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.
JH
I doubt that many thousands of people were willing to risk their lives for a message that was a complete forgery. Even before the internet, frauds could be exposed. I think that simply put, Christianity followed its course, fragmented, dispersed .... and what remains is that salvation is an individual responsability before God.
Eden
what the ot says ... what sources of evidence do we have that account for the 'great escape' of the christians from jerusalem after cestius gallus siege of 66 ce ?
do we have any christian prespective about it?
since i concluded that all nt books were concluded before 66 ce (including revelation), what do we have in order to support the story that the jerusalem christians ran to pela ...etc....?
From what i could read so far, it seems to me that the ONLY account that MAY have some credibility about this subject is the one given by Eusebius, which is probably based on an earlier account by a certain Ariston of Pella (c. 100-160) or in the Memoirs of Hegesippus (c. 180 AD). Archaeological evidence is scarse. The Ebionites originated from pella and they considered themselves as the true inheritors of the church of Jerusalem.
Eden
what the ot says ... what sources of evidence do we have that account for the 'great escape' of the christians from jerusalem after cestius gallus siege of 66 ce ?
do we have any christian prespective about it?
since i concluded that all nt books were concluded before 66 ce (including revelation), what do we have in order to support the story that the jerusalem christians ran to pela ...etc....?
JH, I wrote an extensive article about dating Revelation and published it on my website. My conclusion is that all NT books (including Revelation and the Gospel of John) were written before 66 CE, hence no mention mention made in the Bible of the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. Actually, it appears fairly solid that Revelation was received by John before the other books of the NT were written.
It's, of course, subject to criticism. BOTR defines it as "utter nonsense". I find curious that BOTR doesn't find "utter nonsense" the notion that the writer of the Gospel of John is a different person than "John of Patmos". Oh well.
Eden
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.
I agree with Vidqun, there is no battle to be won here.
On what concerns me I'm on a quest to better understand the scriptures, once I broke away from the mental mold of the WTS. I'm trying to go as deep as I can into the text and avoiding as much the Bible Commentaries as I can, in order to minimize the risk of absorving information that contains an ideological agenda pre-defined. I only resort to them when I cannot figure out an explanation myself after cross referencing a lot and doing the best exegesis as I can, often with the help of specialized literature. That's my process, which I'm happy to share with others. In this process I already discovered significant differences with the WTS's teachings. Who knows where this will lead? One thing I am convinced of: if I will part ways with the WTS some day it will be for doctrinal reasons, not because they have offended me, or wrong me in any way. I'll consider leaving if I conclude that their teachings are sufficiently far off the mark to consider them hopelessly irreformable. It's a personal quest, but anyone is welcome to join in.
I'm interested in debating for the sake of learning; not for the sake of winning anything.
Eden
rutherford wrote the booklet of that name in 1920. is that definitively a false prophecy yet?
even if everyone who was alive in 1920 survived armageddon, if it was to come today, would that amount to millions of people?
according to wikipedia there are 316,600 people who are a 100 years old or older.
Ok, thanks Prologos, I knew that there had been a change between "may" and "will" but I got the order wrong. Thank you!
Eden
what the ot says ... what sources of evidence do we have that account for the 'great escape' of the christians from jerusalem after cestius gallus siege of 66 ce ?
do we have any christian prespective about it?
since i concluded that all nt books were concluded before 66 ce (including revelation), what do we have in order to support the story that the jerusalem christians ran to pela ...etc....?
What the OT says ... what sources of evidence do we have that account for the 'great escape' of the Christians from Jerusalem after Cestius Gallus siege of 66 CE ? Do we have any Christian prespective about it? Since I concluded that all NT books were concluded before 66 CE (including Revelation), what do we have in order to support the story that the Jerusalem Christians ran to Pela ...etc....? Since the Bible is silent after that date?
Eden
rutherford wrote the booklet of that name in 1920. is that definitively a false prophecy yet?
even if everyone who was alive in 1920 survived armageddon, if it was to come today, would that amount to millions of people?
according to wikipedia there are 316,600 people who are a 100 years old or older.
You know, I'm sure I've seen somewhere that title rendered "Millions Now Living May Never Die".
I can't remember now where, out of my head, but I swear I've seen it. That being truth, someone has been busy trying to rewrite history ... again.
Eden
coming off from my thread on the great crowd, (once again thanks td, annomaly and all the others for their help), a question on the other sheep in the 33ce - 1935 ce for the great jwn mind hive.. the qfr in the w86 8/1 p31 ends up with confirming about the other sheep pre-33ce:.
someone might reason: jesus was pointing to a future gathering of other sheep, hence the term applies only to those who, after jesus spoke, would accept the biblical hope of everlasting life on earth.
however, it seems unnecessary to confine the term thusly, as if jesus were defining matters chronologically or sequentially.
marked
Eden
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.
Terry,
It's a fine line between exegesis and eisegesis sometimes. That's why the contribution of different Scriptures is so important, so that a broader picture can be established - or at least an honest attempt at it.
Eden
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.
Vidqun,
Many thanks for your contribution. I agree that the last portion is redundant to the understanding of the text, but, as pointed out by Newman & Nida, " the phrase is so difficult that it is hard to see why any manuscript would include it if it were not an original part of the text." To accept it or not makes little difference to the overall understanding of the text, since the reference "who is [or:exists] in heaven" is easily explained. It may well be a later addition, although I think it needs further evidence to establish a solid conclusion.
The actual point of my question is if this text definitively rules out any resurrection to the heavenly realm before Jesus did. Personally I'm not persuaded that it does, since it's not the point that Jesus was making in his conversation. But since the doctrinal implications are vast, one must thread very carefully on this subject.
Eden
