@Ucantnome:
Surely [Adam's] sin required him to go to the 2nd death with us all in him and so going to Hades doesnt pay the price of sin? Hades is a place to await judgement.
The "second death" (Revelation 20:14), which is referred to as "Gehenna" by Jesus refers to the symbolic place to where an individual goes in God's memory after they had died, which is a very different place in God's memory where an individual in "Hades" goes. Anyone who dies that receives a resurrection will have gone into Hades, but anyone who dies that does not receive a resurrection will have gone into Gehenna, which is the second death. The Bible indicates that deliberate sinners like Adam, those that blaspheme God and those whose sins are unforgivable, will not receive a resurrection, even as the Bible makes clear that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are in Gehenna and will not receive a resurrection.
(BTW you may know that Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe the people of Sodom and Gomorrah would receive a resurrection, but at Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus wasn't discussing who would receive a resurrection, but discussing how difficult it would be for the people of Capernaum to enter into life during Judgment Day since their refusal to repent of their sins was not unlike how hardened the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were against righteousness due to their perverse lifestyles.
So in comparing the lifestyles of the people of Capernaum with the lifestyles of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jesus is simply making the point that it would have been easier for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to make the adjustments necessary during Judgment Day than it will be for the people of Capernaum, who had been unresponsive to the message that Jesus preached. We know from what Jesus' brother Jude states as to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah that they will not receive a resurrection, for Jude 7 unequivocally states these people had received "the judicial punishment of everlasting fire," which is a reference to the second death.)
As Romans 6:23 states, death is what sin pays for sin, not Hades, for Hades is where all who have ever lived on earth and are now dead live in God's memory and must await the resurrection when those in Hades during Judgment Day will be restored to life.
@etna:
Again you don't read the bible, just the watchtower. The bible says that Jesus became KING when he returned to HEAVEN.
That's where you are mistaken: I never quote from Watchtower publications here unless doing so is pertinent to the discussion being had in a thread. You would do well to not quote anything you may have read in one of our publications since you may have read something that isn't our current understanding and quoting from our publications is not the same as quoting from the Bible. Even if some see no problem with substituting citations from the Society's publications for scriptural citations, I do. If you don't mind, @etna, please tell me where in the Bible it says that when Jesus returned to heaven that he had become the Messianic king, the king of the world?
After Jesus' resurrection back in 33 AD, we read where Jesus tells his disciples at Matthew 28:18 the following: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." Maybe you are among those that have concluded, as have many others, that Jesus had indicated here that he had now become king that sat in judgment of the world in the Messianic Kingdom, or, at the latest, after he had returned to heaven as you believe, he then became king in the Messianic Kingdom.
But the apostle Paul, in quoting Psalm 110:1, indicated at Hebrews 10:12, 13, that after his ascension to heaven, Jesus didn't begin to rule as king, but that he merely "sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." So while it is true that God had appointed Jesus to be the Messianic king, Jesus had not yet been given authority to rule as such because God had yet to make Jesus' enemies a footstool for his feet.
Ephesians 1:20-22 states that God had seated Jesus "at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come[,] ... subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,"as he awaited God's making Jesus' enemies his footstool. But note that although from 33 AD Jesus sat at God's right hand in the heavenly places, and he had not yet been given authority to rule as the Messianic king and judge, God had made Jesus "head over all things to the congregation" and he had kingly authority over those of his anointed followers that had been "transferred into the kingdom" while they were alive here on earth. (Colossians 1:13)
But just as Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, that "for everything there is an appointed time," and when "the appointed times of the nations" were fulfilled in 1914, it was only then that "the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ," and Jesus began to rule as the Messianic king and when "the appointed time" for those dead in Christ to be judged and receive their reward, so clearly it wasn't when he had ascended to heaven back in 33 AD, but in 1914 when Jesus began to rule as the Messianic king and judge. (Revelation 11:15-18)
@The Searcher wrote:
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.
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@Ucantnome wrote:
I don't understand this....
In The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures it translated the greek as at Romans 6:7 as "has been justified"
I understood this means to be declared righteous. Are you saying that a murdering child rapist is justified, declared righteous at his death.
An acquittal is essentially the rendering of someone accused of a crime as innocent, or, as I say above, the "judicial determination as to our culpability for a crime." The Greek word literally rendered "has been justified" in the KIT has nothing at all to do with justification and this word is not the same as someone being "justified" or "declared righteous." Perhaps you would do well to stick to reading English language Bible translations, like the New World Translation, for if you were to read this Romans 6:7, say, in the King James Version Bible, you would see that instead of the word "acquitted," the word used there is "free," which has the same meaning of a judge that sets someone free from culpability for a crime.
Therefore, you would be the one saying that "a murdering child rapist is justified, declared righteous at his death." I have not said this nor would I ever say something like this knowing as I do what things the Bible teaches, and knowing as I do that the difference between someone being "justified" or someone being "declared righteous" is stark.
@The Searcher wrote:
2."New" Scrolls - The statement is a lie, as well as the "explanation" as to their reason!!
@djeggnog wrote:
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? * * *
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.
@The Searcher wrote:
You advise me to do research outwith the Society's CD ROM....
No, I didn't, but please ignore whatever it is you understood me to say. You should always do what you choose to do.
All your answers are based 100% on what the so-called "slave" says. You offer nothing different.
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and, as such, my beliefs are going to be in accord with what "the so-called 'slave'" and other Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You should expect me to offer anything different.
You point-blank refuse to acknowledge that the "new scrolls" teaching is a cast iron lie.
No, I didn't. I don't know what this teaching to which you refer is. I know nothing about any "new scrolls," but you only just said that my answers "are based 100% on what the so-called 'slave' says, so, please, make up your mind.
You failed (conveniently) to see that the analogy of the Ferrari steering wheel highlighted that the teaching of blood fractions being "a matter of conscience" is nothing less than "the teachings of demons". (It helps with immunisations for travel to exotic Branches, though!!)
Also, by your being a contributor here, you are opposing TWO of the Governing Body's directives - not to go on websites such as this, and also, not to do research with othe Witnesses on deep Bible teachings and Society doctrines. (Kingdom Ministry Sept. 2007 -Question Box)
I care little how you might have interpreted what you may have read in one of our publications, @The Searcher. You don't seem to know the difference between advice and an order, or a suggestion and a command. Your analogy wasn't a very good one since there was nothing to connect whatever it was you said about a Ferrari to our teaching on the use of blood fractions, and I believe this teaching goes way over your head and that you should always do whatever it is your conscience permits you to do, rather than what someone else's conscience might permit them to do for themselves.
As far my being a contributor to the messages posted here on JWN, this didn't seem to bother you when you were posting messages to me earlier, so it's seem so strange that you would now let what I am doing bother you when my conscience permits me to post here, even if the consciences of other Jehovah's Witnesses might not permit them to do so. I have no problem posting messages here, so if you have a problem with my posting message here, you might take up the matter with @Simon or with someone else that may want to hear your gripes about what I am doing on here.
If you think what I'm doing to be defiled in some way, but nothing is defiled in itself and you must judge such things for yourself based on your own conscience. (Romans 14:14; 1 Corinthians 10:29) I have no authority to tell you what to think or feel. I'm going to continue posting here, even if my doing so should bother you. I'm not really here for you. Similar, if it disturbs your conscience to use blood fractions, as it does many Jehovah's Witnesses, then you will probably not use blood fractions. It's up to the individual to decide what he or she can do in this regard with a clean conscience. If one should feel defiled by using blood fractions, it's likely that the use of such won't be acceptable to such a person. Understand?
Just one little "insignificant" point - you casually dismiss (and justify) all the Society's wrong teachings, dates, etc. as being written by "imperfect" men at that point in time: consider this fact you know only too well - if you ever openly contradicted any of the current "thinking" by the GB, you would be viewed as an apostate! Therefore, their word is law and infallible in their eyes, and don't you forget it.
No, I wouldn't be viewed as an apostate. I don't view you as an apostate; I view you as I do many others here on JWN with whom I've exchanged many posts in the past as misguided and ignorant of so many things that I understand the Bible to teach that they do not. The fact that you are here posting what disagreements you have with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses at the feet of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses makes you as ignorant as many folks here on JWN that share this viewpoint, since many of the men that now sit on the governing body weren't around during the days of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr.
In fact, of the seven men that now sit on the governing body today -- Herd, Jackson, Lett, Lösch, Morris, Pierce and Splane -- they weren't sitting on the governing body until as late as 1994, and unless you can prove that Gerrit Lösch was sitting on the governing body along with Knorr, Rutherford or Russell when one of these men were alive, then I have to consider all of this governing body-bashing as utter foolishness on your part since the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses today were compiled when one of these three men -- Knorr, Rutherford or Russell -- sat on the governing body.
Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians that study the Bible with a striving to understand what it says better and over the past 130 years of so, I believe we have made serious progress in understanding what things the Bible teaches, even if we have made many mistakes along the way before getting to where we are as far as our spiritual knowledge and understanding is concerned. We recognize that as Bible students, that we are not infallible, but when we discover an error on our part, we quickly take steps to let other Bible students know whenever we discern that one of our scriptural interpretations is in conflict with the Scriptures.
It is my opinion that if you didn't know that what some might characterize as a lie is just a misunderstanding on our part that has led us to reject what we realize to be a wrong view to embrace an adjusted viewpoint, then you were never one of Jehovah's Witnesses because you never really knew what it meant to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Read Romans 6:1-6, and then verses 8-11. These verses give you undeniable proof that Paul was speaking of a figurative dying to one's former course of conduct. It is ludicrous to even suggest that it refers to literally dying - otherwise, what's the point of the preaching work?
Now I recall that your question #6 was as follows:
(@The Searcher:)
6. that our own death wipes out our sins?
My reply was as follows:
(@djeggnog:)
Romans 6:7 indicates that by our own death, we are "acquitted" of our sins[.]
In my message to @Gorwell, I also wrote the following regarding my take on Romans 6:7, 8:
(@eggnog:)
I understood the OP's question to be about whether our own literal death "wipes out our sins," so I wasn't referring to a figurative death, since Paul was not referring to a figurative death at Romans 6:7 either.
But here in the very next verse, at Romans 6:8 ..., Paul is talking about one that dies in a figurative way toward Christ, so that one, in effect, dies "with Christ," for the hope of those that die "with Christ" is that they "will also live with him" when they have literally died and received a resurrection.
Please take notice that in referring to Romans 6:8 the words, "... in a figurative way toward Christ...." Where in any of this do I say that Paul is here referring to someone "literally dying"? Look: Try to respond to what I have written, rather than to what you think or want to believe I've written, ok? If what you think or want to believe I've written sounds implausible or just plain stupid, it's probably the case that it is implausible or just plain stupid and that I didn't write it.
@The Searcher wrote:
3. who Christ's brothers are?
@djeggnog wrote:
Christ's "brothers" are those of "Abraham's seed," "sharers of blood and flesh" and "partakers of the heavenly calling" (Hebrews 2:16, 17; 3:1)
@N.drew wrote:
The only one I know how to answer for sure is "who are Christ's brothers?". #3
Mark 3:33-35
33Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35"For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."
It is extremely haughty for the Governing Body to be teaching that they alone are doing God's will. And it's a lie.
@djeggnog wrote:
Although I am not a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach and had never taught that the Governing Body "alone" are the ones that are doing God's will; you made this up. You quoted Mark 3:33-35 to suggest that one that merely does God's will becomes one of Christ's brothers, which isn't true at all, so who really is the one lying here?
Rather, as I stated above, Christ's "brothers" are those of "Abraham's seed," the ones that are "partakers of the heavenly calling." (Hebrews 2:16, 17; 3:1) It is error on your part to take the view that those who are doing God's will, but are not of Abraham's seed as being "Christ's brothers," because even if you should be doing God's will and doing all you can to please God, if you have not been called to heavenly life, if God's spirit hasn't borne witness to your spirit that you are one of God's children (Romans 8:16), then you cannot be one of "Christ's brothers," for just as Romans 9:16 indicates, "it depends, not upon the one wishing nor upon the one running" that one becomes a part of Abraham's seed, but it depends "upon God, who has mercy" and he is the one that does the calling "with a holy calling," and not you, no matter what you may wish to be true for you. To believe otherwise when you have not been called would be a case of delusional thinking. (2 Timothy 1:9)
@N.drew wrote:
I don't know who's lying. It seems that according to YOU who is lying is either 1. Jesus or 2. whoever wrote Mark 3:35
@djeggnog wrote:
Actually, you quoted Mark 3:33-35 to suggest something that the text doesn't say at all. Let me be clear: It wasn't that Jesus lied or that Mark lied, but you that lied here. I don't think [your] lie was deliberate, but your reading of Mark 3:33-35 is erroneous, or perhaps you can explain to me why it was you selectively decided to infer yourself to be one of Christ's brothers, when, at Mark 3:35, Jesus says that those doing God's will would be his "brother and sister and mother." Are you also Jesus' "sister"? his mother"? If not why not since you have claimed to be his "brother"? There is something called context that you failed to take into consideration when you dared to quote Mark 3:33-35.
Reading comprehension is a big [problem] among Jehovah's Witnesses today, but this problem didn't begin when they became Jehovah's Witnesses, for many were functional illiterates or had not completed high school and so because they had not really had a formal education, they would guess at the meaning of certain Bible passages and would assume if no one had ever called them on any of what they speculated would conclude that they had guessed correctly.
@N.drew wrote:
So according to what I understand the Governing Body [to] teach, which is listen to them or die, they do teach that they alone are doing God's will.
@djeggnog wrote:
No, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has never taught that you or anyone else should listen to them or die; you made this up, because nowhere in any of the Society's literature that you have ever read have you read anything to this effect in the form of such an ultimatum. You don't have to listen to the Governing Body or to the things taught by any of Jehovah's Witnesses; no one does. Perhaps you recall reading in the Bible at 2 Corinthians 1:24 that 'we are not masters over anyone's faith.' We're not! Jehovah's Witnesses do teach and encourage others to do God's will, but we are not given any authority by God or Christ to force anyone to do anything that they do not choose to do.
But I'm intrigued by the stupidness of this claim, @N.drew, that you understand the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to teach or to have taught that all must "listen to them or die." Where did you come upon such nonsense? If you did read it somewhere, where did you read it? Who was it that intimated to you that if anyone refuses to listen to the Governing Body, then they are going to die?
Personally, @N.drew, I think you're lying. Personally, I think you're making all of this up. Personally, I believe you know good and well that you didn't hear such a thing read in any letter that was sent out to the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses from the Governing Body, that you didn't read any such thing in any of the Society's literature, that you have here repeated something that you read here in a message here on JWN or elsewhere or may have heard someone say, but that you cannot prove this statement to be true.
@N.drew wrote:
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?
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
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 [of] even trying to provide to you a further explanation of Mark 3:35.
@N.drew wrote:
OK, retarded is not a good word. Everyone is so afraid to call me it! "Borderline" my little bit of intelligence is telling me means borderline functional.... I think you don't KNOW what Mark 3:35 means. And so you call me retarded.
There's nothing wrong with the word "retarded." Technically speaking, I didn't say that you were retarded. I didn't call you retarded. Yes, it is possible to construe what I did say to make me out to have said that you were such pejoratively, but I am aware that certain words -- like "retard" -- can cause pain. When words like "retarded" and "ignorant" are used together, they are incongruent and are invariably being used to attack someone, but if not used together, they are hardly used to attack someone. I would rather not discuss some things with someone like you, who has demonstrated an intellect that suggests an inability on your part to comprehend the meaning of the words and concepts I've used. Let me put it this way, N.drew:
Your inability to comprehend some of the things I have said to you in this thread are possibly due of an acuity issue, and if this is due to retardation, then this is a disability that you may never be able to overcome, which fact doesn't make me want to laugh at you or make fun of your disability. I do not laugh at make fun of the blind person that cannot see, the deaf person that cannot hear, the asthmatic person that struggles when his or her breathing is labor, the retarded person that struggles to comprehend certain words, phrases and concepts. You see, viewed from this perspective, I have no difficulty whatsoever describing you as a retarded person, and even if this description of you should hurt your feelings, I do not use it as a pejorative.
And then you say you don't want to hurt my feelings by trying to explain what Mark 3:35 means. Hm, how can I believe you?
Well, @N.drew, I've already provided an explanation to you of what Jesus meant at Mark 3:35. In this response, I have prefaced my remarks here by explaining how it is necessary to consider the context, which is something that you failed to take into consideration when you quoted Mark 3:33-35..
Seeing that you already "hurt my feelings" but I'm not crying, but laughing, which is odd, please give me a hint. Thank you.
Like I said in a previous message, I have no desire to even try to provide to you a further explanation of Mark 3:35 because I really don't believe you're going to be to comprehend the explanation, but I'm now going to make a further attempt to do so:
At Mark 3:31-35, Jesus had been in the midst of a crowd when someone informed him that his mother, Mary, and his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, were desirous of having a word with Jesus, they were hoping to get his attention so that they could speak with him. The text at Mark 3:32 says that these five people were "outside ... seeking" Jesus. It is then at John 3:33, 34, that Jesus introduces the concept of familial relationship in a spiritual context, and goes to say at John 3:35 to those that had been "sitting around him in a circle" how he regarded each of them as being his "brother and sister and mother" provided they were doing "the will of God."
If you ever wanted to point to a scriptural reason for why folks today in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses will refer to one another as "brothers" and "sisters," this passage at Mark 3:31-35 in one of them to which you could point. Alternatively, there are two more scriptural passages to which you could point as well: Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21.
@djeggnog
