the wts uses john 3:13 to prove that before jesus no one was taken to heaven.. in the nwt, john 3:13 reads:"moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the son of man.".
notice a difference to the king james bible:.
john 3:13 - "and no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven.
flamegrilled
You should be aware that the translators of the King James version took the liberty to add the "worms", supposedly to add clarity to the text; However it doesn't exist in the original hebrew text.
Eden
Yes, I did know that. I was only really including it as an addendum to what I'd already written.
It still reads that way in NWT and others to me, as per my "phrase by phrase" comments (which maybe you didn't notice)
the wts uses john 3:13 to prove that before jesus no one was taken to heaven.. in the nwt, john 3:13 reads:"moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the son of man.".
notice a difference to the king james bible:.
john 3:13 - "and no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven.
Oops. I think this topic derailed
Eden - I like you points on Job 19 and have wondered about that myself, although the language still sounds as though he expected to see God (in the form of the redeemer) on earth and in the flesh.
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
[so this meeting would be as a result of the redeemer standing on earth, not Job going to another realm]
Even after my skin is destroyed,
[after the first death]
Yet from my flesh I shall see God
[so the flesh would have to be restored and the the resurrection earthly]
King James: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God
So to me it sounds like it describes a restoring of the flesh, rather than a transformation to spirit.
FG
i am an inactive jw.
i havent been on this forum for a few months and have been lurking in others.
i have met a few people in real life and online, both on this forum and on others.
Re AAWA:
(Acts 5:38) And so, under the present circumstances, I say to YOU, Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone; (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown;
i watched a couple daniel clark videos on youtube (simple but interesting btw) and he mentioned the revelation book is no longer in print.. is that true??
what other books did we grow up with that are out of print?.
truth booklive forever book(old) united in worship(old) evolution/creation bookthose seem to be the biggies.
Re: the OP
It is most certainly still in print. The congregations can order it, although it is flagged as "Not a field-service campaign item" so they should not order it in any significant quantity.
my wife got me started watching this show last year.
we've downloaded the previous seasons on netflix and have found it to be really well done.
the story line, scenery,costumes,old cars and compelling characters have us hooked.
First class TV. What I have come to appreciate is that there are no "fillers" in the dialogue and plot. It is very carefully written so that everything said has some bearing on the ongoing shift in social and class structure that is taking place. Good cast. Good production. Nothing bad to say really. And I am not a general fan of period movies/TV.
We've watched it to the end of series 3, and I'm pleased to hear that they will shortly start filming series 4.
regarding the governing bodys new light relative to matthew 24:45-47, anointedjw.org recently said the following:.
this new light certainly poses a problem for the governing body.
perhaps this is another reason why they have not yet published a sober and scriptural xplanation of this new light.
THE "ALPHA AND OMEGA"OF REVELATION 22:12 Refers to Jehovah God - AWAKE! 8/22/78 p.28
Refers to Jesus Christ - WT 10/1/78 p.15
Splash - I don't see Alpha and Omega referred to in the latter. They apply Rev 22 to Jesus in part, but their interpretation is that the speaker switches several times in this passage.
there is anonther topic about the new organizational sheet of the jw organisation.. it's nice to see the gb (=fds) on top of the earthly part of it.
read some interesting information about the.
severe disorder they must have:.
Phizzy - Although I can vaguely make him out
Seriously? Where? You've got me playing "Where's Waldo?" with Jesus, and I can't find him.
a friend of mine i'm in lust with, has been trying to convert / recruit me.
she's been very pleasant with me and very patient with me.
she hasn't been very pushy which i appreciate.. she's even said that if at anytime i'm getting smothered or feel this religion isn't my thing, to say so and she will stop asking about it.
If you 2 are over 21 get her a little tipsy and hit it.
dbnc - this is wrong by any standard of decency. There's a very fine line between what you are suggesting and 'date rape'. Who defines 'a little tipsy'?
Wonka - Whatever you do just work within the bounds of common human kindness. Even aside from the idea of delibrately setting someone up for the trauma of the JW judicial process, how do you want her to feel after this? Don't play with fire. Just talk over your honest feelings and research and see what happens. If you like her you will do the right thing.
while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.
this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .
if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?
I would challenge that. Doesn't Titus 1:2 say that God cannot lie?
Edenone - agreed. But this is not reflective of a lack of power. Omnipotence means "all powerful". Therefore he has the power to lie, but his nature restricts him from doing so.
In a transaction, one must pay and one must receive.
Cold Steel - when I used the term "the price he was prepared to pay" I didn't use it in the sense of a transaction. I know that some people try to explain the ransom in this way, but that is not my understanding. We can use the term "paying the price" without a transaction being involved. For example in a negative way we could say "Jimmy played on the railroad tracks despite his mother's warning, and he paid the price". The price was not paid to anyone. There was no beneficiary. It simply means that something was given up.
while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.
this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .
if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?
To me omnipotence means that there is no single act that he is not capable of doing.
There are two significant factors in that definition:
1) It simply says that there is nothing he is not capable of doing, but does not imply that he ought to do any particular act. So he has the unlimited potential to do anything, while at the same time remaining selective in terms of how he uses that potential.
2) I define it as "a single act" because when we look at situations involving multiple variables there are conflicts and paradoxes that arise. Is God capable of both killing me eternally and keeping me alive eternally at the same time in a single universe? The fact that this is not possible for God does not in any way detract from his omnipotence. It's just that we are capable of phrasing paradoxical questions that are outside of the realm of reality.
So could God have remove the cup from Jesus? Yes, as a single act he was obviously capable of doing so. But if he was going to do that then probably he could have avoided a lot of time wasting by wiping out Adam and Eve at the outset and starting again. Just because he was fully capable of doing something different does not mean that he will do so if it is not the best action. To assume that it was the best action is to work on the premise that there is nothing more important than for a loving Father to keep his Son from pain. Clearly from God's perspective this is not the case. There may have been nothing more painful than to watch his Son suffer and die, but that is a different matter from what he decided was most important and the price he was prepared to pay (John 3:16)
