The Other Sheep Are God’s Children Too

Comment by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-16 12:01:59

Great thoughts Meleti!
There are so many comments I could make ......
Acts 15:7-9
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Throughout the Gospel we see the many encounters between Jesus and the Gentiles. It would be a mistake IMO to think that Jesus wasn't aware that God's purpose always included the Gentiles .( e.g samariatian woman. He reveal to her that he was the Messiah) Our Lord was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and he directed that his disciples only preach to those ones.( Matthew 10:5) It wasn't the appointed time for the Gentiles.

• Reply by Nemorino on 2015-12-16 16:21:46

  And what of Paul's explicit affirmation of the reconciliation of Jews to Gentiles through Christ in Ephesians 2?

  • Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-17 10:17:39

    HI Nemorino,
    Thank you for posting that chapter . It's is one of my favorites ! The JW's interpretation for this subject is a huge FAIL. All of the Jews could not have rejeceted Jesus in the sense that we understand rejection to mean. There was a faithful remnant of Jews who accepted Christ before He died. Besides all of the first "Christians" were all Jews.

    • Reply by katrina on 2015-12-18 08:19:29

      1 Corinthians 2:9 (TLB)
      9 That is what is meant by the Scriptures which say that no mere man has ever seen, heard, or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 13:16:57

Meleti,
I know you are familiar with my views, but they bear repeating in light of your consideration of this topic.
Since John 10:16 tells us that the other sheep (the Gentiles) will become one flock under one shepherd along with natural Israelites, the other sheep cannot be a separate class of Christians - as though one class would exist on earth as humans (including some, living near the time of Armageddon, who will never end up dying), and the other class who supposedly die and are resurrected as spirit persons in heaven to live with God and Christ.
If that scenario were true, then there would be TWO flocks, even if Christ acted as one shepherd over both of them. To believe there would be two flocks, when Christ clearly said there would be only one, is unreasonable, and thus is contrary to the counsel in Hebrews 12:1-2.
Then there is Revelation 5:10: "and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings ON [not over] the earth." Unquestionably, SOMEONE is going to be serving in this role as kings and priests. But who?
Orthodox Christianity believes that all good Christians go to heaven when they die. But why? If you asked one of them, they are likely to say it is to 'come home' to their Lord and Savior, to live out an eternity of bliss as they are bathed in the light of God's presence. Their ambitions generally don't get any more involved than that.
We have a serious problem if we believe that all good Christians go to heaven when they die and THEN are to be kings and priests. The problem? If everyone is a king and priest, who would be left to rule over? It's like that expression, "all chiefs and no Indians". That doesn't really work.
Consider Exodus 19:5-6: "And now if you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6 And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'"
Even though God gave this promise to them, it was not an absolute one. Women could not be either kings or priests. Priests had to come from the tribe of Levi, and kings from the tribe of Judah. So, even though the nation could be CHARACTERIZED as being "a kingdom of priests", only SOME individuals could be directly part of the authority structure. Everyone else was under that authority, was obligated to obey it, and benefited from its rule (when it was administered properly).
In addition to common sense and reason, we thus have the scriptural precedent that EVERYONE in a nation CANNOT ALL be a king. The short answer is that it would be crazy to do that; the long answer is that it would make no sense, it would be unworkable and it would be unnecessary.
Further, we have Revelation 20:6: "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 the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years."
So kingship is not forever - but only for a thousand years. Then what? Are they out of a job? Do they get a promotion? Do they get relocated elsewhere to be kings and priests administering the affairs of a new planet some time in the distant future?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 would argue against that position: "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. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] "subjected all things under his feet." But 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. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."
If Christ hands over the kingdom to God, and God is "all things to everyone" at some point, surely those Christians who had been given elevated positions of authority as kings and priests would hand over THEIR authority as well. If that were NOT the case, it would mean that Christ handed over his authority, but his subordinate kings and priests did not, but effectively exceeded their authority above Christ himself, almost like a "palace coup". It is unreasonable to believe God would allow or purpose such an inversion of authority to happen.
Since God becomes ALL things to ALL people, that precludes any humans resurrected to heaven becoming kings and priests over some (other) human populations on other worlds. In other words, their jobs are over.
Given all of this, what scenario makes the most sense, and is also in harmony with the entire Bible, and with God's stated purpose that man was meant for the earth, that his earth and his human creation were "very good", that Christians would exist as one flock, and that SOME Christians would act as kings and priests on the earth, but for a limited time?
We must conclude that no one is going to heaven, either to be kings and priests, or for any other reason. Only Christ went to heaven, and he did so because he belongs there. We do not.
All biblical references to the kingdom of heaven pertain to where the king resides, and where the benefits of that kingdom originate. We can inherit the benefits of that kingdom without residing in heaven. This is the same concept as living in the kingdom of England under King John, without happening to reside in the palace. One is part of a kingdom when one resides under the authority of the kingdom, and shares in the benefits of being a citizen of the kingdom. It's not necessary to have a room at the palace. All the many references to heaven in the NT can be shown to be the same as referring to the kingdom of God, or that God's throne is in heaven, or in some cases heaven pertains to visions given to men under inspiration.
And consider Hebrews 9:28: "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us." It is notable that the account in Hebrews does NOT say that anyone ELSE entered into heaven, nor that anyone else sits at the right hand of God's throne. If the "144,000" were truly going to heaven to rule with Christ there, why doesn't Hebrews say that Christ AND his FOLLOWERS entered into heaven to appear before God? Yet is doesn't say that at all. It ONLY says that Christ went there.
In fact, there is not a single verse in the Bible that tells us, straight out, in plain language, that "good Christians who die in faithfulness will be resurrected as spirit beings to live with Christ in heaven and rule with him there." One would think that will all the talk of Christians going to heaven (talk by people), surely there would be clear, plain-speaking words in the Bible to back up that talk. But there aren't any. Anywhere.
What does all this mean? ALL Christians can be children of God, even though only SOME Christians will have a TEMPORARY assignment to act as administrators on earth for a time. When that assignment ends, those former administrators over earth's affairs will turn over their authority to God, just as Christ will, and there will be no difference between them and us. God will be a Father to ALL of us, and He will be all things to everyone. We will be one flock under one shepherd, and we will live as that flock HERE, on the earth, and ONLY on the earth.

• Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-16 14:14:05

  Hi TRA:)
  I agree with most of your insights . Those take a futurist approach to the book of Revelation will note that the apostle John was invited into the heavens to receive a direct revelation from Jesus Christ and in this revelation most of the scenes are in heaven. IJA ,Nightingale, Michael M and a few others helped me to come to the realization that most Christians ( maybe western Christianity as whole) read into certain key texts to support a life in heaven . However TRA, I don't show scripturally where being with him in paradise means that this paradise is on earth. That is the assertion of the JW's. All we know is that there is to be a new heavens and new earth ( "new"....meaning we have no idea what that actually means because the old creation will have passed away )
  Our hope is the resurrection...if Christ had not died and gained victory over death we would be still captive to it .
  We will be with Christ in Paradise ( whether this is a physical place or state of being) and share eternity with Jesus and the Father.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 17:12:41

    Hello GWIT,
    It is true that the future of mankind is not described in precise terms in the Bible. If it were, there would not be 2,000 years of debate on this subject. Unquestionably, sincere Christians throughout the ages have pondered and debated this matter, and applying what they thought at the time were sound reasoning, came up with very different conclusions. It is (regrettably) necessary to infer many of the details. The best we can do is to try to find an explanation that fits ALL of the facts (that is, the truth of the entire Bible and not just pieces of it). We have to do the best inferences we can, "check our work", and then conclude that maybe we are right, and maybe we are not.
    For instance, when Jesus told the evildoer that he would be with him in Paradise, what did that mean? It has been pointed by many (WT included) that resurrection to heavenly life would have been an extraordinary - and in all honesty, an undeserved - reward for this man. After all, BOTH of these men reviled Jesus at first, and both evidently deserved to die, so they were hardly "nice" men. Does the fact that one of these man, seemingly at the very last moment, had a change of heart, make up for all the years he spent being a bad person? I know Jesus is a nice person, but that seems like he is going a little overboard being nice. Just saying ...
    We must also consider, if any given person in the first century were told they would be in Paradise, what would they have concluded? Remember, too, that Jesus was the 'great teacher'. Would he have told people a thing like that, KNOWING that they would immediately assume he meant a Paradise on earth, if he really meant heaven? It only seems reasonable that Jesus would have said so, and made the point clear, if that was his intent, but he didn't do that.
    In regard to the new heavens and new earth, we must ask, why would the literal heavens need to be replaced? The stars and planets that occupy the universe are inanimate objects. It is not as though they could do anything "wrong" or deserve "punishment". But if we view the heavens and earth as figurative, it makes sense. Yes, WT has proposed that "heavens" mean the established ruling arrangement, and the "earth" meant the subjects of that government. I don't see anything wrong with such a concept. (I know WT is greatly in the wrong on many things, but not all of them. I happen to agree with this particular interpretation.)
    We also have to consider Acts 1:9-11: "And after he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision. 10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them, 11 and they said: “Men of Galilee, why do YOU stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.”
    WT likes to claim that Jesus will return invisibly, but the angels told these men that Jesus' return would be visible, since they beheld (SAW) him leave, so they would also behold (SEE) him come again.
    That implies that Jesus will return to the earth in visible form, likely as a materialized person, the same way he did just after being resurrected. If that is true, then Jesus' words to the evildoer now make total sense. That man will be resurrected on earth, Jesus will return to the earth, which eventually be restored to Paradise conditions. Jesus was not being sneaky, figurative or metaphorical when he told that man he would be with Jesus in Paradise. He meant it literally.
    Doesn't that make more sense? Isn't that the sort of thing the Great Teacher would tell us? Not something so vague, obscure and symbolic that only highly educated theologians could understand, but the plain truth that anyone could comprehend?
    Which approach is more in harmony with what we know about Jesus' nature and character, his honesty and integrity? Remember, too, that both Jesus and this man were about to die. There wasn't exactly a lot of time to mull over obscure religious symbolism. And, this man was in the process of being tortured to death. It's not like he could devote a tremendous amount of brain power or doctrinal analysis to bear on the subject - he was in the process of dying.
    My vote is, Jesus told him the truth, and said so literally, because there simply wasn't time for anything else.

    • Reply by Susan on 2015-12-16 18:43:31

      I agree with GWIT, that Jesus will be coming back to join Heaven and Earth in a NEW creation that is really beyond our capacity to comprehend. Rev 21:1-3
      Consider possible new laws of physics, because what about the fact that our current middle-aged sun will go Red Giant to White Dwarf at some point? :-)
      As for the thief on the cross getting an undeserved reward, I believe Jesus' parable in Matt 20:13-15 addresses just such generosity. When it comes down to it, undeserved kindness is what all of us need. "We all fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) - but that doesn't seem to stop us from comparing distances.

      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 19:34:33

        I like your "out of the box" creative thinking, but I am not sure how or why new laws of physics are needed. The laws we even know about are extraordinarily complex. If new laws were made, it seems like that would mean the existing laws were inadequate. God seems to have been perfectly capable of creating the universe and living things on earth with the existing laws. Does He really new ones?
        As for the sun changing, the sun and the stars are billions of years old, while we are but a blink of an eye in comparison. Are we really so sure of our facts here? Surely God can alter the sun, if He so chooses, perhaps to "recharge" it with a new supply of hydrogen, to keep it running, just like we recharge our cell phone when the battery gets low. He has not revealed the technical aspects of His creation to us in the Bible, because people in Bible times would not have understood anyway, and besides, that is not what mankind needs. What good is it to have a total grasp of celestial mechanics if you're just going to grow old and die? What humans need more than facts and technology is to be reconciled with God. THEN, when we are at peace with Him and each other, we would be better prepared to handle and understand the intricacies of the universe. People today would just misuse such knowledge and try to make weapons out of it or something, wouldn't they.
        We must understand that when the Bible speaks of a new heavens and a new earth, it uses such language with the intention that persons of ordinary understanding would derive meaning from it. Anyone from any time in history could understand the concept of a righteous government and righteous persons at peace with God, but no one would have understood the intricacies of the inner workings of stars. We must be careful not to overthink the Bible's message and try to show-horn some modern-day technology-inspired viewpoint. The Bible's message is a simple one, understandable by persons of all backgrounds and lives throughout history. A correct understanding of it needs to be framed in such a context.

        • Reply by Susan on 2015-12-16 20:35:56

          Hi TRA, :-)
          I certainly can agree we look forward to a new government and persons at peace with God, but I don't see that our eternal future necessarily is to resemble current conditions.
          As to the Creation: Romans 8:19-22
          As to Humans: 1 Corinthians 15:42-49
          Yes, a Biblical MESSAGE of change is simple, but as to God's mechanisms: 1 Corinthians 2:9

          • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 11:55:13

            We just don't know what the future holds. All we can say is that God will handle matters to our benefit.
            Consider 3:10-13: "Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a hissing noise, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be discovered. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which [the] heavens being on fire will be dissolved and [the] elements being intensely hot will melt! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell."
            Some people have thought these verses mean that the earth will be burned up and destroyed, while others view it as metaphorical. I have often thought there could be a third understanding.
            We know that the earth's surface is constructed of massive "tectonic plates". Over the course of many thousands of years, the 'edges' of these plates will 'dive down' toward the center of the earth and get consumed, while on the other sides of them, new land will emerge, first as hardened volcanic ash, then eventually that will break down and become soil and then productive land. It is indeed a fiery process, but would not happen instantly. Eventually, the entire earth's surface will be made new and pristine, just as it was in Eden - but for a complete 'recycling' of the earth's surface, it may take hundreds of thousands of years. But, doesn't that make sense? Everything on earth is designed to recycle and renew itself. Isn't it a heartwarming prospect to think that all the damage done by so-called "civilization" can be wiped clean, and we can start fresh? In the future, God's children will not have to live on a scarred, polluted, abused planet, but one as clean and fresh at the one presented to Adam and Eve.
            Our Father is not going to discard our home, but He will make it fresh and new again. It is something that is impossible to man to achieve, but it's not impossible for Him.

            • Reply by Susan on 2015-12-17 18:02:57

              Yes, and I did like your idea of God recharging the sun with hydrogen.

            • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-18 06:24:07

              TRA ? Amen and there will be peace and oxigen tasting like champagne bubbles ?

        • Reply by Claudelle on 2015-12-17 00:46:57

          These are not new laws of physics. They are simply waiting for us to discover and explore.
          These unknowns have always existed. We are limited at this stage. Creativity is the key to making some progress and sense of what is in the bible. There are clues throughout the bible., We who like the printed word, are the ones who like a black and white definition of everything. This is a dangerous mistake and has caused pain and grief for thousands of years. I like "out of the box thinking" it is the most creative thing our creator gave us.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-17 06:03:10

        I try not to concern myself with events that are more than 1.2 billion years in the future, give or take a million years. Anything closer than that keeps me up at night. :)
        There is this, however:
        25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself,
        And the heavens are the work of your hands.
        26 They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing;
        And just like a garment they will all of them wear out.
        Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn.
        (Ps 102:25, 26)
        When clothing wears out, we replace it. I'm sure He who dresses in the fabric of the universe will know what to do. I just want to be there to see it for myself.

        • Reply by Susan on 2015-12-17 08:01:16

          Right! Back to BEING children of God! :-)

    • Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-17 09:55:01

      TRA said: "In regard to the new heavens and new earth, we must ask, why would the literal heavens need to be replaced? The stars and planets that occupy the universe are inanimate objects. It is not as though they could do anything “wrong” or deserve “punishment”. But if we view the heavens and earth as figurative, it makes sense. Yes, WT has proposed that “heavens” mean the established ruling arrangement, and the “earth” meant the subjects of that government. I don’t see anything wrong with such a concept. (I know WT is greatly in the wrong on many things, but not all of them. I happen to agree with this particular interpretation.)"
      Hi TRA :)
      Just because it doesn't make sense to us or we feel the old creation is perfectly fine is not a vaild reason IMO to reinterpret this scripture as figurative because we cannot wrap our mind around it or theology. It must be figurative because why would God do ..... is sort of like the JW reason for hellfire . ( Not saying I believe in hellfire)
      So as to not HIjack Meleti's article I know we can agree with :
      "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2.
      JW's don't believe that they are children of God. I strongly believed that I was not a Child of God until I was convicted by the HS that I am. Once I was able to dismantle this false doctrine for myself ( by means of the debates and readings on this site) I was set free . The illumanation of the REAL good news of Christ was able to shine through!

• Reply by bjfox1 on 2015-12-17 00:17:29

  Hey TRA, I agree with some of what you said. I am leaning to the conclusion the people mentioned in Rev 5:9-10 'out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation', are the same ones mentioned in Rev 7:9-17 and who are also said to be 'out of all the nations and tribes and peoples and tongues'. But what confuses me is, yes Rev 5:10 says they rule as kings 'upon' the earth but Rev 7:9 says they are standing 'before the throne and before the Lamb' so I take this to mean they are in heaven; even if not all the time, but at some point. Plus they had come out of he great tribulation and 7:15 '. . rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple. .', thus IN heaven. So are these the same people or not?
  John 'saw' that, but concerning the the 144,000 just prior to that in the same chapter he says he 'HEARD(not saw) the number of those who were sealed, 144,000..." He tells the angels not to harm the earth or sea or trees until after the 144000 are sealed. . .as if still on earth.
  It is only later (though I can't say all this is in chronological order) in Rev 14: that the 144000 are mentioned again.. . 14:1 says they are with the Lamb on mount zion(is that to be taken literally as Earth?) .and then they are singing a new song and are called 'firstfruits to God and to the Lamb'. . .. but they are before the throne(so in heaven). ... or art least someone was singing a song and they, the 144000, were the only ones who were able to master the song/sound that John heard. And since John says he heard the sound 'out of heaven' does that mean it came from heaven and could be heard on earth while the Lam stood upon Mount Zion? And yes John says 144000 were bought (note: not brought) from the earth. So they were purchased from the earth. So . . .is that like my car: I bought from my dealership but take it home. .though i can go back to the dealership anytime I want with the car? JOhn says the 144000 follow the Lamb no matter where he goes(rev 14: 4). So does that mean they could have been in heaven but followed Jesus to earth and was on earth with the Lamb as he stood on Mount zion? Or is Mount Zion really in heaven. LOL -- I am clearly confused. I admit that.
  I just can't seem to put the pieces all together. How much to take literally and how much is symbolism.
  .

  • Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-17 10:21:40

    I had questions like yourself. But another key to understanding the whole scenario (which I rejected at first), is this: Jesus did not preexist. At first I thought this was some crazy idea from an individual. But it is the Jewish concept. You can study this in depth. The book of John is the only book that may raise questions, since he used expressions like "I am from the realms above" and so on. But the Bible is from the realms above as well. Doesn't mean it was literally there. I have always been fascinated by John 1:1. It stands out as different. It sounds technical in structure. Why? Jesus was the "Logos". The divine plan of God. John was expressing Christ's origins. I have studied all the scriptures related to this matter. I encourage others to do this as well. Once you understand this, everything comes together. Jesus is the "second Adam". He replaces him. Jesus became God's son just like Adam. He will return just lije he said and will rule on the earth with his chosen ones just like he said. Again, like I mentioned in my last reply, if you understand this, the Bible becomes a storybook with little interpretation. I have never loved and appreciated Christ so much. He indeed learned obedience from the things he suffered. When Jesus said to the evildoer, "You will be with me in Paradise", the evildoer understood his words as they were spoken.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-17 10:38:40

      Hi Vincent,
      I disagree with this interpretation. I believe it dishonors our Lord and is inconsistent with the Scriptural record. However, since you've raised it, you are welcome to make your case. Please use of DiscussTheTruth.com for that purpose.
      Meleti Vivlon

    • Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-17 11:26:51

      We have discussed this vigorously:
      http://discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=288&start=80&hilit=preexistence
      http://discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=142&hilit=did+jesus+always+exist
      I am looking forward to your thoughts!

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 21:46:25

      Vincent, it does make sense that Paradise is on earth, and Christ is returning visibly to earth, and will likely meet this man from the past again in the resurrection. When Christ appears again as a man, it will be in a temporary, materialized body, not the body in which he was put to death. If he were to literally reclaim his executed body, it would amount to taking back the ransom sacrifice, something that would never happen. It is reasonable to conclude that when Christ returns, it will be primarily to assist the earthly kings and priests in their new role as earth's administrators. Once the earthly administrators are fully trained and prepared to successfully carry out their responsibilities to the satisfaction of God and Christ, Christ will return back to the heavens, and in all likelihood will not return again. His time while visibly present on earth may constitute some or all of the thousand-year reign. When his work is finished, he would return to the heavens, since that is where he belongs - that is where he was "born" and is his home - and the earth is our home, where we belong.

    • Reply by Menrov on 2015-12-18 08:44:17

      I sometimes wonder why a JEWISH concept or view would be more reliable than a Western, non-Jewish view. The Jews did not have a very good reputation regarding loyalty to God or when it comes to paganism or false gods and their views of Jesus where rather unfriendly. And I am referring to the Jewish nation or their religious leaders. I know that many individuals did not follow them in these bad practices.
      I am not saying Western are by default better but I also do not believe it is correct to assume these Western views are by default worse than the Jewish views.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 16:47:27

    Hello bjfox1,
    I will try my best to answer your questions. Like everyone else, I am mystified by much of Revelation, especially since from our perspective here, so much of what WT has taught us on these and other matters has proven untrustworthy. I will repeat what I have said previously, that we need to examine the scriptures carefully, apply our best reasoning ability, and then humbly admit that we could right or we could be wrong. Here goes ... and again, apologies for the long post.
    Revelation 5:9-10: "And they sing a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings ON [not OVER] the earth."
    Revelation 7:9-10: "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: "Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb."
    Revelation 7:15: "That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them."
    Now consider Revelation 21:2-3: "I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them."
    What do we notice about this? New Jerusalem comes down - people do not go up to meet it. The tent of God is with mankind, not the other way around. And, the One seated on the throne (God) spreads his tent over them.
    It seems reasonable to conclude that the "tent" is on earth. That is where mankind is.
    Then, how should we understand being "before the throne"? In Revelation, when the expression "before the throne" is used, "before" translates the Greek word "enopion". This can mean "before", but can also mean, "before the face of", "in the presence of", "in the eyes of", or "in the sight of". Because of this, we must ask, Just how close does someone need to be to the throne, in order to be considered as "BEFORE the throne"?
    Those who believe that all Christians have a destiny in heaven as resurrected spirit persons would answer, 'The only way to be "before" the throne is to be right next to it, in heaven'.
    Now, a throne - even a heavenly one - does not literally have 'eyes' of its own. Only the one SEATED on the throne has eyes, correct? So, if "enopion" is understood as "in the sight of the throne", and we know that God is seated on the throne, it must mean "in the sight of God who is seated on the throne".
    Is God, who is seated on His throne in heaven, capable of seeing his human servants on earth? Yes.
    But, what about the temple? Isn't the temple in heaven?
    The key to understanding this is 1 Corinithians 3:16-17: "Do you not know that you people are God's temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] you people are."
    So, Christians - you "people" - ARE the temple of God. If PEOPLE are the temple, then the temple is on earth.
    But if that is so, how can it say that the great crowd is "rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple"?
    Let us accept that not all Christians will be kings and priests, but only some of them, even though ALL of them are considered to be God's children. Then, that minority of persons who have the (temporary) assignment as kings and priests - on earth - will constitute the temple of God. How, then, do the great crowd - persons who are Christians and children of God but NOT kings or priests - render sacred service in the temple, if the temple is on earth and not in heaven?
    They would do so by giving their full cooperation and support to the earthly "temple" - those human administrators of earth's affairs who are assigned that role by God. Those human rulers, and their human subjects, work together - side by side, hand in hand. Thus, the human subjects are "in" the temple because they literally, physically, work together with those administrators to restore and care for the earth to come.
    As for the other things you mentioned, John "hears" a voice from heaven, but this is clearly part of his vision. Even if literal, hearing a voice from heaven does not mean any humans are IN heaven. Likewise, John was on the island of Patmos, but says he "saw" a "lamb" standing on "Mount Zion". John could not have literally seen Mount Zion from so many hundreds of miles away on Patmos, nor would he have seen an actual lamb. These are symbolic terms.
    Finally, there is Revelation 14:3-5: "And they are singing as if a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been bought from the earth. 4 These are the ones that did not defile themselves with women; in fact, they are virgins. These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, 5 and no falsehood was found in their mouths; they are without blemish."
    In the scriptures, "earth" nearly always means the world of mankind, rather than the physical planet we walk on. Genesis 11:1 says, "Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words." That clearly refers to people, not the planet.
    So, when the 144,000 are "bought from the earth", it is not necessary that they be removed from Planet Earth to be bought from it. All that is necessary is that they are no part of the world of mankind, in the sense that Jesus meant it at John 15:19.
    According to Strong's, the Greek word for "bought" can also mean "redeemed" or "ransomed", and that is how many translations render this. To be redeemed means more than merely being bought or purchased; it carries the connotation of being rescued. By a person becoming a child of God, they have been redeemed or rescued from death to life, rescued from the world of mankind in general that is alienated from God. Having a solid hope, granted by means of the spirit, that one has the real prospect of living as a child of God, does not require a person to leave the earth. They can have that hope right here.
    That's how I see things. Hope this is some help.

    • Reply by bjfox1 on 2015-12-20 16:52:25

      TRA,
      yes, that does help a lot. ( Oh and I have no problem with a long post) That does make sense. So this is what I see from what you said:
      Revelation 5:9-10: “And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings ON [not OVER] the earth.”
      These rule ON earth. Also, after reading what you said about not everyone of them being a king/priest, I realized from that scripture, what it DIDN'T say. It never did say ALL of them were going to be kings and priest; as in every tribe and tongue and people and nation of people would be kings and priest. It just said he 'bought persons . .. out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation . ' That is like me saying members of Congress are out of every state in the union; as in there is as least one representative from each state for all the people in each state. Or like if a talent scout said he was looking for players from the Univerisity of Arkansas for his basketball team, he wouldn't mean he wanted all the thousands of students that went there and not even every basketball player there at the school. He would want, however many he did want, to come from there.
      Revelation 7:9-10: “After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”
      So yeah, I defiantly thing this great crowd is a further detail of the people mentioned in 5:9-10. And I can see standing before the throne doesn't necessarily mean they are up in heaven close to God's thrown. I even include the phrase at times in my own prayer at times ' . . .to approach YOUR throne of undeserved kindness . . . ' and defiantly are not imagining myself in heaven.
      Revelation 7:15: “That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them.”
      And yes I can the sacred service day and night in his temple . .. .his temple being on earth.
      WHat you said here: 'As for the other things you mentioned, John “hears” a voice from heaven, but this is clearly part of his vision. Even if literal, hearing a voice from heaven does not mean any humans are IN heaven. Likewise, John was on the island of Patmos, but says he “saw” a “lamb” standing on “Mount Zion”. John could not have literally seen Mount Zion from so many hundreds of miles away on Patmos, nor would he have seen an actual lamb. These are symbolic terms.'
      At this point I can see what I said was all mixed up. Though I don't go along with where you say 'JOhn was on the island of Patmos, but says he saw the lamb standing on Mount Zion. John could not have literally seen Mount Zion from so many hundreds of miles away on Patmos . .. '
      It was my understanding that in John's vision, after the part about the 7 congregations, he'd been taken up to heaven:
      Rev 4:1-2 - 1After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet,+ speaking with me, saying: “Come on up* here,+ and I shall show you the things that must take place.”+ 2 After these things I immediately came to be in [the power of the] spirit: and, look! a throne+ was in its position in heaven,+ and there is one seated upon the throne.'
      However that was meant, literally or vision wise, I was thinking his position or prospective or point of view was in/from heaven. And going on that assumption , he only 'heard' the voice, as opposed to seeing a great crowd. For example, I could be in my house in my livingroom and only hear a noise of the mailman pushing the mail through the slot, but could see my dog jumping at the door. I am sure the animal I see is my dog, but am only assuming the person on the other side of the door is my mailman. It could be the boy giving me the marketing ads for the week. (So actually this is a moot point since later John SAW them on mount Zion and as you said, Mount Zion is (or could be) on earth.)
      This all makes sense, though in all honesty, I will still be digging. But thank you so much for your insight I am also going to look at the links someone included from 'discussthetruth'

• Reply by Menrov on 2015-12-17 02:03:39

  Hi TRA, nice review, just one point. In John 14:1-4, Jesus seems to confirm that He will prepare rooms in the house of His Father, John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. 3 And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. 4 And you know the way where I am going.”
  In other words, there are people going to be with Jesus in heaven as that is the place where he is.
  I agree that the kings and/or priests (depending on translation used) do not have to be in heaven and like Jesus, they will lose their role once Jesus gives back the kingdom.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 11:44:47

    Apologies in advance for the lengthy reply ...
    Many Christians have looked to John 14 as confirmation of a heavenly hope. Because the NT language regarding our future is somewhat vague, and omits many details, it is understandable why some might feel that way. It is easy to read into verses like this our own preconceived ideas, and it can be difficult to consider matters objectively. Since the scriptures don't really answer all possible questions, we run the risk of interpreting the Bible the way we want to, rather than allowing it to speak for itself. Let's try to examine this passage objectively, applying as much clear thinking as possible. In doing so, we must humbly face the fact that we, too, could be wrong. So, while being as careful as we can as we peer into this, it's important not to be dogmatic.
    The main part of the passage you cited is at John 14:1-4:
    "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me. 2 In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going my way to prepare a place for you. 3 Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be. 4 And where I am going you know the way"
    First, let's consider what this passage does, and does not say. These verses say nothing about heaven, and nothing about death and resurrection.
    Second, verse 2 says that the Father has a house. It does not say that the Father LIVES in this house - only that He HAS one. This turns out to be an extraordinarily important distinction. You might say, 'why would He have a house if He doesn't live in it'? That is a good question ...
    The Greek word for "house" in verse 2 is "oikia". According to Strong's Concordance, "oikia" can be rendered not only as "house", but as "household". What exactly is a "household"? Here are some definitions I found online:
    - "the people of a house collectively; a family including its servants"
    - "the people in a family or other group that are living together in one house"
    - "those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family"
    - "a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling"
    The main point of these definitions is to show that the word "household" concerns people, while "house" focuses on a building or structure.
    Does it make sense that Jesus would choose to frame his discussion in terms of a "household" of persons, rather than a "house" as a structure? Recall the very topic of this Beroean Pickets article: "The other sheep are God's children too". Isn't the prospect of being children of God overwhelmingly more important than the particulars of where we might eventually live? If we have God's approval, who cares WHERE we live? Isn't His approval what is most important?
    To illustrate, an earthly father may have several grown children, and while they have moved away from the house they grew up in and now homes of their own, those grown children are still part of their father's "household" - or, we might say, their father's "estate". They don't actually need to keep physically living in their father's physical house to be part of his household.
    We can also consider the Greek word for "abodes", which is "monai". This has been translated variously as "rooms", "places", "dwelling places", "mansions", "resting places" and "dwellings". The New Living Translation has a very interesting way of wording this: "There is more than enough room in my Father's home." Strong's also shows "lodging" as a possible translation.
    Verse 2 also discussing Jesus preparing a "place" for his followers. In Greek, "place" comes from the word "topon". In addition to its primary meaning of "place", Strong's tells us that it can mean 'a portion of space marked of from its surroundings', 'an inhabited place like a city or village'. It can also be understood metaphorically as 'the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly' or as the 'opportunity, power, occasion for acting'.
    Because much of John 14 discusses unity, it is not unreasonable to consider that when Jesus was preparing a "place" for his followers, this preparation work involved reconciling their status (at the time) as imperfect, sinful humans with his perfect and righteous Father, no doubt as a result of applying the ransom sacrifice on their behalf. The 'preparation work' need not consist of literally setting aside some space in heaven to 'make room for the new arrivals' so to speak.
    Consider the remaining verses in John 14. They speak at length of Jesus' followers being in unity with him and with his Father. They already had that unity right there, as Jesus spoke so kindly to them on the night before he died. It seems clear that a major factor, if not the deciding factor, in being in his Father's "house" or "household" was, not one's particular physical location, but one's being in unity with Him.
    Some might counter this by saying, 'Wasn't Jesus saying that he and his Father would be with them?' To this I would reply, consider the very last sentence in Matthew (28:20), the parting statement to his disciples: "And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." We know from the scriptures that, without question, Jesus ascended to heaven, but his disciples have been here, on the earth, for the last 2,000 years. So how could Jesus be "with" his disciples, if they were clearly separated?
    Just consider the ways in which the word "with" can be used. The most common use describes when two people or things are in the same place at the same time; a word to describe this situation is "co-located". But, is being "co-located" the only way to understand "with"? No. We use expressions such as "are you with me?" and "I'm with you on that". We take this to mean that one person understands, or is in agreement with, another person, or that the two persons are "on the same side" by cooperating and working together on some matter, and that they support each other.
    It is in that sense that we can understand Jesus being "with" his disciples. He clearly has love for his disciples, supports their efforts, and saw to it that holy spirit was bestowed upon his followers to help them. He did these things even though he was in heaven while his followers were on earth. He was unquestionably "on their side". Did he and his followers have to be "co-located" for this to happen? Did they have to be resurrected as spirit persons and live in heaven with God and Christ for this to take place? No. Despite their physical separation, Jesus was still "with" them.
    Thirdly, if we assume the correct translation in verse 2 is "house" rather than "household", it causes problems. Consider 1 Kings 8:27: "But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built!"
    How could Jesus' disciples possibly die, be resurrected as spirit persons, and go live "with" God in "God's house", if "the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain" Him? And, again, John 14 does not say that God LIVES in a house - only that He HAS one. Trying to make this word "oikia" mean "house" thus results in an interpretation that does not make sense and is inconsistent with other parts of the Bible, while understanding it to mean "household" does make sense, and does not have any of the problems caused by a translation as "house".
    Fourthly, there is a crucial element in this account that we cannot overlook. In verse 3, he says, "Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be." Note the direction: Jesus says he is coming to his followers, not that his followers are coming to him. But, if Christians die, get resurrected as spirit beings and go to heaven, shouldn't this be saying that THEY are going to HIM, and not the other way around?
    This thought is expanded on in John 14-22-23: "Judas, not Iscariot, said to him: "Lord, what has happened that you intend to show yourself plainly to us and not to the world?" 23 In answer Jesus said to him: "If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him." Again, if Christians are resurrected and go to heaven, why does he now say that not only he, but his Father, would reside with THEM, and not vice versa?
    One more confirmation of this is found in Revelation 21:2-3: "I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples." Why doesn't it say that people will ascend to heaven to be part of New Jerusalem, and why don't those people go to heaven to abide in the tent of God? Surely if there were a heavenly hope, these verses ought to confirm that. But they don't.
    Well, that is my take on this. As noted in the outset, I could be wrong. But, there does seem to valid reasons for concluding that John 14 is not speaking about a future in heaven for Jesus' followers, but is concerned with the spiritual unity between God, Christ and his earthly followers.

    • Reply by Menrov on 2015-12-18 08:37:36

      Thanks for your feedback. Interesting view, I need to re-read it to fully understand your views :-). Nevertheless, my point was not that all believers or followers of Christ will go to heaven, but just that the apostles, Verse 3 and 4 of John 14 do carry that thought in my view. I agree house can mean place:
      3G2532And G1437whenever G4198I should go G2532and G2090should prepare G1473for you G5117a place, G3825again G2064I will come G2532and G3880take G1473you 4314to G1683myself; G2443that G3699where G1510.2.1I am,G1473 G2532[3 also G14731you G1510.32should be].
      4 G2532And G3699where G1473I G5217go G1492you know,G2532and G3588the G3598way G1492you know.
      As I read it, Jesus will come to take or bring them where He is. Like He will call them. If Jesus is in heaven, they'll be there too, if in the air/clouds, they'll be there too, if on earth, they'll be there too.
      My point was more in reaction to your view that no-one will go to heaven. I believe you cannot exclude that option.

      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-18 11:18:06

        Hello Menrov,
        I know there are countless billions of religious adherents that have been raised and taught that people go to heaven, or some form of it, when they die - both inside and outside of Christian religions. They look upon this prospect with great fondness and reverence. That is as true for JWs as anyone else. The average JW views the "anointed class" with awe and wonder. It is extraordinarily hard to let go of such feelings, for the very fact that FEELINGS are involved, and these are hard to reason against. We don't want to let go of those feelings, because, well, we don't want to.
        To come to an understanding of the truth, we have to set aside our feelings and personal opinions, and allow the Bible to speak for itself. As far as this "heavenly hope doctrine" is concerned, my personal opinion might be of some assistance, to me, as I do research on it, but at the end of the day, my opinion is not that important.
        You are correct in saying I cannot exclude the option of going to heaven. That is true, because I am not the one excluding it. The Bible does that all by itself. All I am doing is pointing out what I have found.
        It must be admitted, whatever our beliefs are, that the idea that a human being could possibly have their nature transformed so that they no longer consist of physical matter, but of some kind of invisible, spiritual 'substance', and then be transported to the very presence of the creator of the universe, is extraordinary. A phrase made popular by Carl Sagan goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is wisdom in that statement.
        Because being transformed into a spirit person goes contrary to any evidence we can see with our eyes, to entertain belief in such a thing would at the very least require some clear explanation from an authority on the subject. Christians would conclude that Jesus is the foremost such expert, and we would also depend on the inspired words of other Bible writers for assistance.
        That being so, what does the scriptural evidence tell us? Here is the "acid test": Where in the Bible does is say, in "plain English", that "when a faithful Christian dies, they will be resurrected as a non-corporeal spirit being, and will be transported to heaven to reside forever in bless in the very presence of the creator of the universe"? Try as you may, there is not a single verse that says this. That's the biggest, and most severe, problem with this doctrine.
        There are some other serious problems as well. We have the Genesis account telling us that the creation of the earth and man was "very good". We know that the wording of the Bible NEVER exaggerates -and if anything, it understates things. For God to declare that His works are "very good" is extremely high praise in biblical language. The scriptures also tell us that the heavens belong to God, while He has given the earth to the sons of men. And, He says He didn't create the earth for nothing, but to be inhabited.
        So, if our physical lives on this physical world that He gave us are so good, why would we be taken away from this world? Or rather, why would this world - His gift to us - be taken away from us? Has God changed His mind as to His estimation of His creation's goodness? That seems very unlikely.
        In addition, if God created the world to be inhabited, but good people go to heaven while bad people are put to death as divine punishment, where does that leave the earth? Abandoned? What should we conclude? Is it a case of, "will that last person leaving the earth for heaven please turn the lights out before you go"?
        If we believe some people go to heaven, but others also happen to have God's approval do not, then there are "two flocks" of approved persons, one group in heaven and one on earth. But Jesus said the two would become one flock. We can be separated, or we can be together, but we can't be both at the same time. As soon as you insist that "some" people go to heaven, and "some" don't, there are two flocks. It cannot be so, unless Jesus was not telling us the truth. I accept Jesus' words on this matter, that there will be one, and only one, flock.
        Since God tells us that He made the earth to be inhabited, and that the righteous would inherit the earth and live forever upon it, all that is necessary is to perform a process of elimination. What alternative is left, that both makes sense AND is in harmony with the ENTIRE Bible? There is simply no possibility remaining but to conclude that no one is going to heaven, and that we will ALL be here on earth.
        Jesus went to heaven, because he was created in heaven, he came from heaven, and he returned to his 'home'. He is God's son. He belongs there, by His side, where he was presumably for uncounted eons of time in the past. We were born on earth, and we belong here.
        Truly, what business do we have in heaven, anyway? What would we even do once we got there? We can't say, "to be kings and priests" because that assignment ends after the thousand years. At the end of that time, everyone will have a direct relationship with God, and we will not need kings to rule us or priests to teach us or to intercede for our sins, because all those failures of the past will be in the past. We will ALL be sinless, righteous children of God. There will be utterly no need for any humans to be divided from any other humans. We are in this together. We are one human family, and it will stay that way.
        Even during the time the kings and priests rule the earth, how would they convey messages to the humans that live here? How does a spirit person rule over a physical person? By remote control? By spirits "possessing" some people to acts as spokesman for the spirit realm? By a new generation of "prophets"? Doesn't it make more sense for the kings and priests to be HERE, as real people, ruling and assisting us, side by side? It certainly seems so to me.
        We don't need to be in heaven, and we don't need kings and priests in heaven. We belong here, all of us.

• Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-17 09:43:40

  I absolutely agree. When I first left the Watchtower, I had no desire to go to heaven. Absolutely no desire. Made no sense. But what choice did I have at that point? Then my friend introduced me to this thought. At first I rejected the thought without any research. But then I did deep research. What I found is absolutely amazing!!! The Bible became a book that I could relax and read like a storybook. When Yahweh makes a promise, he means what he says. The promise to Abraham will be fulfilled in a literal sense. His words in Micah 4:2 will be accomplished. I recommend people to look deeply into this. The Bible becomes the most simple, the most beautiful book you ever read. I will never look at the Bible the same. The Bible becomes a book that needs no interpretation in this matter. Absolutely beautiful!
  Psalms, 115:16 - The heavens are the heavens of Yahweh; but the earth has he given to the children of men.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 21:59:39

    Vincent, I couldn't agree more. When I suspected that no one was going to heaven, I started searching and cross-referencing everything in the Bible about heaven. About the time Ray Franz was expelled from the GB, a document was circulating around Bethel, called "Where Is The Great Crowd Serving God?" They concluded that the Greek word "naos" meaning "temple" or "temple courtyard" was used both to describe the location where the 144,000 were located and where the great crowd was. They were astounded, but their reaction was that it must have meant that both were in heaven. That conclusion got a bunch of people DF'd for apostasy, since it sounds like the "all good people go to heaven when they die" refrain of orthodox Christians. I have long believed that God would not abandon the earth, since the Bible clearly says, He did not make it for nothing, but to be inhabited. I put two and two together, and wow! It now made sense. These two groups are in the same "naos" because they are BOTH on EARTH.
    If we now go back, and revisit everything the Bible says about mankind's future, and what is does and doesn't say about heaven, EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE. Only Christ went to heaven, because he belongs there. We will be here, because we belong here. And, exactly as you point out, the promises of God now are totally comprehendible by the average person, and it doesn't require a degree in theology or decades of study to figure it out.
    Does that make it not only simple, but beautiful and amazing? YES. I'd go so far as to say, AWESOME.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-16 15:21:08

for you today Meleti in full agreement ..(but I knew that before my association with JW's mayhaps one reason we did not "fare well" there ...
CHILDBIRTH
You have consummated the dream
upon its fertile mind have given birth
your Sons are to be Kings for ruling in the earth
like life I wish that we would never part
our connection like the beating of one heart
because I have believed your heart was true
therefore did I give mine permanently to you
You have shown me a love of Sons of Men
not of his clothing but what he hides within
you didst reveal this by your own right hand
did speak soft words until we could understand
You saw not my skin or what one outside see
you gazed within looked upon the real me
Enfolded in your arms just like a child
your forgiveness and tender mercies mild
where you hold us until each of us can hear
understand completely the Words spoken in our ear
Love should have been the first thing
you met when you were born
the warm embrace which followed
when from wombs comfort torn
Cradle me my Beloved in your arms
hold at a distance all of my alarms
I want to walk with you
until there’s endless days
seek the crown of creation
and understanding of his ways
pleasant are the days I spend with you
my Lord , just master of his house
to you my one only
is my heart espoused
Like a mighty warrior you have mounted up
the valor of your deeds have filled my every cup
without you near my heart is empty still
but cries with its distress
until with you my life instill
As bird you gathered us beneath your wings
your endearment descends like mountains streams
there within the wilderness were we broken
until we received knowledge of the promise spoken
Songs of the Kings
COPYRIGHT © 2012 C. Michael Miller
via Duboff Law Group LLC

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-16 15:22:14

opps meant to post that as a separate comment ..

Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-16 16:07:57

1 john 5;1 NLT Is interesting meleti it says that EVERYONE who believes jesus is the christ has become a child of god .as you correctly say there is no second class christian . Its obvious to most bible readers who the other sheep of john 10 ; 16 are anyway yet again the whole concept is based on a misinterpretation of the verse perhaps to make it fit thier own ideas . I also think that even if there are those christians who will enjoy special assignments wether in heaven or earth it does not make them a different class of christian . We can all be part of gods family where ever we live in the universe or whatever rank we may have . Is this not true of the angels .

Comment by Menrov on 2015-12-17 02:19:04

Thanks Meleti. Every now and then I try to discuss this topic with my wife. And every time she denies that she is or can be considered a child of God. Her reply is always: no, I just support the little flock. Last time she asked me what I think of the words in 1 John 5:19 which reads: We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. She wanted to discuss the latter part (not uncommon for JW's to only discuss a few words of a verse). I commented that the verse and actually the verses before this verse are address to those "fathered by God". So I asked, if you are from God as verse 19 says, that God is your Father and your are considered His Child. She did not accept that view and repeated she support that group. Ok, I said, but if that is true, meaning you are not from God, then this verse actually says that you are in the world, which is in the power of the evil one....well, that the end of the discussion... :-)
It seems that the idea or concept that a true believer can be considered a child of God is an apostate idea to them/her. Or if they would accept this scriptural view, that the must admit that the WT is wrong....not sure what is more scary to them / her....

• Reply by Willy on 2015-12-17 09:16:52

  Have patience with your wife, it has to sink in and this takes time. I know I am in the same situation with my hubby, while I am awakening and this is difficult enough. We have to take care of our family too, because we love them and we want them on the same page as us.

  • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-17 10:40:55

    She is probably terrified of letting any other viewpoint of the scriptures in to her mind apart from the one taught by the witnesses . The fear of being misled from the so called truth grips people the fear of letting anyone else in to the mind apart from ( jehovah ) . People dont trust thier own power of reason . This is what is drummed into the witnesses . That they are not to think for themselves . Love is the answer .

    • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-17 12:57:39

      Father jack, I agreed with your comment and share your view!

  • Reply by Justanotherpublisher on 2015-12-20 09:48:25

    This is true. I have been "awakened" for some time now, and after a lifetime of "theocratic progress" (have you ever noticed that when a brother asks you, how are you doing? or how is so and so doing? It usually is referring to How you or So and So are "progressing" in the congregation?). I understand that with my wife I must be really patient. I have spoken to her in a kind manner about disagreements I now have with WT doctrine. AT first is was a big surprise for her, as I was an Elder for many years, and held so many "privileges" in the org. But now when we speak, she listens to me and even agrees on a lot of subjects. However, she still has a great zeal, although it may be misdirected, I do not want to "wake" her up rapidly. She needs to take this at her own time. I will continue to support her because I was there as well.
    I can't get enough of how we are God's Children. I love it! Thanks

Comment by 1984 on 2015-12-17 16:05:55

Great article Meleti, and good comment TRA, everything you say makes sense. I'm wondering if somebody could solve something for me? I really struggle with Revelation 20:5 and where it fits in chronologically. If you take it at face value, it would appear that everybody not part of the first resurrection (the kings) are part of the second resurrection which happens at the end of the 1,000 year reign, only to be judged immediately, which doesn't seem fair or make sense - after all who will the kings reign over? But then why are they referred to as "the dead" - it seems a stretch to suggest this is just figurative and not literal. The parenthesis are added which changes the meaning but is also problematic. I understand the Watchtower's reasoning on this verse, but as so much they have taught has turned out to be false I'm reconsidering everything. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-17 22:23:21

  The rendering of Revelation 20:5 is problematic. First, it is important to note that the Greek text does not contain parentheses, much less any other kind of punctuation - and some texts don't even put spacing between words but run everything together. (Try proof-reading THAT.) It turns out that only about half the English translations use the parentheses. Some even switch the ordering of the phrases in this verse. These translation choices can cause the reader to infer some subtle connotations about what is or is not being conveyed here, and those inferences may or may not have been intended by John when he wrote this.
  First, Revelation tells us flat out that it a vision, given in signs. So, we are forewarned that it is symbolic. But, not every single, solitary thing is symbolic - otherwise, we'd be scratching our heads wondering what the name "John" was "symbolic" of. We'd go crazy reading it, and we'd never understand anything. Still, since we know the book is symbolic, we have to exercise care in deciding what is or is not literal.
  Could it be possible that "the rest of the dead coming back to life" is figurative? Compare this to the account of the "two witnesses" in Revelation 11 that were "killed" and then came back to life. Is this literal or symbolic? It does seems like it's symbolic. If so, for "the rest of the dead" to come to life in some manner that is figurative must be considered as a possibility.
  Consider Colossians 2:13-14: "Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us". Ephesians 2 expresses a similar thought. The people these words were spoken to were not literally dead, but were "spiritually" dead by being alienated from God. Perhaps the expression "as good as dead" might be applicable here. In the same way that Adam and Eve took almost 1,000 years to die but were said to have "died" the day they sinned, during the time they remained on the earth, God no doubt viewed them "as good as dead". Perhaps what is being spoken of in Revelation revolves around the same concept.
  I am not certain if that completely answers the question you had in mind, but it's the best I can come up.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-18 08:20:14

    I think you are on the right track, TRA. Jesus told Martha that whoever believes in him will never die at all. (John 11:25-26) Obviously Martha did exercise faith in Jesus, yet she died (as we might view death) but Jesus used the whole Lazarus episode to instruct us about God's view. He showed us that Lazarus was asleep, not dead. Jesus woke him up. The trick for us is viewing things as God sees them.
    I think that what we need are some new words. "Death" is too vague, too ambiguous. There was a book years back called "Brave New English" (if memory serves) which encouraged the reader to make up new words to fill in the gaps in English. A humorous example was "ueue" (pronounced /you ee uu ee/). It came from the last for letters of "queue" as in, "I'm in the ticket queue." It could be handy when you need a noun to describe something whose absence would have no impact on anyone or anything. Perhaps Andere can give us an example of its use. :)
    The point is, we really need new words to describe the different states of death and life to enrich our understanding of the Bible's message.

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-19 19:52:58

      Meleti,
      It is quite interesting that Jesus first tells his disciples that "Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep." (John 11:11) The reason it's interesting is that, from the standpoint of a physicist, the term "rest" simply means, "not moving". It does not mean "dead" or "non-existent".
      Perhaps it can be explained by an illustration. If we have a computer, but the computer is turned off, it's "not moving", so to speak. It's not doing anything. But, assuming the hard drive, the memory and other components are not damaged, it can "move" again by being powered on. All the things that "define" the computer, like the physical components, the way they are wired and function together, and the programs recorded on its disk drive, are still there. They just are not in an "active state". When the computer is turned on, it resumes its functioning as if nothing happened.
      Perhaps it is in this sense that Jesus meant that Lazarus was "resting". He was not moving. And, while his "components" (his fleshly organism) was in fact "damaged" due to decomposition, in the view of God who know what the "design" of Lazarus was, that damage could be undone and his body restored to "working order" again. Then, it really would be just a matter of waking Lazarus up.

      • Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-19 23:20:19

        Thanks everyone for your insights. You've given me lots to think about!

  • Reply by Meg on 2015-12-19 21:46:20

    To your very last point (and somewhat off topic), but I've recently wondered if the last 'DAYS' of 2 Tim 3:1 , where it states 'But know this..in the 'LAST DAYS' might not have similar application.
    We have the proclamation of Jehovah, as you mentioned, stating that in the 'DAY' of Adam and Eve's eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, they would surely die. (the 'DAY' meaning equivalent to 1,000 years. (2 Pet 3:8)
    Then of course, Judgement day in the new order/system is a thousand years. Rev 20:4
    Thank you for letting me interject my thoughts!
    I appreciated your comments. :)

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-19 22:40:36

      Meg, if we look at how God treated Adam and Eve, the Bible does not record Him ever speaking to them again after He pronounced sentence on them. He must have been very hurt and disappointed that they did this to Him. In His eyes, they were "as good as dead", and so their deaths in the future were certain to come about. Using a common figure of speech, we might say that "He wrote them off" and that their death sentences were "a done deal" - so certain to occur that one could treat it as if they had already occurred.
      If we view in those terms, it's not strictly necessary to "day" to symbolically mean 1,000 years, although that is still possible, even though 2 Peter 3:8 equates 1,000 years and one day.
      I have often thought this verse is saying, and conveying, far more than most commentators bring out. It says, "one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." Those two expressions are not exactly the same, and in fact, are saying two entirely different things.
      For "a thousand years to be like one day" is the easy part. God can cope with vast stretches of time, in ways that we cannot even begin to comprehend. Just as an adult sees a single day pass by very quickly, and even weeks, months and years go faster the older we get, to a child, having to wait an hour for some ice cream may seem like an eternity. Most people comprehend this.
      It's the phrase in the other direction that is intriguing. This is NOT simply a repetition of the same thing but said in reverse. Why do I say this?
      Consider from a human standpoint, what a thousand years would mean. Suppose humans were determined to accurately record as many historical details as possible for a span of a thousand years, including all the people that lived and died, what they did, where they lived, the things they said and did and accomplished, their hopes and fears, and so on. Imagine a biography being recorded, in great detail, for every human that lived on the whole earth for a thousand years. That would be a LOT of information.
      I believe what 2 Peter 3:8 is telling us is that is how observant and engaged our Father is with respect to our lives. It is NOT the case that He is so far away, so busy, so lofty that He can't be bothered to "pore over the details" of our individual lives. But rather, He is so much the opposite that in the space of one day, He is so involved and interested in our lives that the information He gathers on our activities would be comparable to the human race compiling a comprehensive history of every single person's life over the course of a thousand years.
      What does this mean? Just that God is neither put off by vast stretches of time, not is He oblivious to the fine - even minute - details of each individual person's lives. He can handle BOTH the big picture AND the intimate details. We know this is so, since Jesus told us his Father takes notice even of the passing of a small bird.
      As far as the point you brought up, I am not exactly sure what direction you were taking this. When 2 Timothy talks about the "last days", we must ask, the last days of what?
      Paul starts out in 2 Timothy on a wide range of topics, and then all of a sudden says in chapter 3, "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here." What could he have meant?
      We know from verse 2:9 that "I am suffering evil to the point of [prison] bonds". Evidently Paul ended up dying in prison. So, one possible meaning for the "last days" could be the last days of Paul's life. When that happened, Paul could no longer visit congregations or his friends like Timothy, to help them and give them advice.
      The world of that time was also facing the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, Paul could also have meant the last days of the Jewish system of things. He also could have meant the last days of the Christian congregation in its then-current form, before apostasy and corruption set in.
      The point is that there are ways to understand this that don't require we apply it to a time 2,000 years after Paul uttered the words.
      One thing I am fairly sure of is that WT has misunderstood and misapplied the entire concept of "the last days". I personally do not believe we are in the last days. That is not to say our world is not violent, troubled and difficult to live in - it is. But to say it is biblically in "the last days" in fulfillment of some prophecy is another thing altogether.
      I suspect the true nature of "the last days" is integrally connected to a correct understanding of the "generations". I do not believe ANY interpretation by WT of "generation" since the days of Russell has ever been correct.

      • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-21 06:58:59

        Hello TRA,
        But God looked after Adam and Eve by making them clothes of animal skin.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-19 22:53:01

      We've touched on this elsewhere on the site, though perhaps not in great detail. My view is that Peter's words in the opening of Acts indicate that the last days coincide with the development of Christianity.

Comment by Willy on 2015-12-18 06:33:15

Meleti, thank you ?

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-18 20:07:55

Your explanation of the other sheep is clear and correct. It is obvious that Jesus was referring to those of the gentiles who would become Christians alongside the Jewish Christians to make up one flock.

Comment by sw1 on 2015-12-28 19:21:34

Having read the entire commentary dismembering the heavenly calling, I'm left to wonder just how much anyone can re-interpret scripture before a new doctrine is created. Throwing in a "lost-in-translation" Greek argument while paying no attention to the ancient Hebrew construct, to prove nobody goes to heaven because earth is a more suitable and humble place to live, is just another conclusion made to win a preconceived argument in my opinion. Not only that, it smothers every argument thereafter with a rhetoric so excessively long and complex that I cannot think of anything but Jesus' warning words in Matt 23:4. "They bind up heavy loads." Heavy loads of what? Rhetoric that none can answer. While some might think such rhetoric is harmless, it was anything but since Jesus was in earshot of those he was accusing and they were already plotting his assassination. Simply put, it does not belong to us to interpret heavenly things before we've been there or at least given its vision.
sw

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-29 13:35:18

  Hello sw1,
  I saw that you recently posted here, and I wanted to take a few moments to reply. Since I am the one who has promoted the idea that no one is going to heaven, I am assuming you are referring to me. I cannot say I fully understand your argument, or what it is you are complaining about. I will do my best to respond.
  You seem very concerned about the issue of "rhetoric", mentioning it three times. Some definitions I found for "rhetoric" were, "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques" and "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content". (I assume you apply the second definition to me.)
  There are also "rhetorical questions", being "a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer".
  If you wish to have a serious and sincere discussion on this matter, you yourself need to be serious and sincere. If you frame the discussion about the "heavenly hope doctrine" being unscriptural as "dismembering the heavenly calling", you are treating the refutation of your cherished (but in my view, incorrect) belief as being on the same moral plane as the wrongful murder and dismembering of a human being. That, I must point out, is itself rhetoric - and not very subtle rhetoric, either.
  I must ask you, in your opinion, what is a "doctrine"? Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day, because they taught the commands of men as doctrines. Should we conclude that any discussion of scriptures that involves human reasoning and that comes to any sort of conclusion whatsoever is, by definition, "doctrine"? It is easy to arrive at such an answer. Or, do you feel that any religious statement that you personally disagree with is a "doctrine", as though the word "doctrine" has a negative connotation that borders on an insult? Are your beliefs "truth", and my beliefs "doctrine"? Is that all the Bible means to you - an "us vs. them" scenario?
  Acts 17:2-3 tells us, "So according to Paul's custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead". Was Paul 're-interpreting scripture to create a new doctrine' or simply trying to reason with these people? I would submit that if I am guilty of what you suggest of me, so was Paul.
  Earth is more than merely a "suitable" place to live. It is a very good place to live. I believe that because the Creator of the universe, the Earth, and me, directly said so in His own words, and I take His word for it.
  As for Earth being "humble", I have no knowledge of myself or anyone else here using that word. The Earth in its present condition has been materially damaged through misuse, but that can be repaired. We as humans ought to be humbled, and ashamed, of what we have done to the earth over the centuries, but I certainly don't view the Earth itself as a "humble" place, as if people were placed here in order to "humble" them or even "humiliate" them before receiving their purported better and more exalted "heavenly reward" instead of a supposedly "humble" home on Earth.
  You say that I, or someone, has been "throwing in a "lost-in-translation" Greek argument while paying no attention to the ancient Hebrew construct". I sincerely, truly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, or what this means. Perhaps you could elaborate.
  Please be assured that I have no interest in "winning a preconceived argument". First, the very fact that you don't agree with that argument is proof that I did not "win".
  Second, allow me to respectfully suggest that belief in the "heavenly hope doctrine" is the real "preconceived argument". There are billions of people who have been taught from infancy to the grave that they are going to heaven. People who are both believers in God and the Bible, and DON'T believe everyone goes to heaven, are in the tiniest of tiny minorities. You are arguing for belief in a traditional doctrine taught by orthodox Christians for 2,000 years. And you don't think YOUR view is "preconceived"?
  Pardon the irony, but you seem to go to great lengths to object to the discourse you have read, because "it smothers every argument thereafter with a rhetoric so excessively long and complex" because it 'binds up heavy loads of rhetoric that none can answer'.
  I am trying to comprehend why you feel the "length" of an argument, in and of itself, should disqualify that argument on grounds of its length alone, without any regard to its content. The Bible itself is long. Should we reject it as mere rhetoric because it contains too many words? Psalms 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible; should we avoid reading it? Acts 20 tells us of a young man named Eutychus who fell asleep because Paul was speaking so long, and he fell out a window and died. Was Paul guilty of engaging in rhetoric because he spoke so long (and made himself bloodguilty as well)? I submit that attributing words as mere "rhetoric", solely measured by the number used, is groundless. If you want to dispute that, then tell me: When does a discourse veer off into "rhetoric territory"? Are 100 words a "discussion" but 1,000 words "rhetoric"? How exactly is your "rhetoric meter" calibrated? Is it measured by a specific word-count, or simply when you personally get annoyed? (These are rhetorical questions, by the way.)
  The "heavenly hope doctrine" has been promoted for centuries, and is deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of Christians, who view it as true. Vast amounts of religious literature has been penned to extol the virtues of heavenly life. Do you seriously believe that such strongly held views could possibly be refuted in 'five words or less'? Would you be convinced if I tried? Really, if I were to provide the 'Reader's Digest version' of analyzing the "heavenly hope doctrine", it would simply make your job of ignoring its claims against that doctrine that much easier. So, if I use too many words, you will dismiss me on the grounds that it is rhetoric, but if I use too few words, you will dismiss my argument as trivial. I will say this much: You are, if nothing else, hard to please.
  What really puzzles me is when you describe this discussion as "Rhetoric that none can answer". What do you MEAN that no one can answer it? You seem quite opposed the proposition that no one goes to heaven, being very enamored of the "heavenly hope doctrine". WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER IT? WHO'S STOPPING YOU? Evidently, you are stopping yourself.
  For instance, not content with equating the rejection of the "heavenly hope doctrine" with murdering and dismembering someone, you then liken purveyors of this "rhetoric" to those that 'plotted the assassination of Jesus'. Pardon me for saying so, but the only "assassination" going on here is character assassination - and you are doing it. That also is rhetoric. You really ought to avoid labeling others in such inflammatory terms, when you are guilty of doing the same yourself. I must tell you, I find your language not only demeaning, but insulting and slanderous. I don't appreciate being referred to in that manner, and it has no place on a forum that is dedicated to honoring God.
  I am uncertain how a person could possibly avoid 'interpreting heavenly things' unless we restrict ourselves to just read the Bible, word for word, proclaim we believe it - and then never discuss it at all, never reach any conclusions, and NEVER tell anyone else what we think about it. Is THAT what you want from me? I am sorry, but you are asking too much, and what is more, you have no right to ask that of me or of anyone else.
  Instead, I will ask you some questions. And be assured, they are NOT rhetorical questions. I WANT you to answer them - if not to me, then at least to yourself. If you are so certain this "heavenly hope doctrine" is correct, then prove it. I will be the first to tell you, I could be wrong. If I am, I will retract everything I have said against it. At the same time, if you are wrong, you should accept it and live with the consequences. If we truly believe in God and Christ and the words of the Bible, then we have to accept that knowing the real truth is more important than for any of us as individuals to be personally proven right. Jesus said that wisdom is proven right by its works; or as the expression goes, "the proof is in the pudding". If I am wrong and you are right, then don't just sit there with your passive/aggressive whining about "excessive long rhetoric" and abusive insults. Prove it. Do your research, show us your facts and make your case. It is one thing to take your best shot and defend your position, and quite another to merely take pot-shots. If you want to be taken seriously, then act seriously.
  Here are some questions for you:
  1. If humans were ultimately intended for heavenly life, why create them as physical persons at all in the first place? The portrayal of life in heaven for resurrected people sounds very close, if not identical, to that of angels. The Bible portrays angels as being very numerous. If God really needed additional angels, whether now or in the future, could He not simply have made some more? If so, why did He even bother creating the Earth and the life on it, or any of the material universe for that matter?
  2. Why did none of the faithful men portrayed in the OT have a heavenly hope? Was it that they had one, and simply forget to mention it? Why, in Job 33, did Elihu, in alluding to the resurrection, refer to persons regaining flesh like that of their youth, instead of going to heaven, where they would have no need of such flesh? Why did Job himself not express such a hope? In Acts, it says that David did not go to heaven, even though David was a man after God's own heart, and was the one that prefigured Christ. Why didn't David go to heaven?
  3. The 144,000 are said by the WT to be the "anointed, heavenly class", charged with being kings and priests for a thousand years. If that is so, what happens to them after the thousand years, when they are no longer needed? Are they still in heaven? If so, what business do they have there? Or, do they become unemployed?
  4. The book of Hebrews clearly shows Jesus as going into the "reality" of the Most Holy, heaven itself, to appear before God. Why does this account NOT say that anyone else goes in with him? But it does not - it is just as clear in saying that Christ does this alone. Further, Hebrews describes Jesus as fulfilling the role of High Priest. Under the Law, on the day of Atonement, the High Priest goes into the literal Most Holy alone, and not even his associate priests are allowed to go with him. Why, then, if the Christian arrangement is the spiritual fulfillment of the Law, does Jesus go into the heavenly Most Holy alone?
  5. If you believe that all humans go to heaven when they die, or at least all approved Christians, what is to become of the Earth? Would it not end up being abandoned? How can this be reconciled with God's assurance that the Earth was not made for nothing, but was purposed to be inhabited?
  6. If you believe that some, but not all, approved Christians go to heaven when they die, then it would mean that there are two classes of approved persons - ones on Earth and ones in heaven. How do you reconcile that with Jesus' words that the two (Jews and Gentiles) would become one flock? If they lived in two different places, in two vastly different forms (one physical and one spiritual) would that not make them TWO flocks, not one? Did Jesus lie about there only being one flock?
  7. The Bible tells us that God is not partial and does not show favoritism. If there are two classes of approved persons - one on Earth and one in heaven - and being in heaven is considered a grand privilege - wouldn't God be open to the charge of showing favoritism to some of His servants and not others?
  8. If the kings and priests mentioned in the Bible are raised to life in heaven, how then do they go about the day-to-day governance of physical human beings, if those humans cannot see or hear these non-corporeal spirit creatures who are supposedly leading them? Don't persons of flesh and blood need other physical persons to speak to, to listen to, and to work together for the benefit of everyone concerned? How do they do it, exactly?
  9. Matthew 23 says, "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers." If some persons are raised to live as spirit beings, on a plane of existence totally removed from our physical lives on Earth, how can they possibly do that and still be considered our "brothers"? Wouldn't they be more like our long-lost distant relatives that we never see but get postcards or phone calls from at times? How could these invisible, spiritual overlords EVER be considered as our "brothers"? The counsel of Jesus was that there should not be divisions among his brothers, but is not the division between heaven and Earth the biggest of all possible divisions? Did Jesus lie when he made this statement?
  10. Finally, if the "heavenly hope doctrine" is correct and is actually what the Bible really teaches, then tell me please, exactly, WHERE in the Bible do we find ANYTHING corresponding to the following statement in "plain English", that "when faithful Christians die, they abandon their physical nature, are resurrected as non-corporeal spiritual persons, and are transported to heaven to be directly in the actual presence of God himself, to live out eternity in bliss". Look and search carefully, and tell me WHERE in the Bible it ACTUALLY SAYS THIS.
  So, sw1, I put it to you: Stop your own rhetoric, stop your name-calling, stop your whining, do your research, make your best case, and answer my questions.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-29 14:30:33

    The tone of this discussion is starting to deteriorate. I understand how that can happen as it has happened to me. Nevertheless, the subject matter is important and the questions raised deserve to be answered. However, BP is not the best forum for this type of discussion. I would ask you both (and anyone else wanting to contribute) to hold on to your thoughts and research for a week or two. Apollos and I are working on a way to provide for this type of discussion under a refined set of commenting guidelines. If you will grant us the time, I'm sure you'll be happy with the result.

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-30 00:29:09

      You may delete my post, if you wish.

Comment by Yehorakam on 2016-05-03 14:20:44

I have just had a quick look at all the comments. I wish I had more time to read them all. I also wish I had more time to add a longer, textually supported comment, but my circumstances don't allow it right now. But, I would like to add that from my studies of the scriptures, my conclusion is that the other sheep are Gentiles who have been brought into a covenant relationship, a covenant for a kingdom. Any not in the covenant do not benefit. One or more commentators have expressed that it is hard for some to believe that all Christians will be going to heaven. We must qualify that. It is only TRUE Christians who have exercised the faith of Abraham, accepted the reproach of the Christ and treasured Bible truths above the doctrines of men which are oh so popular. This involves leaving behind everything. Based on that definition, there really aren't a lot of TRUE Christians around, so worry not about the majority of Christians going to heaven. Most of the people we consider as good Christians will not go to heaven. Example: I consider most of my brothers and sisters in the congregations to be really good Christians, yet they are bound to a form of idolatry (of men). They will not accept the Bible's clear teachings unless they hear it from the GB. So, in other words, they do not accept the Bible when it speaks for itself. They will only accept something when the GB says it. They therefore put the GB's word above God's word. That is idolatry. If they wake up and remove idolatry from their ways, they stand a chance of being selected as anointed. I just used that as an example to show that as of right now, there are millions of great Christians that simply will not make it when the end comes, so don't think that there will be millions or billions of Christians going to heaven as the churches teach.
In line with God's standards of justice, no imperfect man will escape death. That means that between the great tribulation and Armageddon, every human will have to pay the wages of sin (including the anointed). That is death. Every human must die. That is God's standard. For "millions that are living that have been told they will never die", it's next to impossible for them to accept that point...unless they accept God's standard of justice and his unchangeable word. Jesus has not yet made atonement for anyone. That's why we keep dying. Try and get an answer from JW's as to why if Jesus paid for our sins in 33 do we still die, if indeed atonement was made? If the price was indeed paid and God didnt' grant us everlasting life, he would have ignored his own justice. Could you imagine bailing someone out of jail, paying the $1,000,000 so to speak, and the judge tells you your loved one will be released 2,000 years later? What justice would that be? If Jesus had made atonement for our sins in 33, we would be enjoying eternal life right now. The only thing he did with his blood in 33 was inact a new covenant. The result was evident when the first Christians were sprinkled with holy spirit at Pentecost, just as the Israelites were sprinkled with blood by Moses when they inacted the old covenant (on the same day - Pentecost 1513 BCE). The fact is that SOON, Jesus will use his blood to make atonement for sins of the anointed. He will do it on the day that corresponds with Atonement day in the Jewish calendar - year unknown. If you want to know the year, just ask the GB (haha). That atonement is what allows them to receive everlasting life and entry into heaven. Atonement will not happen for anyone else on earth at that time. All will pay for their sins and die during the GT and they will be resurrected later. Those that make it alive to Armageddon will be those that Christ has allowed to live to see their eternal destruction. For the ones resurrected, they will have to pass a final test, Jesus will make atonement for them too and they will then receive everlasting life. The only way to actually "survive" the great tribulation (if we can even use that word), is to be of the great crowd of anointed Christians that "come out" of the great tribulation as they are "changed" (as opposed to the anointed that die and are resurrected). John saw the group of anointed Christians and upon seeing them, described them as a great crowd. He had heard the number spoken to him in the preceeding verses, but when actually seeing the group of persons with his eyes in the vision, he could only marvel that they were indeed a great crowd that no one could number just by looking at them.. Just think, if you had close to 150,000 people standing in front of you, could you count them? The anointed are the only ones who receive atonement for their sins at the conclusion of this system of things, and therefore only they can be described at that time as having white robes. They serve before God and the Lamb in the spiritual temple day and night. People on earth cannot be decribed as doing that. His temple is no longer on earth. It is where the high priest is. That's why the GB's twisted explanation of the great crowd serving in some earthly courtyard doesn't jive. As regards the purpose for the anointed after the 1,000 years are over, there are many scriptures to support that they will return to the earth. In what sort of body? I don't know. Our father and his Christ will determine that.
That's it in a big nutshell.
Maybe one day I'll write a better comment/article on atonement with all the proofs when I have the time...
Much love,