.... sorry, I meant Lu 22:29.
Atreyu
JoinedPosts by Atreyu
-
7
"You Know" invited to The Last Supper
by Atreyu insorry for late response.
this is a commentary to a reply from you know, regarding the meaning of the last supper.
by using covenant in both verses, the nwt is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the kingdom to the disciples (v29).. the greek word for covenant in v20 is diatheke.
-
-
-
7
"You Know" invited to The Last Supper
by Atreyu insorry for late response.
this is a commentary to a reply from you know, regarding the meaning of the last supper.
by using covenant in both verses, the nwt is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the kingdom to the disciples (v29).. the greek word for covenant in v20 is diatheke.
-
-
Atreyu
You Know: I didn't misunderstand you. It is you that are mixing things up.
1) The new covenant, the covenant of the blood, is about Christ's ransom for all mankind, it is the very basis for salvation and everlasting life.
2) At the last supper, Jesus did NOT speak about a covenant of a Kingdom, he spoke about an appointment for a Kingdom (Mt 22:29), an appointment given to him by his Father, which he passed on to his disciples. (See my original post.)
-
7
"You Know" invited to The Last Supper
by Atreyu insorry for late response.
this is a commentary to a reply from you know, regarding the meaning of the last supper.
by using covenant in both verses, the nwt is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the kingdom to the disciples (v29).. the greek word for covenant in v20 is diatheke.
-
-
Atreyu
Thanks, dungbeetle
Your theory on why the teaching of the "Great Crowd" (1935 version) came to life is similar to mine. Clearly, Rutherford was eager to balance an old mess of a whole range of classes and then simply expelled the great crowd from Jehovah's presence to the Court of Gentiles, "the earthly court of Jehovah's heavenly Temple".
As for Judas, it is funny that WTS insist that Judas left the other disciples before Jesus instituted the covenant of his blood.
Matthew: Judas was initially present, nothing is said about his departure.
Mark: Same thing.
Luke: The presence of Judas is stated - after the institution of the covenant.
John: Judas shared the meal, then he left, but nothing is said about the institution of the covenant.
Obviously, whether Judas was present or not is not important for the Biblical teaching about the covenant of Jesus' blood, the teaching about our salvation. But to WTS it is mandatory to give the impression that Judas had left - because the WTS jumps over the salvation teaching and focuses on "the covenant of a Kingdom", a covenant for an elite.
-
You Know the meaning of The Last Supper
by Atreyu insorry for the late response.
this is a comment on a reply from you know, regarding the meaning of the last supper.
( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23523&site=3) .
-
Atreyu
Sorry for the late response. This is a comment on a reply from “You Know”, regarding the meaning of the Last Supper. ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23523&site=3)
I said:Jesus did not talk about a “Covenant of a Kingdom” in this situation.
You Know replied:
Nonsense. The apostles were still at the table when Jesus said "You are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel."
Interesting. You Know quotes NWT. I checked 8 other major English bible-translations, comparing Lu 22:20 (the covenant of the blood) to Lu 22:29 (the appointment of the Kingdom). The NWT is the ONLY ONE that uses the word “covenant” in both verses. Other translations often use the word “covenant” in v20, but they use words as “appoint”, “grant”, “agreement”, “right”, “assign”, “confer”, or “vest” in v29. By using “covenant” in both verses, the NWT is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the Kingdom to the disciples (v29).
The Greek word for “covenant” in v20 is “diatheke”. Here’s what Vine’s Dictionary says about this word (boldface mine):\Covenant (Noun and Verb)\
<A-1,Noun,1242,diatheke>
primarily signifies "a disposition of property by will or
otherwise." In its use in the Sept., it is the rendering of a
Hebrew word meaning a "covenant" or agreement (from a verb
signifying "to cut or divide," in allusion to a sacrificial
custom in connection with "covenant-making," e.g., Gen. 15:10,
"divided" Jer. 34:18,19). In contradistinction to the English
word "covenant" (lit., "a coming together"), which signifies a
mutual undertaking between two parties or more, each binding
himself to fulfill obligations, it does not in itself contain
the idea of joint obligation, it mostly signifies an obligation
undertaken by a single person. For instance, in Gal. 3:17 it is
used as an alternative to a "promise" (vv. 16-18). God enjoined
upon Abraham the rite of circumcision, but His promise to
Abraham, here called a "covenant," was not conditional upon the
observance of circumcision, though a penalty attached to its
nonobservance.
"The NT uses of the word may be analyzed as follows: (a)
a promise or undertaking, human or Divine, Gal. 3:15; (b) a
promise or undertaking on the part of God, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25;
Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Gal. 3:17; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; 8:6,8,10;
10:16; (c) an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and
Israel, see Deut. 29; 30 (described as a 'commandment,' Heb.
7:18, cp. Heb 7:22); Heb. 8:9; 9:20; (d) by metonymy, the token
of the covenant, or promise, made to Abraham, Acts 7:8; (e) by
metonymy, the record of the covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:4; cp.
Rev. 11:19; (f) the basis, established by the death of Christ,
on which the salvation of men is secured, Matt. 26:28; Mark
14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 10:29; 12:24;
13:20.
"This covenant is called the 'new,' Heb. 9:15, the
'second,' Heb. 8:7, the 'better,' Heb. 7:22. In Heb. 9:16,17,
the translation is much disputed. There does not seem to be any
sufficient reason for departing in these verses from the word
used everywhere else. The English word 'Testament' is taken from
the titles prefixed to the Latin Versions." * [* From Notes on
Galations by Hogg and Vine, p.144.] See TESTAMENT.The actual Greek word in v29 is “diatithemi”. Here’s what Vine’s Dictionary says about this word, and a more basic form of the same word (boldface mine):
\Appoint, Appointed\
<3,,5087,tithemi>
"to put," is used of "appointment" to any form of service.
Christ used it of His followers, John 15:16 (RV, "appointed" for
AV, "ordained"). "I set you" would be more in keeping with the
metaphor of grafting. The verb is used by Paul of his service in
the ministry of the Gospel, 1 Tim. 1:12 (RV, "appointing" for
"putting"); 1 Tim. 2:7 (RV, "appointed" for "ordained"); and 2
Tim. 1:11 (RV, "appointing" for "putting"); of the overseers, or
bishops, in the local church at Ephesus, as those "appointed" by
the Holy Ghost, to tend the church of God, Acts 20:28 ("hath
made"); of the Son of God, as appointed Heir of all things, Heb.
1:2. It is also used of "appointment" to punishment, as of the
unfaithful servant, Matt. 24:51; Luke 12:46; of unbelieving
Israel, 1 Pet. 2:8. Cp. 2 Pet. 2:6. See BOW, COMMIT, CONCEIVE,
LAY, MAKE, ORDAIN, PURPOSE, PUT, SET, SINK.
Note: Akin to tithemi is the latter part of the noun
prothesmia, Gal. 4:2, of a term or period "appointed."
<4,,1303,diatithemi>
a strengthened form of No. 3 (dia, "through," intensive), is
used in the Middle Voice only. The Lord used it of His disciples
with reference to the kingdom which is to be theirs hereafter,
and of Himself in the same respect, as that which has been
"appointed" for Him by His Father, Luke 22:29. For its use in
connection with a covenant, see MAKE and TESTATOR.My conlusion: Two different words, two different contexts.
You Know:The new covenant makes possible the kingdom covenant. They go together. That proves that the new covenant is for only those who are destined to be kings in Christ's kingdom and not intended for, nor necessary, for mankind in general to inherite everlasting life earth.
I can agree to the first sentence here. But still, Jesus said that the new covenant was about his blood poured out “for many”, as a ransom for their sins. So the new covenant, the covenant of the blood, is the very basis for salvation and everlasting life. To say that the blood of Christ is “not intended for, nor necessary, for mankind in general” is the foremost apostasy that John and Paul warned us about so many times.
-
30
To You Know: Broken "Sworn Oaths" Be...
by tfs inand yet, the interesting thing is that you went to the kingdom hall.
unless you were just sneaking in to spy on your former brothers, which may or may not be the case, or perhaps in your case there is some remnant of spirituality that remains.
at any rate, jehovah has the perfect solution to the problem confronting the faith.
-
-
Atreyu
You Know said:
The difference is that those who are anointed Jehovah's Witnesses are in a new covenant with God. That means that they qualify for Gods forgiveness just like the nation of Israel qualified for God's forgiveness even though they were guilty of very serious sins because of God's covenant with them.
OK, OK, maybe. But, what happens when all the anointed JWs pass away? Who of the "sheep class" would ever dare to run the Organisation?
-
7
"You Know" invited to The Last Supper
by Atreyu insorry for late response.
this is a commentary to a reply from you know, regarding the meaning of the last supper.
by using covenant in both verses, the nwt is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the kingdom to the disciples (v29).. the greek word for covenant in v20 is diatheke.
-
-
Atreyu
Sorry for late response. This is a commentary to a reply from “You Know”, regarding the meaning of the Last Supper. (www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23523&site=3 )
I said:
Jesus did not talk about a “Covenant of a Kingdom” in this situation.
You Know replied:Nonsense. The apostles were still at the table when Jesus said "You are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel."
Interesting. You Know quotes NWT. I checked 8 other major English bible-translations, comparing Lu 22:20 (the covenant of the blood) to Lu 22:29 (the appointment of the Kingdom). The NWT is the ONLY ONE that uses the word “covenant” in both verses. Other translations often use the word “covenant” in v20, but they use words as “appoint”, “grant”, “agreement”, “right”, “assign”, “confer”, or “vest” in v29. By using “covenant” in both verses, the NWT is thereby giving the impression that the covenant of the blood (v20) is the same thing as the appointment of the Kingdom to the disciples (v29).
The Greek word for “covenant” in v20 is “diatheke”. Here’s what Vine’s Dictionary says about this word (boldface added by me):
\Covenant (Noun and Verb)\
<A-1,Noun,1242,diatheke>
primarily signifies "a disposition of property by will or
otherwise." In its use in the Sept., it is the rendering of a
Hebrew word meaning a "covenant" or agreement (from a verb
signifying "to cut or divide," in allusion to a sacrificial
custom in connection with "covenant-making," e.g., Gen. 15:10,
"divided" Jer. 34:18,19). In contradistinction to the English
word "covenant" (lit., "a coming together"), which signifies a
mutual undertaking between two parties or more, each binding
himself to fulfill obligations, it does not in itself contain
the idea of joint obligation, it mostly signifies an obligation
undertaken by a single person. For instance, in Gal. 3:17 it is
used as an alternative to a "promise" (vv. 16-18). God enjoined
upon Abraham the rite of circumcision, but His promise to
Abraham, here called a "covenant," was not conditional upon the
observance of circumcision, though a penalty attached to its
nonobservance."The NT uses of the word may be analyzed as follows: (a)
a promise or undertaking, human or Divine, Gal. 3:15; (b) a
promise or undertaking on the part of God, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25;
Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Gal. 3:17; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; 8:6,8,10;
10:16; (c) an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and
Israel, see Deut. 29; 30 (described as a 'commandment,' Heb.
7:18, cp. Heb 7:22); Heb. 8:9; 9:20; (d) by metonymy, the token
of the covenant, or promise, made to Abraham, Acts 7:8; (e) by
metonymy, the record of the covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:4; cp.
Rev. 11:19; (f) the basis, established by the death of Christ,
on which the salvation of men is secured, Matt. 26:28; Mark
14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 10:29; 12:24;
13:20."This covenant is called the 'new,' Heb. 9:15, the
'second,' Heb. 8:7, the 'better,' Heb. 7:22. In Heb. 9:16,17,
the translation is much disputed. There does not seem to be any
sufficient reason for departing in these verses from the word
used everywhere else. The English word 'Testament' is taken from
the titles prefixed to the Latin Versions." * [* From Notes on
Galations by Hogg and Vine, p.144.] See TESTAMENT.The actual Greek word in v29 is “diatithemi”. Here’s what Vine’s Dictionary says about this word, and a more basic form of the same word (boldface added by me):
\Appoint, Appointed\
<3,,5087,tithemi>
"to put," is used of "appointment" to any form of service.
Christ used it of His followers, John 15:16 (RV, "appointed" for
AV, "ordained"). "I set you" would be more in keeping with the
metaphor of grafting. The verb is used by Paul of his service in
the ministry of the Gospel, 1 Tim. 1:12 (RV, "appointing" for
"putting"); 1 Tim. 2:7 (RV, "appointed" for "ordained"); and 2
Tim. 1:11 (RV, "appointing" for "putting"); of the overseers, or
bishops, in the local church at Ephesus, as those "appointed" by
the Holy Ghost, to tend the church of God, Acts 20:28 ("hath
made"); of the Son of God, as appointed Heir of all things, Heb.
1:2. It is also used of "appointment" to punishment, as of the
unfaithful servant, Matt. 24:51; Luke 12:46; of unbelieving
Israel, 1 Pet. 2:8. Cp. 2 Pet. 2:6. See BOW, COMMIT, CONCEIVE,
LAY, MAKE, ORDAIN, PURPOSE, PUT, SET, SINK.Note: Akin to tithemi is the latter part of the noun
prothesmia, Gal. 4:2, of a term or period "appointed."<4,,1303,diatithemi>
a strengthened form of No. 3 (dia, "through," intensive), is
used in the Middle Voice only. The Lord used it of His disciples
with reference to the kingdom which is to be theirs hereafter,
and of Himself in the same respect, as that which has been
"appointed" for Him by His Father, Luke 22:29. For its use in
connection with a covenant, see MAKE and TESTATOR.
My conlusion: Two different word, two different contexts.You Know:
The new covenant makes possible the kingdom covenant. They go together. That proves that the new covenant is for only those who are destined to be kings in Christ's kingdom and not intended for, nor necessary, for mankind in general to inherite everlasting life earth.
I can agree to the first sentence here. But still, Jesus said that the new covenant was about his blood poured out “for many”, as a ransom for their sins. So the new covenant, the covenant of the blood, is the very basis for salvation and everlasting life. To say that the blood of Christ is “not intended for, nor necessary, for mankind in general” is the foremost apostasy which John and Paul warned us about so many times. -
10
The Last Supper - very simple
by Atreyu injesus took bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples.
take it and eat it, he said, this is my body.
then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
-
-
Atreyu
“Jesus took bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. ‘Take it and eat it,’ he said, ‘this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, ‘Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28
“Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.” Lu 22:19-20
“… the Lord Jesus took some bread, and after he had given thanks, he broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Co 11:24-27
Could it be any clearer?
- When offering the bread and the wine, Jesus referred to
his sacrifice, his ransom, which will redeem our sins.
- Apparently, when accepting the bread and wine, the
receiver accepted Jesus as a personal saviour and
redeemer.
- The New Covenant is about Jesus’ blood poured out for
our sins.
- Jesus ordered the disciples to repeat this supper as a
ceremony of remembrance.
- Jesus did not say that the sacraments were reserved
only for an elite.
- Jesus initiated this ceremony within a tradition
already customary, that everyone shared the Passover
meal.
- Jesus did not talk about a “Covenant of a Kingdom”
in this situation.In view of this, it would be an abomination to refuse the bread and wine. Then you would demonstrate that you refuse Jesus as your personal saviour and redeemer, that you refuse to believe in the meaning of his sacrifice.
-
28
Are the WTBS the modern day Pharisees and Saducees
by Leander ini've been thinking about this for sometime now and i wanted to know how other people felt about this comparison.
the pharisees were known for hypocrisy and for also promoting traditions of men and other non-bibical teachings.
when we look at the wtbs in light of the actions of the pharisees there are some amazing similarities.
-
-
Atreyu
I think of one incident I just heard about:
An elder in Norway discovered that his 18 year old son (unbaptized, not a publisher, but partisipating in the meetings) regularly used "snus". (I don't know the english wordm but is a kind of yeasted tobacco that you roll into small balls and put under your upper lip. You just keep it there for a while and get a sensation because of the nicotine.)
Maybe Awake! has written about "snus", and if they have, I guess that they refer to American brands. Recent research has demonstrated that American brands may cause cancer, but researchers have also shown that Swedish "snus" is not causing cancer. The difference between the American and Swedish brands, I think, is the additives.
Well, the 18 year old elder-son uses Swedish "snus". But still, his father proceeded the elder board in his congregation and asked whether he could continue serving as an elder when he had such a "rebellious" son. Reasonably, the other elders granted his abilty to continue.
But think about it! Lots of JWs drink a lot of alcohol, some drink very often, some JWs eat unhealthy food and never exercise, and some drive hazardously with their car. Rarly, this amounts to elder-cases.
But when a 18-year old, who is also a sportsman and exercise frequently, uses "snus", which is not even causing cancer, then some mechanism is triggered in an elders head - because it is tobacco - and tobacco is associated with sin.
Speaking of Pharisees?
-
23
Has anyone circulated factsheet to local JW's?
by Nowfree ina group of exjws in the south of the uk are considering putting together a factsheet containing information about:.
a) the wtbt involvement with united nations, .
b)the lies told by the wtbts to the court in the case of jehovah's witnesses v bulgaria in the european court of human rights.
-
-
Atreyu
A few years back I sent similar e-mails to about 100 JWs whose addresses I found in guestbooks on Internet. In this mail I informed politely and very briefly about www.ajwrb.org and told that this website contained vital information for them.
Most of the receivers didn't answer, but some of them responded furiously and with great hostilty. One was even threatening me. One or two happend to be in a personal situation where the blood transfusions issue was a most actual question, and asked me what to do.
-
2
46,026,4026 or 3761 B.C.E.
by badboy inits says in a nwt bible that genesis started c.46,026 b.c.e.
thereas the jws had said 4,026 b.c.e.
was the beginning of the world.. i read in the times,thursday february 28 2002, page 41.
-
-
Atreyu
If you read "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Jonsson, you will se that there has been a whole range of jewish and christian speculations and "theories" about the dating of man's creation.