time that Jewish system of worship passed away.
Now I believe you had to have heard these things that I am saying here now before today, but, in short, my question to you was --
What is Jesus' point?
-- and your answer to my question was:
Organizational answer: Christianity couldn't be retained by Judaism, that system was passing away (Jesus death).
Your own made-up extrabiblical doctrines aside, it is true that Judaism was eventually going to pass away, but Jesus was telling John's disciples that Christianity wasn't going to be made to conform to Judaism, such as its practice of ritual fasting, which would be like putting "new wine into old wineskins." These things you stated in response to my question were interesting, but not responsive to the question I had asked, and I'm with you at the door when, upon reviewing Matthew 9:17, the householder asks you what's Jesus' point and I immediately go into rescue mode.
This may be the one shot you have to plant the seed of truth into the heart of this householder and you say in response, "Christianity couldn't be retained by Judaism, that system was passing away (Jesus death)"? The householder's left wondering how it was you came up with this interpretation, this "organizational answer," as you call it, and I'm there with you, so now I'm off my game, so to speak, because now I'm left wondering about two things: (1) How long will this householder's door will remain open to us, and (2) from whom you studied the Bible, because your answer suggests that you don't know the truth. Now I'm at the door worrying about the householder's future prospects for eternal life and yours!
Okay my turn for questions!
1) What is the official definition of WTS 'Truth'
I won't be taking this question. Just because nowadays you might concentrate much of your time parsing, criticizing, tearing apart what things you read in WTS publications, I'm only interested in the truth, so I'm going to leave you to it.
2) Date Development from 1874/1878 to 1914/1918/1919.... can you post a brief discussion, description or timeline
I have no interested in posting a timeline for our organization, when I believe I've already done so, and am in full agreement with the "Faith in Action" DVD to which you referred in at least one of your previous posts here, about which I typoed in describing it this way:
As I believe you know, "Part One' was limited to 1:02 minutes, covering only a portion of the talk itself.
What I meant to write was this:
As I believe you know, "Part One" was limited to 1:02 hours, covering only a portion of the talk itself.
(I learn by asking questions--- so please be patient)
Do you? Actually, I have my own teaching style that I've perfected and it works.
You see, in a Kingdom Hall, I ask either of these questions and lots of hands would be raised to give an answer, and while the audience is chock full of dedicated Witnesses of Jehovah, as well as some visiting from other congregations, hardly any of the respondees would be able to answer them, and of the few in the Kingdom Hall with their hands raised up that know the answers to these questions, I don't call on them, because I need the rest to know what they don't know and ought to know, but they many Jehovah's Witnesses are in need of someone to teach them "from the beginning," not the answers to the questions in the latest Watchtower magazine, but "the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God." (Hebrews 5:12)
My hope is that you have learned here today that you do not know the truth, but only know of it, and that you really should consider requesting the local elders to assign someone to study the Bible with you, with the emphasis on your study conductor indicating what things the Bible teaches, rather than what things the particular Bible study aid that you and the conductor of your Bible study may be using during your Bible study says. I don't know, but I suspect that you've become cynical in how you view the truth, and you will most certainly drift away if you do not pay strict attention to what things God says to us through the WTS.
@djeggnog
