Posts by hmike

19

1 Cor 7:14

by peacefulpete in

14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.

what in the world does he mean?

countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.

We know that some parts of the letters were addressed to issues that arose, even though the issues aren't always stated. Thus, understanding the meaning is like playing Jeopardy--we have the answer and have to figure out the question.

Considering the entire context of 1 Cor. 7, is it possible this kind of question arose:

"My spouse is not a believer. Should I divorce my spouse and marry a believer?"

To which Paul answers, "In marriage, the two have become one flesh. What God has joined together, let man not separate. Therefore, according to the word of the Lord, you are one flesh with your spouse. Your unbelieving spouse, while not in Christ, is considered set apart for your sake and the sake of your children, who have no say in this matter. To divorce your spouse because he or she does not believe is not proper cause. Thus, you would be committing adultery were you to remarry, even to a believer, and the children born to you would be from an illicit union. For the sake of your children, you should remain with your spouse if this person is willing."

I don't think the article clarified whether the passage referred to children already living, or yet to be born, or did I miss that?

41

Jehovah's Witnesses and Born-Again Christians are too much alike its scary

by booker-t in

ever since i left the jw's i visited a few born-again christian churches and i felt like i was sitting in a kingdom hall of jw's.

because born-agains are more like jw's then they want to admit.

both jw's and ba's think they know everything.

hmike

I don't use the term in every day speech, either. It's kind of assumed that all Christians are "born again", otherwise it's a complete waste of time them reading John 3.
I do understand that it has some connotations in the USA that seem to be absent over here, though.

I remember the phrase "born again" first became popular in the 70s (I think President Carter used it of himself). It was intended to distinguish between those who had the Holy Spirit in them, and re-born as a new creation, as opposed to people who simply claimed to be Christians and may even attend church (usually what would be considered a "dead" church by those claiming to be BA--I won't name any specifics).

I never use the phrase myself either. "Christian" doesn't need an adjective--labels create barriers.

41

Jehovah's Witnesses and Born-Again Christians are too much alike its scary

by booker-t in

ever since i left the jw's i visited a few born-again christian churches and i felt like i was sitting in a kingdom hall of jw's.

because born-agains are more like jw's then they want to admit.

both jw's and ba's think they know everything.

hmike

Booker-t,

Sorry to see you had so many bad experiences in churches.

12

Revelation! 666 Is Not The Number Of The Beast

by Pleasuredome in

a newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the new testament indicates that, as far as the antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number.

instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616.

the new fragment from the book of revelation, written in ancient greek and dating from the late third century, is part of a hoard of previously unintelligible manuscripts discovered in historic dumps outside oxyrhynchus in egypt.

hmike

Since the book of Revelation was written, people have attempted to associate 666 with a specific individual--Nero, Hilter,... . The most humorous was President Ronald Wilson Reagan because he had 6 letters in each of his three names.

Personally, I'm not sure it was meant to be a literal number anyway, and, even if it was, I don't think it was meant to be connected with anyone in particular. The text just says it's the "number of his name" and "man's number"--meaning that this individual would be a human and not some supernatural creature.

If 6 is a number of human completeness, three 6s would make sense. In any case, we would have to assume that 616 is an aberration until there is more evidence to the contrary. Whoever first used 616 may have wanted to force Emperor Caligula into the picture.

19

1 Cor 7:14

by peacefulpete in

14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.

what in the world does he mean?

countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.

hmike

hmike, well, I'm not sure just what you were telling us but glad you feel you can share.

I think that this passage is at least partially based on Malachi 2:15--

"Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit and do not break faith with the wife of your youth." (NIV)

2 Timothy 1:5 may have been considered a fulfillment of this--

"I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also." (NIV)[As far as we know, Timothy's father was a Greek.]

Now the author (Paul?) may have been referring to a passing on of teachings by word and example, but I think there is a kind of "spirirual DNA" that is passed to children. I can't give you any citations to back it up--it's just my own personal hypothesis based on personal convictions. Of course we know the story of Cain, so, as I said, it may not always play out that way later.

The scripture in 1 Cor. was most likely prompted by the fact that many people joined the Way while their spouses did not. The author (Paul?) did not want to encourage break-ups--many people may have been aware of the teaching of Jesus about putting him ahead of even their own family members. (Notice I said "Jesus," not the WT or any other organization.)

15

What happens when i'm not a JW and the person i love is????

by KrissiG in

this is my story... please give me some advice.

i am 25 years old.

i'm a single mother of a beautiful 8 year old daughter.

hmike

Krissi,

There are some good points here to seriously consider, esp. from Lady Lee.

From what you wrote, I question how sincere he really is about JW and their idea of "the truth."

Why should you be the one to make the change?

Sorry, but I have to wonder if this is not just some kind of excuse to end the relationship.

What do JWs have to offer that is so great?

43

Meek Shall Inherit the earth

by golden age in

.

i was talking to a witness the other day and i was explaining from revelation how there is only one calling to heaven and there is not an earthly calling.

and the jw asked me to explain the verse from pslam which states teh meek shall inherit the earth and reside in it forever, any one have any scripture to refute his argument.

hmike

Originally, these scriptures were seen as applying to their present times. But, as things deteriorated in Israel after David and Solomon, and with the captivity, it became clear to those who viewed themselves as the righteous and faithful that as long as God allowed hostile governments and the unrighteous Israelites among them to thrive, human government was not going to bring about a righteous kingdom. So, they began to look forward to a time when God would subjugate the nations and the wicked, and YHWH Himself would set up a government in the land and rule from Jerusalem. Although God had his domain in heaven--in the clouds--it was not expected that the faithful would be removed to there. After all, there was the promise to Abraham and his seed that they would possess the land. So when Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Make your kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," the hope was for the kingdom of God to extend to earth. Therefore, all these groups are the same because the kingdom possessed by the saints would be on earth.

In the passage of Matthew, Jesus is instructing and encouraging his disciples--those who accepted he was sent by God. It was part of the "good news"--those who sacrificed comforts and pleasures, and were oppressed in this age would be compensated in the age to come. Besides, all the groups would be the same because, in the teachings of Jesus, there were only good trees and bad trees--someone could not "hunger and thirst for righteousness" and at the same time be cruel, unforgiving, and oppressive.

Interestingly, in this coming kingdom, it appears that people would live long, healthy, active lives, but would eventually die. So the resurrection of the dead would have to occur sometime later. This appears to be the basis for Millennial kingdom doctrine.

19

1 Cor 7:14

by peacefulpete in

14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.

what in the world does he mean?

countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.

hmike

Well. Pete, rather than explore the historical and literary background of the texts, I will simply say that I see myself as a living example of this passage. My father was not a believer; my mother was ( but not a JW), and had lived it out under some of the harshest of circumstances. When I was little, she is the one who told me Bible stories; she is the one who taught me the Lord?s prayer in her native German. I think when at least one of the parents is an active Christian, it does make affect the life of the child in a way far deeper than we can understand--beyond just the teaching and example aspects. I know many here will disagree with me about the reality of a true spiritual realm, and many could give examples that would seem to contradict this passage, such as cases where children of believing parents rejected God, or where children of two unbelieving parents became Christians. I'm fully aware of that; I know some myself. All I'm saying is that there is something different with children of a believing parent, although it may not play out that way later, because there are a lot of other factors at work.

35

Thinking about Matt 4:21......

by jula71 in

i was sitting and thinking of what to write in a da letter, as i've been inspired in a way by a letter i read today.

and one thought i am putting in, is that i have a clean, clear conscience because i believe a loving and understanding god would know that i choose this path due to honest and sincere feelings about the organization.

and i believe a loving god would not destroy a person based on that.

hmike

Thanks for the replies on this particular issue of the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus. I did some further research, and now I have a better understanding of the how the oral law and the fences of the Mishna were the real points of contention. So there definitely was a conflict as Jesus openly opposed the burden of the Mishna and how it sometimes actually interfered with keeping the intent of the Law, and he refused to work within their system. The Pharisees dedicated themselves to not breaking the 600+ laws, thereby not putting the nation in danger of God's wrath, but in so doing, created shakles that prevented them from helping people.

So, Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees so much as they condemned themselves by not accepting his correction.

Does this look like a reasonable understanding?

35

Thinking about Matt 4:21......

by jula71 in

i was sitting and thinking of what to write in a da letter, as i've been inspired in a way by a letter i read today.

and one thought i am putting in, is that i have a clean, clear conscience because i believe a loving and understanding god would know that i choose this path due to honest and sincere feelings about the organization.

and i believe a loving god would not destroy a person based on that.

hmike

I'm proposing the possibility that there were members of the Pharisees (not necessarily the majority) who did not live out the principles of Pharisaic teaching.

In the epistles of Paul, which are obviously independent of Matthew, we have the account of Saul of Tarsus as a Pharisee who was a zealous persecuter of members of the Way. Couldn't he have been representative of at least a faction that considered the Way to be dangerous (as opposed to a moderate like Gamaliel [Acts 5])? Isn't it normal for those established in power to want to neutralize any group that publicly questions their positions? Is this so much different than what happened with Luther?