Posts by aqwsed12345

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood policy by Raymond Franz, a former member of Jehovah' Witnesses' Governing Body

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

Somehow the Jewish religious principle of 'Pikuach nefesh' is always left out of these matters, the stipulation that most prohibitions are null if it can save a human life. For example, this includes the consumption of blood, because all non-kosher food is consumable for a Jew if it can save his life, but even a pregnant woman can eat pork if she desires it, even on Yom Kippur. And we saw that Jesus himself respected this when he healed on the Sabbath ... so I don't understand the Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses can defend their organization's special teachings with intense passion. Their teaching related to blood is deeply shocking to non-religious critics of the JW, as well as to public witnesses who have been raised with an attitude like: "It doesn't matter if I die because Jehovah will resurrect me anyway" - which is essentially the same "logic" as the mantra of Islamist terrorists piloting the planes into the World Trade Center or committing other suicide terrorist actions: "It doesn't matter if I die because Allah will accept me into paradise for my heroic act." Of course, I'm not saying that the teaching about blood is the same as terrorism, but in terms of being a totally unnecessary sacrifice of life, ideologized with a completely distorted, god-defying logic, the parallel is valid.

Of course, many Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they don't really have to risk their lives due to the Watchtower's "light" on blood, and they start listing blood-substitute tools they read about in their denomination's publications, ignorant of the fact that just because something is available in America, it doesn't necessarily work the same way on the other side of the world. We've written about several examples where people, even children, have died here. Of course, a Witness may argue that since it didn't come through the official “channel,” Satan wrote it, and it doesn't exist. But do their own publications also refer to the fact that these things have indeed happened, that people, even children, have died because of the “light” invented by the Watchtower in the 20th century? The answer is yes, and everyone can find it in the Awake! May 22, 1994 issue, on pages 3-15 under "Youths Who Put God First." Of course, they claim that it's about God, but God didn't issue the 1961 dogma, and if these young people hadn't read about God in the Society's publications, it would never have occurred to them to ask such things from God. The article seeks to give the impression that it was the children's decision, their faith, etc. But why exactly was this their faith? Just by chance, or because the Organization taught them this? And if the organization were to teach differently, they would no longer believe this, interesting.

The authors of the emotionally appealing article also made sure to include someone who did not die, just as well, so gamble freely, after all, the odds are fifty-fifty that the doctors will be right, right?

And this is written by a person who is a Witness but has a more critical perspective, thus proving that EVEN WITH WITNESS LOGIC, children should not be encouraged to do what they do here: "if you find yourself in this situation, accept death because otherwise, you won't be resurrected."

If we start from the JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) logic that "abstaining" from blood is a clear Biblical command, then it is at most the same command as abstaining from fornication, but by no means a greater command. According to this, JWs do not make the mistake of adhering to this command, but rather in viewing the failure to adhere to it as a greater sin than anything else. Therefore, this is also an imbalance, even a satanic influence – as Satan's tactic is always not to lie consistently, but to corrupt the Truth in such a way that it creates an imbalance within the truth's structure, among its various parts. An example of this is how ordinary members feel if someone allows their child to receive blood.

They argue this way: it might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life. This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they essentially commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The question after this is only whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back, as the Biblical statement holds that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven. Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are other cases. There is a case where a married man cheats on his wife, then takes his lover as his wife, and divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood?

die rather than compromise. This is true. However, Daniel or Abraham is an example that should be followed voluntarily. Voluntarily, from an inner conviction. Daniel-like behavior should not be forced by any sanctions or intimidation. Especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.

A person thinking with normal reason cannot ignore God (if they believe in Him). In this case, the question is not whether God knows about it or not, but whether a Witness who accepts blood can avoid sanctioning by the humiliating human leaders (= elders). The question is not what God thinks about things - because we know what He thinks - but whether one who commits this sin out of weakness commits an unforgivable sin. To decide this, the following things must be realized: it is true that abstaining from blood is indeed a clear biblical command, but it is not a stricter command than abstaining from fornication. The leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not err in their logic by trying to enforce this command, but by considering its violation a greater sin than anything else, and thus creating an imbalance in justice. Concrete evidence for this is how most ordinary members explain a hypothetical situation where the outside world holds them accountable for how they would deny blood to their child if they were to have an accident. They argue: "It might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life." - This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they formally commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The next question can only be whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back; the Biblical rule must be valid that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven.

Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are more severe cases. There is a case where a married man (Witness) cheats on his wife, then takes his "lover" as his wife, and officially divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife!!). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood? Of course - one might say - there's still the example of Daniel, who would have been willing to die rather than compromise. This is true. But the behavior like Daniel or Abraham's should not be forcibly instilled with any sanctions or intimidation, especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.

The alcohol is a bad example, because many people, for example, "abstain" from alcohol, but of course, they disinfect their wounds with it and use it for cleaning.

The situation is the same with blood. The abstaining clearly refers to consumption and not blood used for medical purposes, since when the apostles made this rule, blood was not yet used for such purposes.

With blood donation and transfusion, you save people's lives. If you remove yourself from this, you fulfill the previously written rule: "If someone knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

The eating of the flesh of strangled animals, since the blood is still in it. Being the main element of animal life, it had to be offered as a sacrifice (man must sacrifice the whole of God's will, all the feelings and desires of the heart; being one of the main factors of animal life, blood, God demands it), and was considered unclean. At Christ's death, blood was also shed, since in his death our animal, sinful life had to cease; but through that, the blood ceased to be unclean, since everything became pure (see Acts 10:15), which was unclean because of the sin, which Christ took away. If the eating of blood is still forbidden here, it is not because blood is considered unclean, but out of consideration for the Jews, to ease their conversion, and for the sake of the Jewish converts to Christianity, who were scandalized over this, and perhaps would have even fallen away if their wish in this respect were not fulfilled. Later, when the pure understanding of the Christian religion became general, the Church also allowed the eating of blood.

Abstaining can encompass many things, but let me show you a logic from Jesus: "And he answered them, saying, 'Which of you shall have a donkey or an ox fall into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?'" (Luke 14:5). I think the same applies to the question of blood: if your child's life depends on whether they receive blood, will you give it to them (allow it to be given to them)? I think the answer should be clear: life is more important than this rule.

And yes, I believe that the Scripture described in the Acts of the Apostles concerning blood: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25) - applies ONLY to eating, and not to blood transfusion, with which a person's life can be saved.

18

The Messianic Prophecies and Their Fulfillment in Jesus

by aqwsed12345 in

the belief in the messiah, which has lived in the collective consciousness of humanity since ancient times, became completely obscured among the gentiles, and only remained with the jewish people, who were later chosen by god, as the prophecies of the prophets kept it alive.

there was only one great promise in the old testament from god, which awaited fulfillment!

only one great desire was there in the old testament on the part of man, longing for satisfaction.

aqwsed12345

The belief in the Messiah, which has lived in the collective consciousness of humanity since ancient times, became completely obscured among the Gentiles, and only remained with the Jewish people, who were later chosen by God, as the prophecies of the prophets kept it alive. There was only one great promise in the Old Testament from God, which awaited fulfillment! Only one great desire was there in the Old Testament on the part of man, longing for satisfaction. Christ, Χριστός, the Mashiach, lived in the ancient narratives and songs of humanity, but his figure and role appeared before our eyes in all its dazzling beauty only in the inspired visions, fervent words, and promising prophecies of Israel's prophets. He truly lived vividly only in the collective consciousness of the Old Testament people, and there is no book of this covenant – whether it be Moses's or the other prophets' – that would speak only to its own people, which would not promise, not encourage, and at the people's joyous days as well as in their bloody stormy minutes, would not at least momentarily lift the curtain of a happier future, the tapestry of Messianic times, to further increase the joy or to lift from the dust of dejection and encourage the disheartened soul of the people.

And the Old Testament messianic prophecies concerning the promised Savior's person, work, and the kingdom to be established were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Their significance lies in being powerful evidence of Jesus' divine mission and motives of the Christian faith (motiva credibilitatis).

The series of messianic prophecies is opened by the so-called protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15), immediately after the Fall of the first parents. The last messianic prophecies were uttered in the 4th century BC when the prophetic institution ceased, and with it the messianic prophecies.

The main prophecies about the Messiah relate to:

The Savior's Descent: the Messiah will come from a sinless woman's offspring (protoevangelium, Gen. 1:3, 15); Shem (Gen. 1:9, 19-29), Abraham (Gen. 1:22, 18), Jacob (Gen. 1:28, 13. 14) will be his ancestor, specifically from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 1:49, 8-10), and the line of David.
The Time of His Appearance and Death: He will establish His kingdom when the princely scepter (religious and legislative autonomy) is taken from Judah (Gen. 1:49, 10); He will appear when the rebuilt, or second Jerusalem temple, the Zerubbabel, which Herod restored, still stands, whose glory will be much greater than the first, for it will not be gold and silver, but His glory that fills it, whom all peoples desire and who restores peace between heaven and earth (Hag. 2:7-9). He will publicly appear, precisely 69 weeks of years (69 x 7) or 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem; and in the middle of the 70th week, He will be killed after having already led many to God (Dan. 9:24).
Place and Circumstances of His Birth: He will be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5, 2); wondrously from a virgin (Isa. 7:14-18); at the time of His birth, children will be killed in Bethlehem (Jer. 31:15); His public work will be preceded by a herald, who will prepare His ways by preaching in the wilderness (Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3-5).
His Dual Nature (Human Nature and Divine Dignity): He will be not only a true man (the “son of man” Dan. 7:13) but also a true God: He will be the wondrously born “Immanuel” = “God with us,” or the one through whom and in whom God will be with us (Isa. 7:14); the Holy Spirit's every gift will pour upon Him, He will be the holiest, the most righteous (Isa. 11:1-5); indeed, He will be the son of God from eternity (Ps. 2, 7), Himself the mighty God, the everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6).
His Triple Office, Person, Redemptive Work, and Kingdom: He will be a prophet, teacher (Deut. 18:18); king, prince of peace, to whom the whole of humanity will pay homage (Ps. 2:6; 72, Zech. 9:9; Isa. 9:6; Num. 24:17-19), and will be a high priest forever (Ps. 110:4; Zech. 6:12), who frees people from sin (Isa. 61:1-3); performs many miracles (Isa. 35:4, etc.); establishes a new covenant between God and man (Jer. 31:31-33; 33:34); will be the teacher and legislator of all peoples (Isa. 60:2, etc.); who will gently lead sinners and sufferers to salvation (Isa. 42:1-7); His words will irresistibly penetrate people's souls; among the people of Israel, however, His success will be small, but all the greater among the Gentiles (Isa. 49:1-9).
Concerning his suffering, death, and exaltation: as the Prince of Peace, he will modestly enter Jerusalem, seated on a donkey (Zech. 9:9); but the people's leaders (chief priests and scribes) will reject him (Ps. 118:22-23); one of his table companions will betray him (Ps. 41:9) and deliver him to his enemies for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12), but the money will be thrown into the house of the Lord “to the potter” (Zech. 11:13); his disciples will abandon him at his arrest (Zech. 13:7); as “the man of sorrows,” he will suffer, be scorned, mocked, beaten, spat upon, tortured, given gall and vinegar to drink, his hands and feet pierced; killed; his garments divided and lots cast for his robe (Ps. 22:69; Isa. 50:6; 52:14-15; 53:1-3; Zech. 12:10); he, however, as “the servant of the Lord” (Isa. 49; 50; 53) will patiently suffer for the sins of men and willingly sacrifice his life to save them (Isa. 53:4-8). His grave will be assigned with the wicked, but he will be buried with the rich (Isa. 53:9); his soul will not be left in the underworld, nor his body see decay; his tomb will be glorious, for he will rise from the dead and sit at God's right hand (Ps. 16:9-11; Isa. 11:10) and from there he will pour out the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28-29).
Concerning the effects, consequences, and eternal dominion of his appearance: the Jewish people will cease to be the chosen people, for they will kill the Messiah; Jerusalem and the Jewish temple will be destroyed, and the latter will never be rebuilt (Dan. 9:26); in place of the Old Testament sacrifices, a new food offering will be presented all over the world (Mal. 1:11); the Messiah's proclamation of peace will spread throughout the world, enlightening and transforming people; all Gentiles will enter the spiritual kingdom established by the Messiah, which will endure forever (Mic. 4:1-3; Isa. 2:2-4; 4:2-6; 66:1; Ps. 72; Isa. 9:1-7; 11:1-10; Dan. 7:14).

These prophecies all came true in Jesus and were fulfilled only in him:

The fulfillment of the prophecy concerning his descent is shown in the genealogy of Jesus provided in Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 3:23-38. The former traces from Abraham to Joseph, the latter from Heli (= Joakim), the father of the Virgin Mary, to Adam, revealing Jesus' human ancestors. The differences in the two genealogies can be explained in several ways. Matthew probably provides the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke provides that of the Virgin Mary.
The fulfillment of the prophecies concerning his appearance and the time of his death is proven by history. Jesus' earthly life falls exactly within the time when the prophecies said the Messiah must come. Jesus appeared when the scepter was taken from Judah (which first ruled as a tribe, then as kings from David, and after the captivity, as a people), as the Jewish people (Judah) lost their religious and legislative autonomy, with the foreign Idumean Herod sitting on the Jewish royal throne (Lk. 2:1-3; Jn. 19:15). Jesus indeed visited the Second Temple and glorified it with his presence (Lk. 2:22-52; Jn. 2:20). Jesus appeared 69 weeks or 483 years after the publicly issued decree. This decree was issued by Artaxerxes I Longimanus in 299 BC; Jesus' public appearance was in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign, AUC 782, exactly 483 years after the decree; his death occurred in the middle of the 70th week (AUC 783-789), in AUC 786, after 3 and a half years of public ministry.
The prophecies concerning the place and circumstances of the Messiah's birth were also fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt. 1:1-11; Lk. 2:4, 15) to the Virgin Mary, who conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38). Herod, fearing for his throne, sought to kill Jesus and slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16-18). John the Baptist, preaching repentance on the banks of the Jordan and pointing to the already arrived and soon to publicly appear Jesus and his kingdom, was Jesus' forerunner (Mt. 3:1ff; Mk. 1:2-8; Lk. 3:2-18).
The prophecies concerning his dual (human and divine) nature were also fulfilled in Jesus. Christ repeatedly emphasized his humanity as the "Son of Man" (various references provided). That he is also true God is testified by the heavenly Father, who declared Him as His Son at Christ's baptism in the Jordan (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22) and at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor (Mt. 17:5). Christ Himself repeatedly stated that He is the Son of God, not in a metaphorical sense but in a literal one (various references provided).
The fulfillment of prophecies concerning Jesus' threefold office, His redemptive work, and His kingdom is shown in the story of Jesus' life, His actions, and His religion. His entire teaching activity refers to His prophetic office, where He declared and portrayed Himself as the authorized proclaimer of great divine mysteries, particularly future things (Jn. 1:45; 5:45; 6:14; 13:13; Mt. 23:10; Acts 3:22). His priestly dignity is evidenced by the fact that He is the only natural mediator between God and man, mediating truth and grace on the one hand, and priestly prayer and sacrifice on the other (Mt. 22:44, and Paul the apostle's letter to the Hebrews, which deals with this issue from 4:14 to 10:29). His royal dignity is already heralded by the angel to the Blessed Virgin (Lk. 1:32), the Magi pay homage to Him as king (Mt. 2:2); in His public work, the people want to make Him king (Jn. 6:15), He Himself admits being a king before Pilate (Jn. 18:37); even His crucifixion inscription proclaimed Him king of the Jews (Mt. 27:37; 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:23-25; Rev. 19:16). The Gospels also bear witness to Jesus' great miracles, His founding of a new covenant (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20), as He proclaimed a new law (Mt. 5:3-7:29), new priesthood (Lk. 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24.25), and a new sacrifice (Lk. 22:19; Mt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20), and established a Church (Mt. 16:18) for the salvation of all (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15.16), to spread and endure until the end of time (Mt. 28:20; 16:18). Most Jews turned away from Him, but the Gentiles accepted Him. The fact that His work in Israel, to whom He was primarily sent, had so little success, is well known.
The prophecies regarding His suffering, death, and glorification were fulfilled in Jesus to the last letter. The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles classically prove this, detailing Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the behavior of the Jews towards Him; Judas, who betrayed His Master for 30 pieces of silver, and then threw the money at the chief priests' feet in remorse; the disciples fleeing at Jesus' arrest; Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 26-28; Mk. 14-16; Lk. 22-24; Jn. 18-21; Acts 1, etc.).
The fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the effects and consequences of His appearance is brilliantly corroborated by history. Shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, in AUC 823 (70 A.D.), the Roman soldiers under the command of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and reduced its temple to ashes forever; the Jewish priesthood and the Old Testament sacrifices ceased (see Mt. 27:51), making way for the New Testament's new, universal, bloodless sacrifice in the Mass; the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world; the Gentiles entered Jesus' kingdom, the Church, which spread throughout the whole world, blessing all its adherent peoples with the fruits of redemption.

That the prophecies concerning the Messiah were precisely fulfilled in Jesus is a clear and irrefutable proof that Jesus is indeed the Messiah promised by God, but also that Jesus is God. Jesus himself referred to these Old Testament prophecies as evidence of his divinity when he spoke to the Jews, saying: “Search the Scriptures, for... they testify of me” (Jn. 5:39); “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me” (Jn. 5:45-46).

A striking phenomenon is that although the prophecies were fulfilled precisely in Jesus, the majority of the Jews still did not believe in him and did not recognize him as the redeeming Messiah.

The explanation for this is primarily that the Jewish community of Jesus' time had morally decayed; this was brought about by their adherence to the letter of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the so-called tradition, and generally the excessive attachment to mere externalities (of which the Mishnah is an astounding proof). Furthermore, the clear vision of the Jews during Christ's time was hindered by the fact that the people were under the influence of the worldly and corrupt clergy, particularly the Pharisees, who were so enraged by Jesus' relentless condemnation of their hypocrisy that they decided to destroy this hated and despised moral judge in their wounded pride.

However, the main reason for Israel's bias against Messiah-belief was the distortion of the Messiah-idea, a fatal misunderstanding and misinterpretation that shrunk the spiritual and universal messianism of the prophets into political and narrow-minded national messianism. This was exacerbated by the fact that Jesus appeared in a time filled with political tension, in an atmosphere heated by constant Roman tyranny, when the Jews expected a powerful and invincible national freedom-fighter, a glorious earthly king, who would liberate the oppressed and humiliated people of Israel from the hated Roman rule, and even make the Romans, along with other pagan nations, obedient slaves to the Jews, or annihilate them, restoring the national kingdom and realizing the Jews' world domination.

Those who dreamt of such a Messiah naturally had no need for the Nazarene Jesus Messiah, who appeared in holy simplicity, not dealing with politics, but preaching repentance and conversion, self-denial and humble faith, meekness, peace, and love extending to all people, liberating the whole of humanity from the power of the evil spirit, founding a spiritual kingdom and a religious association that welcomed both Jews and non-Jews, and who suffered and sacrificed himself on the cross. In fact, with such great contradictions, the Jews necessarily clashed with Jesus... yet, the rejection of the Messiah (Dan. 9:26) and the stubbornness of the Jews (Isa. 49:4) were also prophesied, and thus, this circumstance, having been fulfilled in Jesus, argues for, not against him.

This fatal misinterpretation of the prophets' Messiah-idea was the cause of Israel's shocking tragedy, rejection, and national downfall... And since then, wherever they have wandered on the globe, both in the past and the present – despite all emancipation and acceptance – the social position of the Jewish people is everywhere awkward, feeling like an unwelcome foreign element among the nations, unable to adapt inwardly due to a completely different mentality; their soul, despite all economic success, is constantly restless, fluctuating, never finding true peace; and this will continue as long as they oppose Him, or until they lift Him up, humbling themselves, repenting, and returning to Him whom their blinded ancestors rejected, cursed, and crucified two millennia ago – Jesus of Nazareth, the redeeming and saving Messiah-King.

The Pharisees and scribes considered themselves perfect; Jesus lovingly but openly exposed their sins. The Pharisees and scribes were convinced that they – and only they – as descendants of Abraham, naturally deserved all the glory and privileges of the Messianic kingdom; Jesus told them that due to their blindness, the repentant tax collectors and sinful women would precede them in the Kingdom of God, for being descendants of Abraham alone does not give one the right to be citizens of the Messianic kingdom. The Pharisees and scribes eagerly awaited the moment that would free them from Roman rule; Jesus did not want to be a leader of political change and even openly said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Jesus so avoided anything that could promote the overheated national desires of the Jews that he did not even use the name “Messiah” for himself but called himself “the Son of Man,” which was also a messianic name but without any political undertones. According to the Pharisees, the Gentiles would either become slaves to the Jews or perish; according to Jesus, every person is called to the Kingdom of God.

The hatred of the Jewish people's spiritual leaders gradually grew against Jesus, eventually leading to Jesus' arrest, condemnation to death, and crucifixion.

55

If JW is not the truth, then what is the true religion?

by TxNVSue2023 in

even though i'm disfellowshiped ( & i belive wrongfully so).

i still belive this is the truth.

i have been d'f for about 8 months now and working on reinstatement.

aqwsed12345

I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, you may read THIS, and my commets in THIS topic. And THIS is also a good book to read.

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

aqwsed12345

Truth in Translation, Jason BeDuhn

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

@EasyPrompt

I see that my request to you to avoid the many unnecessary line breaks, "joking" comments and the insertion of unnecessary videos is in vain.

"Father means procreator. The children of the Father are His creation."

And yet the Scriptures still clearly distinguish the birth of the only-begotten Son from the making of creatures, and the Scipture never calls the Son a creature. It is just WTS theology. The Son/Logos is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, so He is unique in his kind, His sonship to the Father is qualitatively different, superior from that of the angels, since He alone is said to have been born / begotten by the Father, while the angels were created.

"When there was nobody else in existence besides God, God fathered Jesus."

The actions that take place (with)in God do not take place in time, since God is not subject to temporality, and obviously the imperfect human language can only speak about God in an analogical way, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:29. It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God. Hebrews 1:5 does not refer to the birth of Jesus as a human from Mary, but to his birth from the Father in the aions before "the beginning". Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning".

"After that, Jesus helped God make everything else. "

The Son has not merely "helped", cf. Hebrews 1:10. God created all creatures exclusively and directly ("alone," "by himself," "with his own hands"), there is no such thing as "indirect creation" by using a creature, the idea that a creature, a "lesser god", other than YHWH God, also participates in creation, is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6. If God created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

@EasyPrompt
Use less line spacing, clown comments, and redundant, absolutely unnecessary funny pictures and videos.

“”Begotten" means created.”

Ah…. and should I just believe this on your mere statement? I don't even understand why the theologians argued so much about this, if it would have been enough to throw in 3 (!) words. What kind of intellectual pretentiousness is this?

Well, nope. Since the Holy Scriptures clearly state many times that the Son was begotten / born of the Father, but never that he was created, there is therefore no reason to assume that he was a creature.
Just answer the rhetorical question at Hebrews 1:5:

"For which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?"

Doesn't this just prove that his origin from the Father is qualitatively different (superior) from that of the creatures? That he was born is not the same as creation? We know well that Jesus is the only-begotten God (μονογενης θεος), and not a created angel.
The Word is the real Son of the Father, and not His crearure. Birth, indeed, is not creation. For man, animal, and stone were created, but they were not begotten from the essence of God, etc. Begetting or giving birth is not creation, because by it a being of the same nature is born (begotten), whereas in creation it is not.

92

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

aqwsed12345

In the Old Testament, what terms are used to describe the dwelling place of the spirits of the deceased?

In Genesis 37:35, Jacob, who believed that his son Joseph was killed by a wild animal, says, “... In mourning I will go down to my son in the land of the dead (Sheol).”

It's impossible that the Hebrew word Sheol could mean grave or hell, since these words express two completely different things.

We can also clearly see that the Hebrew word Sheol used in the Old Testament (mentioned 65 times in the Old Testament) is synonymous with the word Hades in the New Testament, both referring to the dwelling place of the deceased's spirit.

The identical meaning of Sheol and Hades is clear when we compare Psalm 16:10 with Acts 2:27, which quotes an Old Testament passage about the Messiah. Acts 2:27 says, “... for you will not leave my soul in the realm of the dead (Hades), ...” And in Psalm 16:10, we read: “For you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead (Sheol).” The well-known Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) always translates the word Sheol as 'hades', which does not mean damnation at all.

The Watchtower Society says that Sheol or hell simply means the grave pit, the piece of land where the dead body is placed. How this does not reflect reality, and has no biblical basis, can be proved as follows:

The Hebrew word for grave is "qeber," corresponding to the Greek word "mneemaion." We must also know that Sheol or Hades never appears in the plural. In contrast, "qeber" occurs 27 times in plural. The same applies to the Greek word "mneemaion." From this, it follows that Sheol or Hades refers to a specific “place,” unlike “qeber” or “mneemeion,” which refer to many places. We never say, "This is my own Sheol," but we do say, "this is my grave ("qeber")." The "qeber" is, therefore, the place of dead bodies, or the cemetery. We do not say that a Sheol was dug, but that a grave was dug for someone. The "qeber" or "mneemeion" always refers to a specific person, while Sheol or Hades is used in a general sense by Scripture.

Jacob said this to Joseph: “I am about to die, but bury me in my tomb..." (Gen 50:5) In contrast, Sheol or Hades never belongs to a person or persons. We do not say that the body goes to Hades, nor do we say that the spirit dwells in the grave. We do not read that a Sheol was dug, and into it was laid the spirit of a man. (cf. 1 Kings 13:30; Jer 8:1; 2 Sam 21:14; Neh 2:5) The Bible uses Sheol exclusively for human souls and never signifies someone's possession, unlike a burial site.

Gehenna, a part of the Sheol / Hades, is the tormenting place for the godless. “For a fire is kindled in my anger, and burns to the depths of Sheol...” (Deut 32:22); “The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me...” (Psalm 116:3). The word "qeber" is never associated with judgment or punishment since the body placed in the grave feels nothing. In contrast, the deceased's spirit or soul in Sheol feels and is conscious.

Let there be two examples from the Old Testament for this purpose.

When Jacob's sons and daughters tried to comfort him because of Joseph, he said, "I will go down to the land of the dead (to Sheol) in mourning for my son" (Genesis 37:35). Jacob believed that his son had been torn apart by wild animals, so they could not bury him. He did not want to see his grave, but in his grief, he thought that they would meet in Sheol. We cannot say that one dead body will meet another; this would be senseless.

A more expressive example can be found in the Book of Samuel when Saul goes to the witch to summon Samuel from the land of the dead, from Sheol. Samuel says to Saul: "…and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me" (1 Samuel 28:19). This event convincingly proves that a person exists after death, has understanding, can communicate, and does not cease to be with death.

Where is Sheol? In the Old Testament, out of 65 places, Sheol is mentioned 20 times as a place that is "down," somewhere in the depths. "…and they will go down alive into the pit (to Sheol)…" (Numbers 16:30). Similarly, we find this expression in the New Testament concerning Capernaum. "And you, Capernaum… You will be brought down to hell!" (Matthew 11:30). From these verses, it could be concluded that Sheol or Hades is located somewhere down, in the depths, as Tartarus also expresses the depth or the underworld.

The Bible does not detail the specific definition of these concepts, but we can understand that Sheol or Hades represents a state into which the human spirit (soul) enters without the body. It is, therefore, an immaterial, or non-material, state.

Just as God's "residence," who is Spirit, is in heaven, which cannot be defined in space or time, so Sheol is the "dwelling place" of souls or spirits. We humans live within the limits of space and time and can only think and create concepts accordingly. Therefore, we can only imagine Sheol as a territory in a specific place. This is also reflected in the description of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man asks Abraham to have Lazarus return to Earth to warn his brothers, so they do not come to this place of torment.

It is difficult or even impossible to define non-material things with material concepts. Spiritual matters can only be interpreted spiritually, as Paul talks about sensory and spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44). The question of where Sheol is located is not really valid. It is best described as a spiritual state, described in the Bible as the "dwelling place" of the deceased's spirit.

In contrast, the usual expression for "grave" is "qeber" in Hebrew, and "taphos" or "mnémeion" in Greek. Sheol differs from the grave, among other things, in that it is found in a great "depth" (Deuteronomy 32:22; Job 11:8; 26:5; Isaiah 14:15), "gates" shut it off (Psalms 9:14; Isaiah 38:10; cf. Matthew 16:18), and that a person "descends," "goes down" here, while being buried. Although contact with the world is broken in Sheol, it is not unconsciousness but the ability to perceive and act that characterizes it. The relevant biblical places (e.g., Isaiah 14:9-17; Ezekiel 31; Job 14:18-22; 26:5; cf. Luke 16:19-31) may contain figurative elements in detail, but the accounts point to life after death. In contrast to the Old Testament era, the concept of "sheol/hades" expanded in meaning in the New Testament. Beyond the old designation applied to the whole world of the dead, the word may mean either the intermediate dwelling place of all the dead or the place of the souls of the ungodly. Differing from the above, "Gehenna" denotes the "final destination" of the damned, the eternal fiery lake. The associated reality in the New Testament is depicted as follows: Weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12; 13:42.50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:10).

Sheol

“This word is used in the Old Testament for the place of the dead . . . In the later Jewish literature we meet with the idea of divisions within Sheol for the wicked and the righteous, in which each experiences a foretaste of his final destiny . . .”
(The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962, 518)

“The Hebrew word designating the unseen abode of the dead; a neutral word, presupposing neither misery nor happiness.”
(Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1907, 994)

“While the word Sheol, does not pointedly refer to a definitive doctrine of endless retribution, but rather to a shadowy existence beyond the grave, it nevertheless reflects the belief in a future and continued existence.”
(Merrill C. Tenney, Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1967, 346)

Hades

“The region of departed spirits of the lost (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the Ascension of Christ) . . . It corresponds to Sheol in the O.T. IN the KJV . . . it has unhappily been rendered "Hell," e.g., Ps. 16:10; or "the grace," e.g., Gen. 37:35 . . . It never denotes the grave, nor is it the permanent region of the lost; in point of time it is, for such, intermediate between decease and the doom of Gehenna. For the condition, see Luke 16:23-31.”
(W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940; under "Hades")

“. . . the nether world, the realm of the dead . . . In the Septuagint the Hebrew Sheol is almost always rendered by this word . . . the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place . . . the common receptacle of disembodied spirits.”
(Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, 11)

The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older Orthodox liturgical texts which say that “Christ descended into hell.”

However, properly speaking, “hell” is theologically equivalent to gehenna or to “the lake of fire” of the “second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). On the other hand, hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew sheol – the common place or state of the reposed. Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22) were understood as places or conditions within hades-sheol. Hence, the spirits of the righteous of old, as well as that of the repentant thief and of our Lord himself went into hades, but not into hell (gehenna or “the lake of fire”).

It is true that Sheol / Hades is the abode of both the wicked and the righteous, but it was not the literal grave, as JWs assert. Rather, it is a place of consciousness, albeit shadowy and quite mysterious. As revealed in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16:19-31), there was a gulf between the wicked and the righteous, and differential reward.

Since the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, however, things have changed. Believers in Christ at death go to the Lord as spirits awaiting resurrection of their bodies (2 Cor 5:1-8, Lk 23:42-43, Phil 1:23), and the New Heaven and Earth (Rev 21), whereas unbelievers are separated from God in a state of suffering (2 Peter 2:4-9), awaiting the Last Judgment (Rev 20:11-15) and punishment in the Lake of Fire, which is their final state. The doctrine of hell has always been a belief of histroic, orthodox Christianity. It was not introduced in the "dark ages," as Charles T. Russell stated disparagingly, but by explicit teaching from our Lord Jesus Himself and the Apostles:

“The reality and eternity of suffering in Gehenna is an element of biblical truth that an honest exegesis cannot evade.”
(The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962, 519)

Qeber / Mnemeion: "Grave" in Hebrew and Greek

The Hebrew word qeber (Strong's word #6913) is the true "grave" in the OT. In the KJV it is translated "grave" 35 times, "sepulchre" 26 times, and "burying place" in 6 places. The related qeburah (STraong's word #6900) is translated similarly 14 times (see, e.g., 1 Kings 13:30, 2 Sam 3:32, Gen 35:20, Jer 8:1). The NT equivalent is menemeion (Strong's word #3419), which in the KJV is rendered "sepulchre" 29 times, "grave" 8 times, and "tomb" five times (for "grave" see Mt 27:52-53, Lk 11:44, Jn 5:28, 11:17,31,38, 12:17).

The contrast between these words and Sheol and Hades is evident. No Sheol is ever dug, but qeber is dug six times (e.g., Gen 50:5, Is 22:16). Bodies are never put in Sheol by man, but men put bodies in qeber 37 times. No person has a Sheol, but they have a qeber, also on 37 occasions in the Bible. Unlike Sheol, qeber is on the surface of the earth, 32 times. Sheol is never pluralized like qeber (29 instances). God alone puts men in Sheol (Num 16:30-33, 1 Sam 2:6). The body is never said to be in Sheol, and the spirit is never sdaid to be in a grave. In the final judgment (Rev 20:13), death (qeber / mnemeion ) and Hades (Sheol) will deliver up the dead (i.e., the bodies from the former and the spirits from the latter). It is patently obvious, then, that the Bible differentiates between one's literal grave, and the region to which souls depart and continue their existence.

Unseen place:

Hebrew: sheol
Greek: Hades

Grave:

Hebrew: kever
Greek: mnemeion

There is a separate word for grave in both Hebrew and Greek in distinction from sheol/hades
In the New Testament, Hades NEVER means the grave. "mnemeion", which is the Greek word for grave. It is always translated as Hades which meant the underworld.
The soul or spirit is never said to go to the grave "mnemeion".
The body is never said to go to hades or sheol.
Isa. 14:19, the king is cast out of his grave (kever) in order to be thrown into Sheol where the departed spirits can rebuke him (vv.9-10). In this passage, Sheol and kever are opposites, not synonyms. This distinction is maintained in the Septuagint as well. In the Septuagint, Sheol is never translated as mneema, which is the Greek word for grave. It is always translated as Hades which meant the underworld.

Many distinctions exist between kever and Sheol:

While bodies are unconscious in the grave, those in Sheol are viewed as being conscious.
While touching a grave brings ceremonial defilement (Num. 19:16), the Scriptures never speak of anyone being defiled by Sheol.
While we can enter and leave a tomb or grave [heb: kever] (2 Kings 23:16), no one is ever said to enter and then leave Sheol, unless God causes it to happen. If sheol is the merely the grave, then men should have the power to bring up the dead from sheol!

The following is a limited study of the meaning of Sheol in the Old Testament. Jehovah's Witnesses and others maintain that Sheol is the common grave of mankind, and that man ceases to exist at death. They also deny any conscious punishment of the wicked after death.

It is my conviction that the Scriptural concept of Sheol is *not* simply the grave. I believe that thorough study of the word in the Scriptures reveals it to be a place of conscious existence for souls after death. Without getting too long-winded, her a a few reasons why I believe this is so:

1) There exists in Hebrew a specific word for the grave: kever. When the biblical authors wanted to speak of the grave, they used the word kever. That they did not view kever and Sheol as synonymous is clear from the way these words are used throughout the Old Testament. For example, in Isa. 14:19, the king is cast out of his grave (kever) in order to be thrown into Sheol where the departed spirits can rebuke him (vv.9,10). In this passage, Sheol and kever are opposites, not synonyms.

2) This distinction is maintained in the Septuagint as well. In the Septuagint, Sheol is never translated as mneema, which is the Greek word for grave. It is always translated as Hades which meant the underworld.

3) Many distinctions exist between kever and Sheol. While bodies are unconscious in the grave, those in Sheol are viewed as being conscious (Isa. 14:4-7; 44:23; Ezek. 31:16; 32:21). While touching a grave brings ceremonial defilement (Num. 19:16), the Scriptures never speak of anyone being defiled by Sheol. While we can enter and leave a tomb or grave (2 Kings 23:16), no one is ever said to enter and then leave Sheol. Many other such distinctions can be found in the Hebrew scriptures.

4) God's revelation to OT saints about the afterlife was not complete. As such, much of the language used about Sheol is figurative, and incomplete in descriptiveness. Nevertheless, it is clear, I believe, that these saints understood that Sheol represented a place of conscious existence after death, and not simply the common grave of mankind. It was viewed as a place where one can reunite with his ancestors, tribe or people (Gen. 15:15; 25:8; 35:29; 37:35; 49:33; Num. 20:24, 28; 31:2; Deut. 32:50; 34:5; 2 Sam. 12:23). This cannot refer to one common mass grave where everyone was buried. No such graves ever existed in recorded history. Sheol is the place where the souls of all men go at death. That is why Jacob looked forward to reuniting with Joseph in Sheol (Gen 37:35).

5) The Scriptures suggest that Sheol has different sections. There is the contrast between "the lowest part" and "the highest part" of Sheol (Deut. 32:22). This figurative language implies that there are divisions or distinctions within Sheol. While this is not clearly stated in the Old Testament, there seems to be some kind of distinction within Sheol. Later rabbinic writers clearly taught that Sheol had two sections. The righteous were in bliss in one section while the wicked were in torment in the other.

6) the condition of those in Sheol is described in the following ways: At death man becomes a rephaim, i.e., a "ghost, "shade," or "disembodied spirit" according to Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:9; 26:14,19. Instead of describing man as passing into nonexistence, the Old Testament states that man becomes a disembodied spirit. The usage of the word rephaim establishes this truth. Langenscheidt's Hebrew-English Dictionary to the Old Testament (p.324) defines rephaim as referring to the "departed spirits, Hades." Brown, Driver and Briggs (p.952) define rephaim as "Hades, ghosts...name of dead in Sheol." Keil and Delitzsch define rephaim as referring to "those who are bodiless in the state after death." This concept is carried on into the New Testament in such places as Luke 24:37-39. A belief in "ghosts" necessarily entails a belief that man survives the death of the body. Those in Sheol are pictured as conversing with each other and even making moral judgments on the lifestyle of new arrivals (Isa. 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek. 32:21). They are thus conscious entities while in Sheol.

7) God's judgment upon the wicked does not cease when the wicked die in their sins. Thus some of the spirits in Sheol experience the following:

a. God's anger (Deut. 32:22): According to Moses, the wicked experience the fire of YHWH's anger in the "lowest part of Sheol." This passage would make no sense if the wicked are nonexistent and Sheol is the grave.

b. Distress (Ps. 116:3): The Hebrew word matzar refers to the distress that is felt when in the straits of a difficulty. It is found in this sense in Ps. 118:5. Also, the word chevel, which is the poetic parallel for matzar, means "cords of distress" (2 Sam. 22:6; Ps. 18:6).

c. Writhing in pain (Job 26:5): The Hebrew word chool means to twist and turn in pain like a woman giving birth.

It is obvious that nonexistence can hardly experience anger, distress, or the like.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

Shemot 34:20

להקב"ה שהוא בכורו של עולם
lehaqadosh baruch hu shehu bekhoro shel olam
"Blessed be He (i.e. God), that He is the firstborn of the world"

Kli Yakar on Exodus 9:14:5

בהקדוש ברוך הוא בכורו של עולם כדאיתא בספר נוה שלום
behakadosh baruch hu bekhoro shel olam keda'ita b'sefer noveh shalom
"...the Holy One, Blessed be He, the firstborn of the world, as is found in the book 'Nove Shalom'"

In this context, the phrase "בכורו של עולם" (bekhoro shel olam), translated as "the firstborn of the world," is referring to God. The text seems to be using metaphorical language to describe Pharaoh's defiance against God, who is referred to here as the "firstborn of the world." This text connects the concept of the firstborn to God, referencing Him as the "firstborn of the world." It's not referring to a literal firstborn person but is using the term to emphasize the primacy and preeminence of God.

Rabbi Bahya ben Asher on Exodus 34:20 in Mikraot Gedolot:

"Redeem every firstborn of your sons, and do not appear before Me empty-handed – anyone who has the merit of being a firstborn, it is a great virtue, and it is a hint to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that He is the Firstborn of the world. The service of offerings in ancient times was with the firstborns; thus, Jacob was zealous, and Esau the wicked sold [his birthright], despising the service of the Blessed God. Afterward, the firstborns were disqualified by the sin of the Golden Calf, and the Levites were separated in their place so that the service should be with them and not with the firstborns. Even though the service is not with them, they still have virtue and advantage over other people, because they are firstborns. Our Rabbis expounded: anything that is said to be 'Mine' (i.e., belonging to God) is in this world and in the world to come; Israel is [considered as such] in this world and in the world to come, as it is said."

This passage speaks of the great status of the firstborn and connects it symbolically to God, who is referred to as the "firstborn of the world."

Klei Yakar on Exodus 9:14

"The hail struck what was selected first, in retaliation for Pharaoh's insolence toward the Holy One, blessed be He, the Firstborn of the world, as is mentioned in the book 'Naveh Shalom,' and incidentally, the verse informed us about the flax and barley."

The term "firstborn of the world" in this context likely refers to God's status as the ultimate origin and creator of the universe. In Jewish thought, God is often described as the "first" in the sense that He is preeminent, supreme, and without beginning. The world was created by Him, and everything in existence comes from Him.

By describing God as the "firstborn of the world," the text may be emphasizing the special status of the firstborn as a reflection or symbol of God's own primacy and sovereignty. Just as the firstborn child has a particular status within a family, God's status as the "firstborn" signifies His unique and unparalleled position in relation to the created world.

The concept also connects with the theme of redemption, as it may be drawing an analogy between the redemption of the firstborn son in Jewish law and the ultimate redemption of the world by God. In this view, the redemption of the firstborn is not just a legal requirement but carries deeper theological and eschatological significance, reflecting broader themes of divine order, holiness, and redemption.

The phrase "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" from Colossians 1:15 translates to "the firstborn of all creation" and is used in the New Testament to describe Jesus Christ. Both the Jewish concept of God as the "firstborn of the world" and the Christian concept of Christ as the "firstborn of all creation" deal with the notion of primacy and preeminence.

Jewish Concept (Firstborn of the World):
- Applied to: God, the Creator of the universe.
- Meaning: Emphasizes God's unique status as the source and origin of all creation. God's being referred to as the "firstborn" symbolizes His supremacy and sovereignty.
- Theological Implications: This concept underscores the monotheistic belief in one God, who is above all and the source of everything. The status of the firstborn in Jewish law may also be a reflection of this divine attribute.
Christian Concept (the Firstborn of All Creation, Colossians 1:15):
- Applied to: Jesus Christ.
- Meaning: This term is part of a larger Christological statement that emphasizes Jesus' preeminence over creation and His unique relationship to God the Father. Being the "firstborn" is understood in the context of primacy and supremacy over all creation.
- Theological Implications: This concept is deeply rooted in the Christian understanding of the Trinity, where Jesus is considered both distinct from and one with the Father. It asserts Jesus' deity and His unique role in the process of creation and redemption.

Thus both terms use the metaphor of the "firstborn". In Judaism, it emphasizes God's unique status as Creator, while in Christianity, it speaks to the unique role and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to all creation. Both terms underscore a theme of primacy and supremacy in their respective contexts.

92

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

aqwsed12345

@Vanderhoven7

The 'sheol' / 'hades' is not the grave, the grave is in 'qeber' in Hebrew, and 'taphos' / 'mnémeion' is Greek.

Your views are contradicted by numerous passages in the Scriptures, for example, 1 Samuel 28; Job 19:26; 26:5-6; Isaiah 14:9-11. 15-17; Matthew 17:3; 22:31-32; Luke 16:19-31; 23:43; Philippians 1:21-24; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Peter 3:19; Hebrews 12:1; Revelation 5:8; 6:9-10; 7:10; 20:4. In all these places, the souls of the dead are alive, conscious, and aware.

Eternal damnation is explicitly taught in the Bible, compare: Deut 32:22, Is 33:11.14, 66:24, Dan 12:2, Psalm 21:10, Mt 8:12; Mt 25:41, Mt 25:46, Mt 3:12; Mk 9:43-49, Lk 3:16-17, Lk 13:28, Rom 2:6-9, 2Tess 1:6-9, 2Pt 2:4, Rev 14:11, Rev 20:10.15.