Posts by Justin

63

Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward in

jw
friends

ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.

[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.

and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.

Justin

I'm not familiar with the other post. When you said the statement was made by "A Christian," I thought it was any old Christian, but then I realized you were referring to our friend.

I would not use 1 John 1:5 to prove that God does not have an intellectual knowledge of evil. This text reads: "This is the message which we have heard from him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." As "darkness" is here used as a symbol of evil, the text indicates that there is no evil in God's essential nature, not that God does not have an intellectual knowledge of evil. The writer knew enough about the previously written Scriptures to realize that God constantly condemns evil.

It looks like the original thread had something to do with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Genesis account does not tell us what that tree represented, but merely uses it as the occasion to test the first couple's obedience. Some may say that the tree represented the EXPERIENCE of good and evil (a mixture of both), while others will say that it represented the right to determine good and evil for oneself. Does this conflict with God's later statement, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"? No, for on the one hand, God's knowledge of good and evil was inherent and not based on an experience of good and evil which man supposedly acquired; on the other, God had retained the right to determine good and evil which man should not have tried to appropriate to himself.

Anyway, if we couldn't have a knowledge of evil, how would us Christians ever fight heresy?

Justin

16

what does grace mean to JHW?

by evangelist in

i would like to know what the grace of god mean to jhw, and why they try to work for something that is a gift and is free from god?.

maybe some one can help with this information.

Justin

I don't think there is a formal JW doctrine of grace. Certainly the JWs would be accused of "works-righeousness" by the heirs of the Reformation. The Greek word "charis," usually translated "grace" in English Bibles, is translated as "undeserved kindness" in the NWT. (I don't think Luther would be unhappy with that!) But with regard to the apostle Paul's discussions of justification (or being "declared righteous" - NWT), it is claimed that this specifically refers to the 144,000 with the heavenly hope. They have righteousness imputed to them to enable them to run for the prize of the heavenly calling, and technically this is a 'justification by faith' because they have done nothing to earn it, but they are expected to perform plenty of good works thereafter.

The "other sheep," with the earthly hope (the majority), may currently be justified as "friends of God" similar to Abraham, but their actual justification will be a gradual restoration to human perfection during the Millennium (and they will be declared righteous after passing the final test at the Millennium's end), all the while having obeyed whatever God's law will be during that time.

Justification on any plane is ultimately due to the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in that sense there is a belief in the grace of God. If confronted with the Reformation doctrine of salavation by grace alone through faith, JWs will instinctively turn to James' statement that "faith without works is dead." If this is understood to mean that true faith is proven by works, then it is a true evangelical statement. Unfortunately, there are too many who think they are "working their way through Armageddon." There has always been the tendency in this religion to avoid cheapening grace, and to emphasize works.

Certainly, there is no belief in eternal security, or "once saved, always saved." No one believes that they have been predestinated to salvation (predestination being that of a class rather than individuals), or that God has put them in a position where they cannot possibly be lost. Nor is there a sacramental grace such as in pre-Reformation traditions.

I hope this answers your question.

Justin

17

Bible Students

by LucidSky in

jw
friends

i explored a few options as i was coming out of the organization.

nominal christianity had no appeal except that it was without the policing and punishment of the jw's.

there was no open discussion still and i didn't agree with most of it.

Justin

RR,

I've been reading in Volume V of SCRIPTURE STUDIES how Russell defined Sheol-Hades as "oblivion." The JW definition is the "common grave of dead mankind." Would this latter definition be acceptable to Bible Students, or did the Society change the definition after Russell's death?

It seems to me that, according to the current WT understanding, one must actually be buried to be in Sheol (although the individual grave would not itself be Sheol). But then, I also seem to remember than another old definition which goes back to Russell's time is "gravedom," which is closer to what they say now.

Justin

5

Heavenly or earthly hope in "Hebrews"?

by Justin in

official jw doctrine is that the pre-christian servants of god had an earthly hope.

but, according to hebrews 11:16 (kjv), "they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore god is not ashamed to be called their god: for he hath prepared for them a city.

" the nwt, alone of all translations as far as i can tell, translates this as "a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven.

Justin

larsguy,

Thank you for your post. Yes, from my own thinking and some commentaries I've looked at, it seems the "something better" for the anointed Christians is the experience of spiritual sonship during this life which the "Ancient Worthies" did not have, rather than the final reward.

If you would clarify a few points: Are you saying that there have always been a two sorts of Christians since Pentecost, some being anointed and others not? It seems you are saying that the non-anointed would be resurrected at the end of the thousand years. Also, if the pre-Christian servants are coming back to rule as "princes" for the thousand years, over whom would they rule? Are there currently non-anointed Christians who will survive Armageddon, like the WT says, and live on into the Millennium? Or are there worldly people who will be allowed to survive and become the first subjects of the Kingdom?

plmkrzy,

I've looked up the word "heavenly" in both the Strong's and the New World concordances, and it does not appear in the Song of Solomon.

Justin

12

MORE NEW LIGHT ON WHO THE "LORD" IS

by new boy in

jw
friends

romans 10:14 refers to jesus!.

romans 10:14-16 refers to jehovah!.

next-------they finally tell truth!.

Justin

The section of Romans in question is chapters 9 through 11, where Paul discusses the prospects for fleshly Israel in the face of its not accepting Jesus as Messiah. This is apparent even if one begins reading the first verses of chapter 10: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. . . . For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth." (Verses 1-4) The Jews already believed in Jehovah, and there is no historical record that an issue was made out of them not using His personal name in everyday speech. So all the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures and the emphasis upon accepting "the Lord" are intended to encourage faith in Jesus. It is the WT that has confused matters by inserting the name "Jehovah" in the text. By reading the standard translations, rather than the NWT, it is obvious who "the Lord" is.

Quotations are made from the Greek Septuagint Version of the "Old Testament," and most scholars will agree that this version, in the majority of its manuscript editions, used "Kyrios" - the Lord - instead of the tetragrammaton. Hence, the original Christian Scriptures used Kyrios in place of YHWH. It's not surprising that the WT manages, on any given issue, to find a few others who agree with its "scholarship," and can even find quotes from older scholars who used the name "Jehovah" when it was more popular. (If the WT applied their own reasoning regarding popular pronuncations, they would now be using "Yahweh" because this pronunciation has now virtually replaced "Jehovah" when used in the English language, except of course, when used by Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others.)

By their own admission, there are quotations in the Christian Scriptures that are applied to Jesus which, in the original Hebrew, referred to Jehovah. This is really a fact in favor of Trinitarian theology, regardless of the WT's attempts to explain it away. So the Lord we are told to call upon in order to be saved is Jesus.

Justin

5

Heavenly or earthly hope in "Hebrews"?

by Justin in

official jw doctrine is that the pre-christian servants of god had an earthly hope.

but, according to hebrews 11:16 (kjv), "they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore god is not ashamed to be called their god: for he hath prepared for them a city.

" the nwt, alone of all translations as far as i can tell, translates this as "a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven.

Justin

Official JW doctrine is that the pre-Christian servants of God had an earthly hope. But, according to Hebrews 11:16 (KJV), "they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." The NWT, alone of all translations as far as I can tell, translates this as "a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven." Can our JW friends explain how this could be referring to a paradise earth instead of heaven? You can do this by either (1) demonstrating that the NWT rendering is allowable or (2) by showing that the word "heavenly" in the other translations does not refer to a place in heaven.

On the other hand, those who are perfectly happy with the "heavenly" explanation need to explain Hebrews 11:39,40 (KJV): "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." If both groups have the same reward, how could the (anointed) Christians be said to have "some better thing"?

Justin

1

Ainsley's birthday

by Justin in

jw
friends

april 3rd is ainsley's birthday.

ainsley is my teddy bear, and he's three years old!.

happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear ainsley, happy birthday to you.. for he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow, and so says me!

Justin

April 3rd is Ainsley's birthday. Ainsley is my Teddy Bear, and he's three years old!

Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear Ainsley, happy birthday to you.

For he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow, and so says me!

52

WT U-Turn on "Great Crowd" (May 1, 20...

by stevieb1 in

the following is taken from questions from readers p.31 of the my 1, 2002 watchtower.

it is the wt response to the question: "when john saw the "great crowd" rendering sacred service in jehovah's temple, in which part of the temple were they doing this?".

quote.

Justin

Those who have been JWs know that the WT answer to Rev. 7:15 is to cross-reference it with texts such as Isa. 66:1 which tell us that the earth is Jehovah's footstool. The problem is, when Rev. 7:15 is read contextually, this is really not an option. In the book of Revelation, earth and heaven are separate and distinct places. That's why, in Rev. 4:1, in order to receive the remainder of his visions, John is called upon to leave the earth (in vision) and enter heaven. In heaven he sees the throne of God. He also sees the four living creatures and the 24 elders. At Rev. 4:10 John says that the 24 elders fall down "before" (enopion) the throne. Does that mean that they were on the earth and merely "in the sight of" the throne? Also, the Lamb is in heaven where the throne is. So, in John's vision, to be "before" or "in the sight of" the throne is to be in heaven. This is also why the original understanding of the WT, before Rutherford changed it, was that the "great crowd" ("great multitude") was a heavenly class.

This, by the way, is a good illustration of how using "scripture to explain scripture" - the prooftext method - is invalid if by using such a method we arrive at a meaning which is contrary to the context of a particular verse.

Does this mean that the earth is not God's footstool? No. It merely means that such an idea has no bearing on the understanding of John's vision. To understand the vision, we have to look at it through John's eyes, as best we can with the language he uses.

Justin

8

Meet The New "Spirit-Directed" Govern...

by Derrick in

jw
friends

how they believe it is supposed to work .

[li] the present annointed governing body members shall soon pass away and receive their heavenly reward, not awaiting a resurrection.. [li] having run the fine "race" to the finish, they shall effectively pass "go" and collect their proverbial $200, to borrow a metaphor from the milton bradley game.. [li] upon their physical deaths they expect to enjoy an instant transfer of consciousness into glorious spirit bodies in heaven.. [li] not going to the proverbial monopoly "jail" upon their deaths (until awakening to a resurrection like the rest of sinful mankind), they expect to pass "jail" and go directly to a heavenly "park place" filled with riches and powers beyond earthly comprehension.. [li] these men who proclaimed themselves as part of the collective "faithful and discreet slave class" here on earth expect to enter heaven to reign over mankind as "priests" next to jesus christ, who is king over the earth, for a thousand years.. how it might actually work.

[li] the present men on the watchtower society's governing body shall soon die of natural age related causes.. [li] each one suddenly finds himself hovering over and looking down on his frail aged body in shock and puzzlement, as younger men scurry about his body.

Justin

The word is "successors," not "predecessors."

10

Jesus vs. Adam-Your Thoughts Are Needed

by Mister Biggs in

this goes out to anyone (jw's and x-jw's).. i was just wondering last night about how jw's teach that jesus was the last adam; how he balanced the scales because he was perfect; how only the sacrifice of a perfect human body can redeem mankind from its sinful state.

(of course, other religion's may teach these things, too.

however, i've only lived my life as a jw so i can't speak on behalf of other faith's).. anyway, jesus came to earth and passed the tests that satan threw at him.

Justin

The expression "last Adam" is found in Paul's discussion of the resurrection found at 1 Corinthians 15 (verse 45). It is also based on Paul's comparison found at Romans 5, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (verse 19)

There is no doubt that atonement for human sins is taught in the Bible to accrue from Christ's death, and that this death is in some sense a sacrifice and a ransom. But a detailed theory of atonement is not worked out in the Bible. The WT idea of the "ransom," current ever since the time of Russell, is one form of the substitionary theory of the atonement - that Jesus died as the sinner's substitute. According to the WT, he was actually the substitute for Adam (all mankind being in Adam's "loins" - or in his genes as we would now say). Just as Adam forfeited a perfect human life through disobedience, so Jesus sacrificed a perfect human life to make up for Adam's transgression.

The perfection referred to includes sinlessness, with the potential of living forever free from old age and sickness. This is the only equivalency that is required. The equivalency is similar to that mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence - "All men are created equal ..." They are equal as human beings before the law, with certain inalienable rights. Nothing is said about their intelligence, their education, their natural abilities, and so on. Just so, Jesus and Adam were equal as PERFECT human creatures.

The fact that Jesus kept his integrity under trying circumstances that Adam did not face, as foreshadowed by Job, is another matter. The WT, to my knowledge, has never claimed that Satan was able to boast over his conquest of Adam and Eve as he could have done if Job had failed - to Satan, Adam and Eve were a piece of cake. It is to the WT's discredit that it does not accept the idea that Adam and Eve will not ultimately be held responsible for their error but will instead themselves come under the benefits of the ransom. This, in fact, is the view that Pastor Russell held and which was later changed by Rutherford. But even Job did not keep his integrity perfectly - as the WT has shown, the dialogues between Job and his three friends reveal some self-righteousness on Job's part. Job kept his integrity as an imperfect man, whereas Jesus kept his as a perfect man.

What ultimately gave Jesus' human life its ransoming value, though, was not its equality with the life of Adam. Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and as such was himself God. The union of divinity with a perfect human life gave that life infinite value, and the One who was sacrificed was not a mere creature who was entitled to his own life rights which could not justly be substituted for those of others, but the Creator himself.

Justin