WT Study: Have Unshakable Faith in the Kingdom

Comment by yobec on 2014-11-30 12:34:43

So here’s the question: Why didn’t He make a covenant with the Other Sheep?
Because the other sheep are the antitypical type of the "alien residents" who were not in any covenant.
Signed: Fred Franz

• Reply by Chris on 2014-11-30 13:42:53

  Thank you. That clears up a lot.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-30 21:57:20

  "it is with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah", that is to say, with those who are Jews because of being natural descendants of Israel and Judah, and who have faith in the promises which God made to the effect that through the house of Judah should the great Deliverer come; these are the ones with whom God will make the covenant. (Life Page 187 ,1929)
  Nobody but the Natural Jews are under the New Covenant
  -signed Rutherford
  (10 years after the GB was appointed as the "FDS " by Jesus Christ )
  Apparently Thousands of JW's including the GB were under the New covenant and had no idea --today there are millions.
  I believe that this was the beginning of the two hope doctrine. In the beginning all JW's (Bible Students) rejected the new covenant. When the doctrine changed and opened up 144,000 slots, JW's were then taught that they had all been filled....

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-30 14:02:21

Sadly, the JW other sheep do not have a proper relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and that is the danger of belonging to a religious organisation which feeds its members false religious teachings.
When a person becomes a Christian in the true Biblical sense, it is then that they experience the "real hope" as they begin to understand the true meaning of the Covenants which God gave to His people. It is that "hope" that provides the stimulus for faith and love, and enables us to come into a proper relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and to know what our future truly is in the Kingdom of God; and finally we are able to serve God in harmony with His Word.
"We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God's people - the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world - just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God's grace." Colossians 1:3-6 (NIV)

Comment by blessednubian on 2014-11-30 18:37:00

I'm so glad I have faith in Jesus and not "the organization" I was just mentioning to my husband the other day about how as practicing witnesses we were told to point people to the "Organization", rather than to the risen Savior, Jesus the Christ. I wonder how I was so blind for so many years...

Comment by life2come on 2014-11-30 19:36:32

Brilliant question, Meleti...." Why didnt Jehovah make a covenant with the Other sheep?". Werent the Gentile proselytes under the Law Covenant as long as they agreed to circumcision? Seems like the Other Sheep, according to WT belief, are actually under NO agreement with their heavenly father. A "step-child" with no inheritance agreed upon in writing.

• Reply by bobcat3 on 2014-12-01 04:33:29

  Wow. I've only started looking through this article, but its . . . I'm not sure how else to put it . . . but its WT gobbledygook.
  Par. 9 makes a point in stating WHEN the Abrahamic covenant went into effect. (1943 BCE is the date given, but all WT dates prior to 587 are false by their own distorted reckoning - but that is besides the point). But notice the wealth of proof given to arbitrarily state when it went into effect.
  But then their is a "spiritual fulfillment" of that covenant (p. 11). "Cockamamy" is the word that comes to mind.
  And I agree with the idea that all this WT 'covenantry' leaves a whole lot of people out in the cold.
  P. 10 mentions that, according to God's promise, Abraham's offspring would be "many in number." The WT explanation later enumerates that as 144,001. In reality, the promise was that the offspring would number like the stars of heaven and the grains of sand (something the WT explains away as "an unknown number").
  But Moses saw that promise a little differently. In Deut 28:62 shows that when Israel numbered over 600,000 registered men (thus possibly several million total), Moses thought Jehovah could already be credited for fulfilling that promise (or at least having gone a long towards that). Whereas, if they were disobedient, they would be cursed and become "few" in number.
  I wonder what Moses would think of 144,001 with regard to being a fulfillment of being like the stars and grains of sand? But then again, to borrow someone else's words, 'No declaration of the WT will be an impossibility.'
  And then there is this so-called "kingdom covenant" of Luke 22:28-30. But I digress . . .
  I don't look forward to the headache of going over this lesson.
  Bobcat

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-03 01:10:36

    Bobcat, Luke 22:28-30 is perhaps the biggest and most contentious misinterpretation of scripture ever. Blending the New Covenant with the Kingdom Covenant by saying Judas was "dismissed" before verse 20 even though verse 21 puts him right back there. No other gospel writer is quoted to contradict this, and yet the WT is bold enough to say that Luke was not writing chronologically? No proof is given except their contentious supposition that Judas COULDN'T have been there to receive the emblems due to the fact that it would have included him into the Kingdom Covenant of Luke 22:28-30. No reference to any other gospel account is given making this so dogmatically erroneous that we can no longer separate the New Covenant from the Kingdom Covenant. They are simply blended by a theologically biased supposition.
    sw

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-12-03 04:12:00

      Not sure if the translation or use of covenant is key in order to understanding this passage as one will never know what word Luke originally used in this passage. In NET the word covenant is not even used:
      28 “You are the ones who have remained with me in my trials. 29 Thus I grant to you a kingdom, just as my Father granted to me, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
      I believe these verse are not as complicated as the WT make use believe. Compare it with situation with a grandfather, father and son. The grandfather makes a deal regarding the heritance with the father. As the father now know what is being granted to him, he can now make a deal with his son and offer his son to share in the heritance of the father. That is what happens here. God has granted rulership over the kingdom to Jesus. This allows Jesus to do what he wants and to share it with anyone he wants to share it with. He has choses his apostles for the reason he gave in verse 28. This is about rulership as the apostles will sit on thrones and judge Israel. Nothing in these verse make any reference to a larger group to be sitting on thrones. If one does, I call that wishful thinking.
      Jesus also makes it clear that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. That will be in his kingdom, not as rulers on thrones as he already selected the apostles to be on thrones.
      Revelation 14:1-3 shows a group of 144000 persons standing before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders (24), which provide no indication at all that this group of 144000 will be judging sitting on thrones to judge. Also, why would Jesus need 144000 judges??
      I tried to find the word KINGDOM COVENANT in the bible but could not find it. There are some 11 occurrences for NEW COVENANT. In my view, there is for us humans, only on covenant relevant, which is the new covenant. That covenant covers the promise to his apostles to sit on thrones and covers the forgiveness of sins for many (Mat. 26:28) something that under the old covenant was not possible.

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-03 11:45:27

      We should all be quite aware of Jesus words, "In the house of my Father there are many abodes," and only one was necessary for Kingdom heirs. Otherwise who else could Revelation 7:14 be referring to but more partakers who will yet "come out of the great tribulation," who have also "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?" (John 14:2)

  • Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-03 06:09:20

    Luke 22:28-30 Of course there is always the possibility that Jesus actually meant what he said - always a good place to start!

Comment by on 2014-12-01 12:53:34

Paragraph 9 the week after speaks of the new covenant being a basis for the forgiveness of sins . And it was ratified by the blood of jesus if a person is not in this covenant then on what basis are thier sins forgiven .i say again the new covenant is THE COVENANT WHICH MAKES FORGIVENESS OF SINS POSSIBLE BY CHRISTS BLOOD . Yet the so called great crowd see no need to be in it . And yet they still feel that thier sins are forgiven by christs blood . If that is possible why did god bother initliating this covenant in the first place if we dont need to be in it .kev

Comment by menrov on 2014-12-02 06:18:24

Good comments by all. Fine analysis Meleti, as usual. And if there is one thing you can learn from the writers of the WT, it is the way they create sort of new nouns:
Edenic promise, Messianic Kingdom, Davidic covenant etc.
I guess most of us recognize these "words" but actually cannot be found in the bible. When you use these terms in field service talking to other, they often look at you as you are from...well, Mars...
Par. 4 reads partially Jehovah issued three decrees regarding humans: Our God would create mankind in his image, humans were to expand Paradise globally and fill the earth with righteous offspring, and humans were prohibited from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad
Who invents this? Three decrees? Creating humans was a decree similar to not being allowed to eat from the specific tree?
Par 5 contains this regarding Satan:: He did so by focusing his attention on the decree he could most easily influence—the one that required obedience on the part of man
Where does this "knowledge" come from? There was only one rule, no 3.so this was the only challenge Satan could use.
Also this: In doing so, Satan challenged God’s right to rule over His creation
Nowhere can we read that Satan was challenging this right. Satan knows that God was his creator. However, God used His Son to create the world, including humans. It seems more logical in my view that Satan intended to show that The Word did not do a good job and that God should have used Satan instead of the Word to create everything.
Par 6 continues based on the idea Satan was challenging God. But God does not have to prove anything. IMO, by stating it is a fight between Satan and God, it almost completely disregards the role of HIs Son, or the Word, who was there in the beginning and through whom everything was created.
Par. 8 tries to explain the identity of the woman and her offspring. After reading it various time, I still lack to understand who the woman and her offspring is based on that paragraph.
Par 10 has this: The offspring would descend from Abraham, would be many in number, would have a kingly function
The text in Gen.22 indicates that the descendants will be like the stars or cannot be numbered. By using the words MANY IN NUMBER, it tries to limit it.
Not sure where the idea that they would have A KINGLY FUNCTION (whatever a kingly function is supposed to mean). Gen. 22:15-18 does not give that promise at all. It is in my view a sneaky introduction of a concept.
Par. 11 confirms that only the 14.000 belong to Christ, all others apparently belong to .... the world I guess.
Par 11 also states that the Woman (from Gen. 3) is the Jerusalem above. But the par. does not mention that Gal. 4:21-31 is talking about 2 women. So, who is the other woman? Also, Paul does not say that the 2 women have a prophetic meaning but he uses it as an allegory. Also, Paul is talking to the people who want to be under the law and compares this to people being a slave and to people who are free.
Par 12 starts: The Abrahamic covenant points to the King and to his corulers in God’s Kingdom, and it forms the legal foundation of the Kingdom of the heavens. (Heb. 6:13-18)
You cannot find any reference to HIS CORULERS in the verses in Heb.
Also in this par. 12:
It remains in effect until the Messianic Kingdom destroys God’s enemies and all the families of the earth have been blessed. (1 Cor. 15:23-26)
The verses mentioned here make no reference at all to "families of the earth" being blessed. Verse 22, which I guess conveniently left out, read that all in Christ will be made alive, and then the order is explained: first Christ, then all those who belong to him.
I can imaging the headache awaiting those who will attend this study.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-02 08:18:40

  Thank you for contributing these thoughts, Menrov. I have been trying to working on an article about the development of the seed and contrasting that with what we've always been taught is the theme of the bible. I was missing some key elements so the article has been in the draft stage for several months, but you have just filled in the missing pieces.
  I also appreciate your paragraph by paragraph breakdown which makes a nice complement to the article, so I'm editing it to include a link to your comment.

Comment by Peter on 2014-12-02 13:45:29

What's funny is that if you look at the Greek text of this passage, the word covenant is not used here, it is a different Greek word. The Greek word for covenant is DIATHEKE the Greek word used here in Luke in this verse is a different one. The Greek word used there is DIATITHEMAI it means to appoint to bequest or assign. so it should read: and as my father appointed a kingdom and conferred it on me, so do I confer on you. The ESV has it : and I assign to you,as my father assigned to me, a kingdom. (Lu 22:29)
makes you wonder what does the NW trying to convey by translating it as covenant, when they should know better....lol

• Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-02 14:48:15

  Luke 22:29 NWT. The Society want JWs to believe that this is a covenant/agreement made specifically with the 144,000 anointed because they alone are to be rulers in the Kingdom with Jesus Christ, and this does not include the "other sheep". Of course this is just another false teaching.

Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-12-03 10:39:08

This is a little off subject but I wanted to share it.
We had the CO visit last night.
The CO explained that one reason they know that they have the truth is the 1962 change in the superior authorities teaching.
No mention was made that originally Russell had presented the correct view of this scripture.
It was explained that the doctrinal change on Romans 13:-1-2 is an example of “the light getting brighter”, completely avoiding any mention that this new light was a return to an original belief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Jehovah and/or Jesus direct Rutherford to introduce a false interpretation of scripture?
Jehovah does NOT direct in flip flops like this!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 13:1-2
“Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.”
Up to 1929
“Evil as these Gentile governments have been, they were permitted or “ordained of God” for a wise purpose. (Rom. 13:1)” – (Studies In the Scriptures Series I - The Divine Plan of the Ages p.250)
1929 to 1962
“The Superior Authorities are the Most High God Jehovah and his exalted Son Jesus Christ.” – (This Means Everlasting Life (1950) p.197)
1962 Onward
“The Expression “superior authorities” means the political governments or authorities.” – (Life everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (1966) p.189)

• Reply by on 2014-12-03 13:17:25

  What feeble reasoning is that supposed to be proof .its absolutely obvious who the superior authorities are just by looking at the verses in context .they speak of those who rule they are gods ministers who bear the sword to punish bad deeds .it speaks of them being placed in position by god . Of course the verses do raise a few questions . The correct interpretation has been obvious to millions of Christians for years. And God couldn't of course flashed his light and let them know about could he .

• Reply by Christian on 2014-12-03 15:07:51

  It just shows what a spiritual bully Rutherford must have been to sail that one at the brothers & sisters. Anyone with 1/2 a spiritual brain can see what the scripture means.
  But alas, that was the man.
  No wonder the Bible Students jumped ship when he pirated the WTS after Russel's death.
  Years on, we are in a similar position with the current GB and their grandiose claims!

Comment by on 2014-12-03 13:22:20

Also it speaks of paying taxes to them . Oh man

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-03 19:33:00

An excellent article Meleti. I had never before considered the covenants in exactly this light. But you have have made a very strong case.
The whole scriptural history of covenants was heavily built upon in the full week elder school, and it was explicitly impressed upon us that most modern Christians are not part of any covenant, but are only "side beneficiaries".
Now we draw upon past examples of "organization" to claim that "this is the way God has always done things" (even though that's not strictly true), but we should equally well bring the reasoning in this article to bear on how and why God always made these covenants for a purpose to fortify the other party. And yet according to us 99% of Christians are no party to any covenant at the time when they arguably need fortifying the most? (In the days leading up to and including the fulfillment of the great tribulation).
This makes no sense whatsoever and is not a concept found in scripture.
Apollos

Comment by urbanus2014 on 2014-12-07 16:44:44

Thank you Meleti and Menrov for the insights. This has always seemed an obscure topic, but your comments helped me to explain the summary chart this way in the WT study:
WT Conductor: So how many covenants are there?
Little Girl: Six!
me: Jehovah has a singular purpose to reconcile mankind to himself and to express his sovereignty throughout the physical universe, overcoming the effects of mankind's sin and falling under the influence of Satan's evil. Jehovah did not have to utilize mere men to accomplish this, but by undeserved kindness on His part He kindly invited mankind to participate through six covenants.
1) He began with a promise to bring this blessing through Abraham's seed based on that man's faith.
2) 430 years later, he used the seed to establish his righteousness through written law apart from faith.
3) But with Israel's failing through judges, it was necessary to appoint a visible King.
4) A new priesthood was promised, not based on physical lineage.
5) Finally, the full Kingdom blessing would come through His own son.
6) That son has made us heirs with him for the fulfillment of God's promise.
Those are the six growing phases of mankind's privilege to participate in the outworking of Jehovah's grand purpose.

Comment by Wild Olive on 2015-02-27 07:29:51

Really enjoyed this post,this position of the other sheep not in a covenant was my main stimulus to question my JW beliefs.
The post mentions the major covenants, but if you take a good look at the bible,everyone Jehovah dealt with is put into a covenant or agreement of some sort,Adam with the tree,even Cain the murderer had a covenant,Noah had one,Abraham was mentioned,as was King David ,the tribe of Judah had a covenant,the whole nation of Israel,all under a covenant, the new covenant in force now.
Yet the poor old other sheep forgotten!
It is also an inconvienent truth that the position of the other sheep is identical to a Moslem,he/ she has no covenanted arrangement therefore no mediator,doesn't recieive the indwelling spirit,is not a son of God,and only knows where they stand by following a specified set of rules .
Most JW don't realise the predicament the GB have put them in,their relationship with God ,while they may think is good,is in fact fraudulent.
Without the new covenant there is no other approach to Jehovah, there is no such thing as a bystander to the new covenant,such a person is not described in scipture. The other part of it is that anyone who has brought 8 million people to this position of bystander without allowing them into the new covenant in my opinion is committing a serious sin,they have fulfilled Math 23:13, and that verse holds out a serious judgement.

Comment by qspf on 2015-05-01 09:57:02

I ran across the following passage above, and it really gave me pause, but then I forgot where it was located in the archives. Now that I found it, here it is:
"Paul reveals that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation.” Here is where the difference between the “wise and clever” and the “little children” becomes evident. If Jesus was created, then there was a time that he didn’t exist; a time when God existed all alone. God has no beginning; so for an infinity of time he existed alone. The trouble with this thought is that time itself is a created thing. Since God cannot be subject to anything nor live inside of anything, He cannot live “in time” nor be subject to it."
With all due respect to the author, the trouble with this "trouble" is that it goes totally beyond what it written. You will not find any reputable scientists that would agree that time is a created thing. Why? Because they have NO IDEA about the true nature of time. Saying that God cannot be "subject" to time is a mere supposition; you have neither the Bible, science or anything in between to back that up.
To make things worse, if God created all things, and if time is a created thing, then what is it created OUT OF? At least light appears to be made out of something - electromagnetic radiation - and its existence seems to be linked to electrons. Nothing vaguely of the sort could be said of time.
Further, suppose time COULD be created. That act of creation would have had a beginning (a planning stage), a middle (a gathering or creating of whatever resources Time is made out of) and an end (the act of creating Time). How much time elapsed during the creation of "Time"? But, the question is meaningless, since Time didn't exist yet. That is the definition of a paradox. And, whenever a paradox exists, we must be prepared to admit that we may be in error with our original assumptions.
We must face the fact that God's true nature, lacking some divine revelation we have not yet received, is beyond our capability to comprehend. How is it possible that a living creature of such vast power, knowledge and wisdom, capable of creating the universe, could exist for all eternity in the past? HOW? Yet, we believe that He does. Is it not possible to even consider that time ALSO existed forever, and is not a created thing?
If Time is a created thing, and God created Time, then there was a "time" when Time didn't exist. (Again, the idea is paradoxical, and it really strains the limits of language to explain it, but bear with me.) If that were so, then part of His existence transpired during the "era" (for lack of a better word) when Time did not exist. How long was that "era"? Since Time presumably did not exist, the question is meaningless, and the "era" could not be "timed" or "measured". However, how would God know how long He existed, if there was no Time yet? Even worse, how could He claim His life was everlasting, if He created Time itself? Let us say, for sake of argument, that Time was created 100 quadrillion years ago. A long time, but not an infinite amount of time. That would mean God really existed for "only" 100 quadrillion years, but NOT forever in the past, since prior to the creation of Time, there WAS no past. If that were so, the Bible's assertion that God has lived forever would be false.
I have no more information than you, so my words are supposition as well. However, consider that man was created in God's image. That would include our ability to think and reason and use language. Not that our abilities are anything compared to Him. However, any time God contacted humans, how do His words "sound" to us? They sound very HUMAN. That is, His words sound human instead of sounding alien, distorted or crazy. Now, given that all human languages require syntax and semantics in order to provide meaning, it would be simply impossible for a "sentence" in a language to consist of all the words uttered simultaneously - which is what would happen if there were no Time yet. Even if it were physically possible to do it, the lack of a defined word order would destroy any syntactic structure. You just couldn't do it; the result would be meaningless, no matter how otherwise beneficial such a "fast" recitation of a sentence might be.
Further, consider Jesus' words in John 5:17: "My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working." If God could perform His mighty acts instantaneously, in "zero time" - as if "by magic" - then there would be no need for Him to "keep working". Everything He needed to do would have been done by now. (Like the commercial, 'the work's done, now it's Miller time'.) Yet, He keeps working. Why? Because He does not use "magic" to implement His purposes. He must live within His own rules that govern the universe.
That thought may trouble people. It seems to trouble you, as you write, "God cannot be subject to anything." This assertion not only goes beyond what is written, it goes contrary to it. We are told that it is "impossible for God to lie". So, right there we know that God is subject to His own righteous standards. For that reason, even God does not have absolute freedom. He is not free to lie, or to deny himself, or to act wickedly or unjustly, and is subject to many, many principles as set forth in His word.
Saying that God created Time but is not subject to it, a claim going beyond what is written, is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The course of wisdom is to understand there is (frequently) a time and place for us to say, "We don't know".

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-01 10:59:31

  For many people this idea that God created time is difficult to imagine because they view everything from the bottom of the well that is time in our physical universe. We are bound by the walls of that well and our view is bounded by the physical. We cannot imagine a time without time because our very language doesn't give us the words to express those concepts. We are bound by time, ruled by time and completely subject to time. Therefore, to talk about anything existing outside of time creates a paradox for us. But only human hubrus would allow us to think it is anything but a faux-paradox, one created by the limitations of our human mind and current array of knowledge. Within the rules we have established for ourselves and which we blithely impose upon all things both physical and spiritual, even to the height of the almighty himself, we state with arrogance that nothing can exist outside of time. Time is a separate entity and all things, including God, exist inside it. We can conceive of no other possibility and therefore, there cannot be one.
  However, in the last century, we have discovered scientific proof that such is not the case. If you travel close to the speed of light, time slows down. You could travel 100 light years and return just a century later having aged only a day or a year, depending on your speed, but all your friends would have passed. Time, as we know it, is part of our physical universe. Its subjective rate of passage can change. Time is subject to the speed at which matter moves. Rather than all things being subject to it, time itself is subjective, and therefore--like all created things in the physical universe--subject to other things. Jehovah exists outside our physical universe and therefore outside of the constraints of matter, velocity, and time.
  If time is not a created thing, then it exists separately from God and before all things were created. Time therefore would be subject to nothing, but all things, including God would be subject to it. That would mean that Time and God have always coexisted.
  We cannot stop time's flow. We cannot reverse it. Time defines existence for us, so we feel that God's existence is also defined by it, but nothing defines Jehovah God except Jehovah God. There is nothing to which he is subject.
  That science should have now confirmed what our knowledge of God implied is reassuring, but we don't really need it. All we need to know is that for Jehovah to be what he is, he can be subject to nothing save himself. That is the meaning behind the idea that "God cannot lie".

  • Reply by qspf on 2015-05-02 12:07:52

    Meleti provides an interesting follow-up to the question about whether God could create Time, and thus if Time is a created thing. However, he has not made a convincing case, which is not helped by the presence of two contradictory statements: "There is nothing to which he is subject." and later, "... for Jehovah to be what he is, he can be subject to nothing save himself." If He is subject to nothing, then He cannot be subject to Himself. These two statements cannot both be true.
    In the context of the Beroean Pickets forum, the key issue is that the Bible is silent on this topic, and anything we might postulate goes beyond what is written. Speculation is fun, and we need not suppress our interest in it, as long as don't forget that that is what it is. Even plausible explanations are only that; they are not divinely revealed truth.
    Humans are not all that bounded by their imagination; we are a pretty imaginative bunch. However, one has to recognize when imagination is properly limited by sound reasoning. There is a difference between being imaginative and being irrational.
    Consider an example. In mathematics, there is no real square root of -1. On a regular calculator, you will get an error displayed if you try to do it. In higher mathematics, the square root of -1 is "i", the root of "imaginary" numbers. Even though the square root breaks the rules for real numbers, this branch of mathematics (complex numbers) is valid and quite useful, because a complete set of mathematical rules can be devised which are self-consistent and do not break any other rules.
    In contrast, one cannot divide a number by zero. This is because any attempt to make a self-consistent set of rules that incorporate division by zero will break other rules. It just won't work. There is no mathematical discipline that incorporates division by zero as a fundamental axiom. None.
    In ancient times, zero was not even considered a number, nor were negative numbers, so the very concepts of -1 and "i" as well as the idea of dividing by zero would not have occurred to them.
    Today, in contrast, these concepts are well understood, sufficiently so that it can be said with confidence that the rules behind them will not be invalidated at some future time.
    That is enough for most people, but when you start getting devout Christians involved in discussions of this sort, logic seems to get thrown out the window. I tried to explain once to a Witness that because God cannot lie, he cannot break his own laws and rules. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4, and even God cannot change that and make 2 + 2 = 3. The Witness's reply? "Well, if it were God's will, He could make 2 + 2 = 3 if He really wanted to."
    Allow me to state it for the record: NO, He can't ! And, saying so is not hubris; it is reality.
    Why? Because, based on the definition of the number system, and the meaning of addition and equality, to claim that 2 + 2 = 3 is a lie, and God cannot lie. Not all the knowledge and power in the universe applied for all eternity can allow God to say 2 + 2 = 3 or allow Him to divide by zero. It is never going to happen.
    Is that "bad"? Do such things "limit" God, or make him "subject" to rules, seemingly in a way that would appear to diminish God's power? No. For instance, Ohm's Law is an equation that describes the relationship between voltage, current and resistance, expressed as I = V / R. If resistance R were zero, the amount of current I is undefined, because you can't divide by zero. In practice, what does this mean? Electrical resistance will never be zero, because electrons must travel from the orbit of one atom to the next to propagate the current; each such "hop" takes a tiny amount of time, which will never be zero time. But, as R gets closer and closer to zero, the current I gets larger and larger. The most obvious example of this is if you were to take a battery and connect a wire to both terminals in a "dead short". If you did this (depending on the size and power of the battery), the wire would get hot or melt, or a fire would result. So, the "division by zero" in practice does not so much define an "impossible" situation as much as it points out "unusual" situations outside the norm.
    We must be extraordinarily careful when, in the course of reasoning on complex matters, we encounter a paradox. A paradox implies that our original assumptions are incorrect or incomplete, or our reasoning process is faulty. If our assumptions are obtained from others, we must face the possibility that we have been lied to. If a thing is true, there should not BE any paradoxes, and if there are, something is terribly wrong or very unusual, both of which make any conclusions highly suspect.
    We need to be both humble and realistic about our reasoning and the limits of what it can and cannot achieve. For instance, it may indeed be evidence of "arrogance" to say "that nothing can exist outside of time". However, it is equally arrogant to suggest that anything COULD exist outside of time. We have absolutely no knowledge, no scientific principles, and no divine revelation, to make any assertions of the sort, one way or the other. We don't know.
    To refer back to the example of mathematics, the way we know that division by zero is impossible is to first assume the opposite - that such a thing were possible - and then attempt to use that assumption in other areas of mathematics. When we do that, the entire structure of mathematics will collapse. None of the rules work any more. It creates one paradox after another, and it is impossible to reconcile those paradoxes in any meaningful way that results in a self-consistent set of arithmetic rules. We just can't do it.
    The same is true of the notion of Time being a created thing. If there were some moment in the distant past when Time was created, what happened "before" that? If Time were created, then the total amount of time that Time has existed is finite. For example, I am writing these words on May 2, 2015 at 10:39:54 AM. If we consider that moment as "Now", then from the moment when Time was created until "Now" would be a long but finite length of time. Thus, Time would not have existed forever under that understanding. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and reasoning. So far, this has not been provided.
    It does no good to suggest that God is so great, powerful and wise that He can transcend Time itself and exist without Time being in operation, and to justify that claim by saying that we poor, pitiful humans are so limited, it's our own fault we can't comprehend that. Unfortunately, the very same "logic" is used to justify the existence of the Trinity: "It's a mystery, my son, just have faith and believe." For a person that cherishes truth, such contrived explanations are simply not good enough. I have to reiterate: if we go beyond what is written, and beyond scientific knowledge, and yet insist this is so, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? God never SAID He created Time. Why would we? Why should we?
    We cannot cite the Theory of Relativity to suggest that Time could be created. While Relativity is a more sophisticated notion of Time than any of the ancients would have understood, it only speaks to the perceived speed of Time from the standpoint of some observer relative to some other object approaching the speed of light. It says nothing about Time stopping, much less being created. It turns out that the oft-repeated claim - that a person traveling near the speed of light might seem to experience the passing of a single day while those on earth would experience the passing of 100 years - is a misconception and is fatally flawed. It fails to take into account the necessary acceleration and deceleration to leave earth, reach light speed, turn around and go back. When those necessary steps are accounted for, the elapsed time of the two groups is identical. No paradox is created, and no Time has been created or destroyed.
    The notion of creatable Time leaves us with a mountain of unanswerable questions. If Time was created, can it be destroyed? If it could be destroyed, what would happen to the created universe? Would that not destroy the universe? For instance, the laws of celestial mechanics that govern the orbits of bodies around each other involve mass, velocity, angular momentum and time. Without time, the laws of celestial mechanics are undefined and go out the window. What would be left to govern the physical universe? If, however, God really did create Time and the universe, and He cannot now revoke Time because His created works are dependent on it, then He has created something He cannot stop, and so Time is out of His control.
    So, one way or another, God is subject to Time - whether He created it or not. There is no use trying to argue our way out of this. I submit that these difficulties are insurmountable. They are not "faux" paradoxes, but real ones.
    It seems peculiar that the notion of God being subject to time would trouble anyone. Why would this possibly be seen as a bad thing? We are told that it is impossible for God to lie, and so He is subject to His own nature in this matter. It would be one thing to say that God would not CHOOSE to lie, and if so, that is a reflection on His honor, integrity, righteousness and holiness. It shows Him to be a God of goodness. Those are all fine qualities. But, to say He CANNOT lie is another matter entirely. It goes beyond choice and free will. It means that God is "subject" to His own "nature".
    I will say emphatically, I am not troubled in the slightest that God is constrained by and subject to His own nature to not lie. I find it extremely comforting.
    Is that a "limitation" of God? It is certainly not a "flaw" or "weakness" in any sense of the word. But, if it's a limitation, I say great. I WANT Him to be limited in that way. We already have evidence of what it means for a powerful spirit creature to act without restraints and limitations. Perhaps you have heard of him: Satan. That didn't work out so well. Let us be thankful that God IS limited by His own self, His own righteousness and His own laws and standards. The alternative would be mass chaos in the universe.
    Your reply above notes, "If time is not a created thing, then it exists separately from God and before all things were created. Time therefore would be subject to nothing, but all things, including God would be subject to it. That would mean that Time and God have always coexisted."
    I have absolutely no problem if that were the case. Nothing about that, if true, would diminish God's power, wisdom and greatness in any way. I will elaborate on this a little.
    Has Time existed "before all things were created"? I believe this would be a necessary thing. Since God existed before all things were created, Time would also have to have existed before all things were created, whether Time itself were a created thing or not.
    Have "Time and God have always coexisted"? That seems like a very reasonable assumption. I have no problem with this.
    Does Time exist "separately from God"? That I am less certain of. Perhaps they ARE separate. Perhaps in some way, Time is somehow a manifestation of God. Perhaps in a manner of speaking, Time and God are the same thing. Or, perhaps the existence of Time is a "side effect" directly attributable to the existence of God, but is not God Himself. I don't know.
    Does the coexistence of Time and God mean that God is "subject" to Time, as if He were "subordinate" to it - as though "Time" were a sort of "god" to God himself? I don't know that "subordinate" is the right word, but look at it another way. We understand physical space to occupy three dimensions, which we can call length, width and height, or X, Y and Z, or any similar terminology. We can measure physical space in units of measure, whether inches, miles, kilometers or light years. Do any of these notions "limit" God? I don't see how. He had to place the planets and stars and galaxies SOMEWHERE. Those places could all be described as points on a coordinate system (a really large one). Does that fact mean God is "subject" to the coordinates and measurements of three dimensional space? If it did, does that in any way make Him "lesser" than He would otherwise be? Again, I don't see how. The physical measurements and coordinates of objects in the universe simply exist; they are there to be used. The existence of Time is no different. If God is understood to be "subject" to Time, it is only in the sense that Time exists, and it is there for God to use as He sees fit.
    Finally, we must end where we began. If a matter is beyond what is written, and we have nothing to support a matter, we can have but one answer: We don't know. We don't know if Time was, or could be, created. We just don't.
    

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-02 12:24:08

      qspf writes "Meleti provides an interesting follow-up to the question about whether God could create Time, and thus if Time is a created thing. However, he has not made a convincing case, which is not helped by the presence of two contradictory statements: “There is nothing to which he is subject.” and later, “… for Jehovah to be what he is, he can be subject to nothing save himself.” If He is subject to nothing, then He cannot be subject to Himself. These two statements cannot both be true. "
      Paul says that God has subjected all things under the feet of Jesus. (1 Co. 15:27) There he quotes from Ps. 8:6 which adds no qualifier. Based on your absolute application of logic, the Psalmist is saying that God subjected himself under the feet of his anointed one. Of course, we humans often get into trouble when we jump on the bandwagon of Absolutes. Perhaps anticipating this, Paul explained to those of his audience that might be prone to this type of thinking that "when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him."
      I thought that when I said God is subject to nothing that the reader would understand that God is not a thing and that it would be evident that he himself was excluded from the statement. There has to be a willingness to understand the other party if a discussion is going to be fruitful. If one has to over-explain everything, trying to anticipate every possible misunderstanding, then the discussion becomes tedious and unproductive.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-02 13:05:03

      The math examples are fine as illustrations, but illustrations are not proof. Math makes sense withinthe framework of the physical universe, but Jehovah is outside of it. Likewise, the fact that Jehovah may or may not limit his interactions with the physical universe to the laws he made up for that universe doesn't require him to obey those laws outside of that universe. To illustrate--not prove--if I make up a game I would logically play by its rules, but when the game is over, I would no longer have to follow its rules.
      The example you give comparing the Trinity doctrine to our discussion of time is a fallacy of false equivalence. The Trinity can be proven false using the foundation upon which it is based. It is judged within the framework of written scripture. Our discussion of time cannot be proved nor disproved from Scripture, because Scripture has insufficient to say on the subject so that we can draw a definite conclusion.
      Your dismissal of the scientific findings supporting the theory of relativity need to be backed up by valid references, otherwise, we must dismiss it. There is abundant scientific proof for the statement I made regarding time dilation.
      There is always the danger that we argue a point from incredulity. If we cannot understand an existence without time as you know it, we therefore conclude that no such existence is possible. In my opinion, this does diminish and dishonor God. You may disagree and of course, you have that right.
      In summary, I do agree that we cannot prove what time is. If we could, they would be awarding us Nobel prizes. Understanding this is not important to our salvation. We can agree to disagree.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2015-05-10 14:25:13

Which for good reason William of Ockham refused to include the "infinite regress" argument to prove the existence of God. Some things just have to be left to faith and what Paul said at 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him impaled." (see also Hebrews 11:1-2). A thought also for today's WT study.
sw