WT Study: Worship Jehovah, the King of Eternity

Comment by brendaevans32 on 2014-03-03 07:45:11

Please could I thank you for this website. I found it when I questioned the WT article on the Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes. I had already questioned the right to acknowledge who is the Faithful and Discreet Slave, but put it on the shelf in my mind (to reach down at some time in the future to investigate). The article about the 7 Shepherds, 8 Dukes was the turning point. Since then, many questions. And together with the questions, much reading, not only of the Scriptures but I also found this website.
And you are literally saying the things that I have said. It is more than enough to know that Jehovah has everything in hand, and that He knows when, how, where the appointed moments will occur.
I am fortunate not to have been baptised. I am still a Bible Student with a very old friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. I thought that I would keep this aspect up. As for the meetings, I no longer attend.
When I have questioned the GB's right to call themselves these wonderful and important titles, I am met with vagueness. Something as important as declaring oneself as these must have its roots in something that is discernible. Jesus identifies who the Faithful and Discreet Slave is. If He can, it follows that we should be able to.
I am sorry, I am rambling now. It has just irked me greatly.
I am reading the study material each week, but beginning to answer the way I want to now rather than in a fashion that I think will please the elders and congregation. I was looking at this material on Sunday morning, and realised just how deep my answers were getting because I have cut loose of the constraints of pleasing some men. I feel that when you can answer like this, provided it is acceptable to Jehovah (something I pray for regularly), then the deeper you can get, the more the spiritual journey you can take. There are some questions I prefer to leave, just those that study Jehovah, Jesus and all that relates to them and the Scriptures.
So thank you so very very much for this website.
I have only started to look into some of the topics on the side menu as I am so wrapped up with the texts you are discussing. I love reading what you say. It makes much sense, lots of common sense in there, and is more pure. The comments from the contributors throw even further light, education and thought processes on the subjects.
I am very grateful for your work.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-03 14:24:31

  I would like to second your comments b32. This is by far the best forum I've had the pleasure to be part of. The discussions are deep, well balanced and where no subject is taboo. Scripture and reason are the only weapons here.
  I would like to thank Meleti and Apollo for running such a purposeful site. Thank you.
  Regarding your feelings, I find it amazing that like minded people separated by time and distance can come to the same conclusions that many of us share on this site. It is as if we are being called out of the Society. That said, I won't get carried away and it all may just be coincidence.
  However, what is notable is that many people in other churches feel the same need to make a break from a central body and go it alone. It is happening with many churches and even some Amish are asking questions and concluding to go it alone. Is this something that is happening under the auspices of Jesus or just because the internet has allowed many to ask and find answers to questions that it would have been impossible to do, even 10 years ago. We shall see.
  But I'm heartened that you are using your own thinking ability to ask questions. I would also agree with your actions to stay away from the KH. For me (just my personal experience), the cognitive dissonance was to strong for me to make any sense of the answers that I was finding out. It was the case of one step forward, two backwards. Now I don't go, my mind is free to think. Having said that, many still go and can function and we should respect everybody's personal choice.
  Finally my only advice is don't trust anybody - no matter how convincing the answers they give may seem. Question, question and question again. Check facts. Allow Jesus to teach you. Don't let any many put their trust in you either. The first thing I say to anybody when I offer my opinion is 'don't trust anything I say' and tell them to check facts for themselves. If you come up with any new ideas and thoughts, then great. But make sure they are peer reviewed. Post them here or to Meleti and let people play the Devil's advocate. That way we prevent ourselves being deluded - unlike those of the GB.

  • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-03 14:39:32

    I second the feeling about Meleti and Apollos. To have a place where things are viewed free of hate but with love of truth is something which has been my hearth's desire for long.
    I feel the people here are just like that, honestly approaching the bible from a babe's perspective and listening to what it says. I feel truly blessed to be among you all!

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-03 15:16:42

      Amen!
      I definitely agree... it is so refreshing to study and research the Bible with this group. I have never experienced anything like it ! Because I was leery of apostate websites this is the first forum I have participated it. Based on what I have seen so far ....This is truly a Christian JW site.
      I’ve quickly breezed by other sites claiming to be active/former JW’s and the tone is horrible. I cannot get through a few comments without becoming quickly annoyed at the manner in which these “Christians” were conducting themselves. ( name calling , bickering, borderline slanderous , haughty sounding comments etc.)

  • Reply by Keep on Seeking on 2014-03-03 22:36:52

    imjustasking, I have very similar feelings to what you expressed here:
    "Regarding your feelings, I find it amazing that like minded people separated by time and distance can come to the same conclusions that many of us share on this site. It is as if we are being called out of the Society. That said, I won’t get carried away and it all may just be coincidence."
    Over the last year, I have come to many personal conclusions regarding falsehoods in our Organization's teachings. When I found this site last week, I found articles written on every single one of the conclusions that I had come up with on my own.
    The fact that all of us from across the world have come to the same conclusions by exclusively using the Scriptures is very telling. Bible truths are clear and attainable with a sincere heart and the aid of holy spirit.
    Of course, coincidence is a possibility, but I do find it amazing that we have all found this website and that we all conduct ourselves like respectful Christians. The love shown on this site is not present on any other JW forum.

    • Reply by brendaevans32 on 2014-03-04 09:56:52

      Hi everyone, I totally agree with the points here. You just feel great to have your thoughts and feelings directed by the Scriptures. Reading what others post have regularly clarified points to me.
      It could be coincidental, or maybe we are allowing ourselves to read, absorb with fewer traditional and/or dogmatic constraints. Allowing absorbance helps us to go into the Scriptures deeper.
      I re-read Paul's letter to the Ephesians earlier this morning, I had never read it so deeply. I needed to stop regularly to just allow the depth of those words to, literally, permeate my very being.
      It is because of the freedom to read and study in such a natural way has surely added so much more to what we can read.
      Ahhhhh well. Thank you for this website again.

      • Reply by Sargon on 2014-03-04 12:21:15

        I was referred to this site. It was amazing how the site authors had reached similar conclusions. I had already invited over a group of friends and we had disproved 1914. All of us were servants too and should have lost our privileges for such a discussion. However even though my friends acknowledged that there is no evidence to support 1914 they said we should wait on Jehovah. I then told them I didn't believe the governing body was the faithful and discreet slave. They didn't even flinch. Obviously a statement like that should have landed me in a judicial committee. But nobody argued against my viewpoint or reported me. I love this site because we can freely discuss things without threat of disfellowshipment. I have come to a deeper understanding and love of scripture because I no longer read the bible through a WT filter. Also if I ever am called to face a committee for my views, which I doubt, I'll at least have all the scriptural evidence necessary to win any argument.

    • Reply by Kian Swee on 2014-03-07 21:05:06

      Yes,this is an amazing website.Meleti Vivlon & the rest here have been very helpful in helping me in my study edition comments.Of course,I don't know how many, if any at all, in my congregation would share/agree with my comments.I wish my family would open their minds & not blindly believe all that our Society teaches.By the way,this isn't the only website that I research.The good that people say about J.W.s/Society I read,too!Keep up the good work!May God Bless Us All!

• Reply by on 2014-03-09 14:30:56

  Testing

Comment by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-03 14:24:41

Interesting thing about Noah ;)
It seems that a book called The Book of Yashar references the preaching work by Noah, maybe that is part where people got their fuel from to suggest Noah preached. Read the account, its very interesting:
“Thus said Yahweh, return from your evil ways and forsake your evil works and Yahweh will repent of the evil that he has declared to do to you. For thus said Yahweh, Behold, I give you a period of one hundred and twenty years; if you will turn to me and forsake your evil ways, then will I also turn away from the evil which I told you and it shall not exist”.
This interesting book is even cited in the bible: Joshua 10:13 and 2Samuel 1:18.
Also there is an account in 2Timothy 3:8 where we read that Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, but nowhere in the OT do we read absolutely nothing about them. The Book of Yashar tells who they are and what they did.
In connection with 2 peter 2:5 5 " if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; "
The greek right there actually means Herald. http://biblehub.com/greek/2783.htm
notice this defintion: "proclaiming critical news for the public "
Hebrews 11:7 says he "condemned the world".
the greek defintion: http://biblehub.com/greek/2632.htm "i.e. issue a penalty (exactly condemn)"
Your right in the end there is nothing conclusive.. but knowing the character of God how he dealt with other nations, he always warned, plus the scriptures and historical accounts as back up we can be fairly certain that God warned them one way or the other, and likely using Noah as a tool to do so.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 13:18:25

  There really is so little we know of that time. 1,600 years of history told in 6 short chapters. Did God warn the ancient world? He didn't warn the Sodomites and Gomorrahians. (Just made that up. I have no idea how they should be designated, but Gomorrahians sounds good to me. :) ) He doesn't have to warn people. He didn't warn Ananias and Sapphira either. He's going to bring the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah back, so a warning was not necessary. It is likely that the pre-flood world will enjoy a similar opportunity.
  Of course, he could have used angels to warn them. Whatever the case, we can't know. But give human reproduction, there would simply be too many people alive back then after that many centuries for Noah to journey to them all, even if he had nothing else to do. I'm sure he heralded a warning to all he came in contact with however. It is just that we use that scripture to support our work of door-to-door preaching like it is the only chance the world has, which it cannot be. Jehovah would not send a preacher with a mixed message. We teach truth and we teach falsehood.
  (James 3:11, 12) . . .A spring does not cause the fresh water and the bitter water to bubble out of the same opening, does it? 12 My brothers, a fig tree cannot produce olives, or a grapevine figs, can it? Neither can salt water produce fresh water.
  I guess that rather than focus on us we should focus on the Bible. Jehovah sent prophets to the Israelites, and they spoke under inspiration. Then he sent his Son, who also spoke under inspiration. No more prophets are needed since we have the inspired prophetic word of God. So why do we focus on humans and a human organization as if salvation comes from men. We have God's prophet in our hands and using only it, we have been warned as to what we must do. Look what we have accomplished in this little corner of the cyber-universe simply be reading the bible and by the free exchange of thought and research based on it. Indeed, many are now roving about and the true knowledge is becoming abundant. (Dan. 12:4)

  • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 15:19:15

    I agree, it's very hard to struggle with indeed how to see the preaching work. My love for my fellow man makes me like Abraham who wants to struggle with God to say what if you find one man.. I don't want to see anyone destroyed. At the same time we need to be humble and realize we are just a spec in God's masterful plan, and that he will call his sheep.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-04 17:03:48

    "many are now roving about and the true knowledge is becoming abundant."
    Isn't it interesting that that text in Daniel says that MANY will rove about and gain the true knowledge? It doesn't say a privileged few will be authorized to rove about in scripture and gain knowledge which they then impart to many. So that text does not fit into the organizational mindset that only a few are to interpret scripture for the many.

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-05 12:14:59

    I agree, Meleti. When it comes to the 1,600 years of history told in 6 short chapters, there's plenty of unreported speculative history. When, for example did the angels come down to cohabit with women? Or maybe even with some of the animal life as Greek mythology suggests, so that "all flesh had ruined its way on the earth" (Notice that the RNWT adds "people" whereas Genesis 6:12 simply says flesh)
    To me the Bible was written on a need-to-know basis. God preserved only what was needed and later used in reference by later prophecies. Anything else simply goes "beyond what is written."
    sw

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 13:26:23

  Just a quick comment on the Book of Jasher (or Yashar). We are here concerned only with canonical writings, that is what is accepted as the inspired word of God. All we really need to praise God and attain salvation can be found in its pages. Other books may help us to understand some things, but there is always the danger of being misled.
  It appears that the Book of Jasher is an 18th-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(Pseudo-Jasher)

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-05 11:41:09

    I recall when I first saw the Ten Commandments (produced by Cecil B. de Mille in 1956) and how Charlton Heston was so moved in his role as Moses he went on to put on an even greater performance as Ben Hur (1959)
    It wasn't until I became a JW that I actually read the account and realized how easily an account can be embellished to sound and appear more acceptable than its raw history.
    On a side point, our last circuit assembly had a session on "Imitate Jesus’ 'Way of Teaching'”, in which the CO said Jesus never embellished or overstated the truth. He simply stated the facts so that the truth could stand alone like a finely cut diamond.
    To me the inspired word is just that. INSPIRED, a finely cut gem. Overstating the truth is to we JW's an understatement. All of what we say to prove our doctrines are overstatements. Why, we've even been asked to overstate eight ordinary men who have understated Christ. Then we have the gall to point our finger at Christendom, (extracting the straw from its eye) accusing its church fathers for overstating the rank of the Son while understating the Father to the point of being a mere embellishment of Christ.
    sw

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-08 07:28:19

      sw,
      You certainly have the gift of stating things very succinctly. I recall that talk at the assembly, and had some very similar thoughts to you. It does seem that as an organization we thrive on embellishment, whether it be by enhanced versions of modern experiences, illustrations in the publications that throw in a few extra "truths", or simply stretching the Word of God further than is reasonable.
      But so often the will to embellish comes from a collective mindset. It can be avoided when we refuse to engage in it individually. And I do think that you make a great point that the way to do that is to simply deepen our appreciation for God's Word in its unadulterated form.
      Apollos

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-08 11:35:43

      Hi Apollos,
      It's the whole reason I'm here, Apolos. I like people who are willing to step back and examine honestly what they've been led to believe. Whether we were born or converted to this faith, it rules us with the fallacy that unity with organization is unity with Christ.
      The more I read the Bible without the assistance of human interpretation, the more flawed I see in my own interpretation and the more I then can correct the error, since I own it. Besides this website and another, I have no real friends that I can share this somewhat depressing feeling. Then I read my Bible and discover that its entire content was written for suchlike ones .... those of us who would endure a prophet's lonely life amid the unity gods surrounding us.
      sw

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-08 14:41:18

        I guess many JW's would like to have the freedom to openly discuss and even disagree with certain teachings or doctrines. But as we all know, that is close to impossible. I am still a JW but can only express my observations and even my interpretations here. I can only hope that more like us would have the guts to search for real answers and explanations, to actually use your brains and understanding and common sense instead of just blindly accepting what is written in the magazine or said on the stage. I know mentally that many JW's are very sincere in what they do but at the same time, are acting like robots and do not know how to discuss or how to argue about scriptures. Problem is that I feel more and more alone and annoyed during the meetings. Well, I know I am not alone and glad to see initatives like this where one can speak (friendly and politely). Thanks !!!

Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-03 19:43:08

"Jehovah becomes King when he expresses his rulership or establishes an agency to represent him at a certain time or to deal with a specific situation."
So sometimes Jehovah is King and sometimes He is not? We always tell people that God permits wickedness and that Satan is the ruler of this world. (otherwise how could he offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world? )
Will Jesus will be king(and sit on the throne of David )during the thousand year reign until he hands these kingdom over to his Father (1cor 15:24.)or is Jehovah invisibly ruling along with Jesus right now ?
This Watchtower is really confusing to me. I never thought I could be unclear about our own theology...So is the "whole world in his hands " or not? What is Satan ruling over?

• Reply by brendaevans32 on 2014-03-04 10:35:10

  Hi GodsWordisTruth, I know what you mean. When I read this, I had to reread the paragraph purely for the question that you gave. I thought, "Right, is this a sort of every so often title or accolade, etc that Jehovah is to be called by?"
  I then had a nose around, and came to this conclusion (sorry, I am copying and pasting this from my little answer document to this study) ...
  I believe that Jehovah is permanently King. It isn’t as if one moment goes by where He is not King. I believe that the statements, such as that at 1 Chronicles 16:31 are timely reminders that Jehovah is King. We are reassured every so often that Jehovah is King, maybe in our times of stress we need to be reminded because we find it easy to forget this lovely and loving provision.
  I believe Jehovah is not only King, but most importantly, He is the True God. A precious thought, feeling, and conclusion many others share here and globally.
  Then, if you look to 1 Chron 16:36, it says, "Blessed be Jehovah the God of Israel from time indefinite to time indefinite." I love those words of indefinite. I mentioned them in my answer 'doc' - finite has a particular value, I thought not only His Rule not finite, it is not even infinite in this sense - there is no definable infinite about His Rule. All we know, and very happy with, is that He is here, and not trying to sound complacent, but always has been and always will be. Thank you Jehovah.
  I believe that Kingship will be handed to Jesus (for the Millennial Rule?), where, in such a period, so much things can be learnt, developed, nurtured and great peace, and then I think the Kingdom is handed back to Jehovah. I draw on 1 Cor 15:24 onwards.

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-05 11:59:25

    The RNWT (2013 Bible) replaced 'time indefinite' with 'eternity' but you're right. Time indefinite more accurately describes Hebrew thinking since the original language gave no concept to beginnings and endings. If ancient Hebrew was indeed the first written language (and I mean its pictographic, Phoenician form), all events and happening were simply continuations.
    sw

Comment by menrov on 2014-03-04 10:43:03

Ok, although the study is not until end of this week, I have started to read.
Paragraph 3 says: Described as “his ministers who do his will,” the angels serve God with joy, and he dignifies them by calling them his “sons.” They are part of Jehovah’s universal family.—Ps. 103:20-22; Job 38:7.
Looking at the verses mentioned, you cannot read that angels are calles sons. It seems like intention is to display Jesus as merel an angel like other angels because they are called sons. Confusing as in these verses, it is not mentioned.
Paragraph 4: it reads: Jehovah put the crowning touch on his earthly works by creating the first man, Adam, in His own image. (Gen. 1:26-28).
- If you look at the verses mentioned, it reads OUR imanage, not HIS own image. Minor but still.
Paragraph 6 reads: they chose to follow a rebellious spirit son of God, Satan. (Gen. 3:1-6).
- It is, at least for me, the first time I read that Satan was considered a son.
Paragraph 8 (in addition to what has already been noted) reads: Noah’s message no doubt included a call for repentance and warnings of impending destruction, but it fell on deaf ears.
- Not sure why we have to presume that as the ark was designed for Noa family only. The fact that Noah was a preacher of righteousness means that he obeyed Jehovah in building the Ark as commanded. It was in behavior, not necessarily in talking to these thousands of people around him.
Paragraph 16 shows this: As King-Designate.
- Not sure what this means. English is not my mother tongue but it sounds like Jesus is not a full king, more a replacement. I can be wrong.
It also reads at the end: He thereby gave some of his faithful disciples the prospect of joining him as kings in God’s Kingdom.
- Not sure but I cannot believe all who will join Jesus in heaven will be a KING. There is only one king at the time, as you can only serve one master, one king at the time.
Paragraph 17 reads: On the third day, he resurrected his Son, and on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus established a spiritual kingdom over the Christian congregation of his anointed brothers. (Col. 1:13) 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 fee
- Very perculiar as when the kingdom in heaven was created in 33, to rule over the congregations, then the king must be Jesus as he is head of all congregations
Paragraph 19 reads: How has Jehovah become King in our day.
- Strange question as the whole study was to show that Jehovah has always been KING.
I can understand why this article is rather confusing.

Comment by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 15:12:42

Hey Menrov
- I'm not sure I agree with the idea that angels are not "sons of god", scripture clearly shows they are:
examples are:
- Genesis 6:2: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (it was angels here who had their eye on the beautiful earthly women)
- Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. (cearly angels here too)
- Job 38:7 The Sons of God shouted for joy, these were clearly angels (no men were present when the creation occured, spirit creatures were)
- Daniel 3:25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
- paragraph 4: there is a big debate as to what the our image means in Genesis.
Some hold to the idea of a majestic plural, an idea which is very accepted in both
Jewish and scholarly writings. Others hold to the idea of trinity. Still others hold to the idea that it was Jehovah talking to Jesus. In two of the three cases (which in my opinion is the accurate one) is that men is created in Jehovah's image, the one TRUE God. We are not created in Jesus' image, although since Jesus is the perfect image, you could say that we are ;)
- paragraph 6: I think the idea of Satan as a Son of God stems from the verses I quoted earlier from Job. Since Angels are Sons of God, and Satan is an Angel, therefore he is a Son of God. Now one could rightly argue that he had lost that Sonship when he rebelled against God, but I believe at one point he was definitely considered a Son of God.
- paragraph 16: the Bride of Christ will be Kings and Priest according to the bible. As how exactly that will rule out, time will tell. But we shouldn't deny scripture.
As far as the King Designate goes, Jesus was sitting on the right hand side of God till he placed all enemies under his feet. He will be truly King in the Kingdom, not some second hand King. This term is very similar like President-Elect in the US. It signifies that one will be in that FULL postion of authority, but does not yet exercise that fully.
He will rule there until after the 1000 years when he will give the keys back to his Father. (1 Cor 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. )

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-04 15:28:08

  Hi In Need of Grace, I am impressed with your rapid knowledge of verses. I agree with you that angels are called sons of Gods. So as those that will rule with Jesus, they are called sons. However, their role i snot the same as the role Jesus as true son of God has. My point was that it seemed that the article wanted to display Jesus as one of all the angels, which is in my view not correct as Jesus is superiour to all angels.
  True, I can agree with you regarding the image. My point was more the use of words. If the bible says OUR, the article should say the same.
  True again, as all angels are considered sons than Satan is one as well. May be I am not so used to the fact Satan was called explicitly son of God..
  Final point, the role of the KINGS in Rev. 5:10. I just looked at that verse in various translations, and that does give a mixed picture. Agree, most mention that they are made kings and priests (but believe more in a role as authority than actually equal to Jesus). However, the various translations have a different ending. Some say over the earth, others say on the earth.
  Above all, it is a great experience to be able to openly discuss these topics and find good responses. Thanks !

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 15:40:16

    Thanks alot Merov!! Sheesh.... ( joking) :)
    I hope no one in my congregation chalks up not understanding this Watchtower because it was “deep” . It is not deep at all it’s confusing.
    I read that paragraph regarding a “spiritual kingdom over the congregation”.... what in the world is a spiritual kingdom over a congregation? So is Jesus is king over JW’s in our congregation? ( he is not the king over non-JW Christian congregations....)
    “I believe that Jehovah is permanently King. It isn’t as if one moment goes by where He is not King”....I agree Brendaevans32
    I may get impaled on this site for the following question: There can only be one King at a time, right? Satan can’t have all the kingdoms of the world and be the ruler/ king,(Jw’s use this reasoning all the time to say that Satan rules the world) Jesus cannot rule over congregations as king and then Jehovah is still the king of all the earth.
    Jehovah is in full control of everything without question. But he “king” of the earth right now? Jesus will sit on the throne of David and be king in the future .
    I assure you that those are serious questions that I have after this
    WT....Perhaps I have to wait until the sequel of this Watchtower next week....

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-04 15:50:02

      Hi GWIT, no worries, nobody will be impaled here (we might laugh sometimes....kidding).
      I believe the interpretation of KING is what confuses. There can be many kings at a certain point but each will have his own "area" or authority.. Satan has authority over the world but has never been appointed king over the world. Jesus has been appointed king by HIs Father. Jehovah says, sit at my right side until I [Jehovah] put all enemies under your feet. This means that Jehovah appointed Jesus as KING and Jehovah is fine not to be the KING at that time, He will remove all enemies for His Son. And when the time is over, Jesus willl submit Himself to his Father again. That verse indicates clearly that Jesus when he is acting as KING, he will be the only KING.
      Question one can discuss, is whether Jesus already ruling as KING now or in future.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-04 16:00:42

      In addition: 1Cor. 15:24-26 explains that when Jesus is KING, He will be the only KING at that time and when time is over, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to his Father.

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-04 16:09:04

        Menrov,
        Thank you very much for the clarification!
        I will admit the “the Jehovah is King” WT is annoying to me because Jehovah has appointed Christ as King. We should respect Jehovah’s decision. Hopefully the WT next week will be better in extolling Christ.
        “Question one can discuss, is whether Jesus already ruling as KING now or in future”
        That is interesting... based on the comments the past few months ( I have Jamaican JW particularly in mind) there are sound arguments that have been made from the scriptures that Jesus was appointed king in 33CE.
        Since I am somewhat fresh off the GB line of thinking regarding many things.....I haven’t researched for myself to form a belief one way or another. I tend to think that it is future.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-04 16:07:30

      Finally :-) :-), looking at Eph 1:20-22, you can read that when Jeus was raised, he sat at the right hand, above everything (rule, power etc) not only in this age but also in the one to come. That seems like bing a king.
      I guess it seems difficult for some to accept that Jehovah would step aside a bit to allow Jesus to rule as King.

      • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 17:26:43

        My two cents on this. Let me illustrate with US presidential elections. When the presidential elections happens, you will have a winner. That personal will be announced ladies and gentlemen the president of the US. But is he ruling yet? No. He is "President-Elect" according to official terminology. Those who are fans of the winning president, when prompted will tell everyone who the President is (their candidate who won).
        The same is true for Jesus. He IS our LORD and KING. Has the kingdom been fully established with God's tent over mankind? Not yet. But any true Christian will shout with loud voice Jesus is KING. They know he has been elected by God to be so. And soon he will be exercising that election with full force. When that time comes EVERY voice will declare he is KING and LORD.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-08 08:06:14

        It seems that we keep coming back to this Jehovah vs. Jesus model which creates confusion. Does God "step aside a bit to allow Jesus to rule as King", or rather does God express His own Kingship THROUGH His Son? Jesus always did everything to the glory of his Father. His Kingship must be also for that purpose. It is in no way "instead of" the kingly role of God, but rather it IS the kingly role of God.
        All other authorities and powers (Satan and human political systems) are alternatives to God's Kingship. Jesus as King is not an alternative, but rather the expression of God's Kingship.
        Isn't that the essence of Psalm 2?

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-04 18:06:00

    *I'm not sure the scriptures says or even implies that the "Bride of Christ" will be kings and priests .I believe it's a stronger case for new Jerusalem being kings and priests.
    In any case, I believe we can agree that John says those who take part in the first ressurection will be kings and priests (whoever they are) (Reve 20:6)
    *I am not a trinitarian but if you believe that God was speaking to Jesus then that scripture it says that we are created in the image of both. I don't see the separation at all in this scripture.
    * I looked at other translations... They do not refer to the group at Reve 20:6 as kings... They are only priests....... Interesting.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 03:03:36

      In the old times, it was not allowed to be both a king and a priest. Only Melchizedek was and Jesus is recognized to become both king and priest according to Melchizedek.They are the only 2 persons ever to be king and priest. Hence the translation in Greek, where Rev. 5:10 reads KINGDOM, not KINGS, makes sense as they will form a kingdom and act as a priest

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-04 15:37:52

  In addition to rev. 5:10, I noticed many translations do not say KINGS but KINGDOM, and Priests (Wescott Kingdom Interlinear for example). As I read it, these people will be members of the kingdom with Jesus and serve as Priests. The greek ending is UPON the earth, whereas NWT says over the earth. Majority of translations say UPON or ON.
  For those who are interested in multitude of translation on one screen:
  biblehub.com/multi/revelation/5-10.htm
  to see rev. 5:10 for example.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-04 17:30:56

  "paragraph 16: the Bride of Christ will be Kings and Priest according to the bible. As how exactly that will rule out, time will tell. But we shouldn’t deny scripture."
  Maybe the 144,000 are those who serve as kings while the great crowd are those who serve as priests.
  The 144,000 are said to be standing on Mount Zion. Mount Zion was the seat of rulership of the Davidic kingdom. So Revelation's mention of them standing on Mount Zion is insinuating that they rule as kings in association with the Davidic kingship that Jesus possesses.
  The great crowd are said to serve God in his temple day and night - priestly duty.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-04 19:52:22

    Now that is something worth thinking about.

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-04 21:28:27

    "Maybe the 144,000 are those who serve as kings while the great crowd are those who serve as priests."
    Very interesting thought!! I've never thought about that before!
    That little jewel has truly made my day!
    For quite some time I have gone back and forth about the identity of the 144,000 . ( I probably won't ever know until the time comes) .
    I do know that of the heavenly group John sees a great crowd but hears the 144,000 being sealed. There are differences between the two groups throughout chapter 7 . Your explanation makes sense to me based on John's vision throughout Revelation and other scriptures at Matthew 19:28, Reve 20:6 ,Luke 22:28-30 Daniel 7:9, 22,1 Corinthians 6:2.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 09:42:40

    Anonymous, you are ignoring Levites, who served in white robes in the temple and before the tabernacle. Not ALL were priests.
    And if Jesus died for all mankind,then those who come out of the tribulation are those who have been given mercy, forgiveness on the basis of the Lamb. Their clothes have been washed white. And the kingdom is like a mountain, to which many will go in those days and serve God. This mountain is the NAOS. And it will come to earth, be with mankind.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-04 17:14:48

So the angels are sons of God according to Job and Daniel. Fine.
But in what sense?
Consider:
Heb 1:4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?
So how are we to reconcile the verses in Job and Daniel with Hebrews?????????

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 10:13:35

  I think all created beings are "sons" of God.
  But as imperfect offspring of the first human son of God, we need adoption as sons.
  Now anointed are to become one flesh with Christ. As one flesh, they require to be of the same nature. (Even fallen angels knew this when they wanted woman of earth for themselves, and became flesh for selfish purpose).
  If Jesus became flesh he could not have 144k (or more) partners. So his anointed bride becomes spirit instead. Communion is through his flesh and blood, and by partaking, we are, in effect part of Christ and he becomes part of us.
  Jesus is The only begotten Son. His Glory is undoubtedly higher than that of angels. In Heb 1:5 it's talking about becoming adopted sons of god with a glory that even exceeds that of angels.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 10:21:26

    Alex,
    That is a beautiful thought

Comment by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-04 17:29:08

There is a difference between Sons of God and THE SON of God. There is only one THE SON. His name is Jesus. He was the ONLY Begotten Son of God. The rest of creation, including Angels, can be SONS of GOD, but not THE SON ;)

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 01:30:28

  Hmmmmmmmmm...................
  INOG I'm not totally convinced by your reasoning. I get where you are coming from, but I think there is something missing. I don't know what it is, but I feel that there is more to this.
  In any case, for those of us that don't believe that Jesus was an angel (I don't any more), the verses in Hebrews I quoted are pretty emphatic.
  If Jesus had pre-existed as angel in heaven, then would Paul's statement hold true?
  I would venture that if Jesus had a pre-existence then it could not have been as an angel but rather another type of unstated spirit creature. We assume that all spirit creatures in heaven are angels, but the Bible does not state that this is the case.

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 03:41:45

    "We assume that all spirit creatures in heaven are angels, but the Bible does not state that this is the case."
    My thinking is in line with yours. From what I understand "angel" means messenger
    Malachi 's name implies that he was an "angel". (Mal 3:1)
    The elders in the 7 congs of Asia are called angels (Reve 1:20)
    Is Jesus an angel? I don't think so. I may be opening up a can of worms here but he is definitely not Michael the arch angel.
    Jesus is a God and is the Creator (1 Cor 8:6,Heb 1:2, John 1:3)If Jesus is an angel than Jehovah is an angel .(I don't believe Jehovah is an angel btw) Can a God and the creator be an angel?

    • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-05 10:44:14

      I never meant to say anything otherwise then this: Jesus is an angel (=messenger) because he IS the Word. The Word is the primary messenger of God. I am not making any pronouncement about what KIND of Spirit he is with this ;)
      Secondly, since he is the chief channel of creation and the chief channel of communication, he was obviously elevated about any other channels Jehovah used. Which is perfectly in line with Hebrews.
      I leave the Archangel idea in the speculating realm which we shouldn't be dogmatic about. It is clear from the ancient surviving texts from the early church that several believed he was both angel and Michael, but that doesn't make it automatically true. There are good arguments back and forth.

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 11:45:24

        I agree that it’s probably speculation that Jesus is not Michael the Arc Angel. I also believe that it is speculation to dogmatically say that Jesus like the WT does. I am not sure if we can really know for sure. I have based my belief that He is not based solely on the scriptures however.
        I agree with your thoughts regarding Jesus being the Word of GOD however not as the WT explains it . I don’t believe Jesus is a angel or messenger.
        I don’t know how to really put this in words but I believe that Jesus is the Word/Logos because through him( his being , personality) he explains the Father (Jehovah) . He represents and even embodies Jehovah . He is the only way we truly know Jehovah and through him ( Jesus) all things exist.
        I don’t believe that Jesus is a messenger who relays messages from Jehovah like Gabriel( who is an angel) as the WT seems to describe when explaining Jesus’ title as the Word.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 11:55:28

          This was written two years ago and my understanding has improved since then, but it contains some reasoning on the meaning of The Word which may jibe with what you understand. See http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/01/what-is-the-word-according-to-john/

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 11:59:05

          Thanks Meleti!
          I am defintely going to take a look at it!

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 03:02:58

Revelation 20 verse 6, says that the holy ones, who alone
are given immortality, act as both kings and priests
during the 1000 years,
and in chapter 5 verse 10 we also see these holy ones as
kings and priests in the coming kingdom,
and these same holy ones are further identified as a royal,
or kingly, priesthood, which means kings and priests,
and since Jesus had to become like His brothers in all
respects, and being of the tribe of Judah, from which
tribe no one ever officiated as a priest,
and therefore having His kingship in the manner of
Melchizedek, who served as both king and priest,
so, too, Christ’s brothers, in like manner, have their
priesthood not from Levi, but are kings and priests
after the manner of Melchizedek,
hence, there can be no separate office of kingship and
another one of priesthood, since they are combined
in both texts in Revelation and in reference to the
change of priesthood as per Melchizedek to be
exclusively reserved for the holy ones, who are
Christ’s brothers.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 03:10:05

  Hi Ross, I just replied on this subject. I agree with the link between Melchizedek and Jesus as it is in te scriptures but that comparison is only made for Jesus. The problem is with the translation of these verses. Rev. 20:6 does not mention KINGS but only PRIESTS. Yes, they will be in the KIngdom but that is not equal to be KINGS. Rev. 5:10 reads in most translations, as well as Wescott Greek Translation, KINGDOM, not KINGS. Which for me makes complete sense as Jesus will be or is KING of that KINGDOM and his brothers will rule wit Him in His Kingdom, not as KINGS (Only one can be KING) but in supporting role. The will act as PRIESTS, as pecific role for them in that KINGDOM.

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 04:07:13

    Menrov-
    Could the 144,000 be judges? Matt 19:20 Reve 20:4,Luke 22:28-30 Daniel 7:9, 22,1 Corinthians 6:2.
    I don't have a fixed belief about the role of the 144,000 (priests, kings,judges). I do believe from reading Revelation they are set aside for a special purpose and set apart from the Great crowd for a reason in Revelation. They are spoken of as being bought from the earth , they come out of specific tribes , they sing a song one else can master, they are firstfruits (of one harvest)and they are virgins(spiritual purity? ).Chapter 7 speaks of many differences between the two groups (great crowd, 144,000) but they are both depicted in heaven.
    I always wondered why Jesus needs kings with him to rule if he himself will be a king. In the nation of Israel during Samuel's era you could argue that Jehovah was their king and there were judges in the earth.That is until Israel rejected this arrangement of judges and Jehovah himself as King(1 Sam. 8:6)

    • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 04:24:19

      Slightly off topic While researching the comments I came across 1Cor 6:3a ...I don't understand how Romans 16:20 is listed as a cross reference to that scripture in the RNWT.....

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 04:31:04

        hmm. no idea either. error??

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 07:03:02

        I believe the cross reference is there because the judgment of angels refers to the demons (fallen angels) who will be judged by Jesus and his resurrected followers.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 04:35:47

      Hi GWIT, the scriptures show they (the elected ones, the group 144.000) will be judges in the KINGDOM of Jesus. By far most translation read KINGDOM not KINGS, which is very clear. Jesus is KING and his brothers will be in His Kingdom as Priests to judge, under their King Jesus.

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 04:51:18

        To help: If you look yup these verses in the RNWT and check at the same time (Android APP JW Library) the Kingdom Interlinear, you can see that only RNWT reads KINGS. None of the other translations the RNWT is showing at the same time read KNGS in these verses

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 03:13:49

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.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 03:20:21

  Fair statement. And I agree with that logic. The fact that Jesus is the beloved Son, does not necessarily mean highest authority and from the logic it is obvious that Jehovah not only see his Son as His beloved Son but now He also gave him te position above all others. As a father you can have a favourite child but that child not necessarily occupies the "highest rank" in the familiy. Even Jesus had a favrourite apostle but that apostle was not asked to feed His sheep 3 times.
  Bottom line is though that currently Jesus is far more than "just" one of the angels and He should be respected, treated, honored as such as the scriptures indicate various times.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-08 11:01:15

  Hi Ross
  I can see the appeal of that logic. However context is everything.
  When Paul writes "... has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son ... and after he had made a purification for our sins" (v2,3) is it not true that he is talking of his human existence followed by his post-human existence?
  It is true that he makes reference to making all things through Jesus (pre-human existence), but that is to explain who the Son is who has spoken to us in place of the prophets at the end of these days.
  Therefore is it not the case that Jesus having "become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs" is in the context of being elevated from that human role. This is further explained by ...
  (Hebrews 2:9) But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death.
  So Jesus was brought down to human level "lower than angels" (Ps 8:5) but then crowned with glory and splendor.
  If Jesus truly had the glory of God in his pre-existence (John 17:5) then he could not have been what we consider a regular angel to be. Unless they all are "the exact representation of his very being" (Heb 1:3). Wouldn't you agree?
  Apollos

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 03:56:41

Hi Menrov,
Sorry, I should have given the reference to Christ
having to become like His brothers in all respects,
including the origin of His priesthood, which is
Hebrews 2:17.
This principle of being like Christ in His experiences
is also shown in Hebrews 13:10-13, where the anointed
are seen as going beyond the accepted Levitical
custom of not eating from the bodies, whose blood
was to be sprinkled on the altar for atonement,
and which were to be burned up outside the camp,
but in which fate the holy ones would identify with
what Christ went through.
Revelation 20 verse 6 reads: “Happy and holy is
anyone having part in the first resurrection; over
these the second death has no authority,
but they will be PRIESTS of God and of Christ,
and will rule as KINGS with Him for the
thousand years.”
As to the holy ones ruling as kings in God’s kingdom,
please note Paul’s words in 2. Timothy 2 verse 12: “If
we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as KINGS.”
And again, 1. Corinthians 4 verse 8: “You men already
Have your fill, do you? You are rich already, are you?
You have begun ruling as KINGS without us, have you?”
The reason for elevating mere humans to the position of
kings and priests over mankind, seems, in part, to be
designed as a slap in the face for Satan, so to speak, who
charged God with not trusting His creatures by
withholding His God-ship and Divine Nature from them.
Keep on questioning things, until they are clear in your
mind; make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine
and true.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 04:47:29

  Hi, I have read Rev 20:4 and Rev. 20:6 in many translations and almost all of them read that they (heavenly group) will be Priests to God and to Christ (or Messiah) and reign with him. Some end with For 1000 years. Nowhere it is mentioned they will be KING. In my view that makes full sense as a kingdom can have only one KING. If you look yup these verses in the RNWT and check at the same time (Android APP JW Library) the Kingdom Interlinear, you can see that only RNWT reads KINGS. None of the other translations the RNWT is showing at the same time read KNGS in these verses.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 07:00:23

    You are correct. Our translation inserts Kings when all the aforementioned texts use a verb form to describe the action of ruling rather than the position of the ruler. A little bit of bias has crept into our Bible. Thanks for pointing this out.
    Isaiah 32:1,2 says:
    

    Look! A king will reign for righteousness,
    And princes will rule for justice.
    2 And each one will be like a hiding place from the wind,
    A place of concealment from the rainstorm,
    Like streams of water in a waterless land,
    Like the shadow of a massive crag in a parched land.

    
    These ones will rule or reign as princes but there is only one King in the Messianic Kingdom Jehovah establishes through his Son.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 08:50:14

      Well the Prophet Isaiah seems to settle this issue. They are princes who will reign , rule and judge .

      • Reply by Chris on 2014-03-05 09:38:02

        This is an excellent and refreshing discussion (cue lightbulb)
        One King with his sons as Princes - the logic is palpable:)

        • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 10:04:33

          I agree Chris

        • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 11:13:50

          A prince is a nice word. It's the son or daughter of a king, carrying the full authority of the royal household.

    • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 10:20:49

      I don't think we need to stumble over the word king.
      After all, Jehovah has no problem being king at the same time as his son is king.
      And since the bride of Christ will be co-ruling with Christ, they have this similar appointment.
      It's like the use of word God. Jesus is God should not stumble us.
      Jehovah is THE God and THE king.
      We understand the other gods and kings are relative to his will.

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 11:14:52

        "Jehovah is THE God and THE king.We understand the other gods and kings are relative to his will."
        That definitely makes sense.
        However, if Bible does not call the "co-rulers" with Christ "kings" then they are not kings ...right ? I am not sure that these ones can be elevated to Christ’s position as King . Ezekiel’s prophecy is commonly understood as a prophecy point to Christ . This kingship/kingdom is legally and rightfully his. (Eze21:26, 27) (Is.9:6)( Ps.89:3,4)(Luke1:32,33)
        Can these prophecies be applied also to those who rule with Christ?

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 11:41:33

        Hi Alex, I agree with the principle to not stumble over minor things. However, if the original Grek text do not mention KINGS then we should not add nor make these people kings.
        Also, the fact that once is reigning in a kingdom, does not make them a king. l live in the Netherlands, a Kingdom and we have one king. Yes, there are princes but still one king. Like a government, we have many ministers or senators that govern by only one prime minister or president.
        Therefore the fact that they inherit the kingdom does not make them kings (hence it is not written as such in the original text). It makes them members of the kingdom.
        Each in their own role, but together ruling.

        • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 11:49:35

          I agree Menrov.
          I made a comment under Apollos’ post recently http://meletivivlon.com/2014/01/28/fred-franz-and-the-divine-name-in-the-greek-scriptures/
          “Jehovah and the Holy Spirit does not need the GB’s help . But I suppose that they can do whatever they want. Let’s replace other words… Why not? The revelation book is a good start…. for example the 24 elders could read “anointed class” or 144,000 so that the reader doesn’t get “confused”.”
          I think that this “kings” situation is very similar in principle to that comment.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 11:52:07

          A fine point, menrov. Added to that are Jesus' words that he does nothing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. Thus the final and only King in the absolute sense is Jehovah. (John 5:19)
          I also agree that changing the translation, even in a seemingly minor way can have significant repercussions. It is presumptuous and dangerous.
          (Matthew 5:18) . . .for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.
          Jesus uses hyperbole to show that every tiny element of the law is important. There is no excuse for loose or sloppy translation. In developing my piece on disfellowshipping, I almost ran afoul of this myself. It was this discussion on the insertion of "kings" where kings are not mentioned that caused me to evaluate a key element of Matthew 18:15-17 by investigating the interlinear. Here again there was an omission that significantly changed the meaning of the text. Little by little, my opinion of the NWT and even more, the RNWT, diminishes.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 04:07:18

Hi Menrov,
yes, good points you make there, and further along
your line of reasoning, Christ did not get the promise
to rule the world as a result of law as firstborn, but
through the righteousness by faith, just like His
brothers also receive the promise on the basis of
faith. Ro. 4:13

Comment by menrov on 2014-03-05 05:02:27

for me it is an amazing experience to be able to freely discuss bible verses and not being "forced" to simply follow what is stated in WT publications. Thank you all for your respect.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 07:04:25

  That is an amazing catch Menrov. Why have we inserted "kings" throughout the NWT?

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-05 07:31:37

    I can only guess. I feel it is because the organisation has difficulties to accept that Jesus has been appointed King, that all congregations have Jesus as king or head and that all Christians are to be judged by Jesus. To "lift" Jesus brothers to kings, it seems that by doing this the authority of Jesus becomes less, they all become more or less equal in authority and as such, that they all report to Jehovah.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 08:48:49

      That is a very interesting thought and this whole WT exalting Jehovah as King over Christ is a testament to that. It appears as Meleti has stated that bias has crept in our translation concerning these scriptures. The articles by Apollos and Meleti on this site has definitely changed my view of the RNWT. I believe that http://meletivivlon.com/2014/01/28/fred-franz-and-the-divine-name-in-the-greek-scriptures/ was the nail in the coffin for me.
      Apparently , some of the scriptures I pride myself on knowing really well( and has shaped my belief system).... I really do not know that well after all . Perhaps my knowledge isn’t so “accurate” after all......

Comment by on 2014-03-05 05:51:14

Hello Menrov and Ross,
what about this: Luke 1,35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: THEREFORE also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the SON of God."
= no pre-existence?
Regards

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 10:38:23

  Are you implying that Jesus had a pre-existing human existence?
  Woman can not bear forth spirit creatures as far as God has not permitted this so far.
  Likewise Jesus became flesh as a non-spirit creature from a woman, being fully flesh.
  The non-pre-existence of a fully-flesh Jesus does in no way contradict his spiritual pre-existence.
  Likewise, upon death Jesus was not the same spirit creature as before surrendering and emptying himself to human existence. He was "exalted", a new creature with a new Spirit birth.
  The firstborn of a new type of creation. Therefore possessing a glory which before him, did not exist.
  Anointed share in this glory, so for me it's unthinkable some anointed will have lesser glory than others. The new creation is exalted above all angels and is Gods image. Anointed Christians will become God. Not THE God, the father, but immortal and endless in power and fully in union with him and Christ.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 10:53:48

  Sorry for the English in my last post. Kind of writing on my phone while distracted with other things.
  Anonymous, I also feel like we need to step away from this kind of reasoning and upgrade our logical thinking a bit.
  To be (therefore) called Son of God, does not imply no pre-existence.
  For example, I can make a fast car. Then I introduce him to a new race track, and I therefore I predict that the audience will call it a fast car.
  Think about it...
  The same problem I have with the reasoning surrounding 'Emmanuel'. It means "God with us". Well, I feel God has never left me. He is "with" me. And Jesus being on earth proved this, that God was with his people, that he did not forsake them. It does not say that the father walked the earth some 2000 years ago.
  Likewise Jesus will be "with us" until the end. But he is manifest in his ambassadors, his agents. To the world, true anointed prove that Jesus is with us! But I, as Christian AM NOT Jesus.
  It's like trying to conclude things that are not necessarily implied, and then suggesting it as proof for what suits our belief.

Comment by on 2014-03-05 11:23:39

Hello Alex Rover,
thank You for Your comment. What do You think about that: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/12/08/was-there-ever-a-time-that-the-son-did-not-exist/#comment-9315
This is what "i meant" ;)
Regards

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 11:40:15

  Hi Anonymous,
  I think Apollos doesn't dispute that the Son was created, but he makes the case that this "moment" must have been before creation of time itself. Therefore he is outside time and fully "Alpha", like his father.
  He was created as Son. He did not become Son of God on human birth. This designation remains with him for all eternity, thus he is also fully "Omega".

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-08 14:09:42

    Hi Alex
    We do get down to semantics here. I think you have fairly represented my position, although officially I would dispute that the Son was "created". I don't mean that he wasn't produced by the Father, but in my mind I have to remove the Son from the category of "created things" in order for the scriptures as a whole to make sense.
    But the essence of what you say about my position is true.
    Apollos

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 13:46:10

AlexRover you said
"Likewise, upon death Jesus was not the same spirit creature as before surrendering and emptying himself to human existence. He was “exalted”, a new creature with a new Spirit birth.
The firstborn of a new type of creation. Therefore possessing a glory which before him, did not exist."
Earlier in this thread I made mention about how we are seeming to converge on the same understanding of many issues by just reading the Bible.
Well STRIKE ME DOWN WITH A FEATHER!!!
Your conclusion is the same one I came to about 6 weeks ago!!
I suddenly realized that Jesus was a different person, NO DIFFERENT CREATION, than he was before (assuming that had a pre-existence). Then it dawned on me that Christians are to become a new creation of the same type as Jesus. A completely NEW CLASS of spirit creature!! Incredible!! No wonder the Gospel is called Good News!!
How is it that I can INDEPENDENTLY come to the same conclusion as you, without having met you or talked to you about this subject or even discussed it with anybody else?
It makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up :-)

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 14:15:36

  IJA-
  Throughout Revelation the Resurrected Jesus tells John of his exalted status in the heavens. Creatures of all kinds are directed to worship him and the One seated on the throne ( Reve chapters 4&5)
  Or are you stating that Jesus is recreated/resurrected as an entirely different type of spirit creature all together?

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 14:26:52

    I think were back at headship.
    While the wife is equally human, but she voluntarily submits to her husband and "worships" him as her Lord.
    (Worship here i used in the same way it is used in regard to how anointed obey or pay respects to their Lord, Christ. Translated as 'obeisance')
    Thus the anointed share in the glory given to Christ, just like Christ shares in the glory and worship given to Jehovah.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 14:49:36

      Alex-
      “While the wife is equally human, but she voluntarily submits to her husband and “worships” him as her Lord.”
      I really like that illustration and I definitely agree.
      However regarding “obeisance” one scripture in those chapters in Revelation comes to mind….( Reve 5:13,14)
      13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth+ and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne+ and to the Lamb+ be the blessing and the honor+ and the glory and the might forever and ever.”+ 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.
      We have probably have talked/ debated about obeisance/worship to death on this site . But the Lamb ( Resurrected Jesus) is not receiving “obeisance” here or in any other scriptures throughout these chapters.
      He (the lamb, Jesus) is “being worshipped” by the elders/living creatures just as the “One ( Jehovah) sitting on the throne”.

  • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 14:29:00

    GWIT -
    Indeed!! I'm suggesting the exalted Jesus is an entirely NEW creation of God. He was the FIRST of a kind. Nothing like him had existed before.
    And remarkably we are his children !!!
    Heb 2:13 And again: "I will have my trust in him." And again: "Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me."
    Jesus was the first of new seed. And like all seeds, the fruit that it produces is of the same nature as the parent. So lemons produce lemons, lions produce lions and immortal spirit creatures produce immortal spirit creatures!!
    That is why the comments about us being princes ties in so nicely with what Paul said here at Hebrews. What are the 'children' of a King? Princes!!!

    • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 14:42:54

      I agree imjustasking, this has been my view for a long time.
      It might also be interesting to know that the anointing itself comes from the high priest. Jesus is directly anointed by Jehovah, and the oil drips off his head onto his garments. He is the olive tree and we are branches. Our anointing his really Christ's, and we are sustained and anointed through him.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 14:00:01

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 stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
It is used in various places in the NT including the following passages, which show it has a very broad scope:
Mat 6:10
Math 13:53
So, although it is translated as 'become' in most translations suggesting the logical line you followed, the KJ version renders Hebrews 1:4 like so:
Being madeG1096 so muchG5118 betterG2909 than theG3588 angels
So become, is translated 'being made'.
Do you think translating ginomai as 'being made' instead of 'become' alters your line of reasoning or not?

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 14:19:43

  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 than them!! For example are the angels in the Bible ever said to be creators or makers of anything? Do angels make angels?
  This is one of the reasons why I recently have reject the idea that Michael was ever Jesus. If Michael was Jesus then why would he not have the authority to rebuke the Devil? (Jude 1:9)
  Is it conceivable that the agent used to make EVERYTHING in the physical and non-physical world is the same or even subordinate to things created?
  There is more I could say, but that is enough for now :-)
  I would be interested in yours or anybody else's thoughts.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 15:21:13

    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 and god. Therefore he can unify all creation in Jehovah God.

    • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-05 16:50:08

      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 in short, Jesus was the ANGEL Michael in Daniel, the descending archANGEL in Corinthians and finally the ANGEL Michael in Revelation. Jesus for them was /is Angel from the beginning to the end.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 16:47:04

    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 Christ. I believe Meleti and Apollos are working on articles in the near future regarding this subject.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-05 16:49:24

      BTW , I copied and pasted that scripture… I did not capitalize those words ….

    • Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-03-05 17:05:03

      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.

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-03-05 14:20:00

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 reasoning he doesn't exist either???
Any educated person reading that will just laugh at us for ignorance. And then they present this as reply to the question: "What if classmates ridicule you for believing in something you can’t see?"
Unbelievable.

Comment by umbertoecho on 2014-03-05 15:43:56

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.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-05 17:30:41

  Hello and welcome to the site. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-06 09:16:55

  Hi umberto and welcome.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 10:30:41

  Welcome!

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-06 16:19:01

  Hello and welcome :-)

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 17:51:13

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 a new relationship to the Father as
a Spirit Son,
and this Sonship was fully realized at His resurrection
into immortality, something entirely unheard of in all
the spirit realm.
So although all angels were created through Jesus, He
was at that time also merely a mortal spirit angel just
like them, entirely dependent on God’s sustaining energy
as all other spirit creatures are.
Just as our parents do not become superior beings by their
giving life to us, so too with Jesus in relationship to the
other angels.
Sure, He could have thrown His weight around, and even
told Satan in the dispute He had with him about the body
of Moses, to remember His seniority, and just who it was
that he owed his very existence to,
but that is not how Jesus is, who even in His position as
the firstborn conducted Himself as a lesser one, and
further humbled Himself to take the form of a slave, in
order to save both us, and the reputation of His Father.
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.
Jesus is our BROTHER; we have the same relationship
to God as He has.
God has given us the Spirit of Christ to dwell in our hearts,
and it cries out to God, not to Jesus, 'Abba, Father.’
As to the anointed being kings, Daniel tells us that the
'rulership of the kingdoms under all the heavens were
given to the people who are the Holy Ones of the
Supreme One,’
which of course implies that Jesus Himself is one of those
Holy Ones, ruling together with His glorified Brothers as
over the nations during the 1000 years as kings.
Furthermore, Paul tells us in 1. Corinthians 4 verse 8 that
some of our brothers there had already begun ruling as
KINGS without us,
and that we will indeed also 'rule as KINGS together with
Christ,’ if we go on enduring to the end. 2.Tim.2:12
Also, Jesus promises His faithful brothers who conquer,
that He will grant them to sit down WITH HIM on
HIS THRONE as kings over all creation in Heaven and
on earth. Re.3:21
Peter refers to the holy ones as a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD,
and we know that in Scripture there is only one such dual
rulership mentioned, where the two functions of king and
priest were combined into one office, occupied by the
mysterious Melchizedek, whom Paul identifies as a type
of Christ, and whom Peter here by allusion also identifies
as a type for the anointed whom he designates as a kingly
priesthood, being both KINGS and PRIESTS.
As to Hebrews 2:13, where Paul quotes Isaiah about the
‘young children’ which God gave to him, these are NOT
Christ’s children, but His BROTHERS, if we continue
reading down to verse 17,
and are actually children of God, because they are born
of the Father, NOT of Christ.
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.
All those staying here on earth forever will after the end
of the final test be adopted as children of Christ and His
Bride, and thereby become grandchildren of the Father.
As to Christ being the archangel, Paul clearly tells us
that Christ “Himself will descend from Heaven with
an ARCHANGEL’S voice and with God’s trumpet,”
and Jude informs us that this descending archangel
is called Michael, whom Daniel identifies as ‘standing
up’ immediately after the great tribulation to deliver
His people, which naturally refers to the glorified
Jesus.
I have yet to find a non Trinitarian to object to the
plain word of Scripture on the issue, but I concede
that there could be a first for everything.
I have addressed some points raised by others here,
so nothing personal about anybody, I am just dealing
with mental constructs and their compatibility with
Scripture.
Please let me know if any of the above is unclear or at
variance with Scripture, thanks.
Any capitalizations I make are NOT meant as shouting,
but just a fail-safe way for a Luddite to do italics,
bolding, coloring or underlining.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-06 01:54:52

  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 Archangel - this is a whole subject in itself so I won't even go there as yet.
  Regarding Paul saying that Jesus will descend with an Archangels voice and a trumpet, this is to be understood as the heralding of Jesus arrival to this earth. After all this will be the greatest event in human history and not some non-event like the so called 1914 parousia. It does have to mean that Jesus is blowing a trumpet and shouting at the top of his voice. Think of how the Queen is announced to Parliament when she makes her annual visit to the Palace of Westminster. Trumpets are blown and 'Black Rod' shouts out her arrival. In a like manner an Archangel will announce Jesus' arrival to the earth. It is not typical for Kings to DIRECTLY herald their own presence by shouting and blowing their own trumpet!!!
  I disagree with you, regarding the meaning of Hebrews. As GWIT said, Jesus occupies both roles. Paul is in fact quoting Isaiah, which clearly is in reference to the Messiah having 'children' after his own nature. Besides a human parent can be a father and a brother in a spiritual sense. We see that all the time at the Kingdom Halls, with generations of Witnesses getting baptised.
  Any case I'll leave off for now, because there is so much more to say, but as yet the ideas are embryos in my head and I want to avoid mis-speaking.

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 07:51:52

    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 clearly has an exalted position. He the Apostles throughout their writings repeatedly confirm that. We know that he took on a slave's or servant's form to reside among us.(phil 2:6-8) But how can we say that upon ressurrection he was an entirely new "creation" with certainty based on scripture? We do not know what his "form" was before so how do we know that he didn't return to whatever form he was before? There are so many unknowns here...
    This question is for anyone but I posed it to you because I believe like me you do not believe that Jesus is or ever was an angel....

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-06 16:00:18

      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 Jesus.was.to.sit on the rigjt hand until I [Jehovah] has put enemies.under His [Jesus] feet. In other words, it.seems Jehovah as.king of.armies.will remove the enemies via his army of (arch) angels. But this is my view....:)

      • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 17:34:15

        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 and slandered even while he was a man on earth(Matt28:18 ,John 8:44)
        Jesus rebuked the demons....
        "But Jesus rebuked it, saying: “Be silent, and come out of him.” So after throwing the man down in their midst, the demon came out of him without hurting him." (Luke 4:35)
        Michael couldn't even rebuke Satan ...he didn't dare to do so either.
        Jesus never hesitated to rebuke Satan or his demons. All authority had been given to him on heaven and earth (Matt.28:18)

Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 18:27:30

Ross-
"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
Isa 9:6
The scriptures speaks of him in both roles.

Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-05 18:31:14

"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 as proof that they are appointed"kings"This scripture calls them princes....

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 19:55:38

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;
and we know that this is the correct interpretation of
this verse, because Jesus alluded to this change in
position for them, when He asked the Scribes whom
they thought the Messiah to be, David's son or his
Lord,
the obvious answer to which obviously being that He
is both at different points in time, namely that, prior
to His death and resurrection He was known as
David's son,
due to His being born in the ancestral line of David,
but during the 1000 year reign, with David resurrected,
Christ will become David's Lord, just as prophesied
in Psalm 110: "The LORD spoke to MY Lord..."
So ironically, the 'son of David' will adopt David as His
son; no wonder the Scribes were stumped, because
they knew neither the Scriptures, nor the power and
wisdom of God.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 11:03:32

  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 "144,000" that is going to heaven nor did not I concern myself with "heavenly " things or rulership. My hope was to live on earth as a subject so maybe that's why this teaching or implication (if it exists)went over my head for so many years.
  None of us is or can ever be equal to the Christ in any fashion right? Is that what Christ meant when he referred to his disciples as brothers that we are or will become equal to him in any way?

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-06 15:29:43

    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 will it be once in heaven. Like ministers or senatos are all members of a government and ll together rule, only one is prime minister or chairman or president or king.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-06 16:16:46

      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 was on earth nor will it be once in heaven. Like ministers or senators are all members of a government and ll together rule, only one is prime minister or chairman or president or king

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-05 21:56:02

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
GOD, and worship Him!
The exception justifies the rule.
But belief in God is problematic primarily because it is
always perceived to be in need of mediation by man and
his organizations,
and then also in view of the Light having come into the
world, but most people preferring the darkness, because
it serves as a useful cover for hiding their wicked works,
which they love.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 08:10:32

  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 will not be placing the new March mag.
  Of course I believe in Creation but as you stated Alex our Creator is not served by material like this. Perhaps we should stick with what we know (creation).

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-06 09:32:09

    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 at Jesus' reply in the case of the "tax question". In about 10 words he dismantled the entire trap against him and astounded his audience with wisdom.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-06 15:35:20

      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

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-06 20:32:13

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 clearly shows that Christ Himself is issuing this
commanding call by using His authoritative voice as the
Archangel in charge of all His accompanying angels, which
voice will ring out with the sound of God’s trumpet.
The Archangel is clearly the One who is in charge of all the
angels, just as Peter tells us that Jesus “went His way to
Heaven, and ANGELS and authorities and powers were
made subject to Him.” 1.Pe.3:22
Nowhere in Scripture do we find a hint that Christ appointed
some mythical archangel over the angels; no one but Christ
Himself is in charge of them.
There is only one position in the universe higher than that of
Archangel, which is that of the Almighty.
If the office of Archangel was somehow lower to Christ’s
position, why would He borrow such an inferior voice
to command His angels to collect the chosen ones together?
What is so offensive to you about the term ‘angel?’
If you find the term ‘angel’ demeaning if used in reference to
Jesus, then what about the term 'spirit,’ which is properly used
to describe both angels and Jesus, as well as even the Father
Himself?
Yes, they are all spirits, despite the huge difference in rank,
and so it is with the angels; there is nothing pejorative
about either term.
Angel simply means messenger, so that even today the exalted
Jesus can still be called God’s messenger, or angel, despite the
fact that He is also the Only Begotten of the Father, which,
although making Him unique among the angels, still doesn't
stop Him from also conveying God’s message to us as the
faithful and true witness of the Father.
Even the glorified and immortal Holy Ones are referred to by
Jesus as being “like the angels,” although they are clearly
occupying a position way higher then even the most exalted
one of the angels, who have faithfully served God since time
indefinite. Lu.20:35
Paul calls Jesus an apostle, now shouldn't we also object to
the seeming denigration implied in comparing Christ to
mere humans who were sent forth by God? Heb.3:1
But the fact is that both Christ and His apostles were all
equally sent forth, so they share that aspect of their
calling in common, without harm resulting to the
reputation of Christ.
Jesus certainly hasn't got a chip on His shoulder, or cringe
when being referred to as the messenger, or angel, of God,
so why should we?
Why should we subject ourselves to the Pharisaical scruples
of heretics, who want to believe that a non-angelic, immortal
Christ died for them?
That is certainly not the Christ that died for me, and lives in
me.
As to Hebrews 2, Paul is here making the point that Jesus is
assisting Abraham’s seed, which is the corporate Christ, His
Body of anointed followers,
and that He is not ashamed to call them His brothers, because
they both equally got their anointing and heavenly calling
from the Father,
to serve as kings and priests during the 1000 years over those
staying here on earth, whom they will then adopt as their
children, with open-ended life in view.
It is obvious that those from among the ones living here on
earth, who will become children of Christ and His Bride
during the 1000 years, are merely adopted, without ever
acquiring the Divine Nature of their Sponsor Parents,
because they will forever be in need of all that luscious
food and aging wine growing here in paradise, with
which to sustain their mortal bodies in perpetuity.
But sadly many of those who would be in line to become
beneficiaries of the kingdom here on earth are despising
the promised blessing, by objecting to the administration
God has purposed,
moving Jesus to proclaim on His arrival: These enemies
of mine, that did not want me to become King over them,
bring here and slaughter them before me. Lu.19:27
Anyhow, nice chatting with you, and I look forward to your
further conclusions and insights.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:08:19

  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.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-06 22:18:24

    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!)

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:39:41

      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.

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-06 23:34:20

        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! :)

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 00:47:49

          I believe Hemingway once said, "Writing is easy. All you have to do is sit in front of a typewriter and bleed."

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:21:49

  >>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.

• Reply by kev c on 2014-03-07 13:52:47

  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

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-06 20:36:43

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 originally had, and go straight
to the lake of fire.
Paul tells us in Philippians 2 verse 9, that upon His
resurrection, God exalted Jesus to a ‘superior position’
and kindly gave Him the Name that is above every
other name,
which shows that Jesus was once in an inferior position,
being mortal just like all other angels are, but that He
is now totally independent of the Father, by sharing
His Immortal, Divine Nature, which will also be
granted to His faithful anointed Brothers.
The WT teaches that the anointed will sit down with Christ
on His kingly throne, to share in His universal rulership
during the 1000 years, as clearly spelled out by Jesus in
Revelation 3:21.
The reason for this elevation of mere flesh and blood to
such a glorious position is not because Jesus was once
just a mortal spirit being, a messenger, or angel
conveying and personifying the Word of God,
but because both Christ and His brothers were born of
the Spirit of Holiness by God’s power to a spiritual
nature and life.
The Holy Ones become sharers of the Divine Nature
because the Father baptized them into the death of
His Son,
and Jesus received His promotion to Immortality
due to His faithful death for us, and for furnishing
the proof of God’s righteousness.
Apart from Jesus and His Brothers, no one else is
given a life of independence from the Father.
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.
This is an interesting and important topic to understand,
but only a good heart and pure motive will result in
life-giving faith, which are way more precious to have;
so don’t worry too much about the technical details.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-06 22:13:44

  Hi Ross-
  "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?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:14:39

  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 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.
  This is quite a bold assertion. Scriptures please?!

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-06 22:09:03

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 Father, which
is to be revealed to the overcoming Holy Ones upon their
rapture to Heaven. Re.3:12
The placing of Christ’s enemies under His feet by the Father
has to do with the jurisdiction, which God has reserved for
Himself, as to the timing for taking rulership away from
Satan, and handing it over to Jesus,
not that God will use other means than Christ’s kingdom to
accomplish the task of chaining Satan and reforming
mankind here on earth. Ac.1:7; Mat.24:36
The reason Jesus would not have rebuked Satan prior to
His coming to earth to fulfill His mission of driving out
demons, was precisely because His time had not yet come
back then.
Jesus was simply humble and closely sticking to protocol,
even back then.
You are right that the GB are directing people to themselves
instead of connecting them to Jesus, as true anointed ones
would do,
and I sympathize with the flock, having been lied to, now
losing faith in the leadership and all their teachings,
but we need to dispassionately examine each doctrine on
its own merit and not get rushed, or lured by Satan, or our
own desires, to make things up to suit ourselves, since
this would be severely against our own interests and
salvation.
If we see those who call themselves anointed abusing
the purpose of their calling by lording it over others,
we can either conclude that the Bible does not teach
such a high heavenly calling, or by trying to read into
it that there are no two hopes, and all believers are
equal,
or that those claiming the spiritual birth for their own ego
or advantage are simply playing with fire, which will
devour them in the end,
and I think the latter is the most likely scenario, and well
supported by Scripture too. Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:28:25

  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.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-06 22:18:04

Hi Melleti,
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
please forgive.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-06 22:34:45

  Hi Ross,
  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.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-07 01:31:30

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 which
only the Father had prior to Christ’s resurrection, when He
gave immortality to His victorious Son,
and this is also the same ‘everlasting life,’ or immortality,
in Christ which 1. John 5 verse 12 refers to, when he
assures the anointed: “He that has the Son has this life,”
present tense, we might note,
“because just as that One is, so are we ourselves in this world,”
1.John 4:17,
for “it is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that is living
in me.” Gal. 2:20
The term ‘New Creation’ itself should make us think, because
we already had spirit creatures and humans; but starting with
Christ, we have a perfect human son of God,
who additionally is also anointed with Holy Spirit at His
baptism, at which He receives another birth, namely, in
the Spirit,
just as He told Nicodemus: ‘Unless ye be born from above,
ye cannot enter the kingdom of God,'
which requires Him also to permanently lay down His physical
life, in order to ascend as the Immortal Spirit Son after His
sacrificial death, to take up life with the Father in a new
relationship of being His Son in the most superlative way
possible,
which change in relationship, as extracted from the OT,
is presented by Paul in Hebrews 1: “You are my Son;
I, TODAY, I have become your Father,”
which happened at Christ’s spirit baptism, when, while
ALREADY being God’s son as the reflection of His glory
and the exact representation of His very Being,
He became God’s Son in another, and entirely new sense,
so that now, for the first time ever, even the angels are
instructed to do obeisance to Him,
something that clearly never happened before God ‘brought
His Firstborn into the inhabited earth,’ at His spirit baptism,
to be precise, because that is where it obviously took place.
As to Jesus being the Word of God, please see John 1 verse
1, and Revelation 19 verse 13, where “the Name He is
called is The Word of God,” which I interpreted as
‘personifying the Word of God,’ which He obviously is,
according to these texts and others.
In Malachi 3 verse 1, Jesus is called the messenger of the
covenant, and angel simply means messenger, someone
conveying a message, which is what Jesus was all about
in His preaching assignment here on earth.
Hence Jesus was a messenger conveying the sayings of
the Father, for that is what a messenger does, just as He
said: “He that sent me is true, and the very things I
heard from Him I am speaking in the world.” Jno 8:26
Of course, He is a very special messenger, being the
Only Begotten Son of the Father, but a messenger,
or representative, nevertheless.
That Jesus was mortal seems to be beyond dispute,
otherwise how could He have died for us?
Further, I don’t think anyone would doubt that God can
destroy angels, despite them being spirit creatures,
although Satan might have thought differently at one
time, who knows.
As to the anointed giving up their right to eternal life
here on earth at their spirit baptism, well, nobody can
be born again unless he first dies,
and the anointed are baptized into Christ’s death, the
death of His perfect physical body, which incorporated
our sinful human bodies for which He substituted;
hence, since Christ died, but did not die for Himself,
I died in Him and was raised up into spiritual Sonship
in Christ to live for the Father. 2. Cor.5:14-17; Col.2:12
The holy ones are possessed of a fullness of the
Divine Quality dwelling in their bodies by means of
Christ.
There are so many Scriptures going into every detail
of the things I have just touched on, if one but reads
and ponders the marvelous promises given us in
Christ Jesus our Lord.
If even angels are desiring to peer into these wonders,
who can blame us for wanting to know the love of the
Christ, which surpasses knowledge, and to be filled
with all the fullness that God gives?
My way of explaining things is not the best, I have
been told, so please bear with me.
Ps. I might attempt a deconstruction of the archangel
passage in Thessalonians from which my reading
is deducted, to see if there are other ways consistent
with Scripture in which it could be understood.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:18:35

  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 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 which only the Father had prior to Christ’s resurrection, when He gave immortality to His victorious Son, and this is also the same ‘everlasting life,’ or immortality, in Christ which 1. John 5 verse 12 refers to, when he assures the anointed: “He that has the Son has this life,” present tense, we might note, “because just as that One is, so are we ourselves in this world,” 1.John 4:17, for “it is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that is living in me.” Gal. 2:20
  
  I've changed this editorially to illustrate how breaking the different thoughts in this single sentence into separate components aids the reader in understanding your meaning.
  The equality of nature between God, Jesus and the glorified anointed ones can be seen in 2 Peter 1:4 where the holy ones are said to become “sharers in divine nature”. John 5:26 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 which only the Father had prior to Christ’s resurrection, when He gave immortality to His victorious Son.
  This is also the same “everlasting life” or immortality in Christ which 1 John 5:12 refers to, when he assures the anointed: “[He] that has the Son has this life.” (present tense). We might note, “because just as that One is, so are we ourselves in this world.” (1 John 4:17) For “it is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that is living in me.” – Gal. 2:20
  
  Please review this. Notice the removal of unnecessary periods. For instance, 1.John 4:17 becomes 1 John 4:17. Also, you should prefer 1 John 5:12 over 1. John 5 verse 12. Additionally, when quoting, do not capitalize where it does not appear in the original. This can subtly change the meaning. For instance, you referenced 1 Peter 1:6 (actually you meant verse 4) and then quoted "sharers in Divine Nature". Capitalizing turns this into a proper noun. The reader is led to believe that we share in the very nature of God, that is, the one and only Divine Nature. That is not what is being said in this text. What the text is actually referring to is the spiritual nature of heavenly beings. God is a spirit and his angels are spirits. Jesus as the word was divine. They could share in divine nature in that sense without being immortal. (John 4:24; Psalm 104:4; John 1:1)
  which was the your point about Since we often demonstrate how the JW publications introduce bias reasoning by , and use double quotes to show a textual quote. Reserve single quotes for a phraseological quote.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-07 21:52:44

    Thanks for the grammar lesson Meleti. Very informative. The point about capitalization escaped me until you just pointed it out.

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-07 15:47:17

  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 the spirit just as Jesus was at baptism and since Jesus shares the same "divine nature" as Jehovah all three will become God or Godlike. (144,000 ,Christ and Jehovah) This sounds like the Trinity doctrine 2.0.
  If we can die and be acquitted from our own sins (as you suggested on the other post) we will be equal to Christ in the kingdom and Jesus is just an angel who delivers messages.... What is so special about Christ?
  I don't want to sound flippant at all but what do we need him for? He's the only begotten son and yet we will be sons equal in nature to him. We apparently will lead ourselves to the lucious trees you spoke about and grant ourselves everlasting life so why did we need this angel to die for us?
  Jesus created everything... He's our Creator ...How can we be equal to him? Or even Jehovah?

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-09 12:12:31

    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.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-07 03:39:06

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 experience death in order to be born again?
4. If non gentiles are not 'born again' how do we become Gods's sons?
5.The Greek word Jesus used for 'born again' γεννηθή άνωθεν, (gennithi' a'nothen), can mean either 'born again' or 'born from above'. Which was it? (clue: look at the response Nicodemus gave to Jesus) - The answer to this question also provides an answer to question 1 and 2 - which is vital in order to understand the context of the words 'born again'

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-07 03:47:17

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 :-)

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-07 04:45:37

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 by
which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the
spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?”
What but the second death could be ‘much more
severe a punishment’ than the first, do you think?
Do you think that ‘outraging the Spirit of Grace’
could be any less than sinning against the Spirit?
As to Jesus’ uniqueness, saying that He was in important
aspects like an angel, does not detract from His special
position as Firstborn of all creation;
what makes Him truly unique is His righteousness by
faith, not the statistical fact that He happened to be
‘the beginning of the creation by God.’ Col. 1:15;
Ro. 4:13; Re.3:14
That Jesus at some stage was no “better than the angels,”
is clearly implied in Hebrews 1 verse 4, where Jesus is
said to have “BECOME better than the angels,” by means
of His inheriting “a Name more excellent than theirs,”
which in verse 2 refers to His being “appointed heir of all
things,” or “heir of a world,” according to Romans 4 verse 13,
which promise He acquired only through the righteousness
by faith after the creation of the angels, likely on the occasion
when God, bypassing Jesus, put Satan in charge of Eden.
If Jesus was already ‘better’ than the angels BEFORE He
‘had made a purification for our sins,’ how could He
‘become better than them’ as a result of it, as Paul
clearly argues here in Hebrews?
It is this special attitude that was in Christ which made Him
unique, His humility to become God’s servant, not to aspire
to a special place, but to empty Himself of even His mortal
spirit existence, to become lower than the angels as a mere
man made of dust.
Angel differs from angel in glory and might, nevertheless
their station is not due to some special virtue they have
cultivated, but by the grace of God.
Jesus knows that there is no boasting in His primacy, except
that is comes by the grace of the Father, who could have
made anybody His Firstborn, according to the good pleasure
of His will.
Even the Father can imagine what it would be like if the tables
were turned on Him, and He were dependent on our ‘grace’ -
as if we had any;
that is what makes Him so great in His humility, treating us like
He would want to be treated if the boot was on the other foot,
so to speak, something which He would never have to worry
about, but amazingly cares so much about in His dealings with us.
2 Sam.22:36
As to Michael being ‘one of the foremost princes,’ and hence
there being others of similar rank at that time, this would not
be surprising since Jesus, according to Paul, as noted above,
had not yet ‘become better than the angels,’ and could
therefore well fit the profile of Michael.
I wouldn't make a doctrine of life and death out of it, but it
seems that is what those who claim that Jesus was not a
mortal spirit Being are doing; so do you, therefore, believe
that Christ was a mortal Spirit just like the angels, or not?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:29:24

  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.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:34:46

    >>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.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:36:18

    >>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"?

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:40:16

    >>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.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 08:41:05

    >>There is only one position in the universe higher than that of Archangel, which is that of the Almighty.
    Please prove this.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-07 09:38:16

      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 Matt.1:21 indicates that she was to name the boy Jesus (NWT Online Bible explains: Corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua, or Joshua, which means “Jehovah Is Salvation.")
      If his role was so key, it would be more logical to maintain his name as Michael. If the bible says (sorry, need to find the exact verse) that everyone will bend his knees in his name (regarding to Jesus), would it not make sense to ensure people (Christians) would have the right name in mind?.
      It is my honest belief that if the WT would have never linked MICHAEL to Jesus,one would not come up with that idea.
      The argument that Michael stood up in behalf of your people does not allow one to automatically say this is proof Michael is Jesus. On command by Jehovah, angels can act like killing 185.000 people. Also Rev. 18:1 shows that there was another angel with great authority and also had a powerful voice. Vers 4 same chapter reads that another (unnamed) angel saying "Come out of her, my people......". What this shows that angels that are part of the heavenly organisation see true Christians as their people. If it would be Jesus hat was talking here or Michael, either that name would be shown or one of his titles like The Lamb.
      What is annoying to me is that Insight uses these statements: ....His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God”.
      A TITLE is not equal to a NAME !!!

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-07 10:07:19

        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.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-07 10:21:40

          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. - RNWT Appendix B1) The trouble is that Satan is not ousted by Jesus, but by Michael. If Jesus' first act of kingly power is to cast out Satan, then Michael be Jesus. This pre-condition closes our minds to other interesting possibilities that might help us explain other passages linked to Satan's ouster, help us place Michael in the great scheme of things and even help us to pinpoint, possibly, the time of Satan's being cast down.

          • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-07 10:26:31

            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 !!!

        • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-07 13:13:38

          Interestingly the word "evidently" is used almost 5,000 times in the WT Library with little evidence to support such conclusion.
          sw

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-07 06:28:11

‘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 were baptized into Christ’s death to
the impaling of their old personality, which is something
both Jews as well as Gentiles are afflicted with,
and from which they need to be raised up again in the
new birth of Christ’s resurrection.
Even Jesus disclosed that Gentiles would need to be born
again, when He said that ‘among those born of women there
is none greater than John the Baptist,
and since He told us that He also had ‘other sheep,’ who
were not from the Jewish fold, who were to rule with
Him in Heaven, but also were only ‘born of women,’
it follows that they too needed to die to their earthly nature
and be born again in the Spirit, just as the Jews would have
to do.
Paul, also, clearly contrasts those born in the flesh with
those born in the Spirit, and that a new birth is only
possible after death of the fleshly nature,
where the flesh and the Spirit are metaphorically seen as
owners or masters, so that a person cannot simultaneously
belong to both without committing adultery in that sense.
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." Jno 12:24
Gentiles become sons of God through their faith in His
promise to uncircumcised Abraham, which is counted
to them as righteousness, making them fit for the
adoption as sons by means of ‘a new birth to a living
hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead,’ a ‘new birth by incorruptible reproductive seed,
through the living and enduring Word of God,’ who is
Christ. 1.Pe.1:3, 23
The Jews, therefore, in addition to having to die to their
fleshly nature, also had to die to the law they were
‘married’ to, whereas Gentiles only had to die to their
earthly nature and be born again, or anew, in the Spirit.
Obviously nobody can do this for themselves, for
‘a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but
only when he is called by God.’ Heb.5:3
“For the promise is to you and to your children and to
all those afar off, just as many as Jehovah God may
call to Him.” Acts 2:39
“So that is why He is a Mediator of a new covenant,
in order that, because a death has occurred for their
release by ransom from the transgressions under the
former covenant, the ones who have been called
might receive the promise of the everlasting
inheritance.” Heb.9:15
Hence for both Jew and Gentile, getting born of the
Spirit ‘depends not upon the one wishing nor upon
the one running, but upon God who will show
compassion to whomever He will show compassion.’
Ro. 9:15
Keep on refining your beliefs, and help me with mine.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-07 13:32:23

  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
  again, when He said that ‘among those born of women there
  is none greater than John the Baptist,
  and since He told us that He also had ‘other sheep,’ who
  were not from the Jewish fold, who were to rule with
  Him in Heaven, but also were only ‘born of women,’
  it follows that they too needed to die to their earthly nature
  and be born again in the Spirit, just as the Jews would have
  to do.
  Your whole line of reasoning here is non-sequitur. I just can't see how you are joining the dots here. Perhaps you could expand further by illustrating with scriptures how your points link up
  I go back to my original questions which I posted earlier which you have failed to answer, so I'll repost them here again:
  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 experience death in order to be born again?
  4. If non gentiles are not ‘born again’ how do we become Gods’s sons?
  5.The Greek word Jesus used for ‘born again’ γεννηθή άνωθεν, (gennithi’ a’nothen), can mean either ‘born again’ or ‘born from above’. Which was it? (clue: look at the response Nicodemus gave to Jesus) – The answer to this question also provides an answer to question 1 and 2 – which is vital in order to understand the context of the words ‘born again’
  If you feel inclined in your response, take time to answer them. I think if you do, you will see that Jesus was not talking about Gentiles having to be 'born again'.
  With regard to Paul thoughts at Romans 6, from the verses 1-23 not once did he mention the need for them to born again in relation to their spiritual death. If being born again and dying spiritually were connected then he would have mentioned it. But we see no such connecting thoughts.
  I urge you to reflect on the above questions as they may offer you a different perspective on what Jesus meant regarding having to be 'born again'.

• Reply by Chris on 2014-03-08 16:27:40

  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 will bear.
  He is not speaking about being born again

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-08 01:45:49

Hi ‘Imjustasking,’
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.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-08 03:04:57

Meleti,
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.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 00:58:03

  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?

Comment by umbertoecho on 2014-03-08 16:44:57

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?

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 19:45:21

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 at God's right hand" with "rule as king." And after God subdues all Jesus' enemies (the last being death), that is when Jesus "hands over the kingdom" to God. In Paul's view, Jesus' 'sitting at God's right hand' and his 'ruling as king' of the Kingdom are synonymous.
I submit that "the Kingdom of the Son of his love" in Col 1:13 is not simply "a spiritual kingdom over the Christian congregation," but is the Kingdom of God that Jesus was destined to rule over.
Further verses indicating Jesus was already king of God's Kingdom upon his return to heaven:
Matt 28:18 Jesus claims to already have 'all authority in heaven and on the earth.'
Eph 1:20, 21 Paul alludes to Ps 110:1, but describes Jesus as already above every govt. in this age.
Php 2:9-11 Paul describes Jesus as already having the 'Name above every other name in heaven and earth.'
1 Tim 6:15, 16 (If applicable to Son) says he is now (at time of writing) a king. (See w05 9/1 p.27 for Society view. Most commentators say this refers to the Father.)
Rev 1:4, 5 Jesus describes himself as the 'ruler of the kings of the earth' (told to John, c. AD 100; quoting/alluding to Ps 89:27)
Rev 2:26, 27 Jesus promises to give followers "authority over the nations" "just as I have received from my Father" (Again, Jesus speaking c. 100 C.E.)
Rev 3:7 Jesus "has the key of David" (Present tense, alluding to authority involving Davidic rulership covenant)
Rev 3:21 Jesus 'sat down with my Father on his throne.'
Rev 17:14 Jesus described as "Lord of lords and King of kings" in present tense.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-08 19:55:14

  Bobcat,
  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.
  Apollos

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 19:51:13

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 in Mt 3:2] suggests something more actual. That which has completed the process of "coming near" is already present, not simply still on the way. There is a suggestive parallel use of the perfect tense of the same verb in [Matthew] 26:45-46, where Jesus' declaration "the time has come near" is paralleled with the statement that the Son of Man is being betrayed (present tense), while the following declaration that the betrayer "has come near" leads into the statement that "while he was still speaking" Judas arrived. This is not the language of an event still in the future but of one now in the process of happening. In Mark 1:15 the same phrase summarizing Jesus' proclamation is balanced by the declaration (also in the perfect tense) that "the time has been fulfilled," which surely makes the sense of present reality unmistakable. But even without that supplement [i.e. Mk 1:15] Matthew's phrase is clear enough, and is further supported by the language of [Matthew chapter 3] v. 10: the ax is already placed at the root of the trees. The time of God's effective sovereignty has arrived [i.e. in John's & Jesus' day], and now is the time for decisive action in response.
[End of Quote. All material in "[ ]" is Bobcat's for clarity]
The argument presented by R. T. France supports the idea that Jesus' rule began in the 1st century.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 20:07:14

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 24:37, 39 Parousia illustrated with "days of Noah" (leading up to the flood) and with destruction by the flood. And with Jesus' "coming" that the disciples had to be ready for.
1 Cor 15:23 Described as the time of the resurrection.
1 Th 2:19 Related to Jesus' "coming" and the disciples being vindicated.
1 Th 3:13 Described as a time when the disciples would hopefully be rewarded for their faithfulness.
1 Th 4:15 Described as a time of being rewarded and the resurrection of dead Christians.
1 Th 5:23 Described as a time when the disciples would hopefully have been found faithful.
2 Th 2:1 As a time for being 'gathered to our Lord Jesus' (implying resurrection)
2 Th 2:8 The "manifestation of his presence." A time for 'doing away with the man of lawlessness.'
Jas 5:7, 8 The context indicates it is a time when Christians can expect to be rewarded for their "patience."
2 Pet 1:16 Linked with Jesus' "power" and the fulfillment of prophecy.
2 Pet 3:4 The context links it with a coming destruction by God (compared with flood of Noah).
2 Pet 3:12 "presence of the day of the lord" (or Jehovah - NWT) Again linked with a coming destruction.
1 Jn 2:28 Linked with a coming judgement and being rewarded if found faithful.
In all of these verses, the idea that Jesus begins ruling or is crowned at or during his presence is missing, or has to be read into the verses.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 20:19:11

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 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 are directly related to the Davidic Kingdom covenant. And Jesus was told this at his anointing.
Commentaries regularly refer to Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 as Davidic coronation psalms. Note in Psalm 2:6, 7 God's saying, “I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain,” is then confirmed by the psalmist saying (in verse 7), "Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.
Jehovah's saying "this is my son" at Jesus' baptism & anointing confirms the fact that this was the point of Jesus being designated king of God's Kingdom.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 20:22:59

apollos0falexandria:
Thank you for your comments.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-08 20:30:19

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 has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead.”
To Paul, history divided into "the times of such ignorance" (the past), "now" when God was calling all mankind to repent, and a future time when God would 'judge the earth in righteousness' by His Son.
There was no room in Paul's theology for a '1914 turning point.'

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-08 21:02:47

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 made, and the exact
representation of His very Being, He was still only existing
in God’s from as a mortal spirit before His death and
resurrection, when He was raised as an immortal Spirit,
to share the very Nature of God’s own immortal existence,
through the power of an indestructible life.
Ro 6:9; Phil 2:6 Heb 7:16; 2 Pe 1:4; 1Pe 3:18

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 04:22:58

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 to suggest, well ANYONE, that is anybody alive needs to be 'born again'.
Either way the context of who Jesus is speaking about is given from verse 7-21
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel because I told you, YOU people must be born again.
When Jesus says 'You people' - who are the people Jesus is talking about? Well that is the same people Nicodemus belonged to, the Jews. Again, this is further clarified when Jesus discusses the history of the Jews, with Moses and that now things are about to change.
Also contrast the sentence structure (in English or Grk) of verse 3 to verse 16. Okay, so lets do it:
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."
Joh 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
Notice that when Jesus is speaking of all humanity in verse 16 he uses the term 'everyone' and 'world'. Firstly in the original Greek 'everyone' and 'anyone' do not mean the same thing, although in English the subtitles may be missed. In Greek everyone is more inclusive. Look it up for yourself. Furthermore the scope of what Jesus has in mind when he used 'everyone' is clarified by his reference to the world, that is all humanity (everyone) in the world. His earlier comments in verse 3 are missing this broad inclusiveness.
So to wrap this question up:
1. 'Anyone' in verse 3 is qualified by 'YOU people' in verse 7 - Those people are the Jews. These are the ones that need to be 'born again'.
2. When Jesus references humanity in connection with salvation he used 'everyone' and he clarifies the context by referring to the 'world'
2. When where the Jews born the first time?
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."
Now lets consider the word 'again' in the above sentence.
To use the word 'again' in any sentence means that the same thing has happened before.
The only birth Nicodemus could think of was his first natural birth (John 3:4). Jesus quickly put paid to that line of reasoning (John 3:6). Jesus was talking about a spiritual birth.
So the question remains, how was Nicodemus born spiritually in a previous occasion for Jesus to say to him and the Jews that they must be 'born again'?
Exo_4:22 And you must say to Phar'aoh, 'This is what Jehovah has said: "Israel is my son, my firstborn.
Yes, Jehovah considered Israel has his firstborn and that birth came about at Mt Sinai under the old covenant.
However that old covenant was about to pass away and the New Covenant was to be established by Jesus. Hence just as the Jews were born under the old covenant as a nation they would have to accept the new covenant and be 'born again' under the new covenant.
Since gentiles were never under any kind of spiritual contract with God, to speak of such ones needing to be born 'AGAIN' makes no sense. In fact it impossible since the word 'again' suggest something happening previously and no gentile was ever under any covenant with God, prior to Jesus death (excluding of course proselytes).
3. Did Jesus make any reference to having to experience death in order to be born again?
Joh 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
Jesus said gentiles (the world) needed to exercise faith - not to be 'born again'.
In the whole conversation with Nicodemus Jesus not once mentioned any kind of death.
Whilst it is true that we have to 'die' as Paul stated in Romans to ourselves this is not the same as 'born again' in the context of Jesus' words. So I get where you are coming from, but exegetically it is incorrect to say we have to be 'born again'.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to answer in detail questions 4 and 5.
Perhaps somebody else could pick up the baton?
4. If non gentiles are not ‘born again’ how do we become Gods’s sons?
5.The Greek word Jesus used for ‘born again’ γεννηθή άνωθεν, (gennithi’ a’nothen), can mean either ‘born again’ or ‘born from above’. Which was it? (clue: look at the response Nicodemus gave to Jesus) – The answer to this question also provides an answer to question 1 and 2 – which is vital in order to understand the context of the words ‘born again’

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 04:23:53

Bobcat
Welcome to the discussion board.
What an impressive contribution!!!
Thank you for your thoughts :-)

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 04:39:10

Ross,
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
:-)

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-09 04:50:28

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 in the Name of Christ, which clearly shows
that He will only start His rulership over the earth - which is
the sole purpose and domain of His kingdom - at His return
on the clouds of Heaven, after returning from a ‘distant land’
where He went to secure this kingly power, according to His
own words.
Meantime, the WT christ has been ruling the world invisibly
from heaven since 1914, but doesn't seem to have subdued
any nations yet during his first 100 years of active kingdom
rule in the midst of his enemies here on earth, which he is
about to take complete control of at the uniting of the world
under his incoming New World Order, which he will bring
forth out of the planned chaos about to be unleashed any
time soon.
Unless Jesus’ promised kingdom rule has indeed been
presiding over the past 2000 years of slaughter and mayhem,
it might be a good idea for us to differentiate between His
3000 years of sitting at God’s right hand, awaiting the
abolition of Adamic death, and the coming 1000 year
parousia kingdom rule for which He instructed us to wait,
during which we will, together with Him, be ruling the
nations with an iron rod, to subdue the billions of
resurrected barbarians into suitable kingdom subjects.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-09 10:50:51

  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 the kings and armies and establishing his Kingdom on earth?

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-09 05:55:22

Meleti,
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.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 11:47:09

  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 motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others."
  Our organization has not always acted in good faith. Some of our teachings are presented as truths which cannot be questioned. These "truths" are delivered to us without any Scriptural support. Should some intrepid individual ask for proof by writing a letter, the Organization will respond with a long letter that basically restates the official position without providing the requested proof. Apparently they hope to bury the questioner in verbiage, hoping to dissuade him from making further inquiries. At times they engage in stall tactics, though they will usually respond to ongoing inquiries with increasing belligerence, often calling into question the motives of the writer.
  We will not stoop to such tactics here.
  You have a right to ask a reasonable question. No one will deny anyone that right on this site.
  The question is, do you have a right to an answer?
  There are rights and there are duties.
  Do you or does anyone else have the duty to answer any question put to them?
  The rules for participating on this site require that we provide a defense for any statement we make. That is, if we say something is true, we have to be willing to back it up with proof. Alternatively, we can simply answer, "I have no proof, but that is what I personally believe." We can accept that. It is your right.
  What we cannot accept is someone making unsupported statements and ignoring simple requests for proof or turning the request into a challenge. That is what the leadership of our organization does and if we tolerate that here, we will become like them and then gone is our refuge.
  I am sure you do not want that.
  I have no problem answering the questions you asked of me. However, those questions were not the result of something I was teaching or alleging. They are not relevant to my request to you to provide proof for what you were stating to be true. Nevertheless, I will answer your questions, but first, in good faith, please answer mine which preceded yours.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-09 12:34:00

  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.
  Now I say this with love, because you seem to be the main person who understands the great crowd in similar matter as myself. There is much debate still left to do, in order to put that matter to rest, and I'm very much looking forward to get your help in that matter.
  There are so many possible interpretations out there, that disproving every possible alternative is not realistic. Thus asking Meleti for his personal alternative view - so you can then try to disprove his view, does not even mean you prove your own.
  Simply because many other alternative understandings or variations exist. Hence it is useless for Meleti to give his view until you make a full defense for yours.
  Hope you are not offended. I would also like to see your replies to the same request for evidence. I enjoy your contributions.
  A general observation: it seems more productive to have discussions regarding a simple, single statement. Such as: when did Jesus become king? After a conclusion is reached, further theories can depend on this conclusion.
  Perhaps it's premature to have this kind of elaborate discussions until so many smaller components are agreed upon. I hope the forum will initially avoid the big theories and favor the smaller claims for debate.

  • Reply by Chris on 2014-03-09 17:02:34

    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

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 10:35:55

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, the mustard grain, and the leaven). They present the kingdom as beginning operations from the time of Jesus. The mustard and leaven parables present a picture of small beginnings advancing to larger growth, so I could see where someone might feel that the kingdom wasn't doing much at that early time.
All the same, thank you for your thoughts. It's good to be able have ideas tested out by different viewpoints.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 11:58:47

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 and start of rule), followed by ousting of Satan and woe for the earth and sea.
Rev 12 simply gives insight, via a different perspective, of what Rev 6:1-7 foretells.
Rev 6:9-11, the souls crying out, 'how long before justice is served,' is answered by Rev. 7:1-8, 'it has to await the completion of the 144,000. (Similarly, the people saying 'who can stand' during the day of wrath in 6:12-17 is answered in 7:9-17 with the vision of the great crowd who prove to be survivors.
Satan's ouster from heaven, depicted in Revelation 12, happening shortly after Jesus returned there (compare Revelation 12:5), would also correspond nicely with the fact that Jesus, while on earth, said that would be an event then soon to take place, and linked it with his death:
(John 12:31, 32) . . . Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.
Also note that Satan's ouster from heaven is connected to his having been an "accuser of our brothers." (Revelation 12:10) Paul indicated that no one then was in a position to "accuse" Christians:
(Romans 8:31-34) . . .What, then, shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 He who did not even spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, why will he not also with him kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares [them] righteous. 34 Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us. . .
(Colossians 1:21, 22) . . .Indeed, YOU who were once alienated and enemies because YOUR minds were on the works that were wicked, 22 he now has again reconciled by means of that one’s fleshly body through [his] death, in order to present YOU holy and unblemished and open to no accusation before him . . .
These verses make a lot of sense if Satan has already been cast out of heaven in the 1st century, as described in Revelation 12:7-12. In effect, Jesus sacrifice provided the legal basis for throwing Satan out of court.
Regarding "now" in John 12 (nun, Strong's #3568), AMG's Greek WordStudy Dictionary understands it in this verse (as also with Acts 13:11; Phil 1:20; John 16:5, 32; Acts 26:17) as meaning, "In reference to future time just at hand. . . As implying what is immediately to take place." (p. 1019) Similarly, BDAG (Bauer's 3rd Edition Lexicon) defines it as "a temporal marker with focus on the moment as such, now." And with regard to John 12:31 (and the other pasages referenced in the AMG reference) as "of time shortly before or shortly after the immediate pres[ent]."
Hope this proves to be helpful.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 13:45:12

  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 to be taken there.
  Personally, although I agree that with you Jesus became King at his death, I think he has used his power to build his 'body' up, that is the Church, his administration. When that is complete, then the Lords day will begin.
  I guess the situation is much like the President elect. He forms his cabinet and everybody knows where the real power base lies. However, the old government still functions.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 16:09:44

    Additionally, not everything related in Revelation occurred in the Lord's day. The account of the seven congregations for instance.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 16:03:10

  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.
  Thanks,
  Meleti

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 13:33:11

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 13:39 - The Kingdom would be subverted.
Mth 13:48-49 - It would be full of nasty people, pretending to be Christians
Mth 20:25 - Christians have ignored this advice
Acts 20:29 - Oppressive wolves would cause chaos
Rev - Chapters 3 and 4 - Look at the state of those congregations, yet Jesus was in their midst. So it may appear from our limited view of things that Jesus has absconded, sitting on his throne doing nothing but in fact, contrary to what we may expect he has been busy. Even within the corruption within the Church.
I can give you a few examples from history that shows that Jesus has been in the midst of the congregations.
1. Who strengthened the early Christians to die as martyrs in the arena?
2. Who pushed back Gnosticism, which was perhaps the gravest attempt to completely subvert Christianity. It was the early Church under the auspices of Jesus
3. Who built and started what we now call hospitals and hostels in imitation of Jesus care for the downtrodden?
4. Who was responsible for the Bible Canon we accept today?
Now here is a problem for JW's when they go on their anti-Christendom bashing or to disabuse that Jesus was ruling. If the Church was so apostate and corrupted we have to accept that the Devil was responsible for the Church to include and accept heretical books into the canon that should not have been there. Therefore all the scriptures we hold dear are nothing more than the fabrication of his agents and the 'real' scriptures (all those books like the Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Book of Enoch etc) should be the ones we should be using.
On the other hand if we accept the books that made it to the canon was because of divine remediation, then we know Jesus has indeed had oversight as ruler of the Church, from his death.
I guess the problem we have (at least a problem that I have) is thinking how WE would have allowed the Church to develop, had we been in control. In our small cranial minds, we would have been stepping in at every moment to correct every wrong. I would have seen to it, that everybody would have been in no doubt who was the BOSS!! (think of the parable with the wheat and weeds - I would have been the servant wanting to uproot the badness without delay :-) ). But therein lies the problem, Gods thoughts are higher than ours. And while I don't understand why Jesus has allowed his church to develop in the way it has, we have to understand that he has and always will be in control.
So despite the mayhem, confusion above all that, Jesus rules and knows what he is doing.

Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-09 14:59:20

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 scriptures Jesus is king ruling in the heavens with his kingdom yet to be established on earth.
We agree as far as his role in the congregation that he is the head of the Christian body/congregation.
Where is the evidence he is ruling on earth?

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 15:32:59

  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 was the disfigurement as respects his appearance more than that of any other man and as respects his stately form more than that of the sons of mankind-
  Isa 52:15 he will likewise startle many nations. At him kings will shut their mouth, because what had not been recounted to them they will actually see, and to what they had not heard they must turn their consideration.
  There will be no mistaking when he begins his rule. As verse 15 says, he will startle many out of their complacency, because he will arrive with a bang!!These verses compare very well with Mth 25 and Revelation.
  So no, I have no reason to believe he is actually ruling the earth right now. I believe he became King at his resurrection and subsequent ascension to heaven, but in the future he will exercise that authority over the earth.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-09 18:20:50

  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.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 15:10:32

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 "I became in spirit"). Thus, a literal rendering of the text would have John saying, "I came to be inspired (or "in the spirit") on the Lord's day."
Compare this with the Greek construction at Revelation 4:2, which is exactly the same:
(Revelation 4:2 NWT) . . .After these things I immediately came to be in [the power of the] spirit. . .
The Greek text reads (in part), eutheos egenomen en pnuemati or "immediately I became in spirit." The "I became in spirit" part is exactly the same as in Revelation 1:10.
In Revelation 4:2, the NWT renders the phrase literally. But in 1:10, the NWT moves the verb to before "the Lord's day" which produces an entirely different meaning.
As I said, as far as I can tell, this rewrite of Rev 1:10 is done by the NWT to support doctrinal assertions. The NWT is saying, in effect, that, 'while John was inspired, he came to be transported to the Lord's day (or "the last days" which is how the WT defines "the Lord's day").
The Greek text of Rev 1:10 is saying that, 'it happened to be on the Lord's day when John came to be in inspired.'
Concerning "the Lord's day," the BECNT-Revelation commentary (Grant R. Osborne, p.83) says:
Most likely this phrase refers to Sunday [i.e. the first day of the week], chosen by the early church on the basis of the resurrection as the day of worship. Stott (73-74) argues that kuriake was originally associated with the resurrection and then the eschatalogical triumph of the Lord of lords and thereby came to be used of the "Lord's Day." It is likely that the Jewish-Christian church worshiped in the synagogues on the Jewish Sabbath and in their own assemblies from the earliest times on Sunday, celebrating the Eucharist and worshiping Christ together (cf. Acts 2:42). While this is the first appearance of "the Lord's Day" as a technical term for Sunday worship, it became a common term for such in the second century. John was worshiping on that day and received this vision.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia also mentions that by c.150 AD this term (the Lord's Day) was commonly used for the first day of the week. (Vol III, pp. 158-60)
Both references above distinguish between "the Lord's day" (i.e. the 1st day of the week) and "the day of the Lord" (i.e. Jehovah's day of wrath).
From the above perhaps you can see that we have a big difference in view regarding Rev 1:10. My understanding of the verse is also different with how the Society explains it. I believe my understanding is grounded in an accurate rendering of the Greek in the text and in the history of the term "the Lord's day." And this is why I never mentioned that verse in any of my posts above. Of course, I'll leave it to others to form their own opinions.
Incidentally, on the matter of the Kingdom, many commentaries acknowledge a 'now and yet later' sense of the Kingdom as Jesus taught. That is, it 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).
But I would like to say thank you for your comments. This is such a broad topic that there is bound to be areas that need clarified.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 15:39:19

  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

  • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 15:59:44

    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 explanation above about Revelation 1:10. Openly discussing it with the wrong person in the organization can lead to severe consequences. I've seen that also.
    I avoided talking about any of the beasts of Revelation above to avoid complicating the discussion and to stay on theme. But, if I read your emoticon correctly, then, yes, that is an interesting topic!

  • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 18:00:54

    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 could point to the Dark Ages (roughly 7 or 8 centuries in length) as evidence of humanity descending into woe. (Which, incidentally, the History 2 TV channel ran a 2 hour documentary on the dark ages just the other night - very interesting indeed!) Our 20th century has been rough, no argument about that. But the Dark Ages were absolutely horrid, especially for Europe (where Christianity was mainly centered).
    And, for a fact, the 20th century would be included as part of the fulfillment of Rev 6:1-7 (4 horsemen) if one sees Jesus as being enthroned in the 1st century. So in the instance of a 1st century enthronement, it would not be a case of which was worse - the Dark Ages or the 20th century. Both we be a part of the fulfillment.

    • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 19:25:38

      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 that people have, really a manifestation of mad, blind demonic rage, as depicted in Revelation? Is Satan so angry that he gives people time to plan their holidays, stuff their bellies full of food and live a carefree life? I look at the world and bad as it is, I don't 'see' the 4 horsemen riding.
      For example in Western Europe we are experiencing the longest period of peace. In other parts of the world, the story is the same. Prosperity is on the increase and people would argue that most of humanity has been lifted out of the medieval barbarity that was so common. Diseases are being cured, food production in the world is up, we live longer and education standards are higher for people than any other time in human history. People have become more tolerant as well, for example America has its first black president, an unthinkable proposition even ten years ago.
      In short people would argue the world is a better place than it was say even 100 years ago, much less two thousand years ago. So where is the beef? Where is this demonic rage, this short time mentioned in Revelation?
      I don't know, something just doesn't seem to add up here. I get your point on the grammar but somehow in my gut, I just feel something is missing.
      I am beginning to ramble, so I'll leave off for now. Again thanks for your thoughts.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 16:21:39

  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 spinning.

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-09 17:47:21

    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.

    • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-09 18:25:15

      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 chapter 5 - if this is 1st century, it definitely puts an end to the idea that the 24 elders are the same as the 144,000. This is a sample of what I mentioned about the far reaching effects of one's understanding of Revelation 1:10.
      And for Meleti and any other mods of the board: Thank you for allowing me participate.

      • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-09 19:09:14

        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 faith as much as I would like to believe.
        You guys have definitely given me a start. I'm going to use this topic for personal study this week ahead of next week's WT.
        Bobcat- I adore the book of Revelation and I have enjoyed your references and commentary thus far.

        • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-09 19:14:08

          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.

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-10 06:14:37

        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 in the first century when he was raised. He himself said he conquered the world.
        John still being in the same state as mentioned in Rev. 1:10, we come to chapter 7 where the 144000 that are sealed are mentioned. That work or sealing did not start in 1914.
        By the wyay, as a search mechanism the split in chapters and verses is most practical but at the same time, it can cause confusion as one might have the idea that a new verse or chapter means a new start / story, whereas in most cases, the story is one continuous story, covering say 2, 3 or more chapters.

• Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-10 13:27:03

  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 by most translations.)" Our present JW understanding of this scripture states that Jesus was simply reproving the Pharisees for not recognizing him as king. But to me this has always seemed a little too abstruse. Jesus never resorted to such esoteric methods with the Pharisees. His rebukes were either direct accusations or parables.
  My personal opinion is in context with their question. How could their hearts grasp the meaning and purpose of the Kingdom if they were so focused on the letter of the Law that they had failed the command given in Deuteronomy 10:16: "You must circumcise the foreskin of your hearts?" (which BTW is another mistranslation of our new RNWT since it renders it "cleanse your hearts" with a mere ftn,)
  Perhaps this might help us all better understand the Kingdom as Jesus would have taught us. Simply, it is available to all, but it first must be identified in the heart, which is why the Pharisees were in so much more danger of Gehenna since their hearts were so far removed from the spirit of the Law.
  sw. .
  .

  • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-13 13:04:44

    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 absent from the Synoptic tradition as it is dominant in modern discussion - the phrase "the kingdom of God" in both its Hebrew and Greek forms denotes the dynamic concept of "God ruling." It represents, in other words, a sentence of which the subject is not "kingdom" but "God." This dynamic sense is now better conveyed by an abstract noun such as "kingship" or "sovereignty" rather than by "kingdom," which has become in general usage a concrete noun. Matthew's summary of John's [the baptist] (and Jesus') declaration, "The kingdom of heaven has arrived," might thus be paraphrased as "God's promised reign is beginning" or "God is now taking control."
    A footnote regarding the English word "kingdom" says:
    Our traditional English phrase derives from the KJV (following William Tyndale), which was translated at a time when "kingdom" in English still carried this dynamic sense of "kingship," a sense now rightly described by the OED as "obsolete." The concrete sense of "kingdom" in current English (as a place or group of people under a common rule) now inevitably distorts the more dynamic connotations of n Basileia tou theou [literally "the kingdom/kingship of God"] when "the kingdom of God" continues to be used in Bible versions despite the changed meaning of the word. Translators have still to catch up with the scholarly preference for such phrases as "the rule of God"
    [End quote. Material in brackets "[ ]" is Bobcat's for clarity.
    That the "Kingdom of God" or "God's rulership" has several phases can be seen from:
    The parables of Matthew 13, where "the kingdom of God" is likened to a tiny seed that eventually grows large, the leaven - having a similar small/hidden sense but whose effects grow larger, the wheat and weeds - which describes an unstated time during which disciples of contrasting quality would be allowed to exist together.
    On the other hand, the parable of the weeds, the dragnet, and the sheep/goats all acknowledge that a time of definitive judgment would, at some future time, invade the entire sphere of humanity.
    (For a review of the phrase "the conclusion of the system of things" see
    http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/13/the-last-days-revisited/#comment-9691)
    Also, that there is a "governmental" aspect to this "kingdom" or "kingship" is acknowledged by Daniel 2:44 which has the kingdom replacing all earthly kingdoms.
    Incidentally, on the phrase "the kingdom is in your midst" (Luke 17:21), a similar thought is expressed in Matthew 12:28: "the kingdom of God has really overtaken you." In both cases the Pharisees were showing some opposition to Jesus as the one inaugurating of a new era of God's rulership.

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-13 18:20:52

      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 bow to semantics to avoid a more voluminous discussion.
      sw

      • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-13 21:23:03

        >>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.
        I wish I could include your knowledge of Hebrew into what little I have, which isn't much, although I do have a good Hebrew/Greek reference library..

        • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-14 11:09:17

          Dear Bobcat,
          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 :)

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-14 11:55:20

          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.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-03-09 19:41:29

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 alone certainly makes this translation special,do you not agree?
I had to LAUGH.
The finest translation available to mankind? Talk about hubris.
Then the line 'Jehovah used his own spirit begotten sons to provide the original New World Translation'. O please. Its funny that not one of these so called spirit begotten sons was/is capable of reading the original Hebrew or Greek. Isn't it funny that these so called spirit begotten sons had to rely on the scholars of Christendom (who they always castigate) to provide the original translations from the Greek to English? In the case of the NT, Westcott and Hort and in the case of the OT, Biblia Hebraica.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. They take first prize. :-(

• Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-09 22:10:22

  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 to use) of the Pope. He disagreed with the Pope/Catholic Church on many issues but maintained that the pope was inspired.
  Cognitive Dissonance much?
  I sympathized him greatly. I've been there......

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-09 22:27:48

    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 .

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-10 06:26:27

      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 was guided by openness. They embraced transparency throughout their work, even going so far as to “beta-test” the NET Bible online
      It is also free from copyright and can be downloaded freely. It has many many footnotes to explain reasons for certain use or translation, as such creating clarity.
      I am not saying this is the best translation, I simply do not know which translation is,
      I just intended to show that the approach of the NET expresses far more modesty or humility and openess.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-10 17:21:26

  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 have merit.
  My main beef w the translation is the following:
  - Inserting the devine name in the NWT by pure speculation
  - Some of the changes made in the new version are not correct
  - Non English translations of the NTW are OFF a LOT, because it's a translation based on a translation. The English version is the most accurate one.

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-10 17:41:37

    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.

    • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-10 17:59:08

      True ;)
      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 ;)

      • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-10 23:40:36

        It is impossible to translate the bible without BIAS.
        When two options are possible, the one chosen will be bias..

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-09 19:52:58

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 embarrass you, but because they are
pertinent to the material of the discussion for me to get an
understanding of your reasoning and where you are coming
from on these issues.
You say that your stand on these issues doesn't matter, but I
have to respectfully disagree with you there; it is you, or,
rather your person, that doesn't matter, just as it doesn't
matter whether I am the street sweeper from downtown or
the King of China, but both your and my view DOES matter,
because they are either correct or in error, and as those
mature and humble enough to subscribe to the view that it
doesn't matter WHO is right but WHAT is right, because of
our loving truth above all else, we are striving for a clearer
understanding and better appreciation of it by gathering
together here in Jesus’ Name, to have Him in our midst
and clarifying things for us.
A situation where one person holds the position of asking the
questions without candidly putting forth his own views, cannot
be called a discussion; there is this distinctive difference
between an inquisition and open discourse on equal terms,
and while there is no doubt that you have treated others fairly
in this regard, I kindly request you to do the same for me.
It is not me who is in a position of power here to stop people
from asking me about, or call into question, my views and
interpretations, for I am more than willing to give detailed
and exhaustive reasons for the hope in me, and kindly ask
everybody to help me understand the basis for their
objections to my positions, that I can better focus my replies
to address these concerns, because truth is the only barrow
I have to push here.
As to your point of whether anyone has a right to an answer
from someone claiming to be Christian about His beliefs,
Peter admonishes us to ‘always be ready to make a defense
before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope
in you,’ while leaving it up to the Holy Spirit to formulate
that response in the individual concerned, according to the
level of comprehension attained in the Lord. 1 Pe 3:15;
Lu 12:12
Finally, unless the question of ‘relevance’ were to be decided
by authority here, should it not also have to stand on its own
two feet, so to speak, and make its case on its own merits?
Your comments about the oppression in the organization are
well taken, and I do appreciate your dedication and enormous
effort and kindness in providing this place and opportunity
for me to fellowship here with you all, and hope that you can
see some sense in what I have been given to say, just as I can
in the expression of your beliefs, because, after all, we can do
nothing against the truth, but only for it, which is why we are
here.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-09 22:28:28

  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)
  Ross: Did Jesus share Gods nature, or His form, before He came to earth?
  Meleti: Yes (John 1:1)
  Ross: Are angels mortal like humans?
  Meleti: I do not know.
  Ross: Was Jesus equal in mortality to the angels before He became flesh?
  Meleti: I do not know
  For your convenience, I have placed four links below to take you directly to the questions I asked you to answer two days ago.
  Question 1
  Question 2
  Question 3
  Question 4

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-09 19:59:45

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 approximately 2000
years for gathering the wheat, followed by a 1000 years
of kingdom rule from Heaven by Christ and the anointed
for the restoration of all the things spoken of the prophets
of old,
or two different kingdoms, the incipient kingdom of
scattered and persecuted chosen ones being persecuted
by God’s nominal people of professed Christian
establishment Churches, which goes on for 2000 years,
followed by the Parousia kingdom of the glorified
Holy Ones for the kingdom’s rule over the earth;
because the term ‘ruling’ seems to be the defining criteria
for a kingdom, and God’s kingdom was not conceived of
as a rulership over its [future] rulers, but for the restoration
and blessing of mankind at large, which, while tempting
for the little flock of rulers to bring about in the here and
now, was not to be their business, as the Body of Christ
in exile here on earth, as the suffering and persecuted
remnant, but would have to wait until the return of our
Lord and Master.
There is actually a term and whole theology dedicated to
the interpretation that Christ and His kingdom has been
ruling the world since 33CE, namely preterism, but which
view is at odds with reality and requires much ‘spiritualization,’
the way the WT spiritualizes the ‘invisible presence’ and
Rutherford’s convention resolutions corresponding to
the blowing of the seven trumpets in Revelation, and so
on, but I don’t know whether we should venture into this
territory of ‘faith’ in invisible and imaginary fulfillments
again.

• Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-13 21:38:48

  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 new era in God's rulership. It replaces the Old Covenant rulership of God, with one that extends itself over the Gentile world. As Acts 17:30, 31 shows, its initial phase is to call "all mankind" to repentance. But eventually, there is "a day" when it will exercise much greater authority over the "inhabited earth."

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-14 11:56:58

    "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.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-10 06:48:09

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, what other hope could there be but the one all faithful
servants of God in pre-Christian times had, namely, to come
back to life here on earth?
Do you agree that this enlightenment is done by the Holy
Spirit, which transforms them into ‘partakers of the heavenly
calling,’ and that ‘once for all’ means that it will be
impossible to revive them again to repentance if they fail,
and that unrepentant sinners cannot inherit God’s kingdom
in either its earthly or heavenly domain?
Wouldn't you agree that such unrepentant sinners will end up
in the lake of fire, suffering the second death since, they cannot
be brought back to repentance?
This is just the first point of some very basic Bible teaching,
and I cannot see why you would have difficulty understanding
it, so please give me reason for why I should explain such
simple and obvious things?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-10 08:53:47

  >>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 going back to the earthly one. There is no evidence for this idea in Scripture that I can find, but if you are aware of it, please share it with us.
  >>Would you agree that this is talking about the anointed, [MV: Yes] with
  a hope of heavenly life, with which they were enlightened, [MV: Yes]
  which means that before they were thus enlightened, they
  did not have that hope, [MV: Yes]
  and if they didn’t have the heavenly
  hope, what other hope could there be but the one all faithful
  servants of God in pre-Christian times had, namely, to come
  back to life here on earth? [MV: This is where your reasoning breaks down]
  The vast majority of Christians had no hope, or if they did have a hope it was based on pagan teachings. So when they learned Christianity, the only hope they had was the one of heavenly life.
  As for those Hebrews who in pre-Christian times had a hope, all they knew was that there was to be a resurrection. Nothing had been revealed as to the details of that hope. They had to wait for the Christ to reveal such things.
  So I fully agree with the point Heb. 6:4-8 is making which is for the most part, the point you are reiterating. If that is your only point, then we are in agreement. However, if your point is that as Christians we start off with an earthly hope and then some of us acquire a heavenly one, I do not agree.
  One down, three questions to go.

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-10 06:49:23

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 not two
spiritual births, or a being born again from a previous spiritual
birth, but the Jews’ having been 'born from the flesh’ as their
first birth, with the need for them to be born again, and this time
‘from the spirit,’ and this second, spiritual birth is exactly
the same that gentiles have to undergo in order to get out
from under the yoke of their first birth in the flesh, just as
Peter said that the ‘Father gave us a new birth to a living
hope in the heavens through the resurrection of Jesus,’ for,
according to Paul, we ‘were buried with Him in His baptism
and raised up together with Him from the dead’ into
newness of spiritual life. 1 Pe 1:3,23; Col1:11,12
I can go into more detail here, but it looks like that theory
about the Jews being the only ones needing to be born
again is not original to you, so perhaps we could start a
thread about it on the discussion board some time, if you
like, so thanks for taking the effort to air your views,
it certainly was beneficial for me, and I hope you enjoyed
our discussion as well.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-10 07:22:59

  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

Comment by SilverTop on 2014-03-10 07:15:39

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 meetings, particularly the service meetings have taken on the tone of business/board meetings. I find myself fighting to keep from going to sleep. Why do I keep going? I don't know, I guess more habit that anything else...
We truly gain more Bible knowledge here that in turns fuels our Bible study/discussions here at home. I know this is the wrong forum, but I am very grateful for the discussion on partaking of the Lord's evening meal. I've always felt that just to sit there and pass the elements was somehow disrespectful to Jesus, almost like saying in a way that one doesn't want to be a part of the body of Christ. So hubby and I will be purchasing a plain bottle of red wine, a box of Matzo crackers and having our own memorial here at home.
Again, thanks for all your hard work on this site. It is deeply appreciated.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-03-10 08:56:47

  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 risk to lose association with the congregation, it could be that I have more love for the congregation than for Jesus.
  Pfff....difficult sometimes.....

  • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-10 11:12:48

    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 we are both pioneering but I'm not sure how long we can keep doing this. Right now I already started using more alternative ways of preaching..

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-10 23:23:21

  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 to these man. And if not from the pages of the WT, then from the mouth of brothers in talks and prayers.
  Perhaps we are being called to safety by Jesus himself, as lovers of truth.
  I do not lead an immoral life. I am in good standing. Nothing is wrong with me! I love Jehovah and serve him with my conscience and my best ability.

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-10 10:23:46

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 years ago. So where is the beef? Where is this demonic rage, this short time mentioned in Revelation?
>>I don’t know, something just doesn’t seem to add up here. I get your point on the grammar but somehow in my gut, I just feel something is missing.
One has to understand that a prophecy that covers many centuries in a few paragraphs can only portray so much detail. And since our personal lives are pretty limited in scope as compared to what happens to humanity as a whole, we face the 'can't see the forest for the trees' problem.
So I will attempt to add what is "missing." I'll do this by a brief, selective review of several prophecies that all cover the same time frame, namely, from roughly the time of Christ, stretching down till the time just before his return. The idea being, without pressing to many details, to see if there is a common drift to what they fortell
Dan 2, and specifically from the legs of iron on, portrays, generally speaking, the time from Christ down till the end. The legs start as "iron," but towards the end morph into a mixture of iron and clay. This is described as a "divided" condition and one in which the kingdom comes to be mixed with the offspring of mankind.
Dan 7, and specifically "a fourth beast," again portraying from the time of Christ down to near the end point of the prophecy. The beast is described as "fearsome and terrible and unusually strong. And it had teeth of iron, big ones. It was devouring and crushing, and what was left it was treading down with its feet." And yet the prophecy eventually evolves at its latter part into "another horn, a small one, came up in among them," According to the account, this "small horn" becomes "bigger than its fellows" (vs. 20) and is described as having "eyes like the eyes of a man."
The details I've chosen so far were selected because (A) they cover the time period we were discussing above, and (B) They show a progression from iron-like rule to one in which human viewpoint becomes more predominant.
Rev 12, and specifically from the point at which Satan is cast down, and on to the end of the chapter, which, again, covers the same general time as the two in Daniel above. We see Satan cast down, with the announcement that this means 'woe for the earth and sea.' Upon his casting down he 'persecutes the woman. She is given the protection she needs to survive. Then the devil spews out a flood to drown her, but "the earth" (which we learn in Rev 13 is presided over by "the two-horned lamb") interrupts the devil's effort.
Rev 13, and specifically from verses 3 through the end of the chapter. Verses 3 to 9 describe the situation Christians found themselves in at the time of the writing of the Revelation. The "head" that received the sword-stroke is the Roman Empire. (A clue being verse two: "Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were as those of a bear, and its mouth was as a lion’s mouth." These are drawn from Daniel 7.) The sword stroke is most likely the Roman civil war of 68-69 AD, also called "the year of the four emperors," a relatively recent event for John's audience, and an event described as 'the greatest cataclysm the Roman Empire had ever endured up to that time.'
Following the sword stroke is worship of the beast, this corresponding to the decades of emperor worship that became prevalent after the civil war, and resulted in much persecution for Christians (Rev 13:3-8).
But the account goes on to describe another beast (the two-horned lamb), one of whose major interests is 'buying and selling' (v. 17), which also becomes the subject of a warning for Christians (vv. 16-18).
Note also that this beast "began speaking as a dragon" (v. 11). It doesn't say "for the dragon," but "as a dragon." And compare the fact that in chapter 12, "the earth" which it presides over, resists the dragon's flood. Compare with Daniel 7, where the small-horn has "eyes like the eyes of a man." Comapre with Daniel 2, where the final condition of the "kingdom" is "divided," and "mixed with the offspring of mankind."
(Just as an additional point about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th horseman of Rev 6: This also would cover the same time period (assuming Jesus crowning in the 1st century and him being the rider of the 1st horse). But note that the effects of their ride are described as lethal to "the fourth part of the earth" (v. 8) And the phrase, "do not harm the olive oil and the wine" (v. 6) might suggest that there would be more well-to-do people during the times of the riding of those horses. (Compare Luke 17:26-28 for a similar idea.)
I hate that this has turned into a long post, so I'll cut it short here. But I was hoping that in considering the drift of these prophecies it might provide fuel for thought that could help supply what is "missing" in your historical view.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-10 15:04:02

  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?

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-03-10 15:14:14

    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.
    Apollos

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-10 19:21:12

    I am looking forward to those topics very much :) I love prophecy!

  • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-11 08:09:31

    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. 24 elders=144,000).
    The list could go on. So I could see, based on where each of is at, there could be many differences of opinion. So if we start a thread, I would prefer it to simply be exploratory in nature rather than any sort of debate.
    Ross mentioned above in a post I haven't replied to yet, that some of my views are "preterist." Personally I have no interest in the various belief classifications that exist. I simply want to get to what I think the Scriptures are saying.
    Gotta go now. The wife is calling . . .

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-10 19:31:00

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 have
been the prime focus of their message concerning Christ
to the world - they would have been aware that the number
of those sitting on thrones and ‘judging the tribes of Israel’
would naturally have to be rather minute in relation to the
multitude of those constituting the ‘tribes of Israel,’ not to
mention the population of Gentiles at large, which they
knew were to be blessed by means of them. Heb 2:5;
Mat 19:28; Ga 3:8
Hence, since the kingdom of the Heavens has been the ‘goal
toward which men press’ since the days of Christ’s ascension
until now, but only few are chosen to fill the offered positions,
it follows that vast multitudes of people entertained the hope
of going to Heaven without being able to have it realized for
them,
and we know that there is going to be a resurrection of both
the ‘righteous and the unrighteous’ - excluding those few who,
actually having been anointed by, and thus able to ‘sin against,
the Spirit,’ and having done so - it follows that God is obviously
not going to condemn billions of people to Gehenna for mistakenly
believing that they were destined for Heaven as one of the
‘many’ whom God actually ‘called’ for this high office.
Mat 11:12; Acts 2:29; Heb 5:4; Mat 22:14
OK, I might be wrong in the above assumption about sinning
against the Spirit being possible only for those anointed, since
Jesus threatened the Scribes and Pharisees with it, even when
‘as yet there was no Spirit,’ so that it is quite possible for
those ‘only’ sinning against their own spiritual knowledge
to be liable for Gehenna in the end; I am just trying to err on
the side of mercy here, without wanting to water down the
seriousness of either ‘neglecting a salvation of such greatness,’
or after accepting it, to ‘fall away’ from the ‘once for all
received enlightenment.’
Jo 7:39; Heb 2:3
That is why professing Christ is such a serious business;
‘many will come from western parts and eastern parts,’
spiritually speaking, to ‘recline at the table in the kingdom
of God,’ while the ‘sons of the kingdom,’ Christians and Jews,
will be ‘thrown outside, weeping and gnashing their teeth.’
There is of course the issue of accepting something one was
not offered in the first place, because only God and the
‘spirit of man that is in him,’ knows if Christ is dwelling
in one, or not; hence intellectual and spiritual honesty,
along with faith, love of truth and reliance on God’s grace
are prime requisites for gaining His attention, but also
serve as evidence of His work in our life, which need not
be limited to Christians, by the way, but people of whatever
persuasion who are 'groping for Him to really find Him;’
or is He the ‘God of the Jews [and Christians] only?’
1 Cor 2:11; Phil 1:6; Acts 17:27; Ro 3:29
‘IF we accept the witness men give, the witness He gives
is greater;’ thus we believe, and hence we speak and are
bearing witness. 1 Jo 5:9; 2 Cor 4:13
While not wanting to ‘deprive people of the grace of God,'
we have to tell them the full gospel of Christ, that God
through Him is presently ‘recruiting’ people to serve as
kings and priests over the nations in the age to come,
which implies that this is not the calling for most people,
and that they should not be made to feel guilty for not
aspiring to Heaven, although it theoretically amounts to
the missing out on receiving the greatest gift ever offered
in the history of the universe, and then some.
Heb 12:15; Acts 20:20,21
By the same token though, no foreordained son of God is
ever able to be prevented by either ‘death or life or angels
or governments or things now here or things to come or
powers of height or depth or any other creation from
pursuing his calling to Heaven, so we need not worry
too much in this regard.
Ro 8:38,39
Before I address any of the other issues, I would like you to
please continue to be precise in your objections to my
explanations on the present subject, if you have any,
before we move on, since I need to know the exact point
of divergence in our views, in order to respond efficiently
and intelligently to them, so thanks for your kind efforts.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-10 21:05:06

  I have no objections to what you have said here. Please continue.

Comment by WT Study: 100 Years of Kingdom Rule – How Does It Affect You? | Beroean Pickets on 2014-03-10 20:55:01

[…] explanation see “Wars and Reports of Wars—A Red Herring?” [4] Daniel 10:13 [5] See comments 1 and 2 [6] See a series of articles under the topic, “Identifying the Slave”. [7] Matthew […]

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-10 21:06:45

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 the chosen ones, as it clearly has already mislead
millions of those, who are therefore not of the chosen ones,
for if they were chosen, they would obviously not have been
mislead by the WT, since according to Jesus, it is impossible
for those being enlightened by the Holy anointing Spirit of
truth while being in captivity to, say the WT, in this case,
not to be shown the lies that have been carefully mixed in
among the truth, although it would still then be up to the
individual to take a stand for the truth in time and accept
the consequences for following Jesus rather than man.
So to say that all followers of Christ are also automatically
the chosen ones is clearly at variance with His singling
them out as those who exclusively are not able to be
deceived by Satan’s imitations.
Now, how can one become chosen unless one first starts of
as being un-chosen, so to speak?
Right, the chosen ones have been foreordained to this
heavenly destiny before the founding of the world by
means of the good pleasure of the Father in Christ
Jesus our Lord.
So technically speaking, the anointed have been chosen
from before their birth, just as Isaac also was, before
he had done either good or bad, in order that the purpose
of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent
not upon works, but upon the One who calls, to His
eternal glory and praise.
If this special choosing would in any way infringe upon,
or detract from, the blessings and privileges bestowed
upon those destined to live here forever on earth, God
might possibly be thought of as being unjust; but if the
anointed are chosen as His instruments to bless mankind
through the value of Christ’s blood, then who could
possibly complain?
There are of course no ‘replacements,’ because if Jesus tells
us to consider the costs before building even so much as a
simple tower, will the Father not have much more stuck to
His own advice when creating us in Christ Jesus?
‘For I am confident of this very thing, that He who started
a good work in you will also carry it to completion until
until the day of Jesus Christ.’
And, ‘for if you do these things you will by no means ever
fail.’
Due to the consciousness of being chosen - by which I mean
the anointing itself - manifesting itself only at the time
appointed by God in the life of an individual, it is normal
for that person to grow up either ‘without hope in the world,’
or with a nominal belief in going to Heaven, or even, due
to his being brought up as a JW, an earthly hope, which
then changes into a heavenly one at the appointed enlightening
by the Holy Spirit, usually at around the time of ‘coming of
age,’ which among the Hebrews was 30 years of age,
but I must say that despite this upbringing, I could never quite
picture myself here on earth playing with the lions, even at a
tender age, although Heaven was entirely unknown and
unimaginable to me as well, despite my child-like longing
to be with Jesus and the Father wherever they might be
‘hiding,’
so I am interested in the experiences of others in this respect,
because I agree with you that, in a strictly technical sense, no
one called to Heaven was ever destined to life on earth in the
mind of God, who does all these things, known from of old.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-10 23:37:33

  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.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-11 16:39:49

  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 chosen ones is clearly at variance with His singling
  them out as those who exclusively are not able to be
  deceived by Satan’s imitations."
  I disagree. They are not automatically chosen ones. There is a DIFFERENCE between being CALLED and CHOSEN. We are all invited to be in Christ. The world is invited. Most reject his invitation, sad but true. They don't value the kingdom enough and it doesn't bear fruit in their life. While they were called and heard, it was evident from their actions that they didn't abide in Christ.
  Those are called, are written in God's book of life. They are HEIRS of Salvation. If they OVERCOME, they will get the inheritance, they won't be blotted out from the book of life. (Revelation 3:5)
  "If Jesus tells us to consider the costs before building even so much as a
  simple tower, will the Father not have much more stuck to
  His own advice when creating us in Christ Jesus?"
  Are you disregarding free will? God has for knowledge sure, but he does not force that on anyone. He works with the free will and still gets his purpose fulfilled. Sometimes he alters the way he gets his will done (Genesis 6 God is grieved that he has to destroy the earth, Jeremiah 19:5, 1 Samuel 2:30, the list goes on and on...)
  "If this special choosing would in any way infringe upon,
  or detract from, the blessings and privileges bestowed
  upon those destined to live here forever on earth, God
  might possibly be thought of as being unjust; but if the
  anointed are chosen as His instruments to bless mankind
  through the value of Christ’s blood, then who could
  possibly complain?"
  You are asserting that God's plan for Christians is to live on the earth except the few who are elect? So they are to follow and abide in Christ, only they will never meet Christ. They are to worship God, but they will never meet him either. And you are asking who would complain?
  Read Ephesians, its clear he is talking to the whole body of believers, not simply just some individuals there. Yet he also admonishes them, Do not let the devil get a foothold. (Eph 4:27)
  You see God foreordained Christ. He was before the founding of the world fixed. That was planned 100%. He was going to reconcile us by means of him. It was god's desire that everyone would be in union with him, because he would reconcile us to god. Without Jesus we cannot come to God fully..
  I find it funny how the official Jehovah's witness doctrine is such a big mix of believes. We are calvinistic with notes for the anointed, and we are universalist for the rest of the people. We lump true believers together with the non believers who don't even believe in Jesus and teach they can have the same eventuality. It's quite interesting ;)
  I only started to see things more clearly from a scriptural perspective on several things when I divorced myself from JW theology. Don't reason as a Jehovah's Witness, reason the bible out of the bible. Don't look at scripture jehovah's witness vs the rest.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-11 19:38:59

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 myself don’t think I’ve reached it, but I do this one thing: I forget about the things behind me and reach out for the things ahead of me. 14 The goal I pursue is the prize of God’s upward call in Christ Jesus. 15 So all of us who are spiritually mature should think this way, and if anyone thinks differently, God will reveal it to him or her. 16 Only let’s live in a way that is consistent with whatever level we have reached."
So while some reach maturity in Christ, there are untold numbers who do not and will not, and yet these are not ignored. Each has a race to run, but are any worthy if it is to merely compete against another? It is a race against ourselves.
sw

Comment by Ross on 2014-03-12 00:27:40

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 the existing thread about
Jesus, which I started on the discussion board, since that
would keep all our points and counter points in one spot
for further development and ease of reference, if that
makes sense to you.
Also this thread and format starts to get a bit unwieldy
and is about to slip off the radar screen as well, so to speak.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-12 08:00:53

  I agree. The discussion forum is the best place for this type of dialogue. I'll see you there. :)

Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-12 10:06:20

ImJustAsking:
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:
http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/13/the-last-days-revisited/#comment-9643
The Conclusion of the System of Things:
http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/13/the-last-days-revisited/#comment-9691

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-13 14:44:16

  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 had turned down the Societies use of 2 Tim to prove that we were in the last days, for the same reason that you did!!!
  However you have managed to step further out with your reasoning by showing the difference between the 'Conclusion of the system of things' and the 'last days'. I was getting there, but you have pipped me to the post. For that I'm grateful, because now I don't have to do the 'heavy lifting' myself :-)
  I wonder if some day if enough trust could be built up between the members of the forum that some would dare to have some face time to discuss? Say over Skype or similar? Imagine what we would be able to research together!!. Who would need to go the Kingdom Halls (Mth 18:20). What do you think?

  • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-03-13 14:48:42

    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!!

  • Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-16 08:36:05

    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 being a king to Pilate) - all these things open up greater understanding and leave me marveling even more at the Bible's harmony.
    For all of these terms I had been simply accepting the Society's assignment of meaning. But in most cases, a simple word search, and some meditative thought, revealed a better picture of the meaning that Bible writers had assigned to them. And often, the catalyst to that search was having or reading discussions with others online.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-03-16 11:40:50

      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 !