Jump to content
The World News Media

Who are declared righteous for life ?


Diakonos

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Thanks so much for getting all this together, so I don't need to!

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

WT could have used a bit of editing or proofreading on this last one, because the wording appears to emphasize the idea that they are all male.]

Hahaha, yes indeed! xD

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Does this mean that there is a specific legal sense involved in Jesus’ role as Mediator? Yes. . . .
Clearly, then, the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind. It is a carefully arranged legal provision involving God and anointed Christians.  . . . The people of all nations who have the hope of everlasting life on earth benefit even now from Jesus’ services. Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah. Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) All who will gain life on earth must direct their prayers to Jehovah through Jesus. (John 14:13, 23, 24) Jesus also serves as a compassionate High Priest who is able to apply in their behalf the benefits of his sacrifice, allowing them to gain forgiveness and eventual salvation.—Acts 4:12; Hebrews 4:15.

So really, from reading the above, I don't understand why people would think the other sheep could NOT approach Jehovah through Jesus. It seems quite clear that they can, all it is saying is that the other sheep are not in the covenant and so in that sense Jesus is not their mediator, but as the scriptures say people of all nations can, actually not just can but must go through Jesus. Unfortunately the first article from 79, although saying pretty much the same thing, was not as clear, so I can see how it could have caused a stir, especially this statement: "However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant". This could have been misunderstood to mean the anointed and not Jesus mediate for the other sheep when they pray. But praying through Jesus as a mediator, and Jesus being a mediator of the covenant are two different things.This is where the problem I think happened. The other sheep knew they were not in the covenant, and that was ok, but when it looked like this could affect their approaching Jehovah, that is when it got worrying.  It just goes to show though, that one really needs to check for oneself "if this is so". 

P.S. When I mentioned this issue to my mother in-law, who is 86, she came back as a flash with "Oh, but the other sheep still have to approach Jehovah through Jesus". So simple and scriptural.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.3k
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I understand Ph.2:9-11 to indicate that every intelligent creation will be subject to Christ.  As Ps 37:29 speaks of righteous ones living forever on earth, so this constitutes one destiny.

I would agree that this refers to an earth-based destiny. Earlier I made a list of some topics that were more often used during a time when the Watch Tower publications often took a special note

In the 1970's, we were still using blue binders with 24 "spokes" to collect the magazines, but bound volumes were being printed.  I remember that it was long after I was baptized that I even noti

  • Member
13 hours ago, Anna said:

P.S. When I mentioned this issue to my mother in-law, who is 86, she came back as a flash with "Oh, but the other sheep still have to approach Jehovah through Jesus". So simple and scriptural.

We have no inherent right to approach Jehovah due to our sinful nature and his holiness. I think it's just as easy to read that this was the very purpose and meaning of Jesus' mediatorship -- the exact same purpose of the ransom. Only by imputing undeserved righteousness on all Christians, covering over our sins, does Jesus make it possible for all of us to approach Jehovah's throne of Majesty through prayer. This was the argument being made by some of the "murmurers" in 1979. This was the reason that F W Franz seemed about to yell at all of us at the breakfast table one morning in November 1979. It wasn't yelling so much as loud and deep sarcasm when he said that people who questioned it would just "merge everyone together and make Jesus Christ the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry!"

From this and other things he said all through that week at breakfast, I believe he was concerned that the anointed were losing their "specialness." He seemed to take it very personally, and it must have been for this reason that a lot of people who knew him continued to act like this doctrine was his own private interpretation. The idea, as summarized to me in a gossipy way by someone who was very close to him, was that people used to trust his every word when he was Vice-President, and as soon as he was about to become President (1977, while I was at Bethel) he seemed to take it very personally that the very office of President was losing its meaning. He indicated in his September 1975 talk that the office of President was about to become the office of a mere "figurehead" or of a "do-nothing-President" as he called it. He said this during one of those times that he publicly fought against the idea of a "Governing Body" and simultaneously cast aspersions on those who wanted leadership by "committees" (in the same talk).

Please excuse the excessive background info that follows, but I think it helps make a point about why some people thought FWF was so personally tied to this doctrine:

Separately, I happened to learn that FWF reacted with similar consternation apparently from early 1978 right up through 1980 over some comments ("a few letters") questioning his latest book "Our Incoming World Government -- God's Kingdom" (1977). The book had claimed some prophetic date fulfillments around the 1920's that merely confused most of us, I think, but some evidently had a real problem with it. He sounded angry that anyone thought they had a right to question it. I thought his attitude was a little bit like saying "Who do they think they are?" but I think that what he actually said was more like "This is exactly what they [the publishers] need right now . . . it's a time to be studying these things, and not a time to be questioning these things!" The reason I had come to him was that I had brought him a couple of "footnote" questions while proofreading the "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" (ka) book and he somehow thought my question was tied to some of these letters he had gotten (or heard about) since the time of the "World Government" book study in 1978. This "interview" was around April 1980 and I figured from what he said that we might actually re-study the "World Government" book even though I was then under the impression that we were going to re-study the ka book again.

There had been a scramble to replace the Congregation Book Study book because, although we had studied the "World Government" book in 1978, three or four of the last five books since then had been written by so-called "apostates" even though you wouldn't know it with titles like:

  • "Life Does Have a Purpose" [January - June 1979]
  • "Is This Life All There Is?"  [July - December 1979]
  • "Making Your Family Life Happy" [January - June 1980]
  • "Choosing the Best Way of Life" [July - December 1980]
  • "Commentary on the Letter of James" [scheduled book study use cancelled]

The primary writers of the books listed above were mostly dismissed from Writing and from Bethel by mid-1980.

As I know you know, we don't talk about the authors of the publications, but the last three books FWF had been widely associated with personally were "The Nations Shall Know" [Ezekiel, 1971] "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" ("ka") [WTS history, 1973] and the "Incoming World Government" [1977].

We rarely studied a book twice, but we did study the "Nations"/"Ezekiel" book twice (72 & 75), and of course the "ka" book ended up being studied twice, too, and it took all of 1981 to do it. (In 1983 we re-studied the "Man's Salvation" book from back around 1975, although I had never known whether FWF authored it.)

Anyway, ka won out over the "apostate" James commentary which we never studied at the book study, although I do remember giving several "Instruction talks" from it. The "Choosing" book had been considered even more blatantly apostate, but slipped through.

Although the decision to re-use the ka book in 1981 had already been made, and presses were already re-printing it for a couple months to gear up for the book study, the "World Government " book did come up again in the month before the ka book came back. Just notice what the primary point to highlight was supposed to be (in the quotes below). It was a theme that several people had been able to pick up on over and over again from FWF, from his talks and in personal conversation. There was a strong hint that Christ's "brothers" were not expected to be "sheeplike" as if there was a difference between "sheep" and "brothers." This sometimes comes across in other expressions that the Governing Body still use mostly in private conversations like: "the publishers need this" or with expressions that refer to the rest of us as "the rank and file."

*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Ask all to bring book Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom to meeting next week. Prepare from page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16.

*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Discussion by qualified teacher with congregation of highlights of material in Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom, page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16. Highlight difference in position, but unity of work done by King’s “brothers” and “sheep” class. ...

Paragraphs 11-13: Read Matthew 25:37-40. Whom did Jesus refer to as “my brothers”? How do “sheep” show their support of the King’s “brothers”? What circumstances have the King’s “brothers” had to endure?
Paragraphs 14, 15: How are the sheeplike Kingdom supporters rewarded? What must each one do to show he is a Kingdom supporter? See also page 173, paragraph 31.
Paragraph 16: How do “sheep” “inherit the Kingdom”? How is hope of the King’s “brothers” different?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We have no inherent right to approach Jehovah due to our sinful nature and his holiness. I think it's just as easy to read that this was the very purpose and meaning of Jesus' mediatorship -- the exact same purpose of the ransom. Only by imputing undeserved righteousness on all Christians, covering over our sins, does Jesus make it possible for all of us to approach Jehovah's throne of Majesty through prayer. This was the argument being made by some of the "murmurers" in 1979. This was the reason that F W Franz seemed about to yell at all of us at the breakfast table one morning in November 1979. It wasn't yelling so much as loud and deep sarcasm when he said that people who questioned it would just "merge everyone together and make Jesus Christ the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry!"

From this and other things he said all through that week at breakfast, I believe he was concerned that the anointed were losing their "specialness." He seemed to take it very personally, and it must have been for this reason that a lot of people who knew him continued to act like this doctrine was his own private interpretation. The idea, as summarized to me in a gossipy way by someone who was very close to him, was that people used to trust his every word when he was Vice-President, and as soon as he was about to become President (1977, while I was at Bethel) he seemed to take it very personally that the very office of President was losing its meaning. He indicated in his September 1975 talk that the office of President was about to become the office of a mere "figurehead" or of a "do-nothing-President" as he called it. He said this during one of those times that he publicly fought against the idea of a "Governing Body" and simultaneously cast aspersions on those who wanted leadership by "committees" (in the same talk).

Please excuse the excessive background info that follows, but I think it helps make a point about why some people thought FWF was so personally tied to this doctrine:

Separately, I happened to learn that FWF reacted with similar consternation apparently from early 1978 right up through 1980 over some comments ("a few letters") questioning his latest book "Our Incoming World Government -- God's Kingdom" (1977). The book had claimed some prophetic date fulfillments around the 1920's that merely confused most of us, I think, but some evidently had a real problem with it. He sounded angry that anyone thought they had a right to question it. I thought his attitude was a little bit like saying "Who do they think they are?" but I think that what he actually said was more like "This is exactly what they [the publishers] need right now . . . it's a time to be studying these things, and not a time to be questioning these things!" The reason I had come to him was that I had brought him a couple of "footnote" questions while proofreading the "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" (ka) book and he somehow thought my question was tied to some of these letters he had gotten (or heard about) since the time of the "World Government" book study in 1978. This "interview" was around April 1980 and I figured from what he said that we might actually re-study the "World Government" book even though I was then under the impression that we were going to re-study the ka book again.

There had been a scramble to replace the Congregation Book Study book because, although we had studied the "World Government" book in 1978, three or four of the last five books since then had been written by so-called "apostates" even though you wouldn't know it with titles like:

  • "Life Does Have a Purpose" [January - June 1979]
  • "Is This Life All There Is?"  [July - December 1979]
  • "Making Your Family Life Happy" [January - June 1980]
  • "Choosing the Best Way of Life" [July - December 1980]
  • "Commentary on the Letter of James" [scheduled book study use cancelled]

The primary writers of the books listed above were mostly dismissed from Writing and from Bethel by mid-1980.

As I know you know, we don't talk about the authors of the publications, but the last three books FWF had been widely associated with personally were "The Nations Shall Know" [Ezekiel, 1971] "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" ("ka") [WTS history, 1973] and the "Incoming World Government" [1977].

We rarely studied a book twice, but we did study the "Nations"/"Ezekiel" book twice (72 & 75), and of course the "ka" book ended up being studied twice, too, and it took all of 1981 to do it. (In 1983 we re-studied the "Man's Salvation" book from back around 1975, although I had never known whether FWF authored it.)

Anyway, ka won out over the "apostate" James commentary which we never studied at the book study, although I do remember giving several "Instruction talks" from it. The "Choosing" book had been considered even more blatantly apostate, but slipped through.

Although the decision to re-use the ka book in 1981 had already been made, and presses were already re-printing it for a couple months to gear up for the book study, the "World Government " book did come up again in the month before the ka book came back. Just notice what the primary point to highlight was supposed to be (in the quotes below). It was a theme that several people had been able to pick up on over and over again from FWF, from his talks and in personal conversation. There was a strong hint that Christ's "brothers" were not expected to be "sheeplike" as if there was a difference between "sheep" and "brothers." This sometimes comes across in other expressions that the Governing Body still use mostly in private conversations like: "the publishers need this" or with expressions that refer to the rest of us as "the rank and file."

*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Ask all to bring book Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom to meeting next week. Prepare from page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16.

*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Discussion by qualified teacher with congregation of highlights of material in Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom, page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16. Highlight difference in position, but unity of work done by King’s “brothers” and “sheep” class. ...

Paragraphs 11-13: Read Matthew 25:37-40. Whom did Jesus refer to as “my brothers”? How do “sheep” show their support of the King’s “brothers”? What circumstances have the King’s “brothers” had to endure?
Paragraphs 14, 15: How are the sheeplike Kingdom supporters rewarded? What must each one do to show he is a Kingdom supporter? See also page 173, paragraph 31.
Paragraph 16: How do “sheep” “inherit the Kingdom”? How is hope of the King’s “brothers” different?

 

 

 

Thanks for the insight into the goings on at Bethel, JW. Always an interesting read. Funnily enough my mother in law met Br. Franz before she got baptized. She told me that years ago there were no official questions for baptism, so when she met Br. Franz, he just asked her a couple of questions and then said "nothing is preventing you from getting baptized", and that was that.

I remember the Ka book very well, (not it's contents mind) I was only young but I remember the yellow cover, and the blue writing. It was the first book I remember underlining (although I didn't really have a clue). My mom had shortly come into the truth and this was when we started going to meetings, so really this was her first book at the book study too. Isn't it funny, all those years ago, and now I am talking to the person who proof read it! I don't remember re-studying it in 81 though. I am aware that the commentary of James was written by his nephew, but before I knew that I always wondered why we never studied it. I know this is off topic, but what was in the Choosing book that was apostate?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"merge everyone together and make Jesus Christ the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry!"

Funny. I guess he took it personally instead of relying on Christ to judge who he was going to be the mediator for. It seems like the present members of the GB are a lot more humble.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Anna said:

I know this is off topic, but what was in the Choosing book that was apostate?

If this comes up in another thread I'll try to cover the answer to your question there.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Isn't it funny, all those years ago, and now I am talking to the person who proof read it! I don't remember re-studying it in 81 though.

I was not a "spelling & grammar" proofreader. Several others, mostly sisters, handled that. They caught a lot of other little things, too, but they would rarely question a point of claimed fact. I was just another set of eyes focused on the "nerdier" issues. I often found places where the wrong font slipped in, or an em-dash matched with an en-dash, or where a short re-write changed a page number reference in an Index or TOC. I would also look up the original sources for the quotes and make sure the single/double and ellipses were correct, and whether reference footnotes were on the right page. There are still a couple of mistakes that remained because they were not considered serious enough to redo the plates for a 1980 printing. There are probably 5 errors of fact, but not all of them were actually questioned at the time.

Here was one of the items I questioned:

*** ka chap. 17 p. 346 par. 31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*

I knew that the biography of Charles Taze Russell that the WTS published had actually said that Russell really did claim in private to be "in his person, that 'faithful and wise servant.'" But that wasn't the problem, and I didn't really question that. What I questioned was the little asterisk (*) after it, because it pointed to the following at the bottom of the page:

*** ka chap. 17 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
[Footnotes]
See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading “Dispensing of Food to the Household.—Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46.”

The problem with this particular footnote is that this was the first primary reference where Brother Russell changed his mind about the "faithful slave." Up until a few months before this book was printed in 1897, Russell taught that the "faithful slave" was the entire household of Christians, but this particular reference was the one where Russell first began to make the argument that it really must be a single individual, not a class, and that if "he" failed in his duty he would be replaced with another single individual. And of course, from that time on he published contributed articles and letters in the Watch Tower that addressed himself as "that Servant" and "the Faithful and Wise Servant" in addition to calling some of his writings, "Meat in Due Season."  During his lifetime, after 1897 until his death, he also allowed himself to be referenced as "the faithful and wise servant" at Bible Student conventions. Of all the references to use in support of the claim in the paragraph on page 346 of ka, this was by far the worst choice outside of the Biography itself.

The other 4 errors that I'm aware of are even less relevant to the topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** ka chap. 17 p. 346 par. 31 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion’s Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that “faithful and wise servant.” He never did claim to be such.*

Haha, funny. I had a look at that, and in the paragraph prior, he quotes Br. Russell in the WT from 1881, where Russell says that the "little flock" IS the faithful and wise servant. However, as you say, in the book The Battle of Armageddon, as per the footnote under the asterisk, Br.Russell definitely insinuates that the faithful and wise servant is ONE person. Evidently and logically himself, although he never says so directly. I do not understand why Br. Franz didn't just leave the quote from the WT without referring to the Armageddon book. And you are right, in later years Br. Russell did view himself as the servant, although again, not directly. But from what I have read of the old Watchtowers, he wrote mainly in the third person anyway, so he would have never said "I am the servant". So how did Br. Franz react to your observation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, Anna said:

So how did Br. Franz react to your observation?

No reaction to that one in particular, but I did "read into" the non-reaction, perhaps unfairly, because after attempting to show him the next one, he made me feel like I was encroaching on his time, which always makes me nervous and makes me a bit flustered, wishing that I had put them in a different order or presented them all at once or something (I was only about 23). Then, I couldn't even get to the third one before he started talking about letters complaining about the book study, and how this never started happening until just two years ago. He told me, if I want, to send it (as if there was only one item) to Brother Dean Songer for him to decide if it was worth the trouble to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/18/2016 at 10:43 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
On 12/18/2016 at 0:17 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

How would the disciples have understood his words in Luke 24:39

That the Jesus they knew and loved had indeed been resurrected. Jesus exhibited the same spirit that he displayed at John 16:12-13. No need to subject his already buffeted disciples to terrifying manifestations such as those experienced earlier by Daniel when confronted with a spirit being (Da.10:8-9). Jesus did not find it necessary to overwhelm them with proof that he had been resurrected in the manner required to move the insolent Saul as later recorded at Acts 9:3-9.

You've not really answered the question. How would Jesus' disciples have understood him when he said, "it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"? 

Quote

Agreed, but would qualify this with a reference to 1 Cor.15:45 which says of Jesus: "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

 Well now, this presents a conundrum: How to harmonize Jesus' words with Paul's.

Quote

Agreed. However, pre-Christian believers will not enjoy a resurrection like Christ's.

But Heb. 11:16, 39, 40? In any case, we are still discussing Christian-era Christians.

Quote

(Not sure why you have Mighty God in parenthesis here?)

To be clear on who 'only Potentate' refers to when writing my comment.

Quote

However, your proposed view does not change the understanding of 1John 3:2 where Christians who will  "see him just as he is" will of necessity be unable to do so if resurrected as humans, flesh and blood.

Paul's term 'flesh and blood' is to be understood as an idiom describing man's present, corrupt-ed/-ible, mortal body, as opposed to the spirit-generated, incorruptible, immortal resurrection body. He's not saying that resurrected believers will no longer be human ... otherwise 'resurrection' (lit. 'standing up again') wouldn't be an appropriate word to describe what's supposed to happen. 

But continuing this line of discussion will lead us too far off topic about whether a subset of Christian-era believers will have a different sort of everlasting reward to other Christian-era believers. If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change? 

On 12/18/2016 at 10:43 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
On 12/18/2016 at 0:17 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

how did two different destinies for true Christian believers come about?

Compare Jesus words at Matt.16:17:

"flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did"

How does Jesus' response to Peter's conclusion about Jesus being the Christ help answer my question? Or are you suggesting there was some divine revelation in post-biblical times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/27/2016 at 9:12 PM, Anna said:

So, just a few simple questions, why did God create the earth in the first place?

According to the Bible, it was to be a home for His creation and humans were to take care of it.

Quote

Do you believe what Christendom does, that the earth was created as a testing ground for mankind, before they were allowed access into heaven?

No. I don't think all 'Christendom' believes that anyway. Maybe some churches do, if they also believe heaven is believers' final destiny and the earth will be destroyed by fire. Mainstream Christianity teaches that heavenly existence is the intermediate state, not the final one. The intermediate state is a little akin to the JW concept of being 'in God's memory' - the state between physical death and resurrection.

Quote

Is heaven the place where the angels were to mingle with humans who had experienced life on earth and then were given spiritual bodies to become like the other angels, who had never been human but were created already with a spiritual body? 

Sounds a bit 'gnostic' to me.

Quote

Or do you believe what the Mormons believe, that God created only angels who, in order to appreciate being an angel, were sent to the earth to experience evil?

No.

 ----------

(From another post.)

Quote

I am aware that the commentary of James was written by his nephew,

Ed Dunlap wrote that one, I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Mainstream Christianity teaches that heavenly existence is the intermediate state, not the final one.

Really? That is news to me. So what is the final one?

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

According to the Bible, it was to be a home for His creation and humans were to take care of it.

So do you think that purpose has changed?

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Ed Dunlap wrote that one, I understand

Hmmm, ok. I was under the impression it was Raymond....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

it is I myself

These were Jesus words. The disciples present would have understood that it was indeed actually him, not a vision or some other type of manifestation. The form in which he presented himself was appropriate for the occasion.

22 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

To be clear on who 'only Potentate' refers to when writing my comment.

Well I certainly agree with the term "Mighty God" (Is. 9:6) applying to the 'only Potentate'.

22 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How does Jesus' response to Peter's conclusion about Jesus being the Christ help answer my question? Or are you suggesting there was some divine revelation in post-biblical times?

Jesus words at Matt 16:17 can apply to any divinely provided insight into the true meaning of Scripture. For me, this differs from the revelation of new or additional material which has not occurred since the first Century. That is why I quoted Jesus words as a having a comparative rather than a direct application.

You obviously understand the concept of an earthy and heavenly resurrection as you are able to explain it quite adequately and with reference to the texts used to support that understanding. Whether you choose to accept or reject that understanding of the resurrections is a matter for you (or anyone else) on a  personal basis. As was the identification of Jesus as the Christ at Peter's time on earth. Peter chose to accept that identification. Others did not, although they no doubt could easily recount the events and explain the significance Christians of the time attached to them.

So what I am suggesting is that the correct understanding and application of Scripture is a divine revelation, attributable to the operation of God's Spirit. As for that matter is the resultant faith generated in those who accept the divine insight and make it their own. (Gal.5:22). However, I recognise that 'faith is not a possession of all people' (2Thess.3:2). This includes those who may well have an awareness of the knowledge, understanding and application of matters providing a basis for the excercise of faith in those so inclined, but who chose not to do so themselves.

23 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But continuing this line of discussion will lead us too far off topic

Agreed and as I already suggested earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, Anna said:

Really? That is news to me. So what is the final one?

The resurrected, glorified body that Paul talks about - fit to live in the 'new heavens and new earth.' 

Unfortunately, some churches have over-emphasized the intermediate 'heaven' bit and parishioners have gone away with the impression that an ethereal existence in 'heaven' will be believers' final state - a concept that is more Gnostic in flavor than Christian.

These links will give you a quick overview and maybe help answer your other question about God's purpose:

https://www.gotquestions.org/intermediate-state.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/intermediate-state.html

https://exlibris1.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-intermediate-state-in-the-new-testament-history-of-interpretation/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:
On 12/31/2016 at 3:05 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

it is I myself

These were Jesus words. The disciples present would have understood that it was indeed actually him, not a vision or some other type of manifestation. The form in which he presented himself was appropriate for the occasion.

And Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have" - how would the disciples have understood this? 

Quote

Well I certainly agree with the term "Mighty God" (Is. 9:6) applying to the 'only Potentate'.

That was not what I was suggesting, of course. I had in mind the term 'Mighty God' - as in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18 - applying to the 'only Potentate.' 

It looks like your next response is one of 'throwing in the towel' and pretty much saying that holy spirit will have to reveal to me the 'truth' as you see it so I can align with your, or present JW, interpretation. Yes, I understand the official JW concepts of earthly and heavenly resurrections for Christian-era Christians, but I question the validity of two separate destinies on scriptural grounds. (Acts 17:11, anyone?)

So far, the questions that are as yet left hanging in the air are:

  • Given that Paul likened Abraham's being declared righteous by faith to 1st century Christians' being declared righteous by faith, on what basis is there a tangible difference between being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' (understood to be one Christian group of prospective recipients of God's saving grace) and 'declared righteous for life' (understood to be another group of Christians who are recipients of God's saving grace now and into eternity)?
  • If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change? 
  • And the sidebar that keeps being sidestepped: How would the disciples have understood Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"? 

Anyway, if those questions provoke further private thought, reflection and research, even if one doesn't feel like discussing them at the moment, it's all good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JAluse

      JAluse 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • George88

      George88 556

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ComfortMyPeople

      ComfortMyPeople 544

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stephwat

      stephwat 3

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.