[Watchtower Summary for w14 01/15 p. 7]
Par. 8 – “God…commissioned Noah to be “a preacher of righteousness.” There is no evidence that Noah was commissioned by God for this role. All we can state with any assurance was that Noah preached righteousness. We make this into a special commission from God, implying that the world of that time had due warning of what was to come. Given that the world of that time likely numbered into the hundreds of millions, it is well nigh impossible to come up with a scenario whereby Noah could have effectively preached to them all, even if he didn’t have the added task of building the ark.
We like to make more of this scripture than is there as a way to give creds to our preaching work. The logic goes that like Noah, we too are commissioned to preach a warning to the world before Jehovah destroys it.
Par. 16 – “He thereby gave some of his faithful disciples the prospect of joining him as kings in God’s Kingdom.” If you remove the words “some of” you would have a scripturally accurate statement, for we are not talking here about the final reward but only the prospect of it which is open to all of Jesus’ disciples. However, that does not coincide with our stated policy, so we have to introduce a little leaven to corrupt the plain teaching of scripture.
Par. 17 – “Still, Jesus would have to wait to take up full kingly power over the earth as the promised “offspring.” Jehovah told his Son: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.””
This paragraph sets up the topic for next week which reaffirms our teaching that 1914 is the start of Christ’s full kingly power. Let us do a little set up of our own. Ask yourself now if there is any evidence over the past 100 years that Jesus’ enemies have been placed as a stool for his feet? We would like the world to believe that since 1914 there has been a “new kid in town.” Where’s the proof?
Since we are talking about matters that relate to the period from Jesus’ resurrection until his return, I posted material on the links below that you might be interested in:
The Last Days:
The Conclusion of the System of Things:
Bobcat This is downright spooky.Over the last few months I also have taken an interest in the term ‘Last Days’. I mentioned in another post how things I was thinking would often come up in this forum, even though I had not discussed it with anybody else. The topic of those links are an example of exactly what I meant!! Some of the things you pointed out, I too had noticed (eg with Hebrews, Joel, Acts etc) and had come to the conclusion that the writers of the NT thought they were living in the Last Days. Furthermore I also… Read more »
Okay this is getting even more spooky.
After posting my comment, I scrolled up to see the body of the main post.
And there in front of me were graphs, outlining the number of wars during the last few hundred years.
I tell you no lie, I had done exactly the same research and was sharing the information with the significant other half.
This is like some kind of Vulcan mind meld going on!!
ImJustAsking: Imagine what we would be able to research together!! This is precisely what threatens high-control groups and why ‘divide-and-conquer’ works. But, yes, I look forward to that day. Incidentally, as I get a better understanding of words such as “presence” (or parousia, the period that begins with Jesus’ coming/arrival), “last days” (the period from Jesus first appearance until his return), “conclusion of the system” (basically equivalent to the great tribulation), when Jesus began his rule (29 or 33, depending on whether you count his rule from his anointing or exaltation – compare John 18:37 where Jesus tacitly admits to… Read more »
Agree, and it sometimes is addictive this site. Finally getting clarity and being able to share and to see similar or even more thorough thoughts around bible verses. Lets go on !
Meleti, with your blessing I would like to devote a bit more time and effort to develop the issue you raised as to whether Scripture teaches two different destinies for humans, which I agree is a rather important study to undertake, with practical benefits to be gained for us, and I therefore propose to start a thread about this on the discussion board, and perhaps importing a few posts from here that are pertinent to it, if that is OK with you. By the way, the other three points you want me to clarify could better be dealt with under… Read more »
I agree. The discussion forum is the best place for this type of dialogue. I’ll see you there. 🙂
In fact there were more levels of resurrected hopefuls dating to earliest times. Hebrews 11:35 sums this up by saying: “Women received their dead by resurrection; but other [men] were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection.” Paul further clarifies this in Philippians 3:12-16 (Common English Bible): “It’s not that I have already reached this goal or have already been perfected, but I pursue it, so that I may grab hold of it because Christ grabbed hold of me for just this purpose. 13 Brothers and sisters, I… Read more »
Oh, I forgot to deal with the perspective of the Israelites, who obviously believed that God would bring them back from the grave to be restored to their former existence and fortune here on earth, because the whole of Hebrew Scripture is full of pictures portraying life in paradise here on earth under the rule of the promised Messiah, I am sure you would agree with this assessment. The problem with WT theology lies precisely in the fact that most of it is scripturally accurate, because how else could it serve as a convincing decoy to mislead if possible even… Read more »
It was not until I became aware of the spirits testimony that I was anointed, that I could begin to see truth.
I only read JW material and came to my own conclusions from the bible.
I was trying to be an accepted anointed and succeeded.
But then the spirit taught me that my “good news” was of another sort…and I don’t like to compromise my faith.
You sound like a good Calvinist Ross 😉 Matthew 22:14 many are called, few are chosen. Called ἐκλεκτός , selected. The setting is clearly a heavenly one. They are invited and are supposed to have their wedding clothes ready. Read Matthew 22 as a whole. People REFUSED to come. There was a choice. I am actually currently conducting a biblestudy w 2 Calvinists who argue like you are about the anointed, but I can throw a slew of verses out there to show that’s not biblical at all. “So to say that all followers of Christ are also automatically the… Read more »
[…] explanation see “Wars and Reports of Wars—A Red Herring?”  Daniel 10:13  See comments 1 and 2  See a series of articles under the topic, “Identifying the Slave”.  Matthew […]
Meleti, thanks for going to the trouble of giving your reasons for objecting to what I wrote, because now I can actually see where you are coming from, and concede that you have a valid and rather interesting point there, in that, if looked at from a non-witness perspective, people are most likely accustomed to the concept of going to Heaven rather than continuing their life here on earth. But since the first Christians clearly knew that they were to become kings and priests over the ‘inhabited earth to come’- although I do agree with you that this would unlikely… Read more »
I have no objections to what you have said here. Please continue.
ImJustAsking: (This is a reply from a post of yours above. There have been so many posts since that I wasn’t sure if you would ever see my reply. This is in connection with your comments which your post ended, and copied here just to help continue the thought. For anyone else reading, it is in connection with apparent ‘good times’ when there is supposed to be ‘woe for the earth’ from Satan’s ousting in Rev 12.) >>In short people would argue the world is a better place than it was say even 100 years ago, much less two thousand… Read more »
Bobcat I just lurrrrrrv you. I really mean that 🙂
There is nothing better than the meeting of kindred spirits and minds.
I too have made those connections with Daniel and Revelation and I am in the process of creating a Mindmap to see how it all fits together.
Some of my interpretations differ, but broadly speaking we are headed in the same direction.
Thank you for your further insights. I will share your thoughts with my friend.
Do you think we should start this discussion up on the forum?
Do you think we should start this discussion up on the forum? IJA
Please do. That would be great. Try to separate distinct issues into separate topics though. It’s not always easy to decide on that, so just use your best judgement.
I am looking forward to those topics very much 🙂 I love prophecy!
ImJustAsking: Thank you for your comments. And I have no objections at all about a thread on these things. I had become very familiar with the WT views on Revelation, Daniel, Mt 24-25, etc. over the years. But in the last few years I’ve been exploring the ramifications of several NWT text rendering problems (e.g. Rev 1:10 as above, and Mt 24:36 to name a few), my dismissing of 1914 as bogus, various word meanings held to by the WT but that I now feel are erroneous (e.g. “remaining” of Rev 12:17 = “remnant”), various associations taught as truth (e.g.… Read more »
I have learned so much during the past few months here on site. My husband and I had a sheparding call the other day, and we asked the brothers questions about various topics. (I won’t go into exact details here) The brothers were very obviously uncomfortable with our questions and the fact that we used several different versions of the Bible. We even used an old Gideon that we found to research some Scriptures. We enjoy studying the “deep things” of God. Unfortunately when we go to the meetings, it all just sounds like so much “sales meeting techniques” The… Read more »
Hi Silvertop, thanks for sharing. And like you, this forum is quite enlightning. Your question about why to go to the meetings. I struggle with the same. I guess we can give various reasons why we still go. I know I still go for these various reasons. However, recently the words of Jesus came to my mind where He says that who has more love his father, mother, daughter more than he loves me, is not worthy of me (Mat. 10:37). I understand that it might not apply literaly but somehow I feel that if I stay because of the… Read more »
I know exactly how you feel. I realize there is no perfect group of worshippers and no1 has the monopoly on truth or even practices their faith always very genuine. As a rule I find a lot of my fellow brothers and sisters are sincere in their faith. If it was not for the disfellowshipping arrangement and the FDS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY mentality, I could see my worship there till Jehovah’s day comes. These two reasons make it harder for me, because I feel inhibited in helping others. Right now me and my wife still attend and in fact… Read more »
Hi Silvertop, Welcome to the discussion. We have all been on long journeys here, but I see the gathering of people here as evidence that we are being “called out of her”. If not physically, then at least emotionally and mentally. With passing time I see the WT organization evolve ever more into a sect. I used to say NO, we don’t follow any human leader, I don’t even know the names of the governing body. Now self promotion is a constant at each meeting. I cannot remember one recent meeting where we weren’t instructed to be grateful or obedient… Read more »
Hi ‘Imjustasking,’ thanks for bearing with me in my questions, so, yes, to point one, the answer is obviously Jews, who were His target audience, but I would ask along with Paul, ‘Is He the [Messiah] of the Jews only? Is He not also of people of the nations?’ As to point two, here is where I needed your view in detail, because I would never have come to your conclusion simply by reading Scripture, so thank you for elaborating, as the idea of two consecutive spiritual births is entirely new to me, since in verse six Jesus clearly contrasts… Read more »
Ross, you have a PM on the discussion board. Partly I just wanted to test the feature. I hope you don’t mind me trying it out on you. Apollos
Meleti, 1) QUOTE ME: “so that if they were to fail, they would also miss out on the earthly eternity they originally had, and go straight to the lake of fire.” Reasoning on Heb 6:4-8 and its implications: those who have once for all been enlightened, who are they, and what where they before they were enlightened? Would you agree that this is talking about the anointed, with a hope of heavenly life, with which they were enlightened, which means that before they were thus enlightened, they did not have that hope, and if they didn’t have the heavenly hope,… Read more »
>>so that if they were to fail, they would also miss out on the earthly eternity they originally had, and go straight to the lake of fire This is assuming a fact not in evidence. You are assuming they had an earthly eternity to begin with and by accepting the heavenly calling and failing, they miss out on both. This is what JWs teach. That we are baptized as of the earthly class, but for some at some point of God’s choosing, they get a heavenly calling. If they fail to measure up to the heavenly calling, there is no… Read more »
Hi Bobcat, right, you make a good point there about the parables of the kingdom, so in that sense the kingdom started in 33 CE as the instrument [dragnet etc.] through which the anointed were to be gathered during the past 2000 years, but that is not the millennial reign of Christ which will start with His coming and subsequent presence, as the word parousia signifies, and which will last for a thousand years. So maybe we should develop the language and terms to accurately express the reality that either, the kingdom of the Heavens has two stages, one of… Read more »
Ross: You might want to check out my post here (which is a little ways above on this thread): http://meletivivlon.com/2014/03/03/wt-study-worship-jehovah-the-king-of-eternity/#comment-9767 It includes a quote from the NICNT commentary on Matthew that gives a little different understanding to the word “kingdom.” This might give you some insight into how I think on these matters.. As it is, I don’t (actually, I no longer) believe in some seperate “kingdom ” over Christ’s disciples (Col 1:13), with a new global kingdom instituted in 1914 (per WT theology). Rather, I believe “the kingdom of God/heaven,” as spoken of in the Synoptic gospels, represents a… Read more »
“It replaces the Old Covenant rulership of God, with one that extends itself over the Gentile world.”
Now that, Bobcat, is a particularly interesting way of looking at this.
Meleti, I have given, and am in the process of giving further, Scriptures and their application to the things I wrote, so for you to imply that I state my views without scriptural backing is simply not true, so for you to dismiss or ignore my scriptural reasoning because it doesn’t suit you, without giving your side of the story and what you believe to be the correct interpretation is not helpful to further the discussion and understanding which might result. I don’t ask those questions to put you on the spot or because I am trying to trick or… Read more »
You’re quite a guy, Ross. The lengths you go to in order to avoid answering a few questions is impressive. This latest comment totals almost 600 words. Seriously, it would have been so much easier just to post the scriptures on which your arguments were based and saved us all so much time. However, since you are not willing to answer my questions without first getting an answer from me, let’s make a bargain. I’ll answer your questions, but then you have to answer mine. No more delays, okay? Ross: Is the Father by nature immortal? Meleti: Yes (Ps. 90:2)… Read more »
GWIS, IMHO, the NWT is not to be trusted. But to be fair, all Bibles are translated with bias of the translators. That is why it is best to check other translations. Have you seen the new ‘Yearbook’? In the forward it says this: Early in this service year, at the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania ,the New World Bible Translation Committee released the newly revised English edition of the finest translation of the Bible available to mankind. Jehovah used his own spirit begotten sons to provide the original New World Translation.(Rom.8:15,16)That fact… Read more »
Jehovah inspired the NWT? Am I reading this correctly ? This group (GB) never claims to be “inspired” or “infallible” but they seem to have received inspiration from Jehovah himself for the RNWT. That is an amazing statement. I do not understand the word games….are you inspired or not ? If they claimed inspiration I do not believe that it would necessarily be offensive to JW’s . We are drunk with the kool aid anyway. I met a Catholic in service who enlightened me on apostolic succession and the divine inspiration ( or direct channel of communication as JW’s like… Read more »
I reread the statement ….I guess they are not implying that God’s “spirit begotten sons” translated it or wrote it …..they just provided it. I am not sure if that makes much of a difference of my belief of them promoting their uninspired yet inspired status .
GWIT, it is not much of a surprise. As a comparison, the Biblegateway about New English Translation is saying the following: — The NET BIBLE is a completely new translation of the Bible! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. AND — The main goal of the NET Bible’s 25-person translation team was to create a version of the Bible that was more freely accessible than other Bible translations at the time. To that end, their translation process… Read more »
Actually the NWT (80ies version) is a fairly good translation. Most of the critiques against it come from other Christian “scholars” who just want to attack the ones who made it. While I haven’t studied enough Greek to be a scholar, I have studied Greek for about 6 years in High School and have a linguist degree in Eastern Languages and Cultures. Many of the critiques against the NWT simply are just biased beyond word 😉 There is good argumentation for the choices made by the NWT. They might be biased, just like other translations are, but the translation does… Read more »
I think most translations are ‘polluted ‘ with doctrines and religious views. In my view NWT is not different in that respect. I agree that certain elementa are better translated than other translations but at the same time the NWT have added words or added commas to support a religious view. The fact that the divine name have been added to the Greek text where not one old manuscript to date has been found that has the divine name shows that the translators had their own views put in the NWT.
I just wanted to put that out there, because people always wanna swing from one extreme to the other. All the sudden all we believe is wrong, the bible we have is completely wrong, etc 😉
It is impossible to translate the bible without BIAS.
When two options are possible, the one chosen will be bias..
ImJustAsking: re: Revelation explicitly says John was taken into the Lords day (Rev 1:10). I didn’t mention Revelation 1:10 in any of my posts above. Here is why:. The rendering of Revelation 1:10 in the NWT is suspect and, as far as I can tell, is rendered that way in the NWT for theological reasons important to the Society, rather than as simply a literal translation. (Revelation 1:10 NWT) . . .By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day. . . In the Greek text the verb “came to be” occurs before “in spirit” (egenomen en pnuemati, literally… Read more »
Okay, lots to think about here. Thanks.
I guess it might be weeks or months before I can give a reply to your comments, either in agreement or with a rebuttal.
Again thanks for sharing this, this is going to take a lot of research and re-formulating of some opinions that I had formed concerning the beast etc if you are correct 🙂 -:0
ImJustAsking: Take your time. Don’t jump to conclusions, nor take anything at face value. In everything, there is always an aspect(s) that each of us hasn’t seen or considered yet. Learning is a great voyage. I really appreciate your candidness. And, as far as Rev 1:10 goes, the Society’s rendering of the verse forms the linchpin of much of their explanation of Revelation. So, change Rev 1:10, and then you necessarily have to revise much of one’s WT-based understanding of other parts of Revelation. I can say that because, ‘I’ve been there, done that.’ I would also caution about the… Read more »
ImJustAsking: I forgot to comment on your first question: 1. Who was responsible for the mayhem and chaos PRIOR to Satan being thrown out of heaven, if what we see is a result of his actions over the last 2000 years? In answer to this, one might first mention that even if Satan was cast down in the 20th century (as per the WT), one could ask the very same question – Who was responsible for the mayhem previously? Although, if one holds to a 1st century casting out of Satan (corresponding to a 1st century enthronement of Jesus) one… Read more »
In answer to your question (in response to mine), about the woes of mankind (past and present), Satan has been and still is the culprit. No one can forget that he offered Jesus the Kingdoms of the World. Therefore the warning that Revelation gives to the earth is pretty lame. One has to ask has the last two thousand years been any worse than the previous two thousand years, regardless of whether he was evicted from heaven or not? So even if your understanding of the Greek is correct, something seems to be off mark. Is the care free attitude… Read more »
Thanks for pointing this out. I just ran a search on Rev. 1:10 in biblehub.com and saw that virtually every translation renders it as you explain. If I accept the NWT rendering, I am left scratching your head because in that context–in fact, in the very same sentence–Jesus addresses the seven congregations of John’s day. If the NWT rendering is right, it means that John was transported to the day of the Lord (our day, by JW theology) then in the same sentence, transported back to the first century. I imaging this would leave poor aged John with his head… Read more »
I fully agree. Besides biblehub I use New English Translation with extensive notes. The notes all confirm the above regarding The Lords Day. The Kingdom Interlinear also is correct. It is peculiar though. The new JW Library app which has the 2013 revised edition and in parallel it allows to see 3 other translations like Kindom Interlinear. There you can easily see the differences between RNWT and the other translations (these are all consistent) . One will ask how long it will take before these inconsistencies / additions or errors are noticed and, hopefully, challenged.
I should mention that there are others, besides the Society, who postulate the idea that John was transported into the future. But as I pointed out, that is not how the Greek text reads, and as Meleti pointed out, much of the context of Revelation has John still inhabiting the 1st century: The 1st century congregations of chapteras 2 and 3, for example, and the still existing 6th world power (aka ‘5 have fallen, 1 is, the other has yet to arrive’ of Rev 17:9, 10). On a somewhat different aspect, with Jesus receiving the scroll to open in Rev… Read more »
Thanks all for your responses. You’ve given me much to think about. As I previously stated I haven’t given much thought as to when/how/where /what Jesus began ruling. I’ve come to believe for many years 1914 was bogus. It’s only after discovering this site that that I began viewing that doctrine as important. I have stated before I thought it was no big deal that it was false.More and more I am becoming to realize how much that doctrine has shaped my belief system regarding other things. It’s like gangrene ! Apparently I haven’t cut off this doctrine from my… Read more »
Additionally, I’ve always used other Bibles. However the discussion regarding the rendering of certain scriptures has me kinda nervous.
I would say probably 90% of my Bible “knowledge” is based on the NWT . I used to vigorously defend this Bible when others accused us of having our own Bible .Apparently that is in fact the case.
It is correct that the impact is rather significant. So, let’s have a closer look. Rev. 5:9 reads (NET): 9 They were singing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were killed, and at the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. Verse 12 more or less repeats it. Obvious this is about Jesus. I do not think that it takes 1914 years to acknowledge that Jesus was worthy because of the reasons mentioned. That was already clearly known… Read more »
Bobcat, When you say “many commentaries acknowledge a ‘now and yet later’ sense of the Kingdom as Jesus taught,”.this would agree better with Hebraic thought and culture. And since the Hebrew language is much simpler in its more dynamic renderings, the idea that the Kingdom is better understood as spiritual, something that “invades personal lives at first, and yet, in time, it invades the entire sphere of humanity (as the latter half of Dan 2:44 describes).” It also clarifies Jesus words in Luke 17:21 when he said: “the Kingdom of God is in your midst (or ‘within you’ as rendered… Read more »
SmolderWick1: Here is a little from the discussion in the NICNT-Matthew commentary (New International Commentary on the New Testament, R. T. France, p.102): The importance and meaning of “the kingdom of God/heaven” [which France holds “God” and “heaven” in the phrase to be functionally equivalent] as a central element in Jesus’ teaching according to the Synoptic Gospels has been voluminously discussed, and I have contributed to that discussion. While no statement would command universal assent, there is general agreement that, rather than denoting a specific time, place, or situation called “the kingdom” – a misleading abbreviation which is as conspicuously… Read more »
Bobcat, Thank you. And not to criticize but for a certainty I have yet to see a contributor so prolific as to cross-reference himself so many times on one site. Your mind must possess a table of contents complete with bibliography and exhaustive index! 🙂 As for my reference to the more dynamic Hebrew language, there are of course levels of Hebrew: the more ancient Phoenician-like, pictographically concrete leading to the later, Neo-Babylonian/Aramaic considered by Hebraic purists to be contaminated and later influenced by a far more conglomerate abstract Greek. But [to be functionally equivalent] we would likely need to… Read more »
>>Your mind must possess a table of contents complete with bibliography and exhaustive index! My wife’s opinion of my memory is somewhat less enthusiastic when she asks me to remember to pick up something from the store! 🙂 But keeping track of where I put some item of research saves some re-typing. But I haven’t yet figured out how to embed links (e.g. making the word “here” clickable). Or for that matter make use of bolding and italics. That would be handy. I use Chrome, by the way. I don’t know if that is an issue with the post editor.… Read more »
I’m no scholar of Biblical Hebrew but I have spent a lot of research time at another site called Ancient Hebrew.org. It’s not perfect but it does fill in a lot of what has been lost in translation.
And regarding that little problem with the wife? It’s called selective hearing. My wife discovered it when she took me to a hearing specialist and I scored better than her. When she asked why I never heard half the things she said, that was the answer the specialist gave. Fortunately, she’s still got a sense of humour 🙂
Let me research that issue about formatting text. I can as the moderator/administrator of the site, but if I can find a way via WordPress to expose those controls to registered users, I will.
IJA I cannot wrap my mind around Jesus ruling over congregations as King.Where does this idea come from? He’s king of only the Christians/JW’s? That is certainly how the brothers and sisters were commenting today. The watchtower conductor stated that Jesus is ruling as now as King (although the concluding song hailed Jehovah as king ? “Let the heavens rejoice, Let the earth joyful be, For Jehovah has become King!”)with a little over 7 million subjects (approx # ofJW members worldwide) apparently the GB and others of the 144,000 are kings now? I’m more inclined to believe based on the… Read more »
Hi GWIS, I don’t believe he is ruling on earth right now. He has the power to do so, but there is too much that is wrong with the world to believe that he is controlling things. His beginning to rule over the NATIONS will not be some quiet affair. It comes in with a bang!! Consider these verses, especially verse 15 Isa 52:13 Look! My servant will act with insight. He will be in high station and will certainly be elevated and exalted very much. Isa 52:14 To the extent that many have stared at him in amazement-so much… Read more »
He is head over his anointed church with the authority of an engaged Jew. This was an official bond that required a divorce certificate to break. The marriage is in the future yes, but he already excerices headship. This headship started in 33 at Pentecost.
He will rule over the earth and this will start in the millennium.
I think the problem running with the idea that Jesus was ruling from his death comes about for the reasons Ross stated. There seems to be a dichotomy. Good King Jesus ruling, but everything in Christendom is an apparent mess. This includes the branch that we (on this board) nominally belong to. So how do we ‘square the circle’? I think the answer may lie in the fact that we forget important lessons Jesus et al told us about the Kingdom. He said many, many times that by the time he arrived it would be in a parlous state. Mth… Read more »
GodsWordIsTruth: re “Unless Jesus’ promised kingdom rule has indeed been presiding over the past 2000 years of slaughter and mayhem,” Consider how the view that Jesus began his Kingdom rule since the 1st century would impact these passages: Rev 6:1-7 (the 4 horsemen) presents Jesus as being crowned, going forth to conquer and complete his conquest, followed in the vision by the war, famine, plagues, etc – or as you quoted, “the past 2000 years of slaughter and mayhem.” Rev 12 would follow the same pattern: Jesus the seed of the woman caught away to God’s throne (i.e. his ascension… Read more »
Bobcat, I’m not sure about your reasoning here. 1. Who was responsible for the mayhem and chaos PRIOR to Satan being thrown out of heaven, if what we see is a result of his actions over the last 2000 years? 2. Revelation explicitly says John was taken into the Lords day (Rev 1:10). If the Lord’s day and the beginning of Jesus rule are synonymous (as you seem to suggest from your reasoning) and that Jesus began to rule from his death, then logically John was ALREADY IN the Lord’s day. Therefore, there would not be a need for him… Read more »
Additionally, not everything related in Revelation occurred in the Lord’s day. The account of the seven congregations for instance.
Good reasoning, BobCat and in line with some of my private discussions with Apollos. You’ve introduced a few new thoughts to the argument as well. The timing is excellent as I’m preparing a post on the next WT study that will deal with a number of these points.
imjustasking: Thank you very much for the welcome. Ross: My intention in the posts above was to present a scriptural survey/analysis of the verses that impact the WT assertion that Jesus began his rule in 1914 (par. 17, p. 11 of the 1/15/2014 study WT). It would also, of course, impact the next article (re. ‘100 Years of Kingdom Rule’). You can rest assured I have no intention of restarting Vatican domination of the world. As for the Kingdom operating since the early part of the first century, consider the parables of Matthew chapter 13 (especially The sower, the wheat/weeds,… Read more »
the last time I was told ‘we are the ones who ask the
questions here,’ was at my judicial meeting, which
kind of makes me feel at home here, lol
We can discuss Scripture, but not without an
interchange of views conducted in good faith.
Ross, There have been many expressions of appreciation for the freedom of expression this site provides. It provides an outlet for many sincere truth-seekers who have endured years of sitting in meetings and being forced to listen and read arbitrary and supported statements about what the Bible allegedly says; all the while being denied the right to challenge even a word of what is taught. Everyone here has the right to express themselves respectfully and as you say, “in good faith“. As the above link shows, “Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or… Read more »
Hey Ross, if you scroll up some 40ish comments (guessing), you may notice Meleti broke up one of your posts into separate comments, and asked you to reply to each point individually. You can do this by clicking reply underneath each respective post. I don’t see him challenging you, just asking to back up each point of the claim. I appreciate you already have a “fuller picture” but to convince anyone on this site we need to investigate each and every possible objection. Otherwise we can just read watchtowers. They also present a harmonious picture, until we start asking questions.… Read more »
Very good points Meleti & Alex.
There are so many building blocks in the walls of our faith that the WTS have misaligned, left out, or put in the wrong place, that it can be hard to rebuild them without breaking a few connections.
If we try and rebuild several walls at once we are in danger of becoming confused and demoralized.
Knowing that the bricks are where they should be and that they are held in place with good scriptural mortar is something we all desire.
1 Pet 3:15
Hi Bobcat and Apollos, the idea that the kingdom of God started ruling in 33 CE goes back all the way to the third century, when the Christian Church began implementing its rulership over the world in the Name of Christ as its earthly representatives, by burning everybody who disagreed with their interpretation of Scripture that Christ was given authority to rule over the nations upon His ascension to Heaven, but I don’t know why we should be supporting this heresy of the Catholic Church, especially with the hindsight of 2000 years of failed Christian rule over the world, supposedly… Read more »
Bobcat makes great points. Jamaician JW made similar sound scriptural points. “Unless Jesus’ promised kingdom rule has indeed been presiding over the past 2000 years of slaughter and mayhem,” My thought is similar to Ross’.Yet, I cannot argue with scripture. he’s on the throne… I probably know the answer to this question but can a King rule and yet not everyone is fully subjected to him on the throne? When will there be a culmination of this reign? Perhaps the promised 1000 year reign is His future reign on earth? So during His coming, return or advent… He is destroying… Read more »
I can very briefly answer question 4.
If non gentiles are not ‘born again’ how do we become Gods’s sons?
I think you may have touched on it in your response, but here goes:
a. John 6:26 – 64
b. Luke 22:14-29
c. Romans 6
Welcome to the discussion board.
What an impressive contribution!!!
Thank you for your thoughts 🙂
Ross, I didn’t want you to guess anything,I just thought as a thinking person you would have preferred to reason on the matter for yourself. In any case, I’ll lay it out for you. 1. Who was the ‘you people’ Jesus was referring to when he spoke to Nicodemus? Only the Jews or Jews and Gentiles Only the Jews – not the gentiles present or future. Joh 3:3 In answer Jesus said to him: “Most truly I say to you, Unless anyone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” That word anyone in verse 3 would seem… Read more »
Hi Umberto, Nice to meet you, and good to hear your point, although, actually, all angels are gods, just like Jesus was before becoming flesh while still existing in God’s form as a spirit being, but they are all mortal, the same as humans are. 2 Cor 4:4; Ps 82:6,7 That all things came into existence through Jesus, or that some of the angels turned against God, did not alter their being of the same form of mortal spirits, made in the image of God. Hence, although Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father through whom all things were… Read more »
apollos0falexandria said: The pivotal periods are the resurrection (as per your references) and then (hopefully soon) when Jesus’ kingship is exercised in a tangible way to every living being by arriving and then “sitting down on his glorious throne” during the millennial reign Yes, compare that with Paul’s words as Acts 17:30, 31: True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent. 31 Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he… Read more »
Thank you for your comments.
Heb 1:5 quotes from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 – (Hebrews 1:5 NWT) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? [Ps 2:7] And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? [2 Sam 7:14] The implication of the question in Hebrews 1:5 (“to which one of the angels did he ever say . . .”) is that God did already say those things to Jesus (at the time of the writing of Hebrews). Both Psalm… Read more »
Here is a comprehensive list of all the Scriptures referring to Jesus’ “presence” (parousia, Strong’s # 3952) The WT holds that Jesus’ “presence” begins with his crowning as king. So the implied question here is: Does the context of these verses referring to Jesus’ “presence” give any indication that it is connected with when Jesus becomes king? Mt 24:3 Disciples question leading to Olivet Discourse. Note that in disciples minds the parousia was related to destruction of the temple and the “conclusion of the system of things” (or “the age”). Mt 24:27 The parousia would be something universally recognized. Mt… Read more »
An interesting discussion in the NICNT-Matthew commentary (R. T. France, p.103-04) concerning the phrase, “the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Mt 3:2 NWT 1984-2013) [Start Quote] But John (and Jesus) do not simply echo this [prevailing Jewish] hope of God’s rule coming soon. It has already arrived; literally, it “has come near.” There has been extensive debate over the significance of the choice of the verb engizo [Strong’s # 1448, “neared”], and of especially its perfect tense. The present tense, engizei, would have conveyed the standard eschatalogical hope, it “is coming near,” but the perfect [tense] engiken [found… Read more »
Regarding paragraph 17 and the question, “When would Jesus begin to rule as King of God’s Kingdom?” Heb 10:12, 13 applies Psalm 110:1 to Jesus and has him already sitting at God’s right hand after his resurrection, awaiting for God to place his enemies at his feet. Heb 2:5-9 describes Jesus already “crowned with glory and honor” although still awaiting God to subdue all his enemies. 1 Cor 15:24-28 also alludes to Psalm 110:1. What is most interesting about it is how it contradicts paragraph 17 about when Jesus starts ruling. In his allusion to Psalm 110:1, Paul replaces “sit… Read more »
I completely agree. Thanks for the comprehensive list of references to back it up. The pivotal periods are the resurrection (as per your references) and then (hopefully soon) when Jesus’ kingship is exercised in a tangible way to every living being by arriving and then “sitting down on his glorious throne” during the millennial reign (Matt 25:31). There does not seem to be need for any other inauguration in order to harmonize with all scripture.
John 1:1 states quite clearly (whether with a capital G or lower case g, that Jesus was a god, not an angel. It seems from what I have read in the bible that this would place Jesus on a much higher plane than that of an angel. Jesus Christ assisted in the creation of our universe as we know it. For in…John 1:2….”This one was in the beginning…..” This statement seems to exult Jesus Christ above other angelic beings does it not?
in order to make things a bit easier, so I know where you
stand, could you please answer the following questions:
Is the Father by nature immortal?
Did Jesus share Gods nature, or His form, before He came to earth?
Are angels mortal like humans?
Was Jesus equal in mortality to the angels before He became flesh?
Please show us the Scriptures with which you support each
position, as this will help me to better focus my answers to your
questions, which I am in the process of addressing, thank you.
It really doesn’t matter where I stand in this instance, since I’m only asking you to provide scriptural support for the points you’ve already made. One of the conditions for participation in our forum is that posters and commenters back up their ideas and theories with scripture. We don’t want to become like the publishers of our JW literature and make unfounded and scripturally unsupported assertions, do we?
rather than making me guess what you believe, why don’t you
just tell us how you see Jews becoming born again, using only
Jesus’ words, or OT sources?
By the way, my answers addressed all the points you raised;
you may want to read them again and think what they imply.
‘Imjustasking,’ I am pretty much un-offendable, and also happen to like people who are passionate about their beliefs; so you are in good company here. It is true that Jews had to become dead to the Mosaic law before they could become Christians, and some people conclude from this that Gentiles, not having been under the law, do not need to die to it, and hence have no need of being born anew in the Spirit, but such reasoning is easily refuted if we look at Paul’s letter to the Gentile Romans, where in chapter 6 he argues that they… Read more »
Ross, You said: It is true that Jews had to become dead to the Mosaic law before they could become Christians, and some people conclude from this that Gentiles, not having been under the law, do not need to die to it, and hence have no need of being born anew in the Spirit, In the above point and elsewhere you seem to be linking spiritually dying specifically with ‘born again’. Why? I cannot recall Jesus making that connection with being ‘born again’. The two issues are separate. You said Even Jesus disclosed that Gentiles would need to be born… Read more »
Ross said – “And, yes, Jesus did make ‘reference to having to experience death in order to be born again’ in the following words: “Most truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains just one grain; but if it dies, it then bears much fruit.” John 12:24” Separating this comment out from the body of your argument I fail to see how the scripture you cited above has any direct relevance. The entire context of the surrounding verses relate to Jesus speaking about his pending death and the fruit it… Read more »
Meleti, I forgot to give a reference for those who have once for all been enlightened with the Holy Spirit at their anointing with it, but who have fallen away, to end up in Gehenna, which can be seen in Hebrews 10 verse 28: “Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. Of how MUCH MORE severe a punishment, do you think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant… Read more »
Ross, I imagine that you have answered some of my questions in the above comment, but I am having difficulty knowing for sure.
I’m going to re-list my previous questions, breaking them down into separate comments. Please provide answers only for the question asked in each comment. This will make it a lot easier for the rest of us to see your point.
>>so that if they were to fail, they would also miss out on the earthly eternity they originally had, and go straight to the lake of fire.
This implies that those with a heavenly hope started off with an earthly one. At some point, they get a heavenly one. This implies two classes of Christians. The class chosen to go to heaven either make it or die forever. You have not established from scripture any of the premises on which your final statement rests.
>>Jesus was once just a mortal spirit being, a messenger, or angel conveying and personifying the Word of God,
What evidence is there that “Jesus was once just…a messenger, or angel”?
>>Hence, the anointed can be viewed as ‘equal’ in nature to God and Jesus, but certainly never in rank,
just as Jesus was once equally sharing the nature of angels, although He had a higher rank as firstborn.
Sharing in something doesn’t make you equal. I can work at Microsoft and thus ‘share in Bill Gates’ wealth’ but that doesn’t make me his equal. No one can ever be “equal” in nature to God. They can be like him, the image of him, but that does not imply equality.
>>There is only one position in the universe higher than that of Archangel, which is that of the Almighty.
Please prove this.
I have looked up the explanation in Insight into the Scriptures regarding Michael. It reads a.o. “Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return”. As can be expected, there is no scriptual evidence provided. But let’s have a close look at this statement. …and also after his return. If this is true, why does Revelation chapter 1 identifies the person who is givng the revelation to John from Heaven is JESUS CHRIST? Then when Maria got pregnant, she was told to name her son… Read more »
Also, when in the bible a person gets a new name or has more than one name under which that person is known, then the bible explains that, like with Abram (Abraham), Peter (Simon), Paul (Saulus) but many more examples. If Michael would become Jesus and then Michael again, the bible would have made that explicit, like with all the other changes.
You make some excellent points in both these comments, menrov. (By the way, is the alias short for “men roving” from Daniel 12:4?) I think that the reason we push the “Michael is Jesus” idea is that our mistaken teaching that Jesus took kingly power in 1914 requires it. The only “empirical proof”–and I use the phrase with great reservations–which we can advance for Jesus’ alleged 1914 enthronement is that WWI broke out in that year. To connect the dots, we need to teach that the reason for the war was Satan’s ouster around that time. (“About 1914 C.E. –… Read more »
Haha, no, MENROV contains the letters of my last name. I know that I can be identified witht this (I have used MENROV for many things) but I do not mind. I understand the “risks” as being a JW but at the same time,if things are wrong, incorrect etc, I feel I must be able to discuss that. Cheers !!!
Interestingly the word “evidently” is used almost 5,000 times in the WT Library with little evidence to support such conclusion.
Ross, let me apologize for suggesting that you are confused regarding the terms born again.
I’ve just realized that my phrasing of that sentence can seem to be a bit condescending, which was not my intention.
So please forgive me for any offence caused. None was intended 🙂
Ross, At this moment I am going to leave off from commenting on your comments, for the reason I stated earlier. So please forgive me. I will say this though. You seem to be confused with the term born again. Other than the Jews who were under the covenant, non Jews are not born again. I’ll give you some clues: 1. Who was the ‘you people’ Jesus was referring to when he spoke to Nicodemus? Only the Jews or Jews and Gentiles 2. When where the Jews born the first time? 3. Did Jesus make any reference to having to… Read more »
Hi Meleti and ‘GodsWordIsTruth,’ sorry for giving you conclusions without much scriptural back-up and explanation of how I arrived at them; so thanks for pulling me up on it. The equality of nature between God, Jesus and the glorified anointed ones can be seen in 2. Peter 1 verse 6, where the holy ones are said to become ‘sharers in Divine Nature,’ and John 5 verse 26 states that, just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted also to the Son to have life in Himself, which shows that Christ was given a quality of life… Read more »
Hi Ross, If I may take this opportunity to suggest something that will help us to more easily comprehend your points, I would like to touch on the subject of run-on sentences. He is but one example of a run-on sentence from the above comment. (I have removed the confusing paragraph breaks for greater clarity.) The equality of nature between God, Jesus and the glorified anointed ones can be seen in 2. Peter 1 verse 6, where the holy ones are said to become ‘sharers in Divine Nature,’ and John 5 verse 26 states that, just as the Father has… Read more »
Thanks for the grammar lesson Meleti. Very informative. The point about capitalization escaped me until you just pointed it out.
Hello Ross, Thanks for your reply. As you know, I was wondering whether or not JW’s of the “144,000” or the “anointed” believe that they wil become equal to Christ. I decided to do a little survey of my own and asked 4 people. All who profess to be “great crowd” Christians. Using the Christ’s “brothers” reasoning they felt that the anointed will be equal to Christ. I am shocked. Is that how the GB is viewed by us? King designates and equal to Christ? Your reasoning seems to go even further to say that the “144,000” are anointed with… Read more »
I believe the new creation anointed will be equal to Jesus like a wife is equal to a man. She is above all animals for sure, having the nature of a human, but still subordinate to the husband.
good question, well, I get easily lost in a big lump
of text, and thought others might have the same
limitation, hence the break-up into chunks, which
spacings, I must admit, are sometimes occurring
at the wrong place, so sorry about that; I hope
you can all cope.
Also, I found that when I tried to make slightly
longer sentences they ended up being clipped
by the formatting here, so I purposely limit their
length in my drafts;
I am sure there are better ways around such
issues, but I am a bit cyber-challenged, so
Perhaps this will help. The purpose of a paragraph is to group related thoughts together. Graphically, it helps the mind of the reader understand how your thoughts expressed in individual sentences group together and relate to one another. A new paragraph indicates a new thought or an expansion on the current thought.
Splitting a sentence in the middle to form another paragraph actually makes it difficult for the reader to follow your line of reasoning.
Hi Menrov, Jesus could be referred to as prince in Daniel and Jude because back then He was not yet King. His being ‘one of’ the foremost princes, would suit His profile well, since He never sought to promote Himself, but gave up even His rightful position as the ‘great Prince’ in Heaven, to become lower than the angels. Further, since the Name Michael only appears in reference to Jesus prior to His becoming flesh, we can assume that He received a change of Name then, just as He also again received a new Name upon His return to the… Read more »
Michael was “one of the foremost princes”. This means there were others of equal rank. This is inconsistent with the unique status John gives to Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel. Jesus was without equal based on John’s description. This verse in Daniel alone disqualifies Michael as the prehuman Jesus.
>>Further, since the Name Michael only appears in reference
to Jesus prior to His becoming flesh
A word of caution here. This assertion is unproven and unsubstantiated. It assumes facts not in evidence. Michael’s name does not appear in reference to Jesus.
Hi “GodsWordIsTruth,’ Jesus became a new creation at His baptism and anointing with Holy Spirit by the Father, because before that He was just a human of flesh and blood, with unending earthly life in view, just as Adam had been before he sinned. So just like Jesus, when the anointed receive their spiritual birth to spiritual life by means of Christ dwelling in their hearts, they have given up their eternal earthly life prospects in exchange for going Home to the Father, so that if they were to fail, they would also miss out on the earthly eternity they… Read more »
“Hence, the anointed can be viewed as ‘equal’ in nature
to God and Jesus, but certainly never in rank,”
I respectfully disagree with much of you last statement but that statement stood out to me. Jehovah and Jesus are the Creators of the entire universe and the anointing you speak of Comes from them. You believe that God is anointing us with his spirit so that we can become equal in nature to him?? I cannot wrap my mind around that. Soooo….we become.. Gods? equal in nature to the Almighty?
Ross, >>Jesus became a new creation at His baptism and anointing with Holy Spirit by the Father Can you provide some scriptural proof for this assertion? >>so that if they were to fail, they would also miss out on the earthly eternity they originally had, and go straight to the lake of fire. Can you provide some scriptural proof for this statement? >>Jesus was once just a mortal spirit being, a messenger, or angel conveying and personifying the Word of God, Can you provide scriptural proof for this assertion? >>Hence, the anointed can be viewed as ‘equal’ in nature to… Read more »
Hi ‘Imjustasking,’ thanks for expanding on your views about Christ’s arrival being more than just the hushed up ‘invisible presence’ that can only be perceived by the ‘eyes of faith’ of those far-sighted WT eagles in their ‘inner chambers.’ In Matthew 24, Jesus tells us that FIRST, all the tribes of the earth will see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven, whereupon He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet sound, which Paul elaborates upon as proceeding from “the Lord HIMSELF,” as He descends with a commanding call, with an Archangels voice and with God’s trumpet, which… Read more »
Ross, I have got to ask this–and I mean no offense–why are your comments broken up into stanzas? Often breaking in the middle of a sentence? Just curious.
I enjoy reading Ross’ comments. He’s like a time traveller from the past. 🙂
I’m guessing he has read a lot of older books.
And on that note, Meleti and Apollos … I’m really enjoying your writing skills. You’ve inspired me to improve my own skills in the future. Your posts are always very fluid and clear. A joy to read for sure.
(Except when I post from a mobile device .. Ha!)
Thank you, Alex. One key to accomplishing that is to reread and then reread and finally to reread what one has written. 🙂 After all that, leave it for a day and then come back and reread it again.
Then after all that rereading (with its attendant editing) one should give the document to a trusted critic for some outside editing. (I use my wife to do this for the most part.) Even when I think I’ve caught all the errors, she’ll find some more.
Which is why all good writers take years publishing their first novel. Mine is still being edited after more than ten years. As one novelist once said to me: Writing is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration…..the blood, sweat and tears being the editing! 🙂
I believe Hemingway once said, “Writing is easy. All you have to do is sit in front of a typewriter and bleed.”
>>Archangel in charge of all His accompanying angels, which
voice will ring out with the sound of God’s trumpet.
Please provide proof for this statement.
>>There is only one position in the universe higher than that of
Archangel, which is that of the Almighty.
Please provide proof of this statement.
Hello ross this is just a question but do you think 1 thessalonians 4 v 16 and revelation 14 v 14 to 16 could be speaking of the same event notice that an angel actually gave jesus a command when he came forth from the temple likely at the request of god himself. Kev c
Hi Alex, thanks for bringing this engaging ‘off-topic’ up; and I agree that since the odds for even single celled organisms spontaneously coming into existence are something like 10 to the power of so many zeros as to be considered statistically beyond all possibility, the ‘scientific’ odds against God’s existence are even greater than that, so that the argument that nothing comes from nothing can similarly be shown to be at odds with the underived existence of God, to which we can only reply that He is the EXCEPTION, and the exception to EVERYTHING, which is why we call Him… Read more »
I agree Ross and Alex. I am not sure where they are going with that at all. The fact that they represent all of us is mind boggling. Unlike other Christian denominations we cannot provide a personal disclaimer that we do not necessarily agree with their views without fear of being disfellowshipped or appearing critical of the brothers. I am not convinced that they have a grasp of any evolution theories enough to refute it.( despite what the WTBS believe there are many theories of evolution not just one) I avoided placing the evolution book in the past and I… Read more »
You can lose a debate, even if you have the better position, if you fail to argue well. A criminal can walk free because a skilled attorney walks all over the prosecution. In that article they use seriously flawed logic. It irks me when people use fallacies to prove a point. By this twisted use of logic they are actually refuting the existence of Jehovah. I’m sure they didn’t realize it when they wrote that, but I wish the writer would have had more wisdom. Jesus teachings were simple, but never spoke nonsense. I am and will always be amazed… Read more »
Fully agree….the style of argumenting is for me most annoying sometimes. Like we are not able to think anymore and the people to whom we preach are considered dumber
Yes, Jesus will be different things to different people; to those remaining here on earth He will become the ‘Eternal Father,’ but to the holy ones He is now their brother, and will become One Spirit with them at His return, to receive them home to Himself as His Bride. The Psalm seems to say that Christ’s forefathers will be replaced by His earthly adopted sons, whom He will appoint as princes in all the earth, but since this is unlikely to be the meaning, it follows that His forefathers will actually become His adopted sons during the 1000 years;… Read more »
Perhaps I’m super late or slow to recognize this… After reading some of the comments… Do we (GB) teach or imply that by being Christ’s brothers that we are equal to Christ? Do we teach that somehow 144,000 do not just share in his kingdom but they are kings like Christ and so it is somehow the kingdom of the 144,000 as well? Is it that line of reasoning that allows us to view Jesus as just an high ranking angel? I have to be frank and say that I never believed that I was “anointed” or one of the… Read more »
GWIT, it is my sincere opinion thar the GB is making Jesus like just an angel, may be more apecial than othe angels but still an angel. By indicating that the GB is the only channel that Jehovah uses, they make themaelves as a minimum equal to Jesus but as being in their view the only channel, they bypass Jesus. As all elected or anointed are consiseted brothers by Jeaus they will enjoy special privelidges.however they will not have the same authority as Jesus. The apostles did not have the same authority as Jeaus when He was on earth nor… Read more »
Removed the typos: GWIT, it is my sincere opinion that the GB is making Jesus like just an angel, may be more special than othe angels but still an angel. By indicating that the GB is the only channel that Jehovah uses, they make themselves as a minimum equal to Jesus but as being in their view the only channel, they bypass Jesus. As all elected or anointed are considered brothers by Jesus they will enjoy special privileges, however they will not have the same authority as Jesus. The apostles did not have the same authority as Jesus when He… Read more »
“The anointed are fully crowned kings, not princes, as can be seen in Psalm 45:16: “In place of your [Jesus] forefathers there will come to be your sons [not brothers], whom you will appoint as princes in all the earth.” This tells us that Jesus and His heavenly Bride will adopt His forefathers as sons, and appoint them to positions of oversight here on earth during the 1000 years. Jesus glorified Brothers are fellow Kings with Him in Heaven, not princely sons here on earth, as described in the Psalms.” Im confused by your point in the scripture you quoted… Read more »
“As to our adoption as sons, we need to be clear that we are
NOT adopted by Jesus, but by the Father through Him;
we become sons of God, NOT sons of Christ.
He is our High Priest and Mediator, NOT our Father.”
He is our Father
The scriptures speaks of him in both roles.
Hi ‘Imjustasking,’ the alternate rendering ‘being made so much better than the angels’ does not alter the sense that Jesus was not ‘much better’ BEFORE He was ‘being made’ so by the Father, and I think that the context refers to the fact that Jesus, despite being the agent through whom the Father made all things was at that time Himself mortal, just like all other angels and sundry spirit creatures were, and continue to be. Things really started to happen for Jesus when He was adopted in the Spirit while as a human here on earth, which gave Him… Read more »
Hi Ross, Thank you for your thoughts. I am going to leave off from this conversation for the time, because there is still much for me to formulate in my own mind to your observations, before I give a concrete reply. However I feel you made a lot of speculative assumptions regarding Jesus’ role and relationship with angels prior to coming to earth, which does not fit with the pattern of the normal usage and meaning of ‘first born’ when used in the rest of scripture (admittedly referring to humans). Another point of speculation is that Jesus was Michael the… Read more »
IJA- Again I agree with your reasoning regarding Michael.1Thessalonians 4:16 is the scripture that I believe you and Ross are referring to. I don’t understand how we read that this is Jesus’ own voice. When I read that scripture I get the feeling Jesus is being accompanied by the angels including the archangel. I’ve been meditating on the thought on Jesus being a ” new creation “. I admit that the discussion that you and Alex had really goes over my head. I cannot grasp what you are saying….. If I’m understanding correctly…. We agree that upon resurrection that Jesus… Read more »
I am afraid I have to disagree as in Daniel the Michael is referred.to a one of the chief princes and the great prince which means that if this was also Jesus, He would be considered.prince but Jesus is king. Also 1 Thess. 4:16 reads With the voice of an archangel. It is a comparison only. Jesus has many titles or references but His name is Jesus not Michael. Chapter 1 identifies clearly by name who is giving the revelation from heaven :Jesus Christ. It does not make any sense to suddenly change this to Michael. Also, Jehovah said that… Read more »
I agree Menrov “one of the chief princes ” also implies that there other chief princes that are equal to Jesus . That can’t be true. “whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.”(2 Peter 2:11) Michael did not dare rebuke Satan for slander…He left it to the Lord. “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”(Jude 9) Jesus rebuked Satan repeatedly as a liar… Read more »
New here, having read the posts on this site for a long time I have finally found the courage to join up. I would like to thank Meleti and Apollos for this unusual freedom to discuss what is close to my heart. Hello to all.
Hello and welcome to the site. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Hi umberto and welcome.
Hello and welcome 🙂
Off topic: This was just put up on the JW site: “Belief in God is entirely reasonable. It conforms to the proven fact that life cannot come into existence by itself. No evidence exists to support the idea that life could spontaneously come from nonliving matter.” I certainly believe in creation, but God is certainly NOT served by writing nonsense like that! That no evidence exists to support an idea, does NOT PROVE that the idea that the idea itself is impossible. IN FACT … by the same scientific methods God’s existence cannot be proven, so they are in fact… Read more »
Ross you wrote: Hi ‘Imjustasking,’ since Jesus ‘has become better than the angels,’ it follows that at some time He was merely equal to them, as a fellow angel – just as a point of logic. Hi Ross, thanks for the observation. It made me do a little bit more digging. Interestingly the word translated ‘become’ is GINOMAI (G1096) Thayer’s lexicon has this on the word: 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 2a) of events 3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the… Read more »
Hi Ross Okay I’m going to answer my own question here, because something just occurred to me again, a thought that I’ve been musing about for some weeks. If Jesus had a pre-existence and was used to create the heavens and even the angels then it must follow that he was ALWAYS better than them. Is not the potter greater than the clay? (Rom 9:21) Therefore if Jesus is the creator of the angels, then how could he be the same as them and how could he now become better than them? Surely as their creator he was always better… Read more »
We are discussing the nature of Christ. His essence. WTBS teaches his essence was that of a first born angel. I need to look up any proof for that. My physical children would be of the same essence as my own, but imagine me going to heaven as a new creation, i become of a new essence all together. Even though we have the same essence now, I am greater than him, for I have given him life. Even if he grows up, I will always be his father. So Jesus has been three types of essences … angel, man… Read more »
Hi AR, The WT teaches that God is a spirit and the angels are spirits. Ergo Jesus is a spirit. Furthermore they teach that Jesus was an angel. Not just having the same nature/essence of angel, but an actual angel. Do we talk about other humans as having the essence of humanity? No. Neither do they talk about angels in relation to Jesus. As far as they are concerned he was and is fully angel.There are two many references to cite from the WT library that prove this point so I’ll leave you to look this up for yourself But… Read more »
IJA- I agree with your line of reasoning here. Especially regarding Michael the ArchAngel. Hebrew 1:5, 6 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM. “http://meletivivlon.com/2014/01/18/our-christian-message/ http://meletivivlon.com/2013/12/08/was-there-ever-a-time-that-the-son-did-not-exist/ I believe that the above articles written by Apollos ( and extensive comments) has definitely shaped and refined my view regarding the Nature of… Read more »
BTW , I copied and pasted that scripture… I did not capitalize those words ….
I’m really looking forward to that installment because I have a lot to share with the group which I felt wasn’t adressed with the previous installments.