Posts by Justin

108

Ressurection question

by Sookie in

i'm hoping someone can help me out.

based upon the belief that death acquits a person of sin, do jws believe that all those (jws and non-jws) who die before armageddon arrives will be ressurected?

just for my reference, can someone show me where this can be found in the bible?

I hope the other posters have by now answered your question. I thought you were an ex-JW yourself and would understand my answer, but apparently not. The point I was making was that dying is not the penalty for sin; death is. So by interpretting Romans 6 the way it does, the Watchtower is contradicting its own beliefs.

JWs believe there are two salvations, one earthly and the other heavenly. According to JWs, the people who receive the heavenly salvation must die as humans and forfeit human life forever, like Jesus did. But because they themselves are sinful, God accounts them as having shared with Jesus in his death in order that they may have the same kind of resurrection as Jesus did. The Watchtower limits this experience to the 144,000, whereas other Christians do not think it is limited to this small number. You may have friends who claim to be "born again." They would not use the same kind of language as JWs, but they are claiming to have had the same experience as the 144,000 group.

The earthly salvation is for people who will (according to JWs) actually be restored to human perfection on the paradise earth. They are not counted righteous in order to die with Jesus, but will actually grow back to perfection here on earth.

So the point I was making was that people are not acquitted from sin simply because they die. It is an inconsistency in the JW belief system to claim this.

108

Ressurection question

by Sookie in

i'm hoping someone can help me out.

based upon the belief that death acquits a person of sin, do jws believe that all those (jws and non-jws) who die before armageddon arrives will be ressurected?

just for my reference, can someone show me where this can be found in the bible?

Justin

The JW belief system, at its best, claims that eternal death is the penalty for sin. Any release from the death state is a result of divine mercy. This is not seen to conflict with Jesus paying the ransom price, as he remained dead as a human creature (according to this view) and was raised a spirit.

But there have been times when Romans 6:7 has been used as a proof text to indicate that those to be resurrected during the Millennium have paid their penalty simply by being dead for awhile. In the NWT this reads: "For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin." By taking this as a general statement with universal application, the WT has inserted a contradiction into its own theology. Where, then, would be the need for Christ's ransom at all - if all one needed to do was to die and then come back? That would amount to paying the penalty for one's own sin and still being saved! And, yes, it would also make it even more arbitrary that the people who die at Armageddon can't be resurrected, while those who die before Armageddon can.

But the context of Romans 6:7 (if you'll read verses 1-11) indicates that the ones who have died and been acquitted of their sin are those who die with Christ. In other words, they have already benefitted from the ransom and are united with Christ in his death. That is why they are acquitted. (Of course, the WT would say this only applies to the 144,000.) Why they would say that Romans 6:7 has a general application rather than one which is specific to its context is anyone's guess. Perhaps the F&DS fell asleep on the job!

6

"Theocracy" need a quote.

by JeffT in

on another (totally unrelated) forum i visit the subject of theocracies as come up in a discussion of islamic influence on the modern world.

it stroke me that jw's refer to their organization as a theocracy, meaning it is a very good thing.

yet they seem not to realize that the idea scares the daylights out of most people.

Justin

I don't believe the noun form - Theocracy - was ever applied to the organization itself, but to the kingdom of God. This was during the Rutherford era. I could be wrong. The expression which survived Rutherford for many years was the adjective - theocratic. They often referred to "Jehovah's theocratic organization." This is the expression you would need to find. I don't know if it has been used in recent years.

20

Triadic formulae

by Leolaia in

(lord jesus christ < god < holy spirit)***.

(father < son < holy spirit)*** .

(father < son < holy spirit)***.

Justin

Sarcasm aside, it would be helpful if you would state your point. It seems as if your posts are direct quotations from scholarly material which is not for the average lay person (although, in this case, the Scripture quotations alone make it easier). But really, the quotations mention no other triads except the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What difference does it make if the Father might simply be called "God" or the Son called "the Word"? Arian Christianity (including JWs) as well as Trinitariansim are both based on these formulae, and they simply define the relationships between the Three differently.

So is the point to reinforce someone's position who thinks religion is just "crap"? What is the point?

15

How can jws be so stone hearted?

by kls in

i am sure the jws do moniter these and other places, but if they are so human and they read all the heart breaking stories on the sites they pry in , how can they live with what they have done to people,i mean just us here get choked up reading what people are and did go through.

jws always say they are human they make mistakes, then how can they not have human emotions?

sorry if i am just rambling , but i can't understand how they can be just stone but say they are human.

Justin

Don't forget, too, that JWs think they are in a "spiritual warfare" - I remember phrases like "casualties of war" referring to people who leave. You might also think of "closing ranks" as the casualties fall. They can't allow themselves to grieve over everyone who may be a casualty in the spiritual warfare - they must press on toward their objective (the new world). Another military-sounding term which could be applied to JWs is "seige mentality" - they think the whole world is against them, and they have to hold out in the siege. In order to pursue this course, they must be in denial about the suffering which their religion causes.

4

Israelite history

by Justin in

taking the bible at face value, we arrive at a particular view of the history of israel.

we start with the age of the patriarchs (abraham, isaac and jacob), then we have the sojourn in egypt, the exodus, the giving of the law at sinai, the wilderness wandering, and the conquest of canaan.

the period of the judges is followed by the reigns of saul, david, and solomon; the split between the northern and southern kingdoms; and finally the exile in babylon and the return.

Justin

Taking the Bible at face value, we arrive at a particular view of the history of Israel. We start with the age of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), then we have the sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the wilderness wandering, and the conquest of Canaan. The period of the judges is followed by the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; the split between the northern and southern kingdoms; and finally the exile in Babylon and the return. The twelve tribes have been formed in Egypt, they are one nation under David, and then split into the two-tribe (Judah and Benjamin) and ten-tribe kingdoms after Solomon's death. The Israelites enter into a covenant with Yahweh at Sinai, but they begin worshipping the gods of Canaan and this gets them into trouble.

How does this sacred history compare with history as critical scholars have reconstructed it?

7

What's the latest on Passover?

by Justin in

no, not the memorial.

i'm talking about the jewish passover.

during the periods of the first and second temples, it was necessary to have the lambs slaughtered as sacrifices at the temple.

Justin

Well, thanks to both of you for that input. I guess the rabbi avoided my question because he didn't want to get into all that pagan stuff. So it looks like, if one accepts critical theories, that by the time the two motifs were conflated, the sacrificing was already taking place at the temple. But as the story of the first passover is centered in the home (with the blood on the doorposts), this made it easy for the rabbis to eventually create the current celebration once the temple was gone. But even during second temple times the liberation theme was already there.

21

Can someone be "saved" just by reading the Bible?

by somebodylovesme in

awhile back, i read one of those pages with questions to ask jws.

one question was something to the effect of: "can someone be saved by just reading the bible?

" -- and the page said the bible says that this is true, but (obviously) witnesses teach the obvious.

Justin

Possibly you are thinking of Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." I think, though, that someone who would use this passage should explain what they think it means. Is belief a mere mental acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, or what does it involve?

7

What's the latest on Passover?

by Justin in

no, not the memorial.

i'm talking about the jewish passover.

during the periods of the first and second temples, it was necessary to have the lambs slaughtered as sacrifices at the temple.

Justin

No, not the Memorial. I'm talking about the Jewish Passover. During the periods of the first and second temples, it was necessary to have the lambs slaughtered as sacrifices at the temple. This being impossible after the final destruction in 70 C.E., the rabbis developed a passover ritual which would be entirely observed in private homes.

I attended a class in a synagogue tonight in which the rabbi stated that the new (post-70) ritual was actually a cryptic reference to the Roman oppression of the first century, and had possibly maintained the character of a harvest festival until the rabbis made it a festival of liberation at that late date. I asked him if the Exodus account didn't indicate the passover was a home-centered celebration before the existence of a temple, so that there was actually more of a continuity between what Jews observe today and the ancient festival than when the temple was standing; that is, entirely observed in the home (but without the sacrifice). He seemed to want to avoid giving me a straight answer.

I know critical scholars think the Passover was originally a harvest festival that was adapted to become a festival of liberation, but certainly this adaptation did not first occur in the post-70 era (did it?). What are the current theories in this regard? I'd like to know.

7

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 3

by Justin in

why did russell see the necessity for dividing up christians into "classes"?

the distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, russell had three classes co-existing during the gospel age: justified believers, the great company, and the little flock.

it must be remembered that russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth.

Justin

O Happy Day, I accidently launched my previous post too soon. I meant to say more than just "Thank you."

I think that Russell basically said what he had to say in the first three volumes. The tragedy was that he did not leave well enough alone. But he had created an expectation of progressive revelation, and his people had to be satisfied that the light was constantly increasing. This caused him to disturb the harmony in his original teachings. The same tendency has continued in JWs today. They are not content to settle down in a tradition, but must constantly be fed "new truth" - even if this means just changing a few words here and there to give the impression of progress.

I have also attempted to show that Russell left more loose strings than the prophetic dates which, of course, would need to be revised. Rutherford inherited the loose strings. One of the first teachings he changed was to deny the existence of "tentative justification." It was only after attempting to put the "Russellite" house in order that he eventually made major changes and dumped the "divine plan of the ages" in exchange for "the vindication of Jehovah's name." For all his faults, he inherited the same set of circumstances that anyone succeeding to Russell's position would find. So it is not as if Russell had a completely harmonious system which someone else arbitrarily subverted.

But even during Russell's lifetime, once the volumes were complete, I can't imagine what it would be like getting someone interested in the "starter volume" (the first volume), knowing full well that when they finished the set they would have to unlearn some basics they had learned at the start. I also realize that my posts on the subject must sound like gibberish to the average poster, but the information was intended for whoever has ears to hear.