I'm curious, like Searcher, what is the connection to the Society's Watchtower magazine? Did the first one go out of print and sound like a great name for CTR's new magazine? My PDF's of the WT go back to 1878. Is that the first year?
Posts by Bobcat
-
10"THE WATCH TOWER" 1865 - Volume 1 - Downloadable PDF 417 pages
by jwleaks inthe watch tower 1865, published by j.f.
shaw & co., for the proprietors of "the watch tower", 158 fleet street, london.
sold at all booksellers and railway book stores during the mid to late 1860's.. this volume of the watch tower was first published on march 29, 1865, for the benefit of learned members of the anglican church.
-
-
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Bobcat
No offense taken. In a way I'm glad to have an attitude check.
Take care
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Bobcat
Dis-Member:
Let me ask this. Do you think it's possible to 'know' God and Jesus without having an extensive theological library and being able to quote from it with ease? Is it all about reading and study? More endless dead intellectualism.
How do blind people find God and Jesus, or deaf people, or people with severe mental problems, or people that are just not very smart.
Is God only really only for the educated? Is the only way to know God and Jesus by reading a book that is so massively open to being misinterpreted and twisted out of shape?
You'll have to ask someone in those situations. I use the tools I have acquired because I want to know. And I share what I've read for the benefit of anyone else who wants to know and doesn't have access to such tools. That is what the internet is about, in theory at least. And this is supposedly an open forum, allowing for diverse views.
I do agree that the Bible is "open to being misinterpreted and twisted out of shape." (2 Pet 3:15, 16) You'll have to decide for yourself how you want to respond to that possibility. And perhaps you already have. And the same goes for me. And, like you, I make no apologies for my choices.
I will also say this: Anything I write here is not necessarily intended for everyone that posts, such as yourself. There is a much wider audience on this forum than just those who post here. And among them are some who do not share your viewpoint.
But thanks for stating your views. It's good to have an idea of where you stand. If I direct a reply to you, I'll take your views into account in my reply.
Take care
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Bobcat
I thought the OP asked, "How do you think this all will work out?" So, I gave my answer.
And yes, the essence of Christianity is summed up in John 17:3, '. . . coming to know the true God and the one He sent forth, Jesus Christ.'
-
47
The GENERATION explanation is now a BOLD FACE LIE
by scotoma inwhen i first heard about the new "generation" explanation i was confused because i didn't see clearly how they were explaining it.. now it looks like they finally figured it out for themselves and it is no longer confusing.. it is now a simple, ignorant, bold face lie.. this is from the january 1st watchtower.
(and i hope to hell someone from writing gets wind of this).
paragraph 15 page 31 blue stands for the exact words in the watchtower.
-
-
Bobcat
DATA:
I'm not sure if you understood me correctly (or I you). I was saying that in the context of Matthew 24:34, "this generation" is a reference back to "this generation" that Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:36.
In 23:33-39 Jesus says that judgment was coming upon "this generation," the then current generation of Jews that he was describing. This prompts the disciples, when they have the next opportunity alone with Jesus, to ask, "When will these things be?" (24:3) There is some question about why they also asked about Jesus' parousia and "the conclusion of the system of things." It could be that, in their minds, the destruction of the temple (which was the center of their world) must also coincide with the ending of the whole world order. If so, Jesus set them straight that this was not the case.
In answer to the question about "When will these things be (the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem)?," Jesus gives the prophecy from 24:4-31. Verses 32-35 then form a sort of summary conclusion that points out that "this generation" would see all these things unfold, which answers the question, "When will these things be?" This logically ties "this generation" of 24:34 directly to "this generation" of 23:36.
To make "this generation" of 24:34 refer to anything else requires some imaginative interpreting. But you only need to stick with the context to see that it refers to the 1st century Jewish nation of Jesus' time.
Note also that Jesus gave instructions in the prophecy for how his disciples could survive the then coming catastrophe. (24:15-20) So "this generation" could not refer to them. They were hoping to be survivors. It was the contemporary Jews who were going to "pass away." This also makes it plain that "this generation" could not refer to Jesus' followers. (The distinction between Jesus' disciples and "this generation" can be seen even more plainly from Luke 21:29-36.)
The answer to the second question of the disciples (about the parousia and the end of the age) begins at verse 36 where Jesus says, "But concerning that day and hour . . .," where "that day" is a short hand reference to "the day of the Lord" (or "the day of Jehovah"; e.g. compare Mt 7:22) and "hour" is idiomatic, referring in modern lingo to "time." Rephrased, Jesus says, "But concerning the timing of the day of Jehovah . . ." (Ekeinos, "that" in vs. 36, is also a reference marker to something previously said. Compare its use in Luke 12:45, "But if ever that slave . . .," referring back to the "faithful steward" just mentioned. In Matthew 24:36, "that day" refers back to the question about the parousia and the end of the age. This links Jesus' parousia to a sometime-in-the-future cataclysmic end of the world, not to the end of the Jewish system.)
Verse 36 begins with peri de ("but concerning" or "but about") which marks a change in subject. (Note that the NWT leaves the "but" untranslated.) Peri de is used to mark a change of subject or a change in the aspect of a subject already under consideration. Compare its use in Matthew 22:31; See Paul's use of it in 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 where he uses it to move from one issue to another. Its use in Mt 24:36 breaks Jesus' answer into two parts, 24:4-24:35 and 24:36-25:46.
Jesus' statement that 'no one knows that day or hour' is in direct contrast to "these things" in 24:34. He plainly tells them "when" "these things" (about the destruction of the temple) will occur. They will occur within the lifespan of "this generation." "But concerning that day and hour, no one knows . . ."
If one sticks with the context, "this generation" can ONLY refer to the one Jesus was referring to in his time. And it CANNOT be a reference to his disciples.
*************
The GB ignore (intentionally, in my book) all that context. "We understand it [this way]" is simply a literary way of bullying anyone who might dare to think differently from them. They know many find this explanation incongruous, or even downright silly. They are simply digging their heels in. 'It's our playground, and if you don't want to believe it our way, you can go someplace else.' The OP is right. It is a bold-faced lie. And they will, eventually, have to pay for it. Like the religious leaders of Jesus' day, they are selling their future to have their way now. (Jn 11:45-50)
Take care
-
47
The GENERATION explanation is now a BOLD FACE LIE
by scotoma inwhen i first heard about the new "generation" explanation i was confused because i didn't see clearly how they were explaining it.. now it looks like they finally figured it out for themselves and it is no longer confusing.. it is now a simple, ignorant, bold face lie.. this is from the january 1st watchtower.
(and i hope to hell someone from writing gets wind of this).
paragraph 15 page 31 blue stands for the exact words in the watchtower.
-
-
Bobcat
The referent to "this generation" of Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' description of "this generation" in Matthew 23:33-39, which prompts the disciples question of, "When will these things (another referent to the same antecedent) be" in 24:3.
In WTspeak, "we understand" is a referent to the thought that 'This is what we believe.' If you don't, you are not one of US.'
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Bobcat
Quarterback:
Concerning future human population expansion, see my post on this thread.
-
55
Marriage In The New World
by Cold Steel inokay, here's the issue.
some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.
jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.
-
-
Bobcat
Here is my thought:
Jesus' statements about 'marrying and being given in marriage' occur in the following texts:
Matthew 22:30; 24:38; Mark 12:25; Luke 17:27; 20:34, 35
They can be broken down into two catagories:
1. Descriptions of people who did not heed warnings: Mt 24:38; Luke 17:27
2. The discussion with the Sadducees involving the resurrection: Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:34, 35
In both catagories, Jesus' use of the phrase DOES NOT describe all people who might 'marry of be given in marriage.'
In the instances involving not heeding divine warnings (Mt 24:38; Lu 17:27), it is describing doing this to the exclusion of more important things. (Timewise, Luke's instance is about 6 weeks or so prior to the instance in Matthew 24:38. The Matthean saying is a pared down version of the Lukan version of the saying. Note also that Noah and his sons and their wives also "married and were given in marriage." Yet they are not included among those that Jesus described.)
In the instance with the Sadducees (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:34, 35 - which is really all the same instance) it is in answer to the hypothetical problem that the Sadducees raised (the seven brothers all married to the same woman), which problem, they felt, made the resurrection an untenable problem. In their view, when all these men were raised, their individual desire for the same woman would create social chaos (multiplied on a world scale). An impossible situation to untangle. Thus, to them, God would never create such an absurd world order.
But just as in the previous catagory, where Jesus was not referring to everyone that 'marries & gives in marriage,' note Jesus' response:
(Luke 20:34, 35 NWT) . . .Jesus said to them: “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
According to Jesus' response, the Sadducees are mistaken because they are basing their view of marriage on how it is practiced in "this system of things (or age)." Adam and Eve were 'married and given in marriage' also. But they were not 'children of this system of things.' They were 'children of God,' just as resurrected people will be.
That allows for Jesus' saying that resurrected ones 'will not marry and be given in marriage,' to be taken to mean that they won't have the same view and practice of it as do "the children of this system of things."
To be sure, that leaves alot about life after the ressurrection unanswered. But then again, Jesus was responding to critics who had made their minds up that they could prove Jesus was a fool. I doubt that Jesus was interested in giving them such details beyond proving their assumptions false.
As possible indications that the solution to the problem you raised might be somewhat beyond out present imperfect ability to fully comprehend, consider these things:
Adam (according to Genesis) is not described as getting depressed when he noticed that he did not have a mate. According to the account, Adam merely notices the incongruity of his situation vis-a-vis the animals. It is God who says he shouldn't continue alone. And after being united with Eve, Adam is only described as having relations with her after some time passed. (Compare what would be the normally expected response of a man in his prime spending all his time with a 'perfectly' beautiful woman who stayed naked.) Admittedly, some of this point consists of an 'argument from silence.'
Jesus, perfect like Adam, also seemed (based on the gospel accounts) to be perfctly content without a mate. And yet perfectly able to have a mate if he so chose. His choice was simply that his 'mission' did not require it.
Compare also Jesus' response to the disciples' idea of staying unmarried:
(Matthew 19:10, 11 NWT) . . .The disciples said to him: “If such is the situation of a man with his wife (i. e. the limited availability of divorce according to Jesus in Mt 19:9), it is not advisable to marry.” 11 [Jesus] said to them: “Not all men make room for the saying (i.e. to stay unmarried), but only those who have the gift.
The NWT (and some other translations) mangle the last phrase of verse 11. "Who have the gift" is more literally, "to whom it has been granted (or given)" The passive tense of the verb ("has been granted") is usually taken as being a 'divine passive.' In essence, Jesus is saying that, a man who chooses (of his own will) to not marry has in some way gotten that ability by means of divine grant.
Similarly, part of Jesus response to the Sadducees' problem was that they "did not know the power of God."
At any rate, you asked for viewpoints. That is mine. Subject, of course, to any new infomation I can find. It doesn't directly answer your question. But it does, to me, open alot more possibilities about what may happen after the resurrection.
Take Care
-
34
"Growing to perfection"
by DS211 inok i know ive been starting threads like a maniac but heres one.
where in the heck d they get the "when we survive armageddon we will probably have to start rebuilding while we resurrect ones, teach them, plant food, clean the planet, and grow to perfection"????
doesnt the scripture say that we die corrupted but raised an incorruptible body?
-
-
Bobcat
DATA:
Speaking of passing the post 1000 year test:
(John 10:27, 28) . . .My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. . .
(John 17:1, 2) . . .Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, 2 according as you [the Father] have given him [the Son] authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he [the Son] may give them everlasting life. . .
These two Scriptures can't be true if humanity only gains everlasting life following the post Millenium release of Satan. For by that time Jesus will have already handed the kingdom over to his Father.
(I wonder if the indenting buttons will become part of the editor again?)
-
34
"Growing to perfection"
by DS211 inok i know ive been starting threads like a maniac but heres one.
where in the heck d they get the "when we survive armageddon we will probably have to start rebuilding while we resurrect ones, teach them, plant food, clean the planet, and grow to perfection"????
doesnt the scripture say that we die corrupted but raised an incorruptible body?
-
-
Bobcat
A more pertinent question I would like to see the WT answer is in connection with this Scripture:
(Luke 20:36 NWT) In fact, neither can they [resurrected ones] die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children [ftn. or "sons"] by being children of the resurrection.
I thought the WT said they don't get adopted into God's "family" until after the 1000 years and the post 1000-year test.
Jesus must be mistaken.