Posts by aqwsed12345

89

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

There's a lot of text, but it's all just an excuse, the point is that you can't refute its content :)

89

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

Instead of focusing on who they are, what they do anyway, and therefore making "ad hominem" arguments, why don't you focus on the content of the article I sent you?

89

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

https://www.4jehovah.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-spirit-body/

https://truediscipleship.com/was-jesus-raised-as-a-spirit/

Was Jesus Raised as a Spirit Creature?

Dialoguing With Jehovah's Witnesses on 1 Corinthians 15:44-50

by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and Brian A. Onken

from the Witnessing Tips column in the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, Volume 10, Number 1, page 7. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

When witnessing to those who are trapped in a false belief system, one is often confronted with "prooftexts" from the Bible misinterpreted so as to appear to support their erroneous view. The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) are particularly well-trained to present such misinterpretations of Scripture in a way that makes their arguments seem very plausible. The Christian must learn to redirect the conversation continually back to the context of biblical teaching. A representation of how such a dialogue may progress will be given here.

A good example of this problem is the JWs' use of biblical prooftexts to argue that Jesus was not raised with His physical body, but instead was recreated as a mere spirit and only appeared in materialized bodies to the disciples for their sake. By far the passage to which they appeal most often in this connection is 1 Corinthians 15:44-50.

In particular, the JWs focus on the statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom" (15:50; all quotations from the New World Translation [NWT]). They reason that Jesus must have given up flesh-and-blood physical existence in order to inherit God's kingdom. The Christian can begin his response by pointing out that Paul does not stop halfway through the verse, but continues by saying that "neither does corruption inherit incorruption." This parallel statement shows that Paul's point is that it is the corruption (perishability) due to sin, not our being human, that prevents "flesh and blood" (an idiom for mortal humanity) from inheriting God's kingdom.

For further clarification the next two verses (51-52) should be read, emphasizing Paul's statement (which he stated twice) that "we shall all be changed." The Christian should then point out the different views that are held as to the way in which this "change" occurs. The JWs believe the "anointed class" of Christians (a special class of heaven-bound Christians which they limit to 144,000) will be "changed" like Jesus by exchanging their physical bodies for immaterial "spirit bodies," while the "great crowd" (a larger class of saved people who will live on earth forever) will be raised with perfect physical bodies. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that all Christians will receive the same kind of resurrection body as Jesus (Phil. 3:21), a physical body transformed and glorified to be sinless and immortal. The question must be posed at this point, which view does the Bible here support? Is incorruption and therefore God's kingdom gained, according to this passage, by taking off the physical body, or by putting immortality on it?

Once the JW has agreed that that is the question, he should be directed to verse 53: "For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality." By emphasizing Paul's words "put on," you can help the Witness to see that we must put on to our humanity incorruption and immortality, not that we must stop being human, to inherit God's kingdom. Therefore, it was not necessary for Jesus to give up his physical existence, as the JWs teach.

At this point, the JW may back up to verse 44, "if there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one," to argue that Jesus and the "anointed class" must have "spiritual bodies," which JWs interpret to mean immaterial bodies composed of spirit. In reply, he may be asked to read 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, which says that "a physical man does not receive the things of God," but that "the spiritual man examines indeed all things." The JW should agree that what Paul means is that a physical man without God's Spirit will not accept the truth of God's word. Yet the contrast here is between the exact same two words (in Greek as well as in English, as can be shown using the JWs' Kingdom Interlinear Translation if necessary). Clearly, the "spiritual" man in this text has not ceased to have physical existence; the point is that the ultimate source of his life is different from that of the (merely) physical man. In like manner the "spiritual" body of 1 Corinthians 15:44 is not an immaterial body, but one that is energized or enlivened by the Spirit in a way that it was not beforehand. And so this verse also is a prooftext for, and not against, the physical resurrection of Jesus.

The JW may then appeal in this passage to verse 45, where Paul says that "the last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit." However, Christians do not deny that Christ is a spirit; they deny that He is a mere spirit, without any physical body. The issue being discussed in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is not the substance of Christ's resurrection body, but the source of its life, as verse 47 makes clear. Adam's life was natural, from earth; Christ's life was supernatural, from heaven. Indeed, "natural" and "supernatural" are excellent translations of the words which the NWT renders "physical" and "spiritual."

That Paul cannot be saying that Jesus is a mere spirit can be verified from Luke 24:39, where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have." This statement and 1 Corinthians 15:45 cannot both be true unless Jesus means that He is not a mere spirit and Paul means that Jesus is a man whose life is spiritual rather than natural.

The teachings of JWs, because they are built upon a foundation of prooftexts torn from their contexts, cannot stand up to a careful examination of whole passages of Scripture. For this reason, JWs typically do not work their way patiently through a passage of Scripture, as we have outlined above. Instead, they tend to flit from prooftext to prooftext in a kind of "shotgun" approach. So Christians seeking to witness to JWs should be prepared to respond either by giving a brief answer to the new prooftext and then returning to the original passage under discussion, or else ask the JW to wait and finish working though one passage before jumping to another. In this way, they can maintain some focus to the conversation and thereby confront the Jehovah's Witness more effectively with the true sense of biblical teaching.

Finally, the Christian should be prepared to follow up a discussion of 1 Corinthians 15 with several other passages of Scripture (such as Luke 24:39, already cited) where the physical resurrection of Jesus is unequivocally stated. Acts 17:31 and 1 Timothy 2:5 both state that the risen Christ is "a man." Peter cited as proof that the Messiah would rise from the dead David's prophetic statement, "even my flesh will reside in hope" (Acts 2:26, cf. 2:29-31) -- which could not be true of Jesus unless His flesh rose from the dead. In Matthew 28:6, the angel offered as proof that Jesus was risen the fact that the tomb was empty -- which of course was irrelevant if His body was not raised. These and other passages testify unmistakably to the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

6

acts 13:12 "Jehovah" or the "Lord"

by enoughisenough in

acts 13:12 nwt......at the teaching of "jehovah"....i was reading in acts and the apostles were teaching about jesus, and so when i saw the word "jehovah", it seemed out of context with the other context in acts.

( i think there may be some instances where the name jehovah may fit into acts--but the jury isn't in on that ) i went into bible gateway which lists how the verse is translated in other versions and the several others i read all translated "the lord" ( not all capitols so meaning jesus) which i think is more fitting with the context.

i really need to get another bible besides the nwt...i keep thinking i may end up with my dad's large print bible.

aqwsed12345

If something is declared as a dogma, it's not the same as when the Watchtower announces "new light". Rather, what happens is that a belief that the Church has already held is officially defined. So it's like building a pathway in a public park where people have already trodden down the grass. Therefore, for example the early church was Trinitarian before the Council of Nicaea too. However, because the Arian crisis was not such a significant trend that would have caused a crisis endangering the unity of the Church, there was no need to define it at an ecumenical council until then.

I'll give an example: suppose there's a country where there's no law enacted that forbids public nudity, and the people, by themselves, without a written legal obligation, automatically behave that way. As soon as some scandalous, publicly practiced sexual licentiousness movement starts, the state would enact a law that public nudity is prohibited. In this case, it's not that people started to dress up only from the enactment of this law, but that the societal pressure and customary law sufficiently regulated it until then. However, now that it seemed that it wasn't enough, it was necessary to enact the already existing norm as a higher-level written norm.

Only a teaching that was already part of the Church's faith can and may be elevated to a dogma. However, it is not ruled out that some theologians may have debated it until then. The Magisterium has no right to change the faith, so the proclamation of a dogma can never be something that is new in terms of content.

In contrast to the Watchtower, in Catholic teaching it is not defined here what must be believed under the burden of disfellowshipping, but what is forbidden to deny. So, as in a modern rule of law state, "everything is free that is not forbidden", at the Watchtower, on the contrary, what is "a matter of conscience" is the exception. Dogmas therefore only mark extreme values, like buoys in swimming, but you have to swim between them yourself.

And yes, it is clear from Philippians 2:5-11 that he received the title "Lord" as a man only after his ascension.

The example of the humility of Jesus Christ.
"5 Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who though he was in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a robbery, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave and being made like unto men. And appearing in the form of man, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross. 9 Therefore God also has exalted him and has bestowed upon him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven, on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Explanation:

v5. The apostle urges the faithful to follow the example of Christ in their feelings and endeavors, to become like Christ. The driving force for this humble, self-sacrificing love is the example of Jesus.

v6. The Greek text of this verse could be translated as: (Christ Jesus), who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God (in equality with God) to be something acquired by force (robbery); or the latter words can be understood as: he did not consider it to be something that he had to cling to forcefully, a thing to be clung to. Since the corresponding Greek word (harpagmos: literally “rapine,” “robbery”) is used in the Bible only here by the apostle Paul, the only way to determine its meaning is to consider the context in the text. And since the apostle then says that Christ Jesus exchanged his divine existence for a human-like existence and took on human form, it seems more likely that Christ Jesus did not cling forcefully to equality with God, but became like us, humans. Jesus Christ was in the "form of God": Christ, the second divine person, was in divine glory and majesty according to his divine essence and nature. Before the Incarnation, his form, or mode of existence, was the glorious and majestic divine existence. - Equality with God: Christ was essentially equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and before the Incarnation, he was equal in the manifestation of divine glory and majesty.

v7. Emptied himself: not by surrendering the divine nature, which is impossible, but by foregoing the glory attached to it. He renounced his divine glory and majesty, he shed it, when he took on the form of a servant and became like humans. The apostle does not simply say that Christ became human, because he wants to express the great difference between the second divine person who became human and other humans, as John Chrysostom says: he was not only what he appeared to be, but also God. He appeared as a man: according to the Greek text, this sentence must be connected to the following, thus: When he appeared as a man, he humbled himself... Let the same self-denying, self-humbling love be yours as was Christ's. Although he possessed divine nature and reality, and it would not have been arrogance to claim divine properties as his own: he stripped himself of this infinite majesty, and taking on human nature, became completely similar to humans, except for sin, and outwardly appeared only as a man (John Chrysostom, Theophilus, Augustine). Others interpret it this way: He indeed possessed his divine nature, but did not want to boast with it, to show it off, as his spoils in the victor's triumphal procession: but he hid it, etc.

v8. See Romans 8:3. The Incarnation was for Christ, who lived in divine glory, an emptying of himself, a renunciation of the divine glory to which he had a right by nature. Another manifestation of his humility was then that, as a man, he took on the fate of a servant and the death of a slave, renounced his own will, was obedient with such dedication and fidelity, the culmination of which was death on the cross.

v9. He exalted him also in his humanity, so according to his human nature. As God, he could not be exalted more (John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine): He raised him very high, placed him. - He gave him the name that is above every name: the name whose meaning, content, and power surpass all names, such a dignity that is above all dignity.

v10. At the name of Jesus: the apostle does not say: at the name of the Son of God, or: at the name of Christ, but he names the name that the Son of God bore during his earthly life. Before Jesus, acknowledging Jesus, his messianic, redeeming dignity. Clearly because the exaltation of Jesus Christ not only means that he returned to the glory he had before the Incarnation (verse 6), but also that the human nature of Jesus Christ was glorified, which was the instrument of his humility. At the name of Jesus: or before the Incarnate Son of God, every knee should bow: the heavenly ones, i.e., the angels and the saints, the earthly ones, the people living on earth, and the underworld ones, the souls suffering in damnation and the evil spirits, whose power the God-man broke. The praise of the saved in heaven, of people on earth, of the suffering in purgatory, of the damned in hell, whether these are people or evil spirits; because the damned are forced to acknowledge Jesus as their lord, judge, and punisher (Anselm).

v11. See: Isaih 45:24. (Cf. Romans 14:11) He possesses the same glory, dignity, and power as the Father. Note: in his letters, the apostle usually names the Father together with the Son, without would mention it separately mentioning the Holy Spirit, since he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, therefore it is understood. According to the Greek: that Jesus Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father, i.e., to the glorification of the Father, confessing the Son’s divinity redounds to the Father’s glory, insofar as through the rule of the Son, the creatures are subjected to the creator God, and the glory and honor from which sin has unreasonably tried to deprive him is returned to the Father. In Isaiah the prophet, the Lord God claims the honor for himself, that every knee should bow before him, and every tongue should confess him. Paul the apostle claims this homage for the glorified God-man, to whom God the Father has given that name, which is due the honor that befits God, and this name is: the name of the Lord. The early Christians called the risen Messiah sitting at the right hand of God by this name (1 Cor 12:3. Acts 2:36, etc.) and with this name confessed Christ's deity. To the glory of God the Father: just as the whole work of redemption by Jesus, so the worship of the redeemed ultimately serves the glory of our common Father, God the Father. The Vulgate slightly changes the meaning of the Greek and renders it as follows: "and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father".

In summary: Jesus Christ renounced the glory due to the Son of God during His earthly life, even accepting the struggles of earthly life and death. His self-emptying was a precondition for sacrifice and merit earning. His obedience granted greater honor to the Father than what sin had denied Him. His glorification is that, in His resurrection and ascension, He assumed the power and glory due to the Son of God, and as God-man, He is the object of our worship.

6

acts 13:12 "Jehovah" or the "Lord"

by enoughisenough in

acts 13:12 nwt......at the teaching of "jehovah"....i was reading in acts and the apostles were teaching about jesus, and so when i saw the word "jehovah", it seemed out of context with the other context in acts.

( i think there may be some instances where the name jehovah may fit into acts--but the jury isn't in on that ) i went into bible gateway which lists how the verse is translated in other versions and the several others i read all translated "the lord" ( not all capitols so meaning jesus) which i think is more fitting with the context.

i really need to get another bible besides the nwt...i keep thinking i may end up with my dad's large print bible.

aqwsed12345

The argument was that nowhere in the New Testament does it say "Jehovah and Jesus", even a basic element of WTS jargon. Psalm 110 does not at all prove that Jesus is not YHWH, since based on its context it is not about the Son as God, but as a Messianic Davidic King, in which respect Jesus is indeed a man and not God. According to his human nature, Jesus is a Messianic King, according to his human nature he is the heir to David's throne, and of course Jesus' humanity is not God, not YHWH. Jesus' human and divine natures are distinct but inseparable.

“The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).

Although he received the title "The Lord" as a human also, but by this his human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory. So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which he is really not YHWH God, but a man as the messianic king.

"Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things." (Catechism of St. Pius X)

6

acts 13:12 "Jehovah" or the "Lord"

by enoughisenough in

acts 13:12 nwt......at the teaching of "jehovah"....i was reading in acts and the apostles were teaching about jesus, and so when i saw the word "jehovah", it seemed out of context with the other context in acts.

( i think there may be some instances where the name jehovah may fit into acts--but the jury isn't in on that ) i went into bible gateway which lists how the verse is translated in other versions and the several others i read all translated "the lord" ( not all capitols so meaning jesus) which i think is more fitting with the context.

i really need to get another bible besides the nwt...i keep thinking i may end up with my dad's large print bible.

aqwsed12345

"an ambiguous use of kyrios that could apply to either God or Jesus."

You work with 'a priori' preconceptions: you logically start from the assumption that God/YHVH only denotes the Father, so if the singular speaks in the first person, as a person separate from him, to Jesus, this already proves that Jesus cannot be God. However, such usage is nothing more than WTS jargon.

When the WTS thinks of God, Jehovah, of course, it automatically thinks of the Father. It is true that the name of the God of Israel is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person, but the Godhead itself (theotes, Col 2:9), in whom three persons can be identified. The name of the second person is "the Son" (ho húios), his human name is "Jesus", and his mission is "Christ." The third person does have a name, since there is only one "Holy Spirit" in the Bible, so it is often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). Christians worship the same God with the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, they only claim that Jehovah God is more than Father: Son and Holy Spirit as well.

Talking about "Jesus and Jehovah" is a Watchtowerite, JW theological jargon, and of course can only be interpreted in this context.

In order to emphasize antitrinitarian teachings, the divine name YHWH is limited to God the Father only. This is why, for example, if a Christian says "Jesus is Jehovah", then the JW brain understands that "Jesus is the Father", which is obviously ridiculous not only for JWs, but for theologically correct Christianity. With the use of words such as "Jehovah and Jesus" also force their Arian theology, so that the antitrinitarian dogma is embedded in the JW even at the linguistic level. Cf. Newspeak.

But of course, if we expand the wording, it becomes understandable. We do not say, for example, that Jesus is "equal to Jehovah", but that the divine name YHWH is not the name of just one person, namely the Father, but rather the deity itself, in which three persons can be identified.

"Some translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew use the divine name here."

So what then? It's still unauthorized addition, just like when Fred Franz did it.

28

Did God know Adam and Eve will Sin? - JW perspective

by bioflex in

i read about this topic sometime ago in one awake mag (cant rememer which one).

and from the jw perspective, he didnt know which means it took him by suprise or which makes it seem god is not as almighty as we would believe.

this is their reasoning.. http://www.watchtower.org/e/20110101a/article_01.htm.

aqwsed12345

Returning to the concept of God's omniscience and "foreknowledge", the key is that free will is not an absolute thing that even God cannot foresee. We can speak of "possibility" only from a human perspective because, from a divine perspective, there is only certainty, as God knows everything and cannot err.

I can illustrate the matter by saying that from a human perspective, you drive a car that moves according to your control. From a divine perspective, under the route you have taken, there's a fixed track (akin to railway tracks) which coincides with the path you would otherwise follow. This may indeed seem unusual from a human perspective, but modern theoretical physics also produces similar peculiarities, which, although we find strange, are nonetheless true, see, for example, the general and special theories of relativity. Therefore, it's about the fact that with our finite human minds, we cannot imagine how our will can be both free AND infallibly foreknown by God - but that does not mean we should set aside one truth at the expense of the other, but only recognize the limits of our knowledge and accept this.

The Watchtower says that God does not know everything in advance, only what He wants to know - this solution is faulty for several reasons, including that it would mean God deliberately did not want to know certain things in advance, but then how did He know which problems it would be better not to know in advance?

So, regarding the questions about "could God have known..." etc., the answer, of course, is that yes, God COULD have done many things, but since He did not want a world order in which humans do not sin and there is no redemption, He did not create such a world. It's therefore more interesting for us to deal with this rather than theoretical possibilities.

The Watchtower states that God is not omniscient, nor is He timeless according to their teachings. Because if His vision of events that appear as future events to created beings qualifies as FOREsight, then it seems that God exists in tandem with the timeline of created beings, just as a movie viewer sees the frames in time. Therefore, God is not all-knowing, but has the ability to foresee. It's almost as if I have a future magic ball that tells me the future, but I don't know the future from the ground up, I have to look into my magic ball, so God doesn't know the future either, but he has to focus on "well, let's see what WILL happen in 1753". Therefore, God - if he wants - can look up anything on the divine "Google", but he does not currently know everything.

According to the Watchtower, this is necessary because if God knew things in advance, there would be no free will. Let's now disregard the fact that this is nonsense, because there will still be free will, just not in such a naively imagined absolute sense, but in a relative way from the divine viewpoint. However, the Watchtower, at least in theory, stands on the grounds of the Bible, and they can't explain everything away as they did with Revelation 1:7, so they have to know that God has a salvation plan, a prepared script, into which the human history will ultimately fit. According to them, God already ceased to "respect this 'absolute' free will of man" because He dared to look into the magic globe and check whether things will indeed happen as foreseen?

So, the question still stands: if God doesn't foresee certain things because He doesn't want to foresee (since then He allegedly would not "respect" the "free will"), then how did He know which things are better not to know? So, we are back where we started.

When we talk about divine omniscience and the divine plan of salvation, we must necessarily view things "from above", i.e., from the divine perspective, which is, of course, impossible to fully adopt. If God is absolutely holy, then He can only want evil (and indeed He does, because nothing happens without God's "consenting" will) to bring forth a greater good from it, not for itself.

Augustine used the term FELIX CULPA in reference to the original sin. Look up this term. It roughly means "fortunate sin". But if we think deeply, Paul the Apostle doesn't phrase it very differently in Romans 5:20: "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more". This initially sounds shocking, as from a human perspective the tragedy of the fall cuts to the quick, originating all that is wrong in this world. But all this evil, no matter how extraordinarily severe we feel it, can only be finite evil - not to mention that sin, evil, is never an independent principle in the dualistic sense, but a lack of being, a flaw. With this great, but still finite evil, God confronts infinite goodness, which He wants to bring to His chosen ones through a "winding" and obviously very painful path, from a human viewpoint. It's like when a parent tells their child: you'll get cotton candy after you've endured the roller coaster.

Or another example: imagine an extremely winding, serpentine road, which is moreover of, say, Albanian or Moldovan quality. A small child sits next to the father, and at the end of the road they ask the boy: "were you scared?". The right answer: "I wasn't scared, because my father was driving!" Somehow, we should also be able to view all the evil that we have to go through in order to finally rest on His bosom. Of course, we are incapable of doing this on our own, this can only be achieved by divine grace.

God indeed wanted man to eat from the tree, because what God does not want (at least in a permissive sense) does not happen: this is the essence of omnipotence. He wanted it, but didn't desire it. Wanting and desiring are not the same, even criminal law distinguishes between them. God's commands always express His desire, but His will manifests in the events that ultimately occur. For example, I don't desire to pay taxes, but in some sense, I do want to, because I end up doing it. It is the same with God: He doesn't desire evil, doesn't rejoice in it, but He wants it, because if He didn't, it wouldn't exist. He wants it because it fits into a complex divine salvation plan that is intended to unfold over time, which includes evil, which - I say it again - He doesn't desire but approves, because still this plan, this story of salvation, is the most optimal.

For the above paragraph, some conceptual clarification is necessary. What I call desire here can also be called "will" in human terms, but it is actually only His predestining will that is truly a will, His desire, or proclaimed will is more of a call, command, or expectation, which resigns itself to sometimes not being fulfilled. But "God's will cannot fail" (at all, not just "temporarily"), so a scenario where the original parents do not sin was never God's (true) will. To a certain extent, God also wants sinful things; in the sense that we usually mention it in connection with predestination. Because God can want in a contributing way what He does not want morally. Murder is like this. God obviously does not want sin, but "contributes" in the specific crime, since He does not stop the murderer, He doesn't drop the murder weapon back into primeval chaos, but maintains both through continuous creation. Because God participates in all acts of free will. That's why the murdered martyr can say before his death: "Thy will be done."

Therefore, my statement that "God did not desire the fall of man" merely means that He did not morally approve, did not "rejoice" in it (this is also anthropomorphism), did not have a positive attitude towards it, or the human sufferings that this fact caused for humanity as a whole. But He wanted it, and this will, which covers the entire story of salvation into a single infallible "script", is the only, true will, within which there is no assumption, but only certainty. We can only talk about "possibilities" from a purely human perspective, not considering God's being and attributes. In human terms, there is always a chance to convert, but if we just assume that God sees our actions and decisions infallibly (in advance), the term "possible" loses its meaning. In this approach, there is only certainty, although obviously only for God. Predestination tries to emphasize the viewpoint according to God, which doesn't deny, just relativizes the human viewpoint.

So, God cannot be "blamed" for the sin in the sense that He should be "faulted" for it because God is holy and

what He wants is right
in this case, He didn't perform the evil personally (which would essentially be impossible), but foresaw and planned it as
part of a larger, infinite good-oriented salvation plan.

89

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

Jehovah's Witnesses and Luke 23:43

A Case Study in Watchtower Interpretation

by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Part Three in a four-part series on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible (an article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1989, page 23. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) interpret the Bible? What sort of assumptions do they make, and what kind of methods do they use?

In this article I shall analyze the way the JWs interpret a single verse of Scripture, Luke 23:43, and the arguments they offer in defense of their interpretation. This analysis will illustrate ten principles of interpretation which JWs consistently violate in their handling of Scripture.

Luke 23:43 in the New World Translation (NWT) reads, "And he [Jesus] said to him [the repentant thief]: 'Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in paradise.'" As opposed to this most translations have something like the following for Jesus' words: "Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise." In other words, the single point of disagreement is whether "today" belongs with "truly I say to you" or "you will be with me in Paradise." To rephrase it as a question, does the comma belong before or after the word "today"?

This may seem unimportant, but it is crucial for the JWs to translate it as they have in order to support their doctrinal position. Like some other controversial groups, the JWs believe that at death human beings cease to exist as persons. That is, they deny that there is an immaterial soul or spirit which can exist as a personal being apart from the body. This position is obviously contradicted by Jesus' promise to the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise "today." By changing the position of the comma, however, "today" is shifted away from "you will be with me in Paradise" and placed alongside "truly I say to you." Thus the idea that Jesus and the thief went to Paradise immediately after their deaths is eliminated.

The proper position of the comma cannot be determined by a simple appeal to the Greek text. In ancient Greek there were no punctuation marks: indeed, all of the words were run together with no spaces between them and every letter was capitalized.

It might seem, then, that there is no way to prove which translation is correct, and that the NWT rendering is a legitimate possibility. However, such is not the case, as this article will show. And this leads me to my first observation about JW interpretation: JWs often assume that if their translation is grammatically possible, it cannot be criticized. More generally, JWs seek to justify the interpretation that fits their doctrine instead of seeking to know the interpretation which best fits the text. But there is more to interpreting the Bible correctly (or any other text for that matter) than coming up with a grammatically possible translation. In the case of Luke 23:43, there are other considerations which decisively prove the usual translation correct and the NWT rendering wrong.

"AMEN I SAY TO YOU"

The words "Truly I tell you" are more literally translated "Amen I say to you" (Greek: amen soi lego). This is an introductory expression or formula Jesus used only when introducing a truth that is very important and perhaps hard to believe. (In the Gospel of John, it is "Amen, amen I say to you.") In its form and usage it is rather like the Old English expression, "Hear ye!"An even more appropriate parallel is the Old Testament expression, "Thus says the Lord." This suggests that "Amen I say to you today" would be just as unlikely an expression as "Hear ye today!" or "Thus says the Lord today" would be.

It is highly significant that out of the 74 times the expression occurs in the Bible, the NWT places a break immediately after it 73 times; Luke 23:43 is the only exception. (Most translations follow this pattern in all 74 instances.) These breaks are placed in one of two ways. In 10 cases, the NWT has the word "that" immediately after the expression, so that the text reads, "Truly I tell you that..." (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 16:28; Mark 3:28; Luke 4:24). In 63 cases, the NWT inserts a comma immediately after the expression and capitalizes the following word (e.g., Matt. 5:26; 26:13,21,34; Mark 8:12; 14:9,18,25,30; Luke 11:51; 21:32; John 1:51; 21:18).

Unless there is overwhelming evidence from the context that Luke 23:43 is an exception to the above pattern, it should be translated according to Jesus' normal usage of the expression. This leads me to my second observation (related to the first): JWs usually interpret a biblical text deductively rather than inductively. That is, they usually base their interpretation on what they have already concluded must be true ("deductive" reasoning) rather than examining all of the relevant material in Scripture before drawing a conclusion ("inductive" reasoning).

THE POSITION OF "TODAY"

In defense of their translation JWs will point to the fact that in the Greek text, Luke places "today" (semeron) immediately after "Amen I say to you." However, had Luke wanted "today" to be understood as part of Jesus' opening expression, he could have made this unambiguous by writing, "Amen today I say to you" or "Amen I say to you today that" (by adding the word hoti, "that"). These wordings would have required an interpretation like that of the JWs in Luke 23:43. But since in Jesus' usage the expression "Amen I say to you" consistently stands apart from everything that follows it, the fact that Luke used neither of these alternative wordings confirms that "today" is meant to be understood as part of what follows. This illustrates a third point: JWs typically do not consider whether their interpretation best fits the precise wording of the text.[1] They are only interested in choosing an interpretation that, if possible, does not obviously contradict the text and which is in keeping with their doctrinal position.

A footnote in the 1984 Reference Edition of the NWT points out that the Curetonian Syriac version (a 5th century A.D. translation of the New Testament) "renders this text: 'Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'"[2] Ironically, this is not evidence in favor of the NWT punctuation, but against it. As the famed Princeton Greek scholar Bruce Metzger has explained, it is only because the Syriac version "rearranges the order of words" (not punctuation) from what is found in the original Greek that it is able to place "today" in the first part of the sentence.[3] My fourth observation is therefore this: JWs often regard poorly supported textual variations or peculiar ancient versions as supporting their incorrect renderings when, if anything, they constitute evidence against them.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "TODAY"

JWs reason that by saying "truly I tell you today" Jesus was emphasizing that His promise to the thief came on a day (i.e., the day of their crucifixion) when the faith in Jesus exhibited by the thief was amazing.[4] Although this may sound plausible, there is no evidence for this explanation in the immediate context. The text makes no reference to the thief's faith, nor is there anything else stated that would support this interpretation.

The orthodox interpretation understands the significance of "today" to be that while the thief asked for a place in Jesus' future material kingdom (v. 42), Jesus offered him a place with Him that very day in a spiritual Paradise (v. 43). This view ties directly into the immediate context, and is therefore to be preferred. This illustrates a fifth point: JWs regularly abuse the concept of "context" by broadening it beyond the immediate written context in order to include their hypothetical reconstructions of how a statement was understood originally.

"PARADISE"

The word "Paradise" in biblical times had a varied history. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century, the word referred to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8-10, etc.), as well as to a future transformation of Israel's land to resemble the Garden of Eden (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35). In first-century Judaism, however, "Paradise" referred primarily to a "hidden" place of blessedness for the righteous between the time of their death and the future resurrection. This is clearly the usage reflected in Jesus' reference to Paradise in Luke 23:43.[5]

In an attempt to show that this was not the Jewish understanding in Jesus' day, the JWs cite The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology which states: "With the infiltration of the Gk. doctrine of the immortality of the soul paradise becomes the dwelling-place of the righteous during the intermediate state."[6] In context, however, this reference work is saying that the idea of an intermediate Paradise for the dead had been developed in Judaism after the Old Testament period, and was the Jewish view in Jesus' day. It goes on to state, "In Lk. 23:43 it [the word 'Paradise'] is no doubt dependent on contemporary Jewish conceptions, and refers to the at present hidden and intermediate abode of the righteous."[7]

In two different discussions of Luke 23:43, the JWs cite James Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible to prove that there is "little support" for the "theory" that first-century Judaism conceived of an intermediate Paradise.[8] What Hasting actually says is this: "It is certain that the belief in a lower Paradise prevailed among the Jews, as well as the belief in an upper or heavenly Paradise."[9] The article also states regarding Luke 23:43 that "Christ referred to the Paradise of heaven."[10]

These two examples of misuse of biblical scholarship illustrate my sixth point: JWs often cite scholarly sources selectively and out of context, usually to support a conclusion opposite to that supported by the source. Now, it is one thing to show that a scholarly source provides evidence for one's position despite the source itself reaching a different conclusion; that is legitimate. But that is not what the JWs have done. Rather, they have all too often quoted from the scholarly work in a way designed to give the misleading impression that the source reaches the same conclusion as the JWs.[11]

The only other references to "Paradise" in the New Testament are Revelation 2:7 and 2 Corinthians 12:4, and both of them are instructive. The JWs themselves state that the "Paradise of God" in Revelation 2:7 is a heavenly Paradise, though they do not recognize it as an intermediate state for the dead between their death and resurrection.[12]

2 Corinthians 12:4 is even more interesting. The parallel between "Paradise" and "the third heaven" indicates that Paradise here is a heavenly realm, as nearly all biblical scholars commenting on the passage have recognized. Indeed, Paradise was said to be in the third heaven in Jewish literature circulating in the first century.[13]

The JWs, however, have argued that Paul was referring to "a spiritual state among God's people" during "the time of the 'harvest season'" which would come just prior to the End.[14] In other words, they claim that Paul had a vision of the Jehovah's Witnesses of today! Of the many objections to this interpretation, we may mention just two: (1) Nothing in the context of 2 Corinthians 12 hints that "Paradise" is the people of God in the last days; and (2) if Paradise there means God's people, then so does "the third heaven," which is absurd.

The JWs' handling of 2 Corinthians 12:4 illustrates a seventh observation: JWs frequently allegorize prophecies and visions in Scripture to make them refer to events in the history of the JWs, always with no basis in the text itself.

"WITH ME"

Jesus promised the thief: "You will be with me in Paradise." This statement contradicts the JWs' doctrine in two ways. First, "you will be with me" implies that all believers in Christ will live in His presence, whereas JWs think that most believers -- including the thief in question -- will live on the earth while a select few will live in heaven with Christ. Second, "with me in Paradise" implies that Christ went to Paradise, whereas JWs teach that Paradise will be on earth and Christ will stay in heaven.

The JWs explain: "He will be with that man in the sense that He will raise him from the dead and care for his needs, both physical and spiritual."[15] However, in other places where Jesus speaks of believers being "with Me," the JWs take it literally (Luke 22:28; Rev. 3:21; see also Rev. 14:1; 20:4,6).[16] There is no good reason not to do so also in Luke 23:43. This is a good example of my eighth observation: JWs are often forced to interpret simple expressions in highly figurative fashion, with no warrant from the context, in order to maintain their doctrinal position.

WHERE DID CHRIST GO?

When Jesus died, the Bible indicates that He went initially down into Hades, even down into the "abyss" (Matt. 12:40; Acts 2:27,31; Rom. 10:7; Eph. 4:9; Rev. 1:18). How, then, could He promise the thief that they would be together in a heavenly Paradise? Did He not tell Mary after His resurrection that He had "not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17)? The JWs argue that these facts are incompatible with the orthodox interpretation of Luke 23:43.

Before responding to this argument, the reader should take note of what the JWs have done. Instead of dealing with Luke 23:43 on its own terms and in its own context (which, as we have seen, they cannot do and maintain their beliefs), they argue that Luke 23:43 cannot mean what it appears to mean because that would contradict their understanding of other biblical passages. Now, in one sense this might be taken positively as an indication of the JWs' commitment to the absolute truthfulness of all Scripture. No doubt they would insist that this is indeed what is at stake. What is in fact being done, however, is that the JWs are "saving" the Bible from contradiction by misinterpreting it. That is, they are implying that the Bible as it stands is contradictory, so that it cannot be taken at face value even after all the particular features of the wording and context are taken into consideration. In short (and this is point number nine), JWs pit one part of Scripture against another part to force the Bible to agree with their doctrine. This is one of the most frequent errors of JW biblical interpretation.

A little digging into the historical usage of the term "Paradise" easily clears up this apparent discrepancy. In first-century Judaism the intermediate Paradise was sometimes thought of as in Heaven per se, but at other times was thought of as a "happy" compartment in Hades.[17] Jesus' words in Luke 23:43 refer most probably to Paradise as a part of Hades for the righteous (cf. Luke 16:22-26). That is, Jesus was not promising the thief that they would be together in heaven that day, but in the blessed resting place of the dead. From 2 Corinthians 12:4 it can be gathered that Christ in effect took Paradise to heaven with Him when He ascended to heaven.[18]

In putting matters this way, we should keep in mind that the heaven which is God's "abode" is not a physical locality fixed within our space-time universe. The physical "heavens" cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:48-49). Even if we could travel fast enough, we could not find God or His "abode" by searching the stars. Thus, language about "where" Jesus and the thief "went" should not be taken literally.

This suggests a tenth point: JWs interpret the spiritual realities spoken of in the Bible in a rationalistic manner. By "rationalistic" I mean not simply expecting the teachings of the Bible to be in accord with sound reason, but demanding that the Bible's teachings always fit man's limited comprehension. Human understanding is finite, but God in His being and understanding is infinite. In any matter concerning the essence of God or the relationship between God and His creation, we should expect paradoxes. The JWs' system of doctrine seeks to do away with all paradox. They demand a God they can understand.

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

1. Do not seek to justify the interpretation you favor, but to arrive at the interpretation that best fits the text.

2. Interpret a biblical text inductively (i.e., deriving general truths from particular facts) by considering all the relevant biblical material.

3. Seek the interpretation which best fits the precise wording of the text.

4. Base the interpretation of Scripture on the best Hebrew or Greek texts as God has preserved them.

5. Root the interpretation of the text as closely as possible to the immediate written context.

6. Do not cite scholarly sources (a) out of context, or (b) to bolster interpretations not supported by the text itself.

7. Interpret prophecies and visions in Scripture on their own terms and in keeping with the Bible's explicit teaching.

8. Interpret simple expressions simply unless otherwise demanded by the context.

9. Do not pit one part of Scripture against another part, but do interpret each part on its own terms and in its own context before seeking to understand how they relate to one another.

10. Interpret the spiritual realities spoken of in the Bible in the humble realization that God is infinitely beyond our finite comprehension.

NOTES

1 For other examples, see my Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).
2 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With References (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [hereafter WTBTS], 1984), 1279n.
3 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 181-82.
4 Aid to Bible Understanding (WTBTS, 1971), 1269.
5 Joachim Jeremias, "paradeisos," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. V, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), 766-69.
6 Hans Bietenhard and Colin Brown, "Paradise," in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 761, cited in Reasoning from the Scriptures (WTBTS, 1985), 286.
7 Bietenhard and Brown, 761.
8 James Hasting, Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1900), III:669-70, cited in Aid to Bible Understanding, 1269, and in Reasoning from the Scriptures, 286.
9 Hasting, III:671.
10 Ibid.
11 See n. 1 for more examples.
12 Aid to Bible Understanding, 1270.
13 Jeremias, 768.
14 Aid to Bible Understanding, 1270.
15 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (WTBTS, 1982), 171; see also Reasoning from the Scriptures, 287.
16 Aid to Bible Understanding, 1269.
17 Jeremias, 768.
18 On Hades and Paradise before and after the ascension of Christ, see Herbert Lockyer, Death and the Life Hereafter (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 94-99.

28

Did God know Adam and Eve will Sin? - JW perspective

by bioflex in

i read about this topic sometime ago in one awake mag (cant rememer which one).

and from the jw perspective, he didnt know which means it took him by suprise or which makes it seem god is not as almighty as we would believe.

this is their reasoning.. http://www.watchtower.org/e/20110101a/article_01.htm.

aqwsed12345

Does God's knowledge about creation change?

The assertion of God's eternity is actually the denial of something. In the ways of knowing God, the so-called "negative" theology denies any attribute of God that can only be asserted of a creature. Being subject to time can only be characteristic of a creature. We express the denial of this with the words "eternal", "everlasting". However, this word can be misunderstood, as it can also mean a duration that never ends. In this sense, we talk about the forthcoming eternal life. However, God's eternity does not mean a duration that has no beginning and no end. In God's case, the word "eternal" means that he is not subject to time, independent of time. Therefore, technically, tenses (past, present, future) would not be applicable to him, but our language, due to the limits of our created existence, cannot exist without tenses. (We note that the most appropriate tense for God might even be the simple present in English, because it can express some independence from time.) Similarly, we could not use time adverbs (before, later, now, etc.) with God. However, our language relies on these even when talking about God, but the theologian must ensure their correct interpretation. The expressions "eternal present", "eternal now" slightly better illustrate God's independence from time, because these indicate that we cannot use words precisely with God as we use them for things, phenomena of our created world. The expressions "eternal present", "eternal now" are contradictory from the point of view of earthly use. The words "present", "now" refer only to the moment without duration, while the word "eternal" means a duration that never ends. For us, people living in time, it is difficult to imagine timelessness, independence from time. The concept of time itself is problematic. According to Augustine's often quoted text: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know." (Confessions Book XI Chapter 14). Modern philosophy has various views on the nature of time. Of these, we only mention two opposing positions. Presentists argue that time is a real process, only those things and events exist that exist now. The past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist. Eternalists argue that existence at every moment of time is real existence, regardless of whether the moment is a moment of the past, the present or the future. Eternalists believe that their position is supported by the spacetime view used in the theory of relativity. According to this, time can be considered as a dimension in the same way as our three dimensions of space from a mathematical and physical point of view. In this four-dimensional space, the laws of physics can be described more simply. Just as I can move in space to the right or left, forward or backward, upward or downward, so in relation to time there is no privileged direction, just moving towards the future. (The second law of thermodynamics may determine the direction of time, because entropy cannot decrease in certain types of systems, but we will not deal with this question now.) The points, figures of spacetime are equally present, they exist equally in the four-dimensional spacetime. The sensation of time only arises from our limitation that we are not able to see the things, events existing in essentially static spacetime at once. Thus the experience of the flow of time, change is just an illusion, not reality. This concept has similarities with the position of the ancient philosopher Parmenides, who claimed the impossibility of change. So according to eternalists, the contradiction between the experience of living in time and the changelessness of spacetime is attributable to the fact that due to our circumstances we do not see the whole spacetime at once, but we only become aware of slices of it viewed from the direction of the time axis. However, a mathematician, a theoretical physicist can examine the whole spacetime, he can make statements about it. The resolution of the contradiction in this way raises questions, because it is also a change that sometimes we see one part of spacetime, another time another one.

According to some views, the presentist and eternalist positions are both present in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and this causes the alleged inconsistency that can be detected in Thomas Aquinas's discussion of God's knowledge of the world. According to Thomas Aquinas, God has full knowledge of the past, the future and the present. So for God's knowledge, things, their states and properties are present independent of time. They think that Thomas Aquinas's position presupposes that change is not real, and it is not true that only the present actually exists. Their opinion seems to be particularly supported by the way God knows future events resulting from free decisions. Certain future events cannot be known from the causes that currently exist. Such events are, for example, those that are the consequences of human free decisions. However, God knows these events in their fulfilled existence. So as if time were just an illusion, for God all things, events in our world are present at once.

Contrary to the above, however, Thomas Aquinas considers change in our world to be real, the basis of his philosophy is the distinction between possibility, capability, potentiality and actuality, actual occurrence. Change is nothing more than the transition of some potentiality into actuality. Therefore, the reality of changes presupposes the existence of such aspects as "before" and "after", "earlier" and "later". However, the school following Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas does not consider time to be a real process (like Newton, for example). The concepts of time, past, present, future are formed in the sense of things existing in time, but the basis of these are changes that exist independently of the knower and the real relationships between these. So the position of Thomas Aquinas on the reality of changes seems to contradict his eternalist position professed regarding divine cognition. It is also valid to ask whether there can be unchanging knowledge at all about things that really change in time.

The relationship between God and the world is not homogeneous, but heterogeneous. The world's relationship to God is a real one, as the world entirely depends on God. However, God's relationship to the world is a logical one created by our understanding. God does not depend on the world in any way. For instance, when we label God's creative relationship to the world as "creator," we are not establishing a real relationship from God to the world, but we're speaking of a logical, inverse relationship of the world, as a creation, to God. This heterogeneous relationship between God and the world hints at the unfathomability of the mystery of creation, God's transcendence, while this concept is free of contradiction, as it does not refer to the causality we experience in our world, but God's transcendent causality.

For a theologian, the heterogeneous relationship is particularly important in solving the above dilemma. Regarding God's knowledge of the world, the eternalist approach is correct in a certain sense. However, correctly interpreted, this approach does not exclude the reality of changes. Changes and God's knowledge of them exist in two realms, infinitely distant from each other. While the world of changes entirely depends on God, God does not depend on this world in any way. The cause of creation is God's creative ideas and the choice of divine will. God fully knows himself, and this knowledge includes how a limited existence, different from God, is possible, modeled on divine perfection. The result of God's choice for one possibility is creation. Therefore, God did not need to step out of himself for our world to come into existence. Similarly, there's no need for any external influence or departure for God to comprehensively and minutely know this world. Things in the created world come into existence and perish, their attributes change. However, this does not mean, for example, that when something comes into existence, it appears as a new object in divine knowledge. The basis of God's timeless knowledge is not information about the objects of the world, but the eternal creative ideas. These ideas, however, are unchangeable, the history of the world is present in these ideas unalterably, even though this history is the history of changes. What happens in creation entirely depends on God's creative ideas, but the creative ideas do not depend on the events of the world in any way. God is not related to the events of the world, even though the events of the world entirely depend on him. The heterogeneity of the relationship between God and the world ensures that the reality of the world's changes and the unchangeability of God's knowledge about them do not contradict each other.

For the theologian, lines of thought like the above are particularly important, because in the knowledge of divine transcendence, we can get a glimpse of God's unfathomable love, as a result of which the eternal Word became flesh, entered the changing world, and died for us, so that we would not perish.

89

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

Jesus went to paradise on the day of his death. Paradise is not the same as heaven, it refers to the place of the righteous who died during the given order of salvation history, which Christ's death and resurrection was not heaven, but "Abraham's bosom", the part of Hades reserved for the righteous, also known as the limbus patrum.

The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older liturgical texts which say that "Christ descended into hell." While Jesus was dead, the human soul descended into "Hades", within that to Abraham's bosom, also known as paradise, also known as "limbus patrum".

According to this, when Jesus died, while the disciples put his body ('soma') into the tomb ('mnemeion'), but his soul ('psyche') descended to the underworld ('hades'), and within that to the "part" of it, which was called on the one hand "paradise" ('paradeisos', Lk 23:43), on the other hand "Abraham's bosom", and in Latin theological language it was called 'limbus patrum'. And here he proclaimed the gospel to the spirits of the DEAD in "prison" (that is, in sheol) and set them free, that is, as Ephesians 4:8 says "when he ascended, he took many captives" (with him to the heaven), he therefore took the righteous of the Old Testament times to heaven, only then did the closed gates of heaven open.

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").Then there's another problem. The Septuagint ca. It was created around 250 BC. At that time, the Greeks understood two things by the word "hades". Hades, the god of the underworld, one of the sons of the god Zeus, and the realm over which the god Hades ruled, i.e. the Underworld, where, according to their belief, the souls of the dead go. This was the Greek world of faith, the Greeks believed in this. My question is: why did the Jewish translators who first translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek translate the Hebrew sheol into "Hades"? Hehehe, good question, right? Perhaps the Watchtower-like answer could be that the translators were not inspired, and apostate copyists inserted the same words into the New Testament. I am already waiting for a 'Brand New World Translation' to be published, in which, in addition to the 237 mentions of Jehovah, the ten mentions of Sheol will finally regain their "rightful place"...