Shiwiii

Your answer here is exactly what I was saying:
Lloyd St.- I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.
It is not a "straw man", it is what you said, unless you choose to clarify further. Here you stated that if you knew better, you would still seek the elders to tell you what you really are supposed to believe. You said you would even pray that you would accept it.
The same quote of yours I quoted in the response of #1. above is the words out of your "mouth" that supports my statement. 
Why in the world would you want to keep your mouth shut? Is your opinion not worth anything? Of course it is, and the only way "progression" happens is by people questioning things. 
No, I am no teacher of the Bible. I am only a person who reads it and tries to apply it to my life. I am one to question things when they claim to be of the Bible and are not. I do know quite a lot about the organization, but in no way do I know everything. You never did answer my questions, but I'll answer them for you. The Holy Spirit is to teach us of all things (John 14:26), The Christ is to be called "teacher" (Matthew 23:1-10), God directs us (Psalms 48:14). Actually Jesus only said to Peter once to feed His sheep, He asked him 3 times if he loved Him. Peter and Paul both said that circumcision was of no real value. 
Trying your best is admirable, forcing others to obey you and your belief without question is not. Building up people who want to serve God is great, it is something we all should do, but totalitarianism is the exact opposite of building up. 
I understand you believe that the organization is Jehovah's organization, and submission to the org is the same as submission to God. However there is no proof of this tie between the two. Enough said on this one. 
 
Yes, I see your point, it is what you would feel. I did ask how you would feel. I was being short sighted in thinking that one would not become proud and boastful in the discovery of truth before the org did. I was thinking more along the lines of how one would deal with the knowledge they attained and still support the org's view. It never crossed my mind that a person would gain a large ego over it. 
 
Jehovah's people? Who gets to draw the lines of who is and who isn't? Anyway, back on track. When you say "we've" do you mean you helped create the doctrines to which you now follow, or do you mean "we" as a collective org? 
while I know I have taken just a portion of your statement here, it is still within context. 
The organization prides itself on the persecution that it gets as proof, the problem is that it is usually self inflicted. Take for example the Australian Royal Comission, Candice Conti, San Diego Superior Court. The most recent is the San Diego one. The org is being held in contempt of court and sanctioned $4000 a day, yes a day for failing to provide unaltered documents in which they had previously had provided altered beyond legibility. 
This vastly superior knowledge is changing on a regular basis. What kind of trust can you put into something that is going to change next week/month/year? 
Would you drink a glass of water if it had just a little poison in it? 
It matters not what everyone thinks of me, what matters is what God thinks of me. 
 

Why do you believe the WTS is, as you've said, "the only means of surviving these last days"?  Surely your answer wouldn't be because it has just as much lying, adultery, murder, stealing, sexual immorality as Israel did. The answer of "Why not?" sounds to me like you're saying the WTS is as good a choice as any other Christian organization.  
Yes, I do remember Jesus' words at Matthew 7:21-22  "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.  Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "
Do remember what he said must happen for us to see and enter the kingdom of heaven?

But he did say he would believe it:
"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "
This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

This is why an organization is not needed. This is why Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day. Groups who lord over the masses instill rules that were never supposed to be there. It is our job to help those who are unaware of God's grace and freedom. God does not reside in a building nor in a organization, but rather in the hearts of those who receive Him.

Finally, I've had time to read through this thread. Some observations:
I see that no scriptural support has yet been given for the idea that there will be a resurrection during the 1000 years. Where does the idea come from, then? 
It appears to be based on assumptions, i.e.,
1. that 'Judgment Day' isn't a specific point in time but a long period lasting 1000 years;
2. that there are two groups of Christian believers;
3. that the 'deeds' people will be judged on are those done during the 1000 years and not those done before they died ...
... which comes from the interpretation of Rom. 6:7 that once a person dies, they have been 'acquitted' from their sin ...
... in which case, the resurrected start with a clean slate but are still raised in imperfect bodies that can sin again, and it's really during the 1000 years that they are able to avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice (paradoxically by working toward perfection) ...
... which means that Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for their sins committed before death in this present age, as their own deaths paid for their sins ...
... which goes against the gospel message (Rom. 3:21-26).
If Jesus' death does atone for sins committed before a believer's death, then why isn't that individual 'declared righteous for life' like the 'anointed' are? 
And yet, even with regard to the 'anointed' who are regarded as being 'declared righteous for life,' there is judgment based on what they did 'while in the body':
2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.
This judgment for the 'anointed' doesn't last for 1000 years, does it? And they are judged according to what they did before they died and were raised as spirit beings, right?
Why the different standards between two groups?
This raises another conundrum because, if Adam died, he was acquitted of his sin too. So why do JWs insist that in his case, his 'Adamic death' doesn't acquit him of his sin? Where is the scriptural support for the idea that he has fast-tracked, without passing 'Go' and collecting $200, straight to the 'second death'?
Melinda mentioned 'willful sin.' Isn't much of our 'sin' 'willful' in some way or another? What about David? Was his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband involuntary, accidental? Manasseh's offenses against God with his child sacrifices and false worship - were those lesser sins than Adam accepting his wife's offer of forbidden fruit to eat? 
Eoin talked about there being a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life,' and that humans cannot be immortal due to their nature. But then, wasn't it argued that angels are not immortal either (one of Melinda's posts)? So what does a being's human nature have to do with it?
And does 'immortality' mean 'cannot die' or simply 'does not die' because the person has been granted a spirit-generated body - whatever the nature? If an immortal person 'cannot die,' doesn't this limit God's power or make the immortal person as indestructible as the Creator? On the other hand, if immortality means one doesn't die, and that life continues indefinitely, forever, or everlastingly, no matter what body the rewarded believer is given, it will always be dependent on God's life-giving spirit, would it not?

What is the point of being on a forum if there is no personal opinion to present? I mean to regurgitate text from any source, without personal input,  does nothing to foster a discussion.  Isn't that what a forum is about? To foster discussion? 

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 
 
a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:
Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

at what point does a person stop allowing men to govern their lives as if these men are God Himself? Take a look at the 1000's of rules applied to the Jews by the pharisees about the Sabbath. What did Jesus say about this?  
Mark 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 
 
a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:
Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

The WT holds fast to the term “food at the proper time”, which also would be considered “new light”.  As you have brought out Holly, James 1:17 says there is no variation or shifting shadows if we keep in God’s light.  Can we not all agree that adaptation is expected when changes are enforced by the organization?  If one looks over the entire span of its history and its changes, we also must consider how these changes affected thousands of lives who held fast to the teaching of the moment.  There is a WT entitled, “Rejoice in the knowledge of Jehovah”.  (2001)  Would those who embraced either an early generation teaching or the 1914/1925 date of Armageddon, the suggested 1975 date also of Armageddon, rejoice in the knowledge of “Jehovah” if their lives were turned upside down by such anticipation?  Would Jesus rejoice in such changes if he sees the heartbreak of those who put trust in a present teaching?

It is easy to narrow our focus down to ourselves and our ability to adjust to present teachings, shutting our eyes to those who stumbled through years of big change.  When thinking of Rutherford sending brothers and sisters away as outcasts because they questioned his leadership role; and then, in the 70’s a theocratic “governing body” was formed, does this not make one wonder what our Father thinks of such oppressive man rule in any form, yesterday or today?  And those that were cast out, what happened to them?  Does God view them as the unrighteous ones, or Rutherford, since his desire as sole ruler was later changed by the introduction of a governing body?  Jer 23:1

 Are such changes enforced at the loss of sheep really a “safeguard” provided by God? 

“Jehovah provides something else to safeguard us: spiritual food at the proper time”.  W 02/12/15 p 13-18

Requirement to believe past teachings appears to be only a requirement if it stays the same.  Once “new light” is introduced, this is considered truth!  Which leads one to believe that truth in the organization wears many faces.

“For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations…Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.” 

“Previously, we thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. We concluded that those who rejected the Kingdom message and who died before the start of the great tribulation would die as goats—without the hope of a resurrection.”

“In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. “

“After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be"

“So we needed to change the way we understood some parts of the prophecy.”

All the above quotes are from WT 13/7/15 pp 3-8

David Splane, when introducing the new teaching of the generation alluded to liking the “idea”. Doesn't this sound like it is destined to change, simply because it is an idea?  Jer 23:26-32  
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”  2 Tim 4:3,4

If one is expected to assimilate and idea set forward by a group of men who admit that they “thought” their teachings were right in the past, by listening and embracing such new ideas, isn’t this slaving for men and not Christ? 1 Cor 7:23  Jesus promised that each one us that approaches him directly with our earnest desire will know the truth.  John 8:32,36; John 5:39-44; Prov 2:1-9

If we consider how often the WT uses terms such as “likely”, “evidently”, “seems so”, “must be”,  we must realize that assumptions and personal speculations made by such anointed ones are not in the likeness of Christ’s teachings, who spoke with authority.  John 16:13,14    Why are these speculations still being made, if not because of a snowball effect?  

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”  John 14:26

In order for any of us to rejoice in the knowledge of God, shouldn’t we question any teaching from an anointed one, not gulping it down and expecting God to forgive the misleading of thousands with thoughts and ideas?  Is this truly how the Helper brings to remembrance all things from Christ?  Matt 12:33  Would not past failed teachings in need of an overhaul, be considered “thorns” and stumbling blocks, to those who wholeheartedly had accepted them as truth?  Luke 6:43-45

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?  Num 23:19


But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.  Matt 5:37 (Eph 4:25)

“As we receive teachings from Jehovah, it should be our desire to gain “accurate knowledge.” Without it, how could we apply God’s Word properly in our own lives or explain it correctly to others? (Colossians 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:15) Gaining accurate knowledge requires that we read carefully, and if a portion is deep, we may need to read it more than once in order to grasp the sense of it.” Keep a firm grip on the word of God  Wt chapt 3 pp 23-31 

 http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/06/operation-of-error.html

 

Onthe contrary,  proof was given, you just choose to turn a blind eye. Reread the post and think about it.

Hi again, Lloyd,
Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.
Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.
The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.
If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used.
You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 
I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

That's because the discussion wasn't about a minor prioritizing working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit. The discussion was about a JW father withholding his child's driving permit to coerce him into getting baptized on the basis that, if he wasn't ready to handle a car, he wasn't ready to make a lifelong dedication/commitment to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Org that claims it exclusively represents Him.
I agree that Anthony Morris III and the father in my scenario are comparing apples and oranges when trying to equate the responsibility that comes with dedication and baptism (or marriage) to that of having a drivers permit ... which makes using that kind of coercive tactic with one's children all the more distasteful - my point all along.
 
 

I can see that. 
You agree that getting married has lesser gravity in the great universal scheme of things than baptism, right?
What if you overheard this conversation between a father and his mid-teen son?
"But dad, while I like the girl and we're friendly, I do not feel ready to make a lifelong commitment to her. I'm too young to get married."
"Oh yeah? Not ready? Well let's hold off on your driver's license, hey?"
"What? Dad? You're kidding, right? I'm 16. I'm ready to drive a car!"
"No, son. You're ready to handle a car but not ready for marriage, huh? You explain that to the girl's family." 
"What the hell, dad?"
Is the father being reasonable with his son?
Isn't the father using some form of coercion or blackmail to induce his son to get married?
If this isn't a form of coercion or blackmail, what is it?

The WTS leaves much to be desired in its handling of child abuse, but the story about vandalism of ancient temples by JWs is hardly believable.  Are you sure it's true?
However, before becoming a member of this church it would be wise to examine it's history, even as it says itself:  We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 

Melinda, these things we research are from your organization, and not from outside sources. You are correct in this, however we bring these things up so that you and others can research them too. If there is another understanding, other than what we observe, by all means provide the information or link to clarify. You see, we are taking what the wt says and comparing it to scripture if it fits great but if not our question is why? 
I took the liberty to include Holly in my comment, and if I misrepresent her I expect her to correct me.

I will show you exactly what you said and how you are reading into the scripture something that isn't there: 
 
again in verse 28 you seem to believe this takes place prior to the eradication of death, satan and hades.
Here is YOUR words:
Do you see here where you believe that Satan is still around? last sentence you wrote. 
What part of Satan still being around is everything subjected to Jesus? Its not. You need to go back and think this one through again, or clarify your position better. 
 
yes, however your timeline does not fit the timeline given in Revelation 20. It is only when ALL THINGS are then subject to Jesus does this happen and that is not until Satan, hades and death have been cast away (Rev 20:14), then the kingdom is handed back over. 
 
I am taking scripture as it is and basing my point upon it. You however still fail in providing scripture to support a resurrection DURING the 1000 year reign. 
This is your get out of jail free card, so you can run away from what scripture says, not me. I'm ok with that, seen it many many times. 

This is because they do not have the "Good Shepard" as their master. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an organization. 
 
 do you mean like Trinity and Hell? 
 
Directing people to a website for salvation IS idolatry, especially when we should be pointing people to Jesus for salvation as the Bible says we should.  
 
I think your goal and the goal of the society are not one in the same. I was just overlooking at the "text of the day" threads and saw that conveniently the society had not fully quoted a scripture. This causes one to only see what the society wants them to see. Thus the objective is not the same for the follower as it is for the leaders. I can elaborate if needed.  

Hi JD,
That's the bottom line, isn't it.  To maintain that the Greek mss of the NT were tampered with in such a way actually casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible itself.
It's one thing to insist that the Bible manuscripts have unquestionably come down to us exactly as God had inspired them to be written; but it's something else again to say the NT manuscripts have been tampered with in “one of the saddest and most reprehensible” ways, by removing “Jehovah” from them……which brings up the question what else was tampered with.  

Bible reliability:

Awake, 6/11/1972: Almighty God himself has unquestionably had a hand in seeing that his Word has been preserved so faithfully all these years. Any way one looks at it, the overall reliability of the Bible text is beyond question.

Road to Paradise tract, pg. 3: HAS NOT THE HOLY BIBLE BEEN TAMPERED WITH? Almighty God could by no means allow such a thing……... When our present-day Bible is compared with such old manuscripts, it becomes quite clear that the text we have today is the same as that which God inspired his ancient servants to write.

Insight-1 p.321: Copies—Hebrew or Greek—Soon after the originals were written, manuscript copies began to be produced. The copyists exercised great care to transmit the text accurately; the Masoretes counted even the letters that they copied. 

Insight-1 p.448: The available evidence convincingly demonstrates the remarkable accuracy and care that distinguished the copying of the Bible books, resulting in the preservation of their internal integrity. 

Insight-2 p.313: What assurance is there that the Bible has not been changed? Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions.

NWT introduction: Since the Bible sets for the sacred will of the Sovereign Lord of the universe, it would be a great indignity, indeed an affront to his majesty and authority, to omit or hide his unique divine name.

Bible tampered with:

Close to Jehovah, p.8: God’s personal name has been removed from countless Bible translations and replaced with titles, such as “Lord” and “God”. This is one of the saddest and most reprehensible things that has been done in the name of religion.

Insight-2 p.10: Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky′ri·os and The·os′. 

Insight-1 p.324: Eventually, in most translations of the Bible the divine name was completely replaced by expressions such as “Lord” and “God.” It is noteworthy that only the most vital name of all—Jehovah—was tampered with; other Bible names were not.

Watchtower 10/1/1997 p.20: Show discernment in the selection of the Bible you use. (Proverbs 19:8) If a translation is not honest about the identity of God himself—removing his name from his inspired Word on whatever pretext—might the translators also have tampered with other parts of the Bible text?


Holly


 

I guess no one has a scripture that supports a resurrection during the thousand year reign. That then makes the belief that there is, just a man made belief and NOT from God or His word.
Psalms 118:8&9
Psalms 146:3

JWs don't look to Jesus as their mediator because he's the mediator of the new covenant and they've been told they are not in that covenant, only 144K people are in it and those people began to be numbered from the 1st century, so one can't help but think there aren't that many openings left.  However, they do look to Jesus as their high priest---which is kind of odd since they don't consider that they are the Israel of God (again only the 144K are) and surely the high priest ministered only to Israel.  But anyway, they also believe Jesus will die as their high priest by the end of the 1,000 years (despite Hebrew 7:25), and thereafter they will continue to live based on their own merit.
Hebrews 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Holly

So you do not side with the society on this issue, but rather hope they will change to what you believe. 

Excuse me, Eoin, you will have to offer some sort of evidence that I have in any way misrepresented JW beliefs in my statement that you are referring to:  Not so with the rest of JWs. Their faith in Jesus evidently doesn't give Jehovah the confidence to grant them immortality and he isn't so sure that they won't ever sin again.
In fact, what you went on to post actually substantiates that what I said is true about the beliefs of JWs, they don't expect to ever have everlasting life (other than their anointed class), they are told they will just have continuing life, for as long as they merit it on their own righteousness.
Having the perfection of Adam and Eve is not being saved. Having the holiness and righteousness of Jesus is what saves us; our belief in him gives us that and all of our sins are forgiven in God's sight because of that. Even the WTS recognizes this as a Bible teaching, it's just that they say it's only for a small segment of believers, numbering only 144,000, and not for any other believer. 
That's why Shiwii's question has still not been answered. There is no scripture that says there's a resurrection that takes place during the 1,000 years.  The resurrection that takes place at the end of the 1,000 years has been moved by the WTS to take place during the 1,000 years; and it has been changed from being a resurrection to being a self-help sort of educational program to teach people how to be as perfect as Adam was before he sinned, so that they can eventually meet all of God's standards mentally, morally, physically, and spiritually, and can then stand before God on their own merit rather than on the merit of Jesus Christ
Holly