Posts by JosephMalik

10

John the Baptist -- too insignificant for heaven?

by Fatfreek in

(matthew 11:11-12) 11 truly i say to you people, among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than john the baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is.

12 but from the days of john the baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.

i can't tell you how many times i used to use that verse to defend our two-class system; the earthly class which would be comprised of our friend mentioned above and us, the lowly ones who didn't have the "heavenly calling".

JosephMalik

Jesus appeared to be making the point that someone in heaven is greater than someone still on earth. No matter how great and faithful John was at this mention of him, he was still a human and still alive. A lesser one in heaven, Jesus argued, would naturally be greater than John is (at that moment) since John was still a living human.

Len Miller.

The expression Kingdom of the Heavens is not talking about someone in heaven. It is the Jewish way of saying Kingdom of God. The terms are interchangeable. Read the verse in Luke. Lu 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. Luke wrote for a Greek audience and so used the alternate rendering for this Kingdom. The Gospels do not always quote our Lord precisely but are mindful of the intended audience and we should be aware of this. So what is this all about? Will such a person in this Kingdom go to a place unknown to us called heaven? No! This Kingdom of Heaven (or God) will be right here on earth as promised. Entry is possible only be being selected for this Kingdom either by being resurrected of changed. Furthermore despite John's greatness, he was still mortal. Anyone that that gains entry into this promised Kingdom will be an immortal. But there is something else more important. The NIV renders this more clearly like this: 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. So what does this mean? Up until now the Law provided the vehicle for salvation or entry pointing to such a Kingdom to come. But now since John we have an opportunity to become a part of its administration (Kingdom) and not just a great crowd associated with it's Paradise. Our Lord is not excluding John from being a part of its administration. After all John was there alive and in time for such an administration. In fact forceful men like John would lay hold of it just as our Lord promised. But that would be then in this projected Kingdom since any such administrator at that time would be greater than this very great prophet John was now.

Joseph

91

The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF in

it struck me this past year, with respect to jw teachings about the timing of genesis 1, that even in things that really have no impact on what most jws think of as "core doctrine" the watchtower society sticks to its traditions over what the bible says.

this was again brought home in the september, 2006 awake!

17 between me and the sons of israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself.

JosephMalik

The point is that in order for the earth to be billions of years old, and the days of creation to NOT encompass billions of years, you've got to pull the creation of the earth itself out of those creative days. This is the teaching of the Watchtower, and I believe, your view as well.

TheMadChristian,

Well it is not mine. But then I see words differently and am not bound by traditional views. And I do not see the context in the same way many here do. Where so many think that words like "all things" in John 1:3 mean everything, I do not and provided evidence for this view. In Genesis we find: 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Now we have a clear identity for the now orderly atmosphere called Heaven in this context and it is not the entire universe. So when this specific account of creation was being introduced and the word heaven was used: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. How did the disorderly atmosphere that surrounded this planet at the time suddenly become the universe in this introduction? Was it not simply a disorderly Heavens that were not yet clarified and officially named? This is after all nothing more than a simple introduction to the events that would now be described in more detail? And if we accept the plural translations of the word and expand it out to include the entire universe we still are only are describing the earth, a very small portion of a continuing process in Genesis and not the whole evening and morning of it all. Thus Young's translates it this way: 1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth— If we decide to be less picky and simply take it as a simplified description of how we came to have life on this planet, a process that took both time and effort an investment on God's part then maybe we would be better off?

Joseph

91

The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF in

it struck me this past year, with respect to jw teachings about the timing of genesis 1, that even in things that really have no impact on what most jws think of as "core doctrine" the watchtower society sticks to its traditions over what the bible says.

this was again brought home in the september, 2006 awake!

17 between me and the sons of israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself.

JosephMalik

What purpose does God have in causing a book to be written that is so ambiguous and interpreted in so many different ways and then your life everlasting is suppose to depend on accepting it or else.

Blueblade,

The Bible as we now know it had a struggle just to get here without serious alteration from among the many things written like it. And it had to function properly even if it was tampered with to provide us a usable guide to life. The very thing you complain about is what has protected it all this time. Its complexity made it's adulteration difficult and exposed such attempts when they did creep in. It may be explained like this: Da 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

Joseph

91

The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF in

it struck me this past year, with respect to jw teachings about the timing of genesis 1, that even in things that really have no impact on what most jws think of as "core doctrine" the watchtower society sticks to its traditions over what the bible says.

this was again brought home in the september, 2006 awake!

17 between me and the sons of israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself.

JosephMalik

It's not likely that God would curse the ground on the very same day that he had already blessed and made sacred. Thus, any reference to "God's rest day" in places like Hebrews 4:3 must refer to some other kind of rest.

AlanF,

The scriptures are not saying that God ceased to function simply because of Man's indiscretion. After all the Word was assigned to deal with human affairs and would continue to do so in God’s behalf. The creation of this world on this planet is all that is being discussed in the texts anyway. Hebrews therefore is not talking about some other kind of rest but simply discusses our place in this same rest in which we now live, as not everyone will qualify to continue to be a part of it and we have been warned.

Joseph

91

The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF in

it struck me this past year, with respect to jw teachings about the timing of genesis 1, that even in things that really have no impact on what most jws think of as "core doctrine" the watchtower society sticks to its traditions over what the bible says.

this was again brought home in the september, 2006 awake!

17 between me and the sons of israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself.

JosephMalik

And if anyone wants to argue that the days are lengthy periods of time, one must explain how these time periods included alternating epochs of light and darkness with mornings and evenings. That indicates better than anything else what kind of "day" the author had in mind here (tho one could also mention how the seventh day was identified as the "sabbath").

Leolaia,

Simple. Mornings and evenings were used as expressions depicting the beginning and the end of the epoch in question called day. Ge 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here evening and morning are distinct from day and night and not combined with it as you did in your argument. The words simply bracket the entire event. Many times on this board words with multiple applications have been identified as this is common use for them. Blanket statements that this cannot be so do not nullify such facts. Other texts using the same word differently do not alter this reality. Many examples where the word day embraces events exceeding 24 hours are simply ignored, something a simple look up will reveal. The day of rest that makes up the seventh day has continued from such time of creation and is still continuing. Ge 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. Heb 4:3 "For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:" While some here deny that days can represent epochs exceeding literal 24 hour days, the scriptures do not and support such use. And no one here knows how long each day or epoch was, if they were of equal length or not or when such a senventh day will end. All we have is speculation not proof.

Joseph

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

JosephMalik

So, we moderns need to do some study to understand the thought world which "John" inhabited and took for granted that his readers and hearers understood.

Martin,

This is what I did. All this hoopla about how the verse should be translated is not where the answer is. It is a distraction to the point where it has concealed such understanding for thousands of years. That is why it keeps getting recycled over and over. How much of this is enough? What we should be doing is: 2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Joseph

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

JosephMalik

Martin,

All this analysis of the Grammar of John 1:1 with comparisons to other texts always seemed like a waste of time to me. Why? Because it makes no difference if we translate the verse God, god, a god or divine. The title God is not identity. We assume identity or may attach identity to it but the word itself leaves that up to the reader and a Jewish reader should know better. The title God has multiple definitions in its own right regardless of whether the definite article appears before it or not. And we always see work-a-rounds and excuses to such use in other texts when its use does not fit some pre-conceived theology. So what is going on here?

John was not interested in establishing the identity of the Word in this text by trying to teach us that this Word was somehow another person of the God it was with. The verse clearly enough teaches that they were separate and distinct in their own right, not one and the same Person or Being. What then was John doing? John was adding an addendum to the genealogy lists already provided in the other Gospels, both of which were incomplete. He took such lists further back in time than Abraham or Adam. John’s Gospel is full of such fills and interleaves with them. He would not only here but also throughout his Gospel establish a pre-human existence for this Word, the one that would become the Christ and maintains continuity with such existence even as such lists did for his human lineage. John was intent on telling us precisely where our life came from, who our literal creator was, who authorized such creation the continuity of which made this Word the only one qualified to take over the responsibility for all the life and humanity flowing from Adam’s life. This was possible because the life originally came from the Word in the beginning of human creation. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. We learn this from John early on as he qualifies who this Word called God was. The Word is our God by virtue of the authority imparted to him by God to produce the human race. The Kings of Israel by virtue of the authority imparted on them were called God for similar reasons. The title God could be used by men or others, human or not, good or bad, without making two Gods of identical nature and Being and confusing such use.

Joseph

25

1 Pet 3:18 & 1 Cor. 15:45--resurrection

by M.J. in

in citing 1 pet 3:18, the wts says christ being made alive "in the spirit" means he became a spirit.

but does being raised "in the spirit" mean the same as being raised "as a spirit"?

my thought is that in the nt, when one is "in" something or someone, it describes the realm that person is in.

JosephMalik

In 2 Corinthians 5 the heavenly body (the "building" opposed to the earthly "tent") is pictured as already existing in heaven:

Narkissos,

Such positive statements were assurances to the Faith of the certainty of the promises already made by Paul. This was a guarantee to them as if it already happened to them because of their Faith in Christ the one that will perform such tasks and now existing in such heavens. But we also know that this is also a projection or look into the future when such promises made by Christ will be fulfilled literally by Him for Paul also continued to say: 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

We find similar assurances regarding our Justification or being Saved as if we have already escaped such judgment. Yet we should never lose sight of the fact that: Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. And so "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ." The scriptures simply do not prejudge our intentions and keep this positive attitude as if a favorable outcome for us is inevitable.

Narkissos: The next (probably post-Pauline) step occurs when what is already is heaven is regarded as the true being of Christians who, while physically on earth, are already (spiritually) resurrected in heaven with Christ. What is expected, then, is no longer a resurrection but a revelation or manifestation of this true being, e.g. Colossians 3: So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.

Such verses are dealing with our being born again in Christ and thus raised with Him to a new found status continuing Paul's theme regarding our Justification or being Saved. Our being dead to sin is not dealing with the resurrected nature we will some day literally attain. Christ as judge is mindful of our existence so our hope continues (not a literal existence in some non-human form) by being hidden with Christ. It leaves all that to this future time when we will be revealed with him in glory. What is expected then is still a physical and human resurrection (John 11:24,25) since such hidden ones will be favorably judged at such a time and revealed to the world. It remains true that despite attempts to speed up matters as the WT and some others are doing making more of such texts than intended that: 2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The few easily explained instances where our Lord was not recognized after His resurrection are overshadowed by the 40 days that our Lord walked and talked with his disciples. Such attempts at spiritualizing a man that could conceal himself in the midst of a crowd trying to kill him (Luke 4:30) are countered when we learn. Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Joseph

25

1 Pet 3:18 & 1 Cor. 15:45--resurrection

by M.J. in

in citing 1 pet 3:18, the wts says christ being made alive "in the spirit" means he became a spirit.

but does being raised "in the spirit" mean the same as being raised "as a spirit"?

my thought is that in the nt, when one is "in" something or someone, it describes the realm that person is in.

JosephMalik

In citing 1 Pet 3:18, the WTS says Christ being made alive "in the spirit" means he became a spirit. But does being raised "in the spirit" mean the same as being raised "as a spirit"?

M.J.

First the verse:

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit. (NIV). Using the word Spirit as an alternate for the word God to which it refers here is not uncommon. Spirit or holy Spirit is a complex term that can mean something different every time it is used. Stay with the text and try to get it’s meaning that way. The next verse will clear some of this up for you. 19 through whom (through or by who?) (by the expressed will of the God or Spirit that raised Him) also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. These spirits in prison were of course taken from the nation of Israel, His own disciples to which he preached the Kingdom of God for some 40 more days after such a resurrection or being made alive. They were now between covenants and would remain such prisoners to sin until the ransom was accepted by God. The complexity of the resurrection itself be it in non-human or human form or some combination of both is not being described by Peter. Only the purpose of such ministry is now being discussed. All this we know was done in the flesh as our Lord walked among them to conclude this ministry as a human being. Using the word spirit to designate God, the Faith or some member in this faith is also not uncommon and we find it used this way in Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." So just what the nature or Christ was in precise terms such as human or non-human or a hypostasis nature we will not learn from this verse. What we should all have come to understand however is that by this time this resurrected Christ that was raised by God and walked on this earth in the flesh was human, immortal and visible to His disciples. In fact the body they all saw was the very same one that was executed. The body He raised personally as promised with God's expressed permission.

1 Cor. 15:45 says Adam became a living soul, and the "last Adam" became a life-giving spirit.

M.J. Is this in reference to his resurrection body?

Paul is still responding to the letter the Corinthians sent to him in which they discussed many features and doctrines they were supporting in Corinth among the Jewish and Gentile believers. Paul has been correcting their thinking and could reply to them from personal experience which was what? His encounter with the non-human resurrected Christ, which blinded him. Paul knew that this "last Adam" this human description of the now resurrected Christ was significantly different from that original Adam. Paul had an encounter with His non-human nature which when combined with its human or Adamic origin can now be described as a "life-giving spirit." (a more than human being with a specific purpose to give life to the human race). And Paul was careful to single out this human nature, this human side of the Christ as the nature we will receive from him. John also knew all this and described the dual nature of the resurrected Christ in simpler terms. In all this Paul was simply trying to show us that our new resurrected human bodies that were originally sown as a (human) seed would some day not only be human but immortal, a gift from God or spiritual, something Adam never attained (but should have). Paul also knew that both human and non-human natures were now a part of this Christ and He could now be referenced either way without contradiction.

Joseph

30

John 1:3

by VanillaMocha73 in

how do jw's get around this verse?

john 1:3 - "3through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

" i honestly can't remember and can't find anything in the pubs that deals with it.

JosephMalik

Lesterd,

No.

Joseph