@sizemik:
Just a couple of important distinctions need to be made with your analogy Eggy . . .
Ok, but one wonders why you thought it important to make such distinctions, especially considering the fact that you do seem to realize that what things I said in explaining what an acquittal is were analogous, that is similar in some respects while dissimilar in other respects, but if you feel you must perfect my analogy when it served the purpose for which it was intended to serve perfectly -- which is kinda like the waitress that asks you to wait because the amount you were owed is $4.05, but she comes back to your table with no coins and feels just awful about shortchanging you that even though you wave off the error, there she is, in the parking lot as you are getting inside your car, doing what is just for the man that gave her a 20% tip (actually that would be my wife, because she would have gotten 15% from me!) -- then ok, @sizemik. I'll humor you.
Firstly . . . there is no jury, nor a requirement to submit evidence in God's courtroom . . . for he himself is judge, jury and executioner. His omniscience means all the evidence is before him. The courtroom premise is fundamentally flawed and ill-fitting for this basic reason.
How so? I did make reference to the OJ Simpson (criminal) trial, I could just as well have referred to the 2011 Florida case of The People v. Casey Marie Anthony in which Anthony, like the 1995 California case of The People v. Orenthal James Simpson who was acquitted of the felony double murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, a friend of Brown's, was also acquitted of the felony murder (also aggravated manslaughter and child abuse) of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, but the only point I was making was that Simpson was acquitted of these felonies, given a clean slate with respect to justice as to Simpson's culpability is concerned.
I had no interest in comparing the courtroom setting that led to Simpson's acquittal with God's courtroom, especially since I don't believe God would have any need for anyone to present evidence to him as we do in our courts -- he already knows who deserves an acquittal! BTW, I could have decided on a bench trial, which means there is no jury and only the judge decides the outcome of a criminal trial, but, again, my focus was on explaining what an acquittal is, what it means to be acquitted, despite how "fundamentally flawed" or "ill-fitting" you thought my analogy to be.
Secondly . . . the "guilty' have been given that status from the moment of conception, by virtue of the actions of another . . . unlike OJ, they have no control over that.
Yes, we are guilty at conception because of who our parents are, but what does my analogy about OJ's acquittal have to do with our "guilty" status before God? You mentioned this as one of two "important distinctions" that you feel needed to be made with my analogy, but if the purpose of my analogy was to provide an explanation of what an acquittal consist -- and it was! -- then I really don't see how my critiquing sin's law could possibly be of help to anyone in elucidating what an acquittal is.
These "clean slates" are all very messy really . . . one who dies is acquitted of his sin . . . a clean slate. But he also needs Christ's ransom . . . to get a clean slate. That's two clean slates. Yet 90% of the worlds population probably have no idea of this ransom and how to get a "clean slate" . . . so they don't even get one, unless they're fortunate enough to be dead already.
The acquittal is the clean slate; there's only one slate, @sizemik, not two slates, and when we die, that one slate of ours is wiped clean unless the person should have committed the unforgivable sin, for which no acquittal will be granted "not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Matthew 12:32) To put that another way, if anyone should speak a word against the Son of man, that sin can be forgiven, so just assuming here that those with whom Jehovah's Witnesses of the "other sheep" join of the "little flock" as part of the sheepfold should really be Jesus' anointed brothers -- we're just for this moment going to assume this to be true, @sizemik -- then for anyone to speak a word against anyone in this sheepfold that is actively engaged in executing the commission that all Jehovah's Witnesses, as God's ministers, his brothers and their associates alike, have been given to do would be the same as speaking a word against the Son of man, right? Do you follow me so far?
Picture this: My kid is in the back seat of the car you are driving along with one of your buddies when you drive through a red light, and following the traffic stop that immediately ensues (there was a cop present, who witnessed you ignoring the red light) and a search of your vehicle, the cop finds a quantity of cocaine in the trunk and arrests you, your buddy and my kid(!) for possession with intent to sell, your being responsible for putting my kid in the system (i.e., fingerprints, mug shots, all of it), and thus forcing me to post bail, not for you, but for my kid, I would consider this to be a case of "to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40) I'd have difficulty forgiving your stupidity, but Jesus said that he would be willing to forgive something spoken against him or against his anointed brothers or against their associates, something done "to one of the least of these," right? Are you following me now? An acquittal does not mean that what things you have done are forgiven; no. An acquittal means that your sin, your charges, your debt has been erased from your slate.
In the Simpson case, a conviction could not be sustained because a judicial declaration was made by the jury that could not convict on the charges due to there inability to find him guilty being a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented against him. The same thing was true in the Anthony case. A legal determination was made and Simpson and Anthony were each given a clean slate. IOW, they were both acquitted. While in Simpson's case, he was released from custody within a few hours, but in Anthony's case, she was not released from custody until 12 days later because she was found guilty on four misdemeanor counts that were also charged in the indictment against her and sentenced to one year on each count and so because Anthony's "time served" days were some 12 days light, her release was delayed by 12 days.
I want you to notice something, @sizemik: Both of these people were acquitted, but they weren't immediately released, especially Anthony who was acquitted on July 5, 2011, but released on July 17, 2011. What good was Anthony's acquittal if she wasn't released from custody? What if Anthony had died during her trial, but she was posthumously acquitted? I need you to momentarily imagine a scenario where Anthony dies during here trial and even though dead, the woman is acquitted, ok? Similarly, Romans 6:7 indicates that when we die, we are acquitted of our sins, the slate is wiped clean. What does an acquittal do for the person that has died?
Florida Governor Charlie Crist posthumously pardoned Jim Morrison, the lead singer of The Doors, back on 2010, who back in 1969 had been sentenced to serve six months in jail and pay a $500 fine following his conviction for profanity and indecent exposure, but Morrison never served a day in jail. In the Morrison case, Gov. Crist said about the disposition of this case following the 41-year delay, "In this case, the guilt or innocence is in God's hands, not ours." But what did this acquittal do for Morrison who had died in 1971? The slate was wiped clean by the state of Florida, but Morrison wasn't released; he was still dead despite the acquittal, wasn't he?
The point you missed in my previous post, @sizemik, is that there is only one slate that is wiped clean when we die; the automatic acquittal we receive at death is what wipes the slate clean. Apart from the ransom paid by Christ Jesus though, you would be acquitted without a release. At your death, you will have been acquitted of your sins, but you would still be in death's grip; you would still be in the custody of death. Jesus made it possible for there to be a "release by ransom" from our sins, which is only reason "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Hebrews 9:15; Acts 24:15) An acquittal -- a clean slate -- without life is totally useless. Clearly Jehovah God would know this and you know what? He loves us, for "while we were yet sinners," as Romans 5:8 says, "Christ died for us." There aren't two slates, man; just the one.
@N.drew:
OK. So you explain what Mark 3:35 does mean by applying it to another unrelated scripture. Why do that? Please explain it by comparing it to a related scripture which would be Matthew 25:40, please.... What does Mark 3:35 mean please?
I'm an educated person, @N.drew, even a Bible scholar, and it's for this reason that you cannot comprehend the examples I provided you in my previous message. I don't like "talking down" to anyone, and when I do find myself doing so, I feel just awful because I know that if the person to whom I am speaking were also an educated person like myself, I wouldn't be experiencing the difficulty I am experiencing with you here explaining to you what Mark 3:35 means. Perhaps someone else will chime in here and explain to you the meaning of Mark 3:35.
Remember the good elders tell you to get into the drama. So please put yourself in that room with the women and imagine how the women would feel if Jesus ignored that his mother and sisters where outside and ignored that there were real women in the room. It appears Jesus might have chose to confuse you for the sake of the women who were present. What do you think?
What you say here, @N.drew, sounds to me like you want me to "feel" the room as if the key to comprehending Mark 3:35 is feeling the scene. As a man, I have difficulty feeling things; I know how to be emotional, but this is not really who I am as a person. I let my wife feel things out for me and when it comes to emotional issues, I will often defer to her counsel. (She's pretty good at getting me to do stuff that I would otherwise have no interest in doing.)
By reading your posts, @N.drew, I can see who you really are as a person and I have had difficulty in the past trying to have a discussion like this one with someone with an average or even borderline IQ. Let me put it this way: I'm a very smart guy, and because I don't want to say anything to you that might hurt your feelings, I have no desire to even trying to provide to you a further explanation of Mark 3:35.
@The Searcher:
I didn't expect any brothers to come back at me with all the teachings with which I'm not only familiar, but have come to know by Bible study are untruths.
Ok, but try to get used to seeing me on here. When I can be here, I'm here.
Here are some brief Scriptural explanations to respond to your "received" understandings.
1. The context of John 10:16 - If you read from John 9:40 onwards, you will find that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees and the Jews when he referred to "other sheep not of this fold". Hence Jesus' statements that he was "only sent to the lost sheep of Israel" and instructed his disciples to do the same.
Ok.
@The Searcher wrote:
5. the term 'new [scrolls' exists]?
@djeggnog wrote:
No, but terms like the "scroll of life" (Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27) and the "book of life" (Revelation 3:15; 20:15) do exist, which have reference to those of the anointed and those of the "other sheep," whose names will join those of the anointed in this book after Christ's Millennial Rule has ended when God adds them after the final test (Exodus 32:32; Psalm 69:28; Philippians 4:3) It is to be noted, however, that at Revelation 20:12, there is mention made of "a scroll" being opened, and the conclusion that Jehovah's Witnesses have drawn is that this scroll could essentially be new instructions from God -- perhaps a new Bible, we don't know -- but we cannot be dogmatic and must wait to learn what is contained in this "scroll."
@The Searcher wrote:
2."New" Scrolls - The statement is a lie, as well as the "explanation" as to their reason!!
I'm not clear on who it is you are saying that "lyingly" made such a statement. As far as I can tell, if the "scroll" that is opened should be a new Bible of some sort, then this would arguably be a "new scroll" to us, would it not?
3.Romans 6:7 - Seven Scriptures state that Jesus is going to judge the living and the dead; Acts 10:42, Acts 17:31, Romans 14:9, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Tim. 4:1 & 1 Pet. 4:5, Revelation 11:18.If Adamic death wipes out people's sins, on what [basis can] Jesus now judge them? Jesus [needn't have] died for our sins if our physical death achieves the same result.
An acquittal is just a judicial determination as to our culpability for a crime, or, in the context of Romans 6:7, as to our culpability for sins. Our physical death not does achieve a result that would benefit you or me. If you would, please take a moment to read my reply to @sizemik's post, which explains how why the ransom paid by Jesus on behalf of the whole world is very important to Christians. Our physical death only satisfies justice, so if an acquittal were all that were needed, then there would have been no need for Jehovah to have sent his son to die for us as a ransom.
Why did Jesus when dying, promise only one of the criminals he would be in Paradise? If literal death really does wipe out sin, the other man automatically qualifies as well.
One's literal, physical death doesn't wipe out sin, but what death does is wipe the slate clean with respect to the sins for which we were culpable before God. As far as those two criminals are concerned at Luke 23:39-43, even though Jesus specifically tells one of the men that he would receive a resurrection following his death, the same true was just as true for the other man even though Jesus only made this promise to the one man.
Romans 6:7 out of context, gives all unrepentant sinners automatic forgiveness, just because they have stopped breathing.
No, it doesn't; Romans 6:7 merely renders a judicial determination as far as the sins charged to the account of the dead individual. They are not forgiven their sins; they have been acquitted from culpability for their sins. Their having received an acquittal from God would be as if they had never sinned at all.
So everyone who dies having rejected the good news, will now be resurrected to the reality of God's promised New Earth, never having exercised faith in the ransom or God's promises, thereby nullifying John 3:16, John 11:25, & John 17:3.
Actually, what you say here is technically not true. Perhaps you recall reading in the Bible, at 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, where it states how Jesus and his angels will bring "vengeance" upon the world "in a flaming fire," that in their executing "judicial punishment" at Armageddon, "[1] those who do not know God and [2] those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus" will receive "everlasting destruction," but those that will have already died having not come to know God and those that rejected the good news during their lifetime will be acquitted of their sins and receive a resurrection, giving them the opportunity in the new earth to decide if they want to live forever in it or not.
I don't see anything that Jesus states at John 3:16, John 11:25 or John 17:3 being a nullity, for taking these in order, while Jesus does say, at John 3:16, that he was sent "in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life," in his saying these things, Jesus didn't just mean only "in this system of things," but also "in that to come." (Matthew 12:32)
At John 11:25, Jesus is saying as to his anointed brothers, that those exercising faith in him, even if they should die, they would "come to life," in that they will receive a resurrection where the outcome is certain in that they will be raised up with an incorruptible body and "come to life," meaning that they will be granted immortality, which is very different than what the majority of those to whom reference is made at John 5:28, 29, will receive, for these others will receive a resurrection quite different than the one to which Jesus refers at John 11:25, in that theirs will be either a resurrection of life or a resurrection of judgment, where the outcome is uncertain.
At John 17:3, Jesus indicates that our taking in knowledge of Jehovah God and Jesus "means everlasting life," and, again, learning about God and Jesus doesn't just mean only "in this system of things," especially since these people are already dead, but would also have to include "in that to come" as well. (Matthew 12:32)
4. Partakers - The All Scripture book, under the section "LUKE", has this to say about him; "The Gospel of Luke was written by a man with a keen mind ..........with the guidance of God’s spirit..... has resulted in an account that is both accurate and full of warmth and feeling. In the opening verses, he says, "I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you." His detailed, meticulous presentation fully bears out this claim". Contradicting this, the Insight book, under the heading "JUDAS", says that Luke (and the Holy Spirit) got it wrong; "Luke’s presentation of this incident evidently is not in strict chronological order".
You are here pitting the All Scripture book against the Insight volumes, but neither of these are inspired publications, not one of them in on par with the Bible as far as their being inerrant. Both of these publications are written by God-fearing men that sought to put down in writing for reference purposes what amounts to a Bible commentary, so you will find in them many conclusions based on circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from a consideration of the Bible as a whole, which are really interpretations based on our reading of the Bible as Jehovah's Witnesses.
One thing that I believe should be kept in mind when reading any of the Bible study aids provided by any Bible society, publishing company or church that produces Bible commentaries, is that books like All Scripture and Insight happen to be just two of the publications that Jehovah's Witnesses have produced, but hardly any other Christian denomination would rely on our publications since these other Bible societies, publishing companies and churches produce their own distinguished publications themselves, commentaries containing doctrinal conclusions based on the Bible that differ from those reached by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Why is it now wrong? Because his "meticulous" [account tells] an inconvenient truth - Judas was present for the New Covenant being revealed, and also partook of the emblems. He was dismissed after this and before Jesus concluded the covenant for a kingdom, for which NO emblems were employed. Read the account honestly!
Through his gospel, Luke provides his own eyewitness account regarding the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, and just because his gospel doesn't provide the kind of detail that you might want in what he relates as having occurred on the evening of Jesus' last passover meal with his apostles doesn't mean that you should discount what the apostle John writes in his gospel, which provides details that Luke's gospel does not provide as to what occurred on that fateful evening.
I recall pointing out to you in my previous message that one of the key events that occurred after Jesus and all 12 of his apostles had eaten the seder meal together was what occurred after Judas Iscariot "had gone out." (John 13:31) Luke's gospel doesn't mention this particular detail, but John's gospel (written in 98 AD) does, and I think it would be wrong to discount it just because neither Luke's gospel (written in 61 AD), Mark's gospel (written in 60 AD) or Matthew's gospel (written in 41 AD) mentions this detail. It was after Judas "had gone out" that Jesus tells the remaining 11 apostles that Peter was going to betray him "before a cock crows." (Matthew 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:33; John 13:38) So what does this mean in view of what John states in his gospel at John 13:31? That Judas was not present when this key event occurred.
Judas simply could not have been there when the bread and wine were blessed by Jesus as he thereby instituted the New Covenant with these 11 apostles, for John says that Judas "had gone out," and I believe John. BTW, by John's providing this detail, he doesn't contradict what Luke's gospel, Mark's gospel or Matthew's gospel says; he clarifies their gospels for us in a way that would not have been possible were it not for John's.
5. Sodom - If you decide to do your own research, (in the CD ROM) you might be surprised to discover that 9 times the Society says the people of Sodom will be resurrected, and 5 times it says they won't. (the thinking changed from one to the other) If you read the Insight book's "insight", (under "Sodom" or "Gomorrah") it says that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not the people!! Those fornicating streets & houses deserved what they got!!
Like you say, I "might" be surprised, but I'm not. Jehovah's Witnesses have found a need to interpret certain scriptures one way, only to find another interpretation of a scripture to be more consistent with another scripture we had interpreted differently, and we must always be willing to abandon our former understanding of a scripture is we should conclude that our interpretation to make no sense or to be in error.
You see, @The Searcher, Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible students from way back to the days of Pastor Russell and the International Bible Students Association, and we don't wish to pretend that everything we have concluded and now believe to be true is, in fact, true. In our search for truth, we will never make up some excuse to make it appear that our viewpoint hasn't changed. No, we will release a new publication that highlights our change in viewpoint before we should ever do something like that.
Another thing I need you to know if that you are not doing any real Bible research if the only articles through which you are searching are those published by the Society, as is the case on the Watchtower Library cdrom. To do real Bible research, one must also consult publications that are not among those published by the Society. The only thing you should expect to read when using the cdrom that we produce are articles that was published when it was we had concluded at that particular point in time that the people of Sodom would not be resurrected and other articles when it was we had concluded at that particular point in time that the people of Sodom would be resurrected.
Bible research should be a search to understand something you have read in the Bible that you don't quite understand. However, when you only use the cdrom that we produce, you are really not conducting any Bible research at all; you would instead be conducting an investigation of the number of times our beliefs about Sodom and Gomorrah have changed over the years. Our beliefs have always been progressive, so some might characterize these changes in understanding or in our interpretation of these scriptures as "flip-flops."
I'm in no position to be telling you how to conduct Bible research, @The Searcher, and I trust that you understand that this is not an attempt on my part to tell you how do conduct such research. I would submit though that if you want to conduct Bible research using the cdrom that we produce that involves the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, then you will have to drill down to just those articles that reflect our current beliefs and ignore the articles you find that we have abandoned, since we cannot defend nor would we teach anyone anything that accords with doctrinal interpretation or beliefs that are not current, doctrinal interpretations or beliefs of the past, that we have abandoned.
6.Aliens not in the Covenant - Again, do your own research - nowhere in the Bible account of the events at Mount Sinai is there even a suggestion that the "vast mixed company" was separated from the Israelites when Moses mediated the Covenant. Read Exodus 24 - everyone was party to it. If those "aliens" were not viewed by Jehovah as His people and as Israelites, then the Messianic line was corrupted, because Rahab and Ruth were not "natural" Israelites, and yet they became ancestors of the greatest King/Priest the universe has known!!
I quoted Exodus 12:49, which states that there was "one law ... for the native and for the alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst," and I specially stated that as far as those alien residents that lived in Israel were concerned, that they were permitted "to eat the passover along with the sons of Israel" under the Law of Moses. Scroll back to my response and you'll see that this is what I stated. But I also stated that although the alien resident was considered to be a part of "the congregation of Jehovah," it was impermissible for them to become a king or a priest in Israel. Similarly, I further stated that the "other sheep" do not hope to sit on thrones with Christ or become priests in God's kingdom alongside the "little flock," so it would be logical to conclude that members of the "other sheep" would not partake of the emblems as would members of the "little flock" since those of the "other sheep" are not parties to the New Covenant.
7. 1st Peter 4:17 - If God's Judgement has already come upon His own household, (in 1919) then why does the Head of the Congregation, Christ Jesus, have any need to warn them about all their corrupt practices and wrongdoings? (Revelation chapters 2 & 3) [Any judgement] made by Christ will only come when he arrives to judge, and he hasn't arrived yet!!
I don't interpret the 11th chapter of Revelation in the same way that you interpret the chapter. I believe the second and third chapters have nothing at all to do with what was foretold to occurred in connection with the "two witnesses." (Revelation 11:3)
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that in 1918, some 3-1/2 years after Jesus' invisible presence began in 1914, that the foretold judgment of the house of God has been underway, in which Jesus has been inspecting his spiritual brothers, settling accounts with them, as he will continue to do until they have all of them been sealed permanently. (Malachi 3:1; 1 Peter 4:17; Matthew 25:19; Revelation 7:3) IOW, not only does Jesus' presence continue today, but his judgment also continues until this sealing is completed.
8. When did Christ become King & High Priest?In 33CE, not 1914. Read Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20,21 & Hebrews 8:1.
At Matthew 28:18 Jesus said that '"all" power and authority had been given him in heaven and on earth' - he couldn't receive any more!!!!
Not in 33 AD, but in 1914 AD. The prophecy that the apostle John recorded for us at Revelation 12:10 says: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!" John received this vision when he was in prison back in 96 AD, which means that Jesus could have not officially become king and high priest until some time after 96 AD.
So while Jesus had been given authority over his own disciples as both king and high priest back in 33 AD, Revelation 11:15 indicates that it wasn't in 96 AD either, but centuries later -- when the trampling on Jerusalem ended and the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled in 1914 -- that "[t]he kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever," and not before! (Luke 21:24) Back in 33 AD, the kingdom of the world had not become a part of Jesus' kingdom, but the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ in 1914.
Reason on the Scriptures, and if they conflict with what literature claims is the "truth", then make your choice.
p.s. As a Christian, you would never dream of accepting a stolen Ferrari would you? But as a Ferrari lover, if the thief offered you the lovely wooden steering wheel from the stolen car, would you accept that?Read Leviticus 17:10-14.
I have all sorts of dreams, but never one that involves accepting stolen property, so I'd have to be looking to buy a Ferrari (I don't even like Ferraris) and I'd have to know that the person selling me the Ferrari is a thief, and I'd find that out one way or the other in about 20 minutes once I'd contacted my local DMV office.
Now if I actually collected junk like you describe here, I might unknowingly accept such stolen merchandise, particularly if this wooden steering wheel had fallen off a truck. I know possession to be 9/10th of the law, so assuming that I am a collector of junk like this (which I'm not!), then I might be willing to buy it as long as I had obtained a receipt for it should someone wish me to explain how a stolen, but "lovely" wooden steering wheel came into my possession.
People do buy junk like this from vendors at swap meets all of the time. Then we would have to discuss how much I'd be willing to take to part with it since if I had acquired a stolen painting, my move is to inform the police that you are negotiating the return of a stolen painting with the insurance company so that the police can clear the case. (Many people don't know that the police can be quite helpful if it can claim it has solved another case.)
Leviticus 17:10-14 doesn't have any application to anything that we are discussing here. Was there a point that you were trying to make with regard to these hypotheticals involving "a stolen Ferrari" and a "lovely wooden steering wheel"? I didn't get it.
p.p.s thanks for the advice on formatting.
No problem. This last post of yours read just fine.
@djeggnog
