If one were to take a KJV to one of the weekly meetings, would it cause a stir? Ane what if someone brought a copy of both the NWT and a KJV? Just curious.
Cold Steel
JoinedPosts by Cold Steel
-
9
Sheohl and haides in the New NWT
by pixel inso, in their new nwt they render sheohl and haides "grave".
this is a change from what the teach book says as a pdf.
these words really mean?
-
-
-
9
Sheohl and haides in the New NWT
by pixel inso, in their new nwt they render sheohl and haides "grave".
this is a change from what the teach book says as a pdf.
these words really mean?
-
-
Cold Steel
They trash the King James Version? Do they even have any scholars who are capable of judging a translation? The NWT is a laughing stock in biblical translations and is never included in any collection of Bible translations.
The problem for the Society is that it has to translate the Bible in a certain way to fortify some of their problem doctrines, like the soul sleeping doctrine. And to the malefactor on the cross, they move the comma in the translation to have the Lord say, “I’m telling you today, you’re gonna be with me in Paradise.” Well, in the ancient church, Paradise was, in the words of Origen, “a place of learning or school of the spirits” in which everything they did on Earth would be made clear to them. It wasn’t a destination, but a place in which spirits prepared themselves for the resurrection. And Origen, while he wasn’t in the first century church, he, Clement and other early fathers knew a great deal more about the ancient church than we do. The Pastor of Hermas is not part of our canonized scripture, but it was a very popular Christian work that certainly didn’t support the soul sleeping interpretation. As we’ve discussed on this board, if you really cease to exist at death, then any recreation God would bring about in the new world would be just that, a recreation. It would be an exact copy of what you were and are, but it wouldn’t necessarily be YOU. The copy would have all your thoughts and memories, but it would still be a recreation. As far as the here and now you is concerned, you’ll be completely disintegrated at death. You will be no more. When, and if, Jehovah sees fit, he will resurrect you by recreating you. And that re-creation will be a You 2.0. That means you can apostatize, live for the moment and throw caution to the wind, and you don’t have to worry about it. It’ll be your re-creation that will be destroyed. You’ll be long gone.
But if you’re an intelligence...a spirit...you’ll pass from your body, go to either Paradise or Hell, and then come forth in the resurrection. There is no destruction or eternal torture. There is remediation and, through Christ, a redemption. There will be eternal ramifications to what you do in life, but your existence is dependent upon your continuity.
Once a doctrine like soul sleeping is adopted, the way scriptures are translated depends on your exegeses. Thus, when Paul said he wanted to “depart” and be with Christ, but to “remain in the flesh” is more needful to the church, you have to do some real juggling to save your doctrine.
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Cold Steel
I guess there's no room for debate on this as far as the JW leadership is concerned. This would be a good topic for debate in a Sunday School gospel class, but it's becoming increasingly apparent (to me) that the leadership pretty much has given the Society its take on just about all debatable issues. What must it be like to convert to this religion and then discover the only views valued in meetings are those held by the Governing Body. And it seems the GB has an opinion on every gospel issue.
Does it ever happen that someone says in a meeting, "I know the GB has said X about Y, but I've always felt Z? I mean, the GB has had some reversals on some issues, right? And as Apognophos noted:
You mean I have to pick someone NOW, as an imperfect person, who I want to live with FOREVER? I could see examples all around me of Witnesses who seemed to have chosen wrong even for the short term, and who could predict what the marriage would be like 500 or 10,000 years in the future? I decided that there was no way to make an informed, wise choice while imperfect, therefore I could not get married until the new system came around.
It's funny how these sort of absolutist concepts like infinite life and perfection can lead one to bizarre conclusions.
Adam didn't have a lot to choose from in the Garden, and the Lord arranged the marriage before death entered the world. That means he was to be married for eternity to Eve. It all goes back to the question of whether eternal life in a garden was God's original purpose for man. If the atonement only returns us to Square One, then what was ever achieved? And once the price was paid and the atonement complete, why didn't death cease immediately? "For in Adam, all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Not just the righteous, not just the righteous and the unrighteous, but the wicked as well.
I cannot envision spending trillions of years in a garden, no matter how beautiful. I can only conclude that the fall of Adam was a good thing, because without the fall, there could be no redemption; and without the redemption, there could be no eternal life with God in Heaven for the righteous. Or lower levels for those who merit less, but Paul makes it clear that we have no idea what things will be like in the world to come. Through a glass darkly and all that. I, too, can't see spending eternity with the same person. (Just 27 years has been a real challenge and I've got a very good marriage.)
-
22
Watchtower admonitions against unofficial pro-JW websites
by Londo111 ina friend of mine asked, "do you recall a watchtower or km that said the jw's are not suppose to read, or post information in defense of the watchtower on their own personal website or anyone elses website?".
of course, there is the july 15, 2011 watchtower: what is involved in avoiding false teachers?
we do not receive them into our homes or greet them.
-
-
Cold Steel
The One TRUE Website.
"I am the way, the truth and the light. No man cometh unto the Father except through my website."
-
22
Watchtower admonitions against unofficial pro-JW websites
by Londo111 ina friend of mine asked, "do you recall a watchtower or km that said the jw's are not suppose to read, or post information in defense of the watchtower on their own personal website or anyone elses website?".
of course, there is the july 15, 2011 watchtower: what is involved in avoiding false teachers?
we do not receive them into our homes or greet them.
-
-
Cold Steel
The power or influence that keeps members of the Society from reading other religious views other than their own is one of the most crucial to maintaining the Organization.
The position of the Governing Body against competing views (even those favorable to the Outfit) is crucial to the integrity of the chain of command. It wasn't too long ago that the anointed were the "faithful and discreet slave." Now, everyone but the GB is "indiscreet." My how times have changed!
But what of Luke 9:
And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devisl in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (vvs. 49-50)
Did Jesus warn his disciples correctly or does the Governing Body's advice make more sense?
Noticeably, there have been a number of individuals who have created Web sites ostensibly to preach the good news. Many of these sites are sponsored by indiscreet brothers. Other sites may be sponsored by apostates who wish to lure unsuspecting ones.
Any intelligent person could most likely spot an anti-JW site inside of 5 or 10 minutes and could simply bail out if they wished. But whose welfare is the Governing Body most concerned about? And do they make it a disciplinary issue when one reads the religious tracts of other religions? Isn't the greatest of all God's principles that of free agency? Of choosing good over evil?
Yet, as Londo pointed out, that's not the way the GB sees it:
What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them. Wealso refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs. Why do we take such a firm stand? Because of love. We love “the God of truth,” so we are not interested in twisted teachings that contradict his word of truth.
Watchtower, July 15, 2011
As Mark Twain pointed out, only editors and people with tapeworm should use the term "we." Apparently even those among the so-called anointed class is no longer included in the "we" of leadership. Regardless, it seems their tone is patronizing to say the least. But what is most troublesome is the way many JWs fear their own leaders and the disciplinary action that can be meted out.
.
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Cold Steel
Sir82: Seriously, do you think you are going to have success preaching Mormonism on an ex-JW board?
Well, I try not to let Mormonism get in the way of good old fashioned first century Christianity, but they're so closely related that it's difficult. Mormonism, so called, is comprised of both biblical exegesis and NEW revelation, which is not found in the Bible. Like the ancient Christians, we believe we have ministerial authority and the ancient keys of binding both in Heaven and on Earth. We have a quorum of twelve apostles, as did the ancient church, and an open canon. (The idea of drawing a line and telling the Lord that He can reveal nothing more doesn't make much sense to us.)
But people always have their free agency and, unlike other faiths, we don't condemn all non-Mormons to Hell, or deny them a resurrection; neither do we promote shunning, which is a Godless practice, or the learning about other religions.
When I do go into Mormon doctrine, I always explain that they are my own views or those of the LDS faith (which is frequently challenged here). I don't mind, however, and people are always free to believe what they wish. But, you know what they say about opinions....
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Cold Steel
Apognophos: Adam and Eve won't get a resurrection (so they teach) because they were perfect when they sinned, thus they have no excuse. Being perfect, they were not in need of a ransom and thus it does not apply to them. Judas, of course, sinned against the holy spirit.
Yes, Judas was called the “son of perdition,” but even he will be resurrected because both the righteous and the wicked are resurrected. Actually, I was surprised you didn’t mention Cain, another son of perdition.
The Ethiopic book of 1 Adam and Eve states:
And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, like unto nothing else; so that, through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth. And when a man washes himself in it, becomes clean of the cleanness thereof, and white of its whiteness-even if he were dark. And God created that sea of His own good pleasure, for He knew what would come of the man He should make; so that after he had left the garden, on account of his transgression, men should be born in the earth, from among whom righteous ones should die, whose souls God would raise at the last day; when they should return to their flesh; should bathe in the water of that sea, and all of them repent of their sins. —1 Adam & Eve 1:2-4
We know that the Jews had many cleansing rites and baptisms in their day, and that baptism was known well before the time of Christ. This is why John baptizing people in the Jordan River was not treated as anything new by the gospel writers.
The pseudepigraphal Apocalypse of Moses 37:3 states that when Adam died, “one of the six-winged seraphim came and carried Adam off to the Lake of Acheron and washed him three times in the presence of God.” He was then conducted to the third heaven (vss. 5-6)
The Jewish sage Ben Sira wrote that “Shem and Seth were honored among men, but Adam is above every living being in the creation.” (Ecclesiasticus 49.16;(68)).
According to the scriptures, Adam lived a little more than 900 years. During that period, he raised up many righteous seed. He taught them the ways of the Lord. One scholar writes:
In the Apocalypse of Adam, the first couple are visited by three angels who awaken him and teach them about their origins and give them knowledge of the practice of baptism. Adam later passes on this knowledge to his son Seth and their descendants. These three angels are also found in the Mandaean Adam and Eve stories, where Manda dHaiye, a kind of angelic Redeemer figure, sends three kingly angelic messengers, called “uthras” to teach Adam and Eve the rituals which are necessary for this life and which will help them to ascend back to the place where God the “Great Life” dwells. Kurt Rudolph notes that the fundamental mission of these messengers of light to “instruct the faithful and redeem their souls.” (Source)
According to the Jewish book of Jubilees, “And on the day when Adam went out of the garden of Eden he offered a sweet-smelling sacrifice-frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and spices.” If Adam was to suffer annihilation at the command of Jehovah, why would all these traditions have Adam teaching his posterity the ways of righteousness and offering sacrifice? Was not Yahweh communicating with Adam as he did later prophets? Certainly if their parents were damned to this fate, how could Seth and Adam’s other children come to love God? Or did they shun Adam for 900 years?
Anyway, I’m stunned. There are other traditions of both Adam and Eve’s baptism and Satan’s efforts to prevent it. Again, these are traditions and not part of the canon, but usually traditions contain some truth, and if one uses common sense, one would have to realize that both Adam and Eve would have to know their own fates and that they would become part of tradition.
Shanagirl: Since that is a fleshly and organic point of view, and our spirit will return back to God, obviously there are other abodes to look forward to in the Father's Kingdom that is not fleshly or earthly.
Don’t fall for the old notion that everything that is “fleshly” is bad, as the Gnostics used to teach. Actually, there’s quite a bit of evidence that our spirits gaining a physical, resurrected and glorified physical body like Christ’s will be a significant upgrade. According to some traditions, spirits cannot efficiently channel energy, or “glory” as some put it. A perfected and immortal physical body will have all the advantages of being a spirit, plus significant advantages that we don’t yet fully understand. Recall that Jesus was resurrected a physical being and he made it quite clear he wasn’t a spirit, “for a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see me have.” So how did he pass through doors and ceilings? Also, after his resurrection, Jesus was able to appear while containing all of his glory, as a regular person who could eat and teach. Yet John, on Patmos, saw him appear in spectacular glory. If we, God’s children, can be resurrected in the same manner, we, as co-heirs of Christ, can span the Universe as beings of energy and visit the various creations of God, adapting ourselves at will to whatever environment we wish; and this wouldn’t be possible for a spirit.
Patrick45: Consider this part of Luke's rendering :"but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead." How could one be counted worthy of gaining a resurrection if everybody is going to be raised to everlasting life?
Check out I Corinthians 15. Paul teaches that there are many different resurrections, as different as the sun, moon and stars. For each of these differ in glory, and even the stars aren’t of the same glory. So, he said, is the resurrection of the dead. In fact, I recommend you read that chapter several times, as it’s the best teaching of the resurrection in the Bible, in my view.
“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (vss. 21-22) But, he adds, “But every man in his own order.”
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (vss. 39-42)
So everyone will be raised from the dead. Furthermore, death and hell will both be destroyed. But some will have to pass through both. All men die, and the wicked will be subject to hell. But far from being a burning torment that lasts forever, it’s a torment of limited duration. God doesn’t create places of torture; it’s not in his nature. But man can torment himself, and often he’s his own worst accuser. There are some who have near death experiences who report that forgiving themselves for the horrible things that they’ve done is the worst torture they go through, and some find it impossible without outside help. But everyone will ultimately be raised, as Jesus died for all men.
.
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Cold Steel
Splash: BTW, Adam and Eve don't get a resurrection.
Hmmm...that’s a new one on me. Is this Jehovah's Witness doctrine? And why would they be denied a resurrection? Did not Jesus’ atonement cover their transgression?
One problem I’d have with this belief is that Adam and Eve didn’t just stop worshiping God when they were expelled from the Garden, but continued to have children and teach them the ways of God. It would be inconceivable to me that they would be denied life in the resurrection. After all, they fell so that man could grow and progress, knowing the difference between good and evil, which is an attribute of God that has been passed down through the human race. The apostle Paul teaches that “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
It seems that what Paul was getting at is that yes, Eve sinned, but that she and her posterity could be saved by living God’s commandments.
Carroline77: Those who are resurrected will be like the angels, who are a higher form of life. They do not have animal nature.
My own view is that angels are simply people. Some are people who haven’t yet been born; others are people who have passed through mortality but have not as yet been resurrected. And still others may be mortal (as the word “angels” simply means “sent ones”). John, on Patmos, falls at the feet of an angel he mistakes as his risen Lord. The angel gently rebukes him and helps him to his feet telling him he must not do that. “I am thy fellow servant,” the angel explained, “and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book.” (Rev. 22:9) And David wrote, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” (Psalm 8)
According to the original text, the word for “angels” is “elohim,” which means “gods.” Translators, understandably, were uncomfortable with this rendition; however, Jesus stunned the Jews by quoting the law:
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? —John 10:31-36
According to the scriptures, God made man in his own image, and John wrote of Jesus:
...whom [the Father] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. —Hebrews 1:2-3
If Jesus was resurrected with a tangible body of flesh and bone, as the apostles tell us, and John adds that Jesus is in the “brightness” of the Father’s glory, and the “express image” of the Father’s person, then it appears that Jesus became, in the resurrection, very much like his Father. And if what John teaches us about the faithful saints of God becoming “joint heirs” with Jesus, our potential appears to be virtually limitless. For years in my youth, I was taught that God was a being who was everywhere present, and that he was without form, being neither male nor female. The idea of a Father or Son was strictly metaphor designed to help us understand them.
The idea that Jesus and his apostles and prophets seem to be teaching is that men can become like their fathers in every sense of the word. When we are infants, we have the potential of becoming like our earthly parents, so as Paul teaches, “we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ....” (Romans 8:16-17) If we are joint heirs with Christ, we have, then, potential that is as yet completely unrealized by Jehovah's Witnesses, most of whom think the only thing they are going to inherit is a garden paradise. But if God really is our Father, and we his children, doesn't it stand to reason we would resemble each other, and that we could become like him?
Remember, too, that marriage was instituted by God, and that it was instituted before death came into the world. So in the world to come, is it any better or worse that man should be alone? And why should anyone assume that we end up in the next world as sexless heavenly entities? And will it apply to the “great crowd” who gets to spend the next centillion years getting to know their beautiful garden paradise? (I’d like to see a photo of that!)
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Cold Steel
Okay, here's the issue. Some people, even some JWs, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses. Jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage. That seems to settle the situation, doesn't it? Everyone will live separately and singly in the world to come.
Here's the rub. When the Lord created man and placed him in the Garden of Eden, he said what? That it's not good for man to be alone. So he created the woman and commanded them to be fruitful and to inhabit the earth. And since both Adam and Eve were not susceptible to death, their marriage, in essence, was to be eternal.
When Adam and Eve are resurrected, will they not be married? And if it's not good for man to be alone, then what?
Jesus said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage. But he didn't say anything about marriages performed before the resurrection, but simply that once someone was resurrected, there would be no marriage for them. In other words, once you've been raised from the dead, you cannot then decide to tie the proverbial knot.
How do you think this all will work out?
-
43
Jesus sacrifice and animal sacrifice contradiction
by trackregister99 inromans 3:25 says that jesus sacrifice was applied to the past for sins forgives.. then why god request animals sacrifice like "shadow of the good things to come" (hebrews 10:1) if the jesus sacrifice forgive sins to the past.. the animal blood not have none value, because jesus sacrifice was applied to the past.. why sacrificies for forgive of sins was requested by god if romans 3:25 says that jesus forgive the sins to the past?..
.
-
-
Cold Steel
Shanagirl: IMO blood sacrifice was a practice that was never demanded by the True God.
And just who is this "True God" you're referring to? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even people who believe the earth is flat; however, historically the facts are against you.
When discussing theology, there are people who believe that God made man in his own image, after his likeness. And he gave commandments to mankind through prophets, and people freely decided to comply with God's will and receive knowledge through revelation. Then there are the people who create God in their image. They decide God must be like them, have their political and social beliefs and values and, alas, it's difficult to discuss anything with them because their opinions are not based in historic facts.
Based on all the scriptures we have, the history of Josephus and the writings of prophets, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did demand blood sacrifice. Not because he delights in the blood of animals, but because sacrifice means something. It points the way to his Son dying for mankind, after taking their sins upon himself.
Having said that, you do raise an interesting question. Why did God need to offer his Son as a sacrifice for sin? Why didn't he just say, "I'm God and can do anything...so you're forgiven!" Interesting question. Also, why did it take God six "days" or eras to create the earth? Why didn't he just speak and have the world appear fully ready for human habitation? He can do anything, right?
Actually, it's a false doctrine. God has all the power, glory, knowledge and intelligence that it's possible to have. But nowhere do the scriptures say that God can do anything. He doesn't speak and have something appear out of nothing, and if he could have spared his Son the "bitter cup" of death and suffering, he would have done so. Also, I don't think this is his first rodeo. I think he's created many millions, or trillions, of worlds and that we humans are going through a process that many other worlds have gone through. If God creates man in his image here, why wouldn't he do so throughout the Universe? As the supreme creator of all things, he takes matter and organizes it into worlds. And if you think that's hard to fathom, try this: this universe may be one of trillions of other universes, some much larger than ours. This universe just happens to be our fish tank...our bubble. As one of my professors of Ancient Scripture related to us: "Everything is a system in the midst of like systems." I don't know what he was quoting, how old it is or who wrote it, but it's been rattling around in my noggin ever since the mid-70s. And whether you're an astrophysicist or a microphysicist, that one observation holds true in every sense. So the next question is, does the same God oversee these googolplexes of universes, each with its trillions of galaxies?
Well, this is off the beaten path, but suffice it to say that God seems to be following a very old formula with our world. He knew Adam and Eve would "stumble" (can't get enough of that word!) and need a Redeemer and Savior, and it just so happened he had one all lined up and ready to fall into place. And everything in scripture and eschatology points to him, especially animal sacrifices, baptism. Those animals don't cease to exist just because someone uses them to illustrate the sacrifice of the Son of God, the mighty Jehovah, the great intercessor between the Father and all mankind.
So again, do we learn about God and comply, or do we fashion him in our image and have him comply? And we have to accept the fact that Jesus died because, to redeem mankind, he had to. The Father, if he could have found any other way, would have. Which begs the question of whose sense of justice did God have to satisfy. But that's one of the great mysteries. It's fairly evident that animal sacrifice began with Adam and that the practice was corrupted and subverted during the passage of time.