Great Crowd is NOT under the New Covenant...Where does it say this?

by Christ Alone 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sarahsmile

  In the sixties, here is what I recall:

  The multitude follows Jesus because he feeds them. John 6.

  The Jews in the crowd, although I was taught it was the crowd rejected Jesus offer of bread and wine, manna from heaven.

  That day the crowd and many disciples rejected the bread and wine of Jesus because they were discussed with his sayings.

  After that the twelve were the ones who remained and the new Covenant was offered only to them.

  WTS and faithful ones going to the meetings stated this all the time to young children.

  It sounded normal and I never questioned this teaching until I was much older.

  Only until I started to read in different bibles and wondering why so many teach the church all goes to heaven versus the 144,000 goes to heaven.

  Now,I come to a conclusion that partaking has nothing to do with heavenly class or heavenly life. That is made up by Rutherford.

  Heavenly life is up to the Father to choose, and maybe Jesus rewards, not any earthly person.

  Partaking has everything to do with believing that Jesus is the Messiah, God's son.

  Children were told to search our hearts and If we are not choosen to go to heaven that if we partook we would not have life everlasting! It was called, partaking unworthy. Many would frown on some who partook! Later I realized the only criteria bibically would to partake without believing Jesus is the Messiah and son of God. WT loves to confuse people by mixing two or three thoughts together good example partaking,144,000, heavenly hope,and other sheep.

  Reading John 6 the JWs neglect the sayings of Jesus! It really is part of everlasting,eternal, life, and everyone who believes he is the true manna should partake. After one dies it is up to God.

  Hope that helps some!
• 

  alwaysthinking

  It is hard to believe that the old covenant was for all gods people and the new one is not.
• 

  Old Goat

  I'm not going to look for it, mostly because this topic bores me silly, but when Ray Franz was disfellowshipped there were several articles restating Watchtower belief in detail. You'd want to look for those.

  For me, this is a non-topic, because I don't care what the Tower teaches on this subject. God knows his own. Christ is the savior or all. How he does that is less of an issue for me than that he does it.

  My personal feelings don't mean the issue should be unimportant to you. I'm just tired of it.

  Goat
• 

  Old Goat

  The old covenant wasn't for all God's people. It was for Israel. That there were others who were God's people is evident in the "stranger" concept found in the law. The alien residents had to keep the law if they lived in Israel, but they were not parties to the covenant and the law made exceptions for them.
• 

  prologos

  the old covenant was for ALL the people, even alien RESIDENTS

  not just the Priests,

  not just the Kings

  yhat had their own covenants, similarly

  the NEW covenant is for ALL, the sacrifice symbols;

  the kingdom/ priest covenant for a thousand years/ Thrones higher calling??

  very good thread to prove wt bancrupt doctrinally.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  marked
• 

  Old Goat

  Typing in caps is no substitute for reason. Exodus 24:2-11 shows that the law covenant was a bilateral covenant made between Israel and God. It wasn't made with anyone else. Others who wanted the benefits had to submit to its ordinances, but they weren't part of the covenant. That the covenant was bilateral is shown by the covenant makers. God was on one side, the representative men of Israel on the other. There were no representatives from the nations outside of Israel.

  If you wish to assert something scriptural, use the Bible. Capital letters prove nothing.
• 

  Crazyguy

  I'm not sure what you're getting at OldGoat? I studied this subject for a long time and its my understanding that all who wished could benefit from the covenant even alien residents as long as they got circumcised and then obeyed the laws. Even non Hebrew slaves could do this and then benefit from the Hebrews having to let their Hebrew slaves go after the 6th year. The New Covenant is similiar, Jesus came for the lost sheep of israel and then the gentiles were allowed into the New Covenant as well by believing in Christ. Are you disagreeing with this understanding???
• 

  wolfman85

  Exodus 12:43) The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44) but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. 45) "A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. 46) "It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. 47) "All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. 48) "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49) "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

  Did these exceptions for the Passover did not apply also for the old Covenant?
• 

  Old Goat

  The verse you've quoted is about conversion. A change in status from being a stranger obligated by the land's law covenant to being a convert, a sort of adopted israelite. The fact remains the Old Covenant was with Israel. This really has nothing to do with who is in the new covenant. As I said earlier, God knows his own. It doesn't matter what the watchtower says, believes or teaches. Noone who God saves loses his salvation because of a human teaching.

  For the sake of accuracy, even the watchtower teaches that God saves those not in the new covenant. They use 1 john to teach that. On that point i have no argument. God saves through his son. It's that concept that matters to me.

  I don't think we can use the old covenant to mirror the new. The new covenant is specifically 'not like' the old one. The old convicted of sin. The new brings salvation. Watchtower teaching is that it is the basis for the salvation of all. Fine. I agree with that. Do I think the parties to the new covenant were limited to a spiritual israel and God with Jesus as mediator? I don't know. The answer rests in what the israel of god is. I'm not sure i see that point as essential anyway. What is essential is God's will to save. No doctrine of men can change that or determin who will be saved or to what destiny.

  The two classes of saved argument is an old one, extending back to the 19th Century. I've read the arguments. I know Watchtower doctrine. I remain skeptical of it all though I have my personal preferences. Personal preferences, personal understandings, should remain personal unless they are backed by scripture. I'm unsettled, so I'll leave them unexpressed. However, one should note that benefiting from the old covenant did not make one a party to it. Captive slaves, while not parties to the Law Covenant, benefited in many ways. They were freed from religious prostitution. Their children wouldn't be burned in Molech's furnace. But they were not parties to the covenant.

  Your slavation does not depend on your (or anyone else's) understanding of a covenant. It depends on God who saves us through Christ.