by Sookie 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Thanks Justin and others! This has helped alot. I am an ex-JW. I was born and raised in the religion but my family left the religion when I was in my mid teens years ago so I wasn't sure if their beliefs surrounding the ressurection was still the same or had changed, but all of your responses definitely clarified things. Thanks again! Please feel free to give me more feedback.
Sylvia
Why does death have to be a penalty? Can't it just be a consequence? Is it not true that only through death can we be resurrected and be made perfect? Does not the scripture in Psalms say that precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints? Paul tells the story of a seed sprouting into a flower, and he compares it to death and resurrection. Is the destruction of the seed really a punishment?
Some say that Adam brought about death through sin; but Adam didn't sin until after death entered the world. Y'know, the Bible never calls what Adam did a "sin." The Bible calls it a transgression in every instance. Can you sin in ignorance? Sin is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and acting contrary to that knowledge. The tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam didn't know the difference between good and evil, and was therefore unable to commit sin. What he did was transgress a law. I'll give an example of that. Is driving 30 mph a sin? No, intrinsically it is not a sin. If the speed limit is 25, then it is a transgression. Is eating fruit a sin? No, but if God says, "Don't eat the fruit," then it is a transgression to eat it. Adam could not sin, he could only transgress. Please don't call it sin.
And what did he transgress? The lesser of two contradicting commandments. What was the first commandment ever given man? To multiply and replanish the earth. what was the second? Don't eat the fruit. Adam and Eve never would have been able to have kids had they not eaten the fruit. They would have failed to keep their first commandment had they kept the second. So many think of Adam as rebelling against God and bringing down upon us all the wrath of a just God. This is wrong. Adam made a conscious decision to obey the greater commandment.
Why do we die? So we can ressurect. Why do we resurrect? So we can become more like God. Can we really become like Him? It's a commandment to become perfect like Him. Readers of the New Testament have to learn to distinguish between many subtle differences in the texts. What does "death" mean in the NT? It can mean two things. It can mean physical death and it can mean spiritual death. What does "law" mean in the NT? Well, it can refer to either the Law of Moses or the law of the Gospel. Many confuse themselves when trying to figure out the role of grace in our salvation when they read about "law." What does "God" mean in the NT? It can refer to God the Father, and it can refer to God, the Son. No, they are not the same person, but they are both part of the Godhead, and the title "God" can apply to each of them. "The wages of sin is death." This refers to spiritual death. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This refers to the law of Moses. "To them gave he power to become the sons of God." This is referring to God the Son. We are already sons of God the Father.
Back to death. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, of course. What of those that die without ever having come to the knowledge of the actuality of the ressurection and the Gospel? What of their salvation? Eternal damnation? "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." Must they be baptized? Paul speaks of baptism for the dead, and many "apocryphal" books speak of other vicarious ordinances provided for fallen comrades. What say the JWs? "Oh, it's tranlsated wrong." The word translated "for" in the KJV has a few different meanings, apparently. #1 - "for" #2 - "in behalf of" #3 - "for the sake of." All three of these interpretations support the doctrine of baptism for the dead, and yet the JWs aren't satisfied. This interpretation obviously conflicts with their doctrine, so they claim that a word is missing. #3 could mean something else if we tacked the word "being" on to it. None of the other translations mean anything with that word, but the English phrase has two meanings if we throw another word on there (no other language on earth supports this theory). Conclusion? Oh, that must be the real meaning of the passage.
So, what about those that die without knowledge of their responsibilities? Someone once told me they would be baptized after the resurrection. So, the price of sin is paid, the resurrection accomplished, but the sign of death and resurrection will be applied once more only to satisfy an administrative requirement? Doesn't sound right to me.
We are not here as some residual punishment for a rebellious act our cohorting parents concocted in an effort to one up God. Some say Satan's first lie was that they would not die, but that they would become as God. Satan tells half-truths. Half of his statement is correct. Read the rest of the Genesis account. "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Why didn't they want him to live forever? Not as a punishment, but as an act of mercy. If they lived forever they could never return to live with God. Death is God's merciful plan for bringing us back to Him. We are here only to prepare us to go back with Him.
Dan; Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, of course.
What about the thief on the cross?
What about him? Read I Corinthians 15:29. That's the whole point of my post. Making all these absolute statements about the Gospel bars many people from accepting scripture at face value. That's why so many people these days interpret the scriptures in so any different ways; they interpret scripture to meet the needs of their doctrine, not the other way around. Baptism is an absolute must. Even the Son of God, the only perfect man to ever walk the earth HAD to be baptized, so who are we tack stipulations on to the practice. Paul makes it clear that baptisms were performed for the dead during his ministry, and they were valid. The question you really need to ask is, Why did they stop? Find me an answer for that and I'll show you when the Great Apostasy began. Apostasy, that's another principle of the Gospel that many have conveniently rationalized right out of the scriptures. The gathering of Israel-another one. No one can seem to make it make sense in the arena of their beliefs, so they rationalize it away: Oh, it's a spiritual gathering, it's not literal. Yeah, whatever, dude. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only "organization" on earth that lives up to the teachings of the Bible, but more often than not I see rationalizations for not living up to the teachings of the Bible. Truth is not found by making a huge conglomeration of scriptural manuscripts and picking out all the translations that justify one's particular beliefs. Pilate asked, "What is truth?" Truth is the knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. Comparing the thousands of different existing manuscripts of the Bible to try to find a way to make everything fit together without any contradictions isn't truth, it's trying to force truth in to our tiny little preconceived box of human truth. Truth is getting on your knees with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and begging God to let you participate in His truth. It's humility and it's faith. It's about being able to say, "I don't know. But I know it's true." If you think you have an answer for everything then you are obviously in error. We cannot comprehend all truth. To do so would be to arrogate omniscience to the human mind; an utterly blasphemous thing to do. Accepting without necessarily understanding is the definition of faith. So many people these days say, "Show me and I'll believe," but God says, "Believe and I'll show you." Guess who's gonna win that standoff. Sorry about the roundabout answer to your question, but someone will one day be baptized in his behalf (if it hasn't already happened) and he will be able to enjoy all of the blessings of the Gospel that you and I hopefully enjoy today.
Dan,
re: Thief on the cross
What about him? Read I Corinthians 15:29.
Show in scripture where Paul teaches this practice??Paul makes it clear that baptisms were performed for the dead during his ministry, and they were valid.
Paul is asking a question of the church at Corinth. Many commentaries agree that this was a strange practice amongst the Corinthians. And that Paul was setting things straight there.
To say that because of this obscure passage that occurs no where else in scripture teaches "baptism for the dead" is without merit.
You say:
That's why so many people these days interpret the scriptures in so any different ways; they interpret scripture to meet the needs of their doctrine, not the other way around. Baptism is an absolute must.
Are'nt you guilty of this very thing you accuse others of???
Your doctrine is obvisously " baptism for the dead"
If your doctrine is correct, you will have to make an exception for the thief on the cross.
E
Baptism is an absolute must. Even the Son of God, the only perfect man to ever walk the earth HAD to be baptized, so who are we tack stipulations on to the practice.
I suppose it depends what you mean by baptism - some may believe so totally different about what baptism is, that the meaning is not mutually recognisable.
eg. John baptised in the Jor-dan (stream of judgement) - a person is adjoined to divinity when their tears for God and their fellow man cover over their eyes.
This stream of judgement (Jordan) originates in Caesarea Philipi - we care for God and neighbor when we reign in our body (Caesarea - possession of a prince) with Him - and we have control of our spirits (Philipi, friend of horses / spirits - that can work for you or run wild with pride) - it is like the centurion who says to one go and he goes, and to another come and he comes.
You know, Jesus marvelled when he heard the centurion speak like that - saying that in all Israel He had not found such faith.
Paul makes it clear that baptisms were performed for the dead during his ministry, and they were valid. The question you really need to ask is, Why did they stop?
Who said they stopped?
So do you reign with Him or listen to traditions of men.
elderwho, why on earth would an Apostle of the Lord use an apostate practice to substantiate his resurrection argument? Imagine Christ visiting us today saying, "Of course you're gonna resurrect! Why would the Egyptians have picked their brains out of their noses and boxed up all of their organs if they weren't gonna resurrect? C'mon, dude!" It's so convenient for people to say, "Oh, well, he doesn't say if it is a valid practice or not, so we have to take what we know from other scriptures to try to deduce his intentions in this one instance." There are many, many instances of vicarious ordinances in non-canonical books, but if you want me to stick to the Catholic compilation of scriptures (funny how much JWs loathe Catholicism, and yet their first love is the offspring of the "Mother Church" - the Bible) then there is one; but it only takes one. There's only one scripture that says God is spirit, and yet, say God has a body and the whole world is foaming at the mouth for your irreverent blasphemy. None of the organizations in the Bible used purely scripture as a basis for their faiths, and yet so many chant the sola-scriptura litany as the only true form of worship. The fact of the matter is there is not enough information in the Bible to organize and run a church. So many inferences and assumptions have to be made. How to you run tithing? Oh, don't know, do you.? You have to guess. "Well, Christ said this and that, so it must mean that we should do this and that, right?" Pitiful. That's exactly why the Scribes, Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes, Herodians, Zealots and every other Jewish sect were condemned by Christ. They all denied the actuality of a living prophet and asserted the transcending authority of the Holy Scriptures. The problem with that is that a living prophet can say, "No, you fool, it's YOU I'm talking about," but the scriptures can't. That's why Christ chided the Scribes. They said had they lived in the ties of the prophets they would not have killed them, but the Lord said, "No, you're worse than they were." It's the same thing that happens today, and it is the reason that so many are trapped in a cage of religious zeal and intolerance. I don't get all my information from the Bible; I trust continued revelation and living prophets. That's biblical.
And I fail to see why I have to make an exception about the thief on the cross. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what it is that I believe, in that you obviously have a more firm grasp on my faith than I do.
Dan:
Why does the thief on the cross get a guarantee from the Lord Jesus that seals him for a place in paradise, with Jesus himself.
You say;
Baptism is an absolute must.......Dan; Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, of course.
My question to you Dan is, when was the thief Baptised??
Note: please use breaks in your paragraphs.
E
Dan,
Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what it is that I believe, in that you obviously have a more firm grasp on my faith than I do.
You can bet your Holy underwear I do!
E.
