Hmmm...Tyndale's take also is speculation. Jesus, having taken the sins on the world on his shoulders (Isaiah 53), had the least claim on the Kingdom of Heaven of all. He, however, was greater than John. Just as the greatest of all is the servant of all, this saying of Jesus, in my view, has nothing to do with old and new testament dispensationalism. John, as well as all worthy prophets of old, have every right of inheritance as the newest worthy new testament prophet or apostle. Jesus' statement, I think, simply means that HE is greater than John.
Cold Steel
JoinedPosts by Cold Steel
-
2
Jesus' verdict on John
by Doug Mason injesus verdict on john (matthew 11:7-17).. 7-9. johns preaching had created a sensation.
... jesus now show(s) the real significance of john.
10. john is not just a prophet, but the messenger of malachi 3:1.
-
-
-
38
Jeptha's Daughter- what actuallyt happened??
by Kudra inhi all, especially the scholars amongst you ;)a .
i was listening to richard dawkin's talk at lynchburg va and he was tlaking about how horrible the god of the old testament was- and he mentioned this: .
that when jeptha's daughter came out (and jeptha had promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing out of his house) that he had to sacrifice her as a burnt offering.
-
-
Cold Steel
Atheists will always assume the worst at a moment's notice, then stick with that assumption until Judgment Day.
See Feminist Musings On The Strange Story of Japtha for an LDS take.
The Lord has NEVER countananced human sacrifice. In Judges, we find Samson, a man that not only did NOT deliver Israel; he was a total screwup from the time he born to the day that he died. He frequented prostitutes, did horrendous things to animals, consorted with the enemy, murdered to pay off a debt. Not much of a role model for kids. I've oftentimes wondered if he was even real. Contrary to what many Bible people think the Philistines were actually more cultured, more technelogically adept than the Jews and were excellent warriors. No one knows where they came from exactly, but they were Greeks. They were later absorbed into the various cultures in the Middle East and we're only now learning more about them from the cities and art they left behind.
I can't see anyone but an apostate Judge in Israel doing such a thing. As the author (above) notes, what if a dog had come out to meet him? To offer up an unclean animal would be an affront to God, so Japtha most likely dedicated her to service to the Lord. Had he actually offered her up as a human sacrifice, I can't see that Paul would have any admiration for him (see Hebrews 11).
Also, if you want to have a serious discussion about the Bible, please stop using the New World Translation. Is is both course and horribly inaccurate. It might also help to quote scholars instead of activist atheists who know next to nothing about what they're talking.
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
The way it should be rendered is, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that partaketh of the sacred emblems is greater than he."
Do you know any elders who partake of the sacramental emblems? If so, ask them, "Do you think you're greater than John the Baptist? Chances are they'll be far too modest to say YES!
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
The idea that you've got people at the various conferences taking the emblems (that were intended for the entire membership, by the way), each thinking he or she is greater than John the Baptist, is a very bold stance. That there are people in the Society who believe that the Governing Body is inspired in such interpretations is a fascinating aspect of the religion. As of now there appears to be no safeguards in place -- no balance of power -- that can call into question such doctrines.
Granted, the two classes of those who gain salvation is pure nonsense; however, this heavenly class (right or wrong) did have the power to put the brakes on until comparitively recently, when it was stripped from them in a breathtaking consolidation of power at the top. It was, of course, inevitable that this would happen sooner or later, as power tends to condense rather than expand. But unless there's resistance from the people who lose power, the power keeps consolidating. Now that the power rests with the Governing Body, the next step will undoubtedly be towards a one-man rule. But in the body, alas, there may be some resistance.
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
At one point, didn't the Society teach that Adam and Eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the Kingdom of Heaven? I remember that a number of years ago, a JW told me that John the Baptist also would not obtain Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Their evidence was Matthew 11:11, where Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
The reasoning is that there are two classes of resurrection. One is the immortal, earthly type and the heavenly class. So what Jesus was saying was that John, though great, was not as great as the least of the heavenly class. The traditional Christian view, however, is:
By "the least" we prefer, then, with Chrysostom and other ancient Fathers, to understand Jesus himself. The literal meaning of the Greek μικρότερος is "the lesser," not "least" (in the Revised Version, in the text we find "he that is but little," but in the margin "lesser"). By "lesser" or "little" Chrysostom supposes that the Saviour refers to himself as less than John in age and according to the opinions of many. "Thus, then, among the sons of men no prophet greater than John the Baptist has arisen; yet there is one among you lesser in age and perhaps in public estimation, - in the kingdom of God, though, greater than he." Wordsworth strengthens the above interpretation by his comment on the words, "among those that are born of women." "No one among those born of human parents had appeared greater than this John the Baptist; but do not suppose that he is greater than I. I am not γεννητὸς γυναικῶν , but Θεοῦ , and though after him in the gospel because he is my precursor, yet I am greater than he." This great expositor, while on the whole preferring the usual interpretation, yet considers that the explanation which refers "he that is least" to Christ, is not lightly to be set aside. If this interpretation be adopted, the usual punctuation of the passage must be slightly altered thus: "He that is lesser, in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Another view, closely related, is that because Jesus took upon himself the sins of all mankind, then he has the least claim on the Kingdom of God. Either way, Jesus was referring to himself. He was the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, because Christ, being the greatest, is the servant of all, paying for our sins and removing our pains and scars.
Yet the WTBTS has chosen its own unique way of interpreting scripture. Do they still hold to their views about Adam/Eve and John? And do the emblem takers really think they're better?
-
27
New explanation of Gog of Magog: Two Gogs?
by leaving_quietly ini just finished watching the recording of the talk at the annual meeting that re-explains gog of magog.
i caught something not previously talked about, that i can recall.. gog of magog is thought to be a coalition of nations that attach god's people during the great tribulation.
this is from ezekiel 38 & 39.. gog and magog in revelation 20 represents those with the same attitude as gog of magog.. thus, the new teaching (maybe not new, but i'll have to research this) is that gog in ezekiel is not the same as gog in revelation 20. two different gogs, happening about a thousand years apart.. .
-
-
Cold Steel
LeavingQuietly: My personal opinion (and that's all it is, an opinion): Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38 & 39 have no fulfillment in our time period. For it to have fulfillment, all those of natural Israel would have to be regathered to the land of Israel first. Otherwise, God would be lying.
Yes, God has spoken of Gog in many places (Zechariah 12, 14, Revelation 11), and Ezekiel, in chapter 38, says it will be in the "latter years," not in the "final part of the years." And this has always referred to the last days. Also, you said that throughout history only the King of Babylon has ever come from the north to conquer Jerusalem. This is not really true as the Romans also came through the northern parts to destroy Jerusalem. The Greeks also came from the north, but did not destroy the city. The fact that it remains unfulfilled means 1) that the prophecy was false; or 2) that it is unfulfilled. The third option, that it was fulfilled, but we just don't know when, is unlikely given that so many prophets have written of it.
John, when writing of the great assault from the north, gives us this clue:
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. (Revelation 17:9–11)
The eighth king, which once was, and then was not, resurrects to become the eighth king. Some have thought this was the Roman Empire, but this is highly unlikely. Both Ezekiel and Zechaiah list the nations that will make up the Antichrist's kingdom, and they describe the great enemy of God as the nations surrounding Israel and directly to the north. Thus, the nation that will most likely be the origin of the Beast is the Muslim Caliphate in Turkey. The Caliphate existed between the time Rome fell and consisted of the nations Ezekiel spoke of. It ended in 1923. Thus, it was, is not, yet will be again. And that's the goal of ISIL -- to reestablish the Caliphate.
So what are the seven kings that come before? According to Joel Richardson, author of The Islamic Antichrist and The Mideast Beast, they are 1) Egypt, 2) Assyria, 3) Babylon, 4) Persia, 5) Greece, 6) Rome, and 7) the Ottomon, which lasted until 1909, when Turkey was established and, in 1923, the Caliphate was officially abolished. The Roman Empire, including the Eastern Byzantine, lasted all the way until 1453, when it was conqered by the Turks. Thus, if correct, Gog will be the eighth king. John also saw that this kingdom suffered a serious head wound and was miraculously healed, creating wonder in the people of the earth. Because the Bible is Jerusalem-centric, Richardson notes, we must keep in mind that this wonder would mostly be in the minds of the people of the Middle East Muslims. He would be so powerful that they would say, "Who is like the Beast? Who can make war against him?"
The most convincing evidence Richardson supplies is the number of great similarities between Islamic eschatology and Christian eschatology. Only the good guys in Islamic prophecy are the bad guys in Christian prophecy and vice versa. In Islamic eschatology, it's the Jews who are the great enemy, and the Mahdi who is the great deliverer; while in Christian eschatology it's exact opposite. Also, the Mahdi will be supported by a great prophet claiming to be Jesus Christ. He will do great miracles and yet "break the cross" and abolish the Islamic tax on non-Muslims. In other words, he will do great wonders, but tell Christians emphatically that while he is indeed the Messiah, he is not the Son of God, nor is he God. And by abolishing the tax, Jews and Christians will be in the position of either accepting Islam or...else, being beheaded. Yet John writes:
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. (Revelation 20:4)
Richardson's book was published in 2009, five years before ISIL shocked the world by beheading journalists, aid workers, Christian civililans, including small children. Obviously, I can't explain all the reasons why Ezekiel's prophecy is unfulfilled, but hopefully this will be enough. And BTW, all of Israel wasn't to gather to Israel -- only Judah. Isaiah writes of our day:
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people...and he shall set up an ensign for the nations and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:10-12)
Since the Lord gathered his people in the days of the Babylonian conquest, Isaiah is writing of a time in the future when the Lord will raise up a "root of Jesse" to the Gentiles, and that his death would be glorious. And in that day, the Lord would set his hand "a second time" to recover the remnant of his people, the dispersed of Judah. Eventually he will gather the rest of Israel, but for now it's a "remnant," the "dispersed of Judah." Why only Judah? Because in Genesis 49, Jacob (Israel) blessed each of his children, and he gave the land to Judah, who would maintain the scepter. Thus, Jesus, being the direct descendent of King David, through Mary, had the right to govern. Joseph actually received the birthright, and his birthright was far greater.
.
-
3
JW and Mormon Channel on ROKU
by rrb2016 inmy dad used to say that joan collins was a "poor man's elizabeth taylor.
" inow know what he meant.. well, this weekend i spent some time watching a bit of jw broadcasting and the mormon channel on roku.
after watching samples of both, i can say that the jw's are a poor man's mormon.
-
-
Cold Steel
...the JW's are a poor man's Mormon. Especially if you compare the JW GB 8 to the Mormon Elders/Quorum of 12. The Mormon leaders are so much better in their speaking abilities, the way they dress (just look at Stephen Lett's ill-fitting suit) and the production qualities of the programming and movies.
As a Mormon, myself, I've always been impressed with the conviction with which they speak. They really believe their religion and the members seem to genuinely love them. I feel the same way.
Years ago I let a friend invite me to a John Birch Society presentation. The speaker was a guy named...actually, I don't remember his name, but I had read a number of his articles and they were for the most part well written and researched. But he was a bit too conspiratorial for me. Anyway, when he came out, he was dressed in a loud plaid suit that was amber with green intersecting stripes. I mean, I know circus clowns and used car salesmen that wouldn't have worn that suit! Yet he gave his talk as though nothing was amiss. But this guy wasn't doing his cause any good.
I'm presently studying another church led by a man named David Peck, pastor general of the Restored Church of God. Speaking of conviction, he has that in spades; however, his arrogance is breathtaking. He believes Herbert W. Armstrong was the Elijah that Malachi spoke of and he sees himself as a latter day apostle. He wrote an articulate piece on the church's website about the two prophets of Revelation 11, and how they would need to be sent by an apostle because, he said, apostles outranked, or were put in authority, over prophets. He has some videos on YouTube and he writes just like he sounds. It's good to speak with authority, but there's a fine line between that and pride, and it's clear he has an elevated opinion of himself.
I've never heard any of the GB speakers, but if someone could point me towards some, I'd like to hear them.
-
10
JW's and Death
by William Penwell ini am sure this has been discussed before.
this is kind of a continuation on of my previous post.
we have just recently lost a close family member.
-
-
Cold Steel
What do most people believe about death when they've left the faith? Do they cling to the soul sleeping doctrine or just not believe in anything?
My grandmother was terrified when my JW aunt sent her some literature on death. It was supposed to make her feel better, but going down into the cold, dark grave just feet from her dead husband really spooked her. The JW doctrine just doesn't wash considering the information that's been gleaned from extra-biblical sources discovered in Egypt in 1947-48. As non-canonical books were banned in the north, the Coptics buried up their scriptures so they would not be destroyed. In this library, no one seemed to believe the soul sleeping doctrine. In fact, you really have to warp the canonical NT scriptures to get it to work. The apostles, in fact, viewed the body like a garment for the spirit that could be put off at death. Paul, in speaking of a man who visited the third heaven, said whether this man was "in the body or out of the body," he could not tell, he said. Also, based on some credible after-death experiences people have had (and conceding there are some non-credible accounts out there), I just don't see the argument for soul sleeping.
The thing about a corpse is that it looks empty -- like a shell. It doesn't just look unanimated, it doesn't even look like real in most cases. People who have discovered crime scenes often say of the body, "I thought it was a mannequin." If the body is just a shell, it doesn't take adventists and atheists too long after death to realize they were wrong. On the other hand, if the person ceases to exist, no one will know.
-
67
Preterism
by Chris Tann inwhen i started to do my research concerning ttatt, i started to see the scriptures in a different light.
one thing i noticed is that when the epistles talk about the last days, christs presence, the ressurection to heaven; the writers were speaking specifically of their time, not some two thousand years later.
even when jesus speaks of his presence and the kingdom being established, he was talking to his disciples of that time and what they were soon to expect.
-
-
Cold Steel
You know I only bring it up when someone else brings it up, first, Coft. Hope that's not you in your avitar, by the way. I always had you pegged for someone in high school.
-
67
Preterism
by Chris Tann inwhen i started to do my research concerning ttatt, i started to see the scriptures in a different light.
one thing i noticed is that when the epistles talk about the last days, christs presence, the ressurection to heaven; the writers were speaking specifically of their time, not some two thousand years later.
even when jesus speaks of his presence and the kingdom being established, he was talking to his disciples of that time and what they were soon to expect.
-
-
Cold Steel
Strange how this discussion evolved from preterism to evolution. This happens a lot when the resident atheists show up.
