Posts by JosephMalik

65

144,000 resurrected BEFORE Jesus rose?

by tula in

according to matthew 27:52-53.

(this occurred during the time when jesus was being crucified).

"and the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.".

JosephMalik

Tula,

The event actually reads more like this: 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

So it was an earthquake that broke rocks. Well what do you think would happen?

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The bodies of the saints came out of their resting places in the tombs cut into these rocks. They were resurrected physically and mechanically because of this earthquake but still dead of course. Jewish custom required that they be prepared for re-burial so they went into the holy city and appeared unto many. Who carried them and how is not stated. But it was just hours before a great Sabbath so this had to be done quickly.

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

That awful spiritualist called Greber brought this out in his translation and of course no one will touch it with a ten foot pole. But we know enough about the resurrection to know it did not happen then. For example: 2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Knowing this we should think of more realistic reasons for the event like the ones already stated about an earthquake.

Joseph

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

Note the Apostles in Jerusalem inquired with the local church about the matter

Greendawn,

It was worse than this. The apostles conspired with the local church to support the Law and outsiders like Paul and his delegation opposed them. And after Paul won the fight they ignored the ruling since they did not apply it to themselves. And this went on for some 14 and more years? That is what Luke recorded for us. But we can see in Paul's letters that the problem existed elsewhere as well if we look, And we can also now grasp the reason why Paul had a battle with them and used men he laid hands upon to make overseers in such congregations to oppose them there as well. Did Peter appoint overseers to protect doctrinal views? No! Did John or any other apostle? No! No one else did for such reasons. Jews had a tendency to do this naturally but they were not elders appointed under apostolic authority. They were appointed traditionally and Judaism was now gone as an exclusive institution. They had no real authority as only an apostle personally appointed by Christ had. Such elders no longer exist but no one seems to notice.

Joseph

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

Had it not been for the erasure of the center of Judaism and its ritual sacrifices Jews today would still continue as before and Christianized Gentile converts would still be held to the Law of Noah.

Terry,

Had it not been for the book of Hebrews maybe. But we also saw that the Jews were not happy with such an arrangement and wanted Gentiles to get circumcised as well. Only Paul stood in their way. So if we speculate then it should be based on this reality which was recorded and not one that was not. And since the Jews were wrong as proven by this book would God accept them as faithful servents? We should know the answer even if we are not the judge.

Joseph

45

Resurrection soon after armageddon or 1000 years after it?

by greendawn in

can anyone explain why the wts claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after armageddon when to the contrary the book of revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?

that is 1000 years after the saints begin ruling on earth which will occur at or shortly before armageddon.

let's remember that rightly or wrongly most dubs do not believe that they are in the class of the saints or anointed as they call them.

JosephMalik

How misled you are, tsk, tsk. What "seed" has the power and authority to "bruise Satan's head", other than Christ Jesus Himself?

BA,

Where did I say that? Oh you made it up, like you do everything else. Nothing has changed then. And you did say Jesus has the power and authority to bruise Satan’s head. You made that up as well since the scriptures clearly say: Ro 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. So do you really know anything? No need to bother with the rest.

Joseph

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

Narkissos,

Or we can say that Paul was highly respectful of them and overly cautious. After all there were other apostles involved as well as the brother of Jesus. Even so he would write: Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Can you imagine saying that such men like James, Cephas and John, "seemed to be pillars" or "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:" But Paul was still pretty new and dependent on others as he was on Antioch. Later we would see the changes Paul was noted for. I know many here can relate to this growth and have experienced something like this themselves.

Joseph

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

TD,

Exactly why they picked such unrelated things still involving the Law in some way, I do not know. They were stuck on the Law and wanted Gentiles to recognize it as well. A little was better than none at all for them. But you know that would still make Gentiles guilty as James finally pointed out. Not a good thing to do. Perhaps it was based on Laws that scripture does not record as Terry mentioned earlier. But the Jews in Jerusalem could not continue to keep the Law and circumcision while Gentiles were exempt. That was clearly wrong and dealt with later. So what happened? James ended the argument thus saving the day for the time being. What James did not do however is to apply this teaching to himself or the rest of the Jews there. And Paul did not catch it either so it nearly cost him his life many years later. It may sound like a strange story but a true one. All of it had to go. The Law, circumcision as a requirement for anyone, and that letter that caused so much trouble later for Paul. We learned enough from this to understand that we should be on our own and not dependent of such leaders. Test such thoughts. The scriptures would be enough. We may need someone to help us for a while but should be on our own when trained. We may associate with others but must be personally responsible for what we teach others. What the WT has done with all this is murderous and disgusting. What on earth are they thinking?

Joseph

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

Narkissos,

Yes but it was done to keep the peace between such Jews and Gentiles, not as a doctrinal issue and something that had a bearing on their salvation. It was not taken as a different doctrine for Jews and Gentiles thus dividing the faith. Paul did not make it mandatory either as you already saw. And the letter to the Hebrews threw it out altogether. The Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere however did not see it that way as shown earlier which was a continuing problem in the faith that had to be corrected. Eventually it would be.

Joseph

P.S. Another way to put it is to say that even Apostles and Elders made mistakes that took years to resolve. Luke recorded this one so we could understand this reality and follow Christ directly as instructed. But if we take it as truth, then why are Jews in the faith not instructed to take Nazarite vows as Paul was instructed in Jerusalem?

JM

15

Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis in

i read an interesting statement in "the new testament in its social environment," by stambaugh and balch.

it referenced acts 15 and 1 corinthians as evidence that paul later disagreed with the jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

i found the following qfr on the cd-rom.

JosephMalik

evidence that Paul later disagreed with the Jerusalem ruling and overturned it..on his own...without 'consulting' any group.

Justitia Themis,

Yes, Paul disagreed with the Jerusalem congregation, along with James, Peter and John, long before their letter was written. That is why he went there in the first place with Antioch's blessing and support. (Gal. 2:1-21) Thinking the matter was settled he left taking their letter as meaning nothing more than a peaceful gesture between Jewish and Gentile Christians. You noticed that he did not support it’s contents as a doctrinal mandate. James still keeping the Law along with apostles living there also noticed it and when Paul returned some 14 years later James said to Paul: Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. They were still wrong. His meeting did not have the required result and Paul was there to correct them once again. But Paul was now alone. He needed time to reason with them. They were ready to kill him and later almost did but the Roman army saved him. So Paul took the vows in order to talk to them. This error would turn out badly for Paul. It would take the letter to the Hebrews to settle the matter officially. Paul fought with such Law keeping Jews in nearly all his letters. He fought with James who finally gave in and wrote his letter which no longer supported keeping the Law. Instead we find: 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. And he said: James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Things were not rosy in the faith even them and there was a stuggle for such truth. It was placed in the hands of the Apostles not in the hands of the Jerusalem congregation. And even such apostles needed dressing down at times. Luke a supporter of Paul made this known so that we could understand why Paul had so much difficulty with such Jews in all his territories.

Joseph

45

Resurrection soon after armageddon or 1000 years after it?

by greendawn in

can anyone explain why the wts claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after armageddon when to the contrary the book of revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?

that is 1000 years after the saints begin ruling on earth which will occur at or shortly before armageddon.

let's remember that rightly or wrongly most dubs do not believe that they are in the class of the saints or anointed as they call them.

JosephMalik

Clear enough for you?

BA,

Yes, it shows that you do not know what you are doing. You compare the seed of Abraham in Galatians to the seed of Eve in Genesis. The only thing they have in common is a word that is being used to point to another promise. Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Or like this: Ga 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. One or many as stated here when this prophecy is applied it still is not all of the seed produced by Eve. Abrahams seed does not change the fact that the seed of Eve (a much larger number of seeds) is the seed that will also be resurrected. The seed of Eve is not changed by such remarks in Galatians. The seed of Eve will bruise the seed of the serpent as stated and win. The serpent will damage but fail to conquer this seed as stated.. Just because it sounds like something the Christ will do does not make it the same seed or part of the same prophecy. Both have a function and that is to conquer the serpent. The final test proves this point. Christ is not involved in it. The seed is on its own when the serpent is released.

The followers of Christ are not the only ones our Lord died for. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. It is this whole world, the seed of Eve that I was discussing, not the seed of Abraham or David.

Joseph

45

Resurrection soon after armageddon or 1000 years after it?

by greendawn in

can anyone explain why the wts claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after armageddon when to the contrary the book of revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?

that is 1000 years after the saints begin ruling on earth which will occur at or shortly before armageddon.

let's remember that rightly or wrongly most dubs do not believe that they are in the class of the saints or anointed as they call them.

JosephMalik

BA,

Pray away. Can't hurt.

Joseph