1 at that time michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise.
there will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.
but at that time your people everyone whose name is found written in the book will be delivered.. 2 multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.. 3 those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.. 4 but you, daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end.
Watchtower 1954, 6/1:
The 1,260-day period, with its destructive effect on the power of Jehovah’s people, found its fulfillment from October, 1914, to April, 1918. The 1,290-day period ran from January, 1919, to September, 1922, and the 1,335-day period extended from September, 1922, to May, 1926. A full Scriptural treatise of these dates and their application will be found in the Watchtower issues of July 1 and 15, 1951.
P.S.: just checked the Daniel Prophecy book (1999!): it's still "truth".
this is a purely hypothetical scenario but needs some deep soul-searching to answer methinks!.
suppose you die and you come to stand before god at the judgement.. you've lived a good, sincere christian life and put full faith in christ's sacrifice etc.. and god says "you're hellbound".
how do you think you'd feel towards him/what would you say..
Afterthought on "Final Judgement RPG" : "if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged" (1 Corinthians 11:31) doesn't quite match "do not judge, so that you may not be judged" (Matthew 7:1) -- if I had to pick just one, I'd certainly pick the latter -- but both resonate (or dissonate) together in a very interesting manner.
this is a purely hypothetical scenario but needs some deep soul-searching to answer methinks!.
suppose you die and you come to stand before god at the judgement.. you've lived a good, sincere christian life and put full faith in christ's sacrifice etc.. and god says "you're hellbound".
how do you think you'd feel towards him/what would you say..
I also find Saint Francis de Sales' response to the obsession of damnation (biographically influenced in his case by the struggle of Catholic and Calvinist theologies) remarkably deep: "Whatever happens, Lord, may I at least love you in this life if I cannot love you in eternity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorare
Btw judgement may be a game, a role play specifically, that some have to play seriously with themselves at some point.
....what the heck have i gotten myself into .
as a sidenote, in genesis 21....abraham threw isaac a party on the day he was weaned.
check out the history on that and find out what other religions believe about that (i checked out the jewish & baptist websites).
The only thing I was "disputing" (to an extent) is the astounding naïveté with which we tend to consider our moral standards universal and timeless, and judge the rules of other times and/or places by them.
Of course that's anything but new:
"There is a generation which is pure in its own eyes
yet is not cleansed of its filthiness."
(Proverbs 30:12.)
this is a purely hypothetical scenario but needs some deep soul-searching to answer methinks!.
suppose you die and you come to stand before god at the judgement.. you've lived a good, sincere christian life and put full faith in christ's sacrifice etc.. and god says "you're hellbound".
how do you think you'd feel towards him/what would you say..
Sad Emo,
I remember writing a small poem on a similar topic very shortly after I left JWs (I lost it and can only recall -- or reinvent? -- a few lines). It was about judgement -- mine. It was both dreamlike and painful to write.
No clothes to hide my flesh
No flesh to hide my soul
No words to hide my mindOf course I always knew
My 'reply' went about this way:
Whose torment is it but yours?
Who is cast away but yourself?
Can't you rid yourself of me?
I looked up: I was wearing a white robe
And I heard a voice saying: "My son!"
Memories from eternity...
i am sure the title of this thread will be a little contentious with some, certainly any active jws but here goes, read the biblical text for yourself.. .
john 17:11-12 (new international version)11i will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and i am coming to you.
holy father, protect them by the power of your namethe name you gave meso that they may be one as we are one.
....what the heck have i gotten myself into .
as a sidenote, in genesis 21....abraham threw isaac a party on the day he was weaned.
check out the history on that and find out what other religions believe about that (i checked out the jewish & baptist websites).
homeschool,
Don't take me wrong, I actually agree with you: I personally don't view the texts which happened to find their way into the collection we now call "the Bible" as "God's Word". What I wanted to point out, though, is that it is quite possible to regard them globally as "sacred texts" (because of their role in religious history for instance) without assuming that they should magically or miraculously transcend the historical context which produced them. A lot of non-fundamentalist Jewish and Christian believers do.
i am sure the title of this thread will be a little contentious with some, certainly any active jws but here goes, read the biblical text for yourself.. .
john 17:11-12 (new international version)11i will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and i am coming to you.
holy father, protect them by the power of your namethe name you gave meso that they may be one as we are one.
There are two completely distinct problems here:
The first one is textual. The best attested reading by far has the relative hô, dative, which is sometimes corrected (from a syntaxical standpoint) with the neuter accusative ho: both refer back to the name (onoma, neuter) of the Father. But a few witnesses read the masculine plural accusative hous, which refers back to the disciples as given by the Father to the Son (a distinct idea which is expressed in v. 6 and 18:9). The vast majority of textual critics consider the first reading original, and the latter a secondary modification.
The second problem is interpretive. If we agree with most textual critics (as I do) that the Father own "name" was indeed given to the Son, what is meant by that? There is certainly more to it than just the common name "Jesus". Possible echoes of this idea can be found with the theme of the secret name -- shared by the Father, the Son, and the elect -- in Revelation (2:17; 3:12; 14:1; 19:12; 22:4)
i am sure the title of this thread will be a little contentious with some, certainly any active jws but here goes, read the biblical text for yourself.. .
john 17:11-12 (new international version)11i will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and i am coming to you.
holy father, protect them by the power of your namethe name you gave meso that they may be one as we are one.
The name "Jesus" -- which was no longer strictly theophoric in its post-exilic form yshw` on which the Greek Ièsous is based, contrary to the oldest form yhwsh(w)` -- was quite widespread in the first century, and certainly not distinctive of Jesus Christ. There is definitely more to 'the Father's name given to the Son' (cf. Exodus 23) than just this pretty common personal name.
....what the heck have i gotten myself into .
as a sidenote, in genesis 21....abraham threw isaac a party on the day he was weaned.
check out the history on that and find out what other religions believe about that (i checked out the jewish & baptist websites).
OTWO: I think you are quite right about some Torah "laws" which are actually idealistic construction and were never practically applied, except perhaps in very limited circles and periods (the sabbatical year / Jubilee system in Leviticus comes to mind). However I don't think this applies to legislations such as Exodus 22:16/17 which make perfect sense in an ancient (even pre-exilic) setting. The problem here (as in most cases where ancient laws scandalise modern readers) is simply that moral standards have changed along with social, economic, political situations. From the perspective of civil law (priestly legislations are different) women are viewed as quasi-property (belonging to their father, bridegroom, husband), as the Tenth Commandment nicely illustrates ("you shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor"). Hence engagement / marriage is a transaction between a prospective "buyer" (the bridegroom) and a seller (the father); sexual relationship before marriage cancels the transaction if the girl is already engaged to someone else (it is aggravated theft, just as adultery is), and diminishes its potential "market value" if she is not (on the importance of virginity, cf. Deuteronomy 22:13ff about the "evidence of virginity," which is still reflected in popular traditions in some Muslim countries for instance); it implies financial damage.
This is only a "problem" for those who assume that moral standards are universal and intemporal (and now we have them 100 % "right," of course!) and believe that the Bible as "God's book" should reflect such (which is certainly not the case of all "believers": faith is not incompatible with a sense of history in principle).