2018, September 3 – September 9 CLAM Review

Comment by Christian on 2018-09-06 06:07:16

So true, as you rightly mention, Christ our Lord and Saviour, loved people. That is people in general. He loved sinners, how could he not, because every single person is a sinner, it's just some feel they're exempt from this classification because they're 'Special'. I'm minded of Ephesians 4. Paul here deals with the eventuality of Unity, even though God deals with people in different ways. Having been in 'The Organization' for 60 years, I was encouraged to be a clone of those who set the lead. Shirt, tie, gray suit, bookbag, kingdom smile, tow the party line. We all became duplicates, sort of Stepford Wives as it were. No question of being individually different. Yet, Eph.4 is so clear. Christ, measured out (verse 8) gifts in men. Which is explained fully in verse 11. "And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers (door to door eg.), some as shepherds and teachers.".....verse 13. "until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of accurate knowledge of the Son of God..." In The Org. we really are discouraged from being different. We're viewed as soldiers on parade and don't dare and try to be different.

• Reply by Eleasar on 2018-09-11 05:05:00

  Hi Christian,
  
  If you look at the 1984 Reference Bible footnote, the Kingdom Interlinear and other English translations, they give Ephesians 4:8 as "gifts to men" not "gifts in men". In the NWT they give "in" in the main text. Why? it can only be bias to main the org teachings of a hierarchical structure and implement obedience.

Comment by Mike Felker on 2018-09-06 12:41:49

Just curious as I know there are multiple contributors to this site: are all of you or just some of you holding to a Trinitarian Christology? Perhaps there’s a diversity of perspectives amongst the contributors as I vaguely recall the Trinity being denied by one of several of the contributors.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-07 09:02:02

  Hi Mike,
  
  To the best of my knowledge, none of us hold to Trinitarian Christology.
  
  Meleti

  • Reply by Mike Felker on 2018-09-07 09:16:49

    Hi Meleti, thanks for clarifying and that's what I thought. The reason I asked was because the John 1:1 section in this post seems to be quite Trinitarian, or Nicene at the very least.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-07 11:19:35

      Perhaps we can get the author to clarify what he meant. I'm non-trinitarian, but the JW doctrine on Christology with Jesus being just an archangel doesn't work for me either. "The truth is out there." :)

      • Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-09-07 11:39:21

        I agree with you on that Eric. I'm still trying to reconcile what is really accurate about the true nature of Christ, so-to-speak.

      • Reply by Mike Felker on 2018-09-07 15:22:03

        Yeah, it just seems odd for a non-Trinitarian to approvingly cite a clearly pro-Trinitarian viewpoint without clarifying. So yes, if the author could clarify i'm sure it would help all of our curious minds :-)

    • Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-09-07 11:36:53

      Hi Mike,
      
      
      I caught that too. Even though he was just sighting Ellicott's Commentary, it could definitely give the impression of a Trinitarian viewpoint.

    • Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-09-07 19:16:08

      The trinity in my view would be the hardest thing for an exJW to come to terms with, being that the indoctrination of only one true God is embedded so firmly.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-08 23:49:59

        It is not indoctrination if the belief is based on clearly stated Bible evidence.

Comment by Bernardbooks on 2018-09-06 18:04:19

I do not believe the organization encourages members to be generous to all. Even when they make an attempt in their publications it always seems to focus on the end means of getting a person into their religious group. Personally, their form of generosity appears to be a far cry from the kind Jesus showed and taught.

Watchtower 1993 7/1 p.23 paragraphs 17-18
“An act of kindness to a relative, a neighbor, or a work colleague could do much to break down prejudice against us and open up the person’s heart toward the truth.

To do this, we do not need to make close friends of those on the outside. Such associations are potentially dangerous. (1 Corinthians 15:33) And there is no intent to be friends with the world. (James 4:4) But our Christian goodness can support our preaching.”


Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom p.315 paragraph 1
“The relief efforts of the Witnesses are not meant to care for the physical needs of everyone in the disaster area. In accord with Galatians 6:10, these are intended primarily for ‘those related to them in the faith.’ At the same time, they gladly assist others as they are able. They have done this, for example, when providing food for earthquake victims in Italy. In the United States, when helping flood and storm victims, they have also cleaned and repaired the homes of distraught neighbors of Witnesses.”

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-09-07 16:14:06

So I guess if we had been around in the 3rd/4th century we would have supported Arius and what became Arianism.

• Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-09-09 10:14:11

  I was thinking something similar LJ....

Comment by Alithia on 2018-09-07 22:03:53

One thing that stands out and catches one's attention is the degree to which Jesus went to improve people's lives where he could. He was liberal and lavish in praise and commendation and abundantly generous in physical gifts too, like his Father.

However the real truth of the Org and its view of generosity is controlled by very strict parameters that only encompasses giving where there may be some real benefit to the Org in some way. Usually where a recruit can be made to swell the numbers.

I was horrified at a service meeting in Aus, a couple of years ago when there was a young pioneer couple from Canada who were in Europe at the time when there was the mass exodus from the Syrian war. They were giving their experiences of how they would try to spread the good news with these displaced peoples, who were at train and bus shelters with their wives and little children seeking refuge and had zero in the way of material things except the clothes on their backs.

They made the despicable comment that they were instructed by the elders in charge of this avenue of the ministry, to make it very clear to the refugees that they would not benefit materially in any way from their encounter. And that they only had good news of better times ahead.

Of course we may also remember recently of the WT article of how we could make generous offers to dress some of these people appropriately for meeting attendance such as offer a jacket or a tie if they showed a desire too attend!!!!!!!!

Is this insane to the limit???? For the life of me I do not know how anyone clapped after the experiences as I wanted to cry. How could anyone in that situation not pull out a 10 or 20 bucks or buy a meal and give it to a family who is completely destitute, on the ropes or not try to alleviate any discomfort at the time??? The couple even went into some detail as to how "shrewd" they needed to be in trying to discern the real motives of the refugees they were witnessing to, if they had genuine interest in being a JW or just wanted some material benefit????????

No lets go Jesus as an example, changing water into wine like Jesus did for people who by the account already were well topped up any way. This miracle condemns the Org and all of the attitudes it tries to enforce onto the adherents to restrict the love and natural human emotions that should be evident and encouraged to flourish.

A case in point is the New Zealand Bethel property that was recently sold to a different religious group flourishing in the area. They said they would turn the peremisses into a drop in centre for counseling, provide clothing bins, have a regular soup kitchen, a library and a school too.

Compare that with the terrible responses to people's plight by the witnesses, all over the world and they stand condemned by Jesus just like the Pharisee the Levite and the Jew etc who walked past the needy man who was beaten up and laid up on the ground. The good Samaritan put them all to shame in the same way kind and loving people who in imitation of God whether knowingly or not seek to improve peoples lives because they are moved by real unselfish love and care for their fellow man.

• Reply by Warp Speed on 2018-09-08 13:38:48

  Indeed, how are people clapping for this experience? The really scary part is that most of us here used to do the same thing. It all seems so surreal now that our perspectives have changed.
  
  I think that is because we're trying to truly be Christ-like now........

• Reply by jamesbrown on 2018-09-13 03:00:39

  Alithia from Australia my land:
  Bible says Matthew 10:11 Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. Why the search??
  Jesus said unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh……. Why did he make that statement if he wanted to gain popularity?
  
  I came across a visitor from India while witnessing, he wanted to have a study only if I could find him someone from congregation to marry……. What would you have done?
  
  You speak of being horrified at the witness couple, but really how many refugees have you helped???
  
  Again, I say before you point a finger at someone make suer 3 are not pointed back at you…. You know what Jesus calls someone like you.
  
  So, the real Alithia has come out…… Maybe Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene……. What do you think

  • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-15 02:08:35

    James Brown after much thinking I cannot for the life of me understand what you understand about me from a recent post where I simply presented the proposition as to whether Jesus did or did not have a pre-human existence, based on the evidence in the scripture presented and the quoted commentary, and nothing else. John 1:1
    
    But it appears I have disturbed you so just to clarify;
    
    I do not ascribe to the belief in a Trinity God of any kind or a duo God of Jesus and Jehovah.
    
    I was simply commenting around the post of an anonymous contributor who quoted a source that I did not happen to agree with.
    
    With regards to being popular I am not sure about what you mean either but I will choose to just ignore it.
    
    But with regards to charity you should know that I have contributed heavily in money terms to the WT Org in the past and have made generous personal contributions, both monetarily and of my time in the way of building materials and my labour to brothers and sisters in the past who were needy, mostly widows and single mothers etc.
    
    My comments about the young couple and their efforts, but mostly attitude to emulate Jesus in his ministry, was to highlight how it does not correspond cxlosely to Jesus ministry.
    Jesus sought to bring relief to people at every turn as it was granted to him by the power of his Father. Regardless of their beliefs or faith. Paul's ministry had the same effect.
    See New American Standard Bible Acts 19:12
    so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.
    
    For you to understand what the point is I was trying to make please just consider the following text from, Proverbs 3:27,28. "27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. 28 Do not say to your neighbor, 'Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,' when you have it with you."

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-16 10:22:39

    Let us bear this Scripture in mind when replying to a comment:
    
    Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person. (Col 4:6)

Comment by Alithia on 2018-09-08 02:49:09

This was not my first intention to comment around this topic other than to comment on Jesus' miracles , however since the thread has begun I would like to throw my pittance in.

I would like to throw a challenge out here for those who would like to do some digging around the true nature of the Christ.

I take it from the comments here regarding John 1:1 that this is the common view that current JWs and many of those who are now not supportive of the Org have retained. (A view I also had for many years) Including some, if not all of the theology around the nature and Jesus. Particularly I might add here, with regards to a pre human existence.

I would like to suggest that for the anonymous contributor; the commentary around John 1:1 making sense is only because it follows an already pre-conceived deeply entrenched idea about the nature of Jesus Christ, and what the contributor thinks the verse is trying to say. A view shared by most if not all JWs ex or otherwise.

For a Trinitarian who believes Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same, with all of the variations, reading this same passage makes complete sense to them too!

Can I point out something about the Greek language at the time? There were no capitals or lowercase used in writing! It was either all capitals or all lower case. (See some ancient Greek writings which are easy to see on the internet). Therefore in Ellicott’s commentary where “logos” is translated as Word using a capital letter, this is an attempt by Trinitarians using dodgy translation/interpretation technique to make their case.

I would suggest Ellicott too is misled, including the Org, considering that the word or logos is anything other than referring to God himself. His word, or logos, which are his thoughts, intentions, will, reasoning and faculty etc. See Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, Bible Hub etc.

Ellicott and others attempts to overcome the Trinitarian idea is based on another faulty idea; the idea that Jesus had a pre-human existence. Missing completely the point of this verse and its true meaning of what John was saying under inspiration. And hence what is thought to being referred to here at John 1:1, is Jesus as some sought of distinctive separate spirit creature before God in his presence. But is the scripture really saying this. Does it harmonise with all of the other scriptures, and what they say about Jesus’ nature? Is there an alternative explanation that renders the understanding of this scripture and a few more in a more sublime manner?

Charles Taze Russell as we know now, did not bring anyone out of darkness into the spiritual light. In fact looking into the history of how he developed and came to his conclusions around his theology, his faith was largely a borrowed faith. And one of the articles of his belief system is that Jesus had a pre human existence.

We can trace the argument about the nature of the Christ back to the Nicene councils were this was hotly debated with insults and deadly retribution from both sides for having a different view.

However just because Arius was a determined fighter against the present day common view of the triune God established and adopted by the early church fathers, back in the 3rd Century, does not mean we need to ascribe today to what he thought about Jesus as being the truth any more than many of the other wacky ideas of even earlier church fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, or any others who were contemporise.

We need to go further back to what the early Jewish Christians and even the ordinary everyday Jew believed based on the Hebrew Scriptures.

It takes a good deal of patience and plenty of reading time to consider all of the available information around this subject.

The benefits are huge though!

Consider this. I am sure as a witness you must have thought at some time, the trouble trying to rationalise that Jesus as a pre human super creature surely had considerable advantage over every day ordinary human beings in maintaining his integrity. Having a broad knowledge and being completely knowledgeable about all things and knowing where he came from and where he was going to, surely would make it infinitely easier to endure under difficulty. And considering the idea that Jesus’ pre-human existence was for eons, his ministry and trials were for a relatively short time about 3 years or so. Compared to Adam who was as “green” as the vegetation he was surrounded by. This in no way can equate to a comparable fair “ransom” for mankind. Balancing the scales of Godly justice. How could we be asked to consider closely the footsteps of our Master who had zillions of years of experience and understanding that we do not possess?

I can just imagine Satan crying foul! And if being honest with the facts, even as many would consider them to be, he would have a very valid point!

Consider though if Jesus was really only ever a man! Lived only the life here on Earth before he was glorified next to God! Is this not a wondrous gift by God for mankind? Does this not square better with the idea that the last Adam was in every way like the first Adam except without sin? Does this not give glory to God that he has chosen a human to champion his will here on Earth. That he was prepared to take a man, Jesus and give him a name above everyone here on the Earth and in Heaven? If Jesus was already in Heaven how does that even make any sense. That God elevated him above the angels? If Jesus was above all others to begin with? What did Jesus “learn” (Philippians)through his experience on Earth so as to be a sympathetic high priest that he did not already know? He already would have already have known everything there was to know, and much more!

Knowing the truth about Jesus is so fundamental to understanding many other things about God's will for mankind. If indeed Jesus was only a man and had no pre human existence, this leads, I think, into better understanding what God's will is for the Earth and for mankind too. Such as where our destiny lies in the future, here on Earth or in heaven.

I think God would like this to be clear in our minds, seeing he went to so much trouble to predict the Messiahs appearance, what he would accomplish and how he could be identified, and it really does give us an insight into the trust God has put into his son and his desire to have a close and personal relationship with each and every one of us as everyday humans like Jesus was.

Anyway if you so feel like it for starters I have a few links below for some Youtube VDOs where a guy called Sir Anthony Buzzard makes the point about Jesus nature very well. It’s interesting that years ago Anthony studied with the witnesses dutifully for about 2 years before he decided they did not have the truth. Sir Anthony Buzzard is an academic who has serious credentials in languages such as biblical Greek and Hebrew.

It takes time to mull over all he has to say but the effort is very rewarding.
There are many other sources too, but he has compiled and brought together a considerable body of work on the topic that is easy to access, and understand. Look through all other VDOs he has on the subject too if you so wish.

He has also a considerable number of VDOs explaining some other scriptural verses that may appear to support the trinity or for a pre-human existence of Jesus that may perplex you. I think for one they are excellent. Good luck I would be interested to have some feedback or even a spiritual back hand across the nets!

Some think this topic to be trivial or even divisive as it is cannot be easily established one way or another. And in the end of the day makes little difference. I disagree.

If we are here to rid ourselves of every last vestige of confusing untruth from yesteryear, then I think this is one topic that is an elephant in the room. Jesus said we must worship the Father in spirit and in truth. Making the effort to determine what this is of course is where the detail lies.

I for one am convinced by scripture that Jesus did not have a pre human existence and that there are more than numerous credible sources both in scripture , Hebrew and Greek including secondary sources to put this one to bed.

Too much to include here of course and I would only be paraphrasing others who have gone before me, so I have put it out there only by way of introduction and as a teaser for those who would be interested.

[links removed by moderator]

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-08 23:49:15

  Alithia,
  
  You go into a lot of human reasoning to make your case for a Jesus without a prehuman existence, but you provide no Scriptural proof for this. Jehovah's Witnesses have many unique teachings, all of which we have proven to be false. All of these teachings depend on human reasoning and human interpretation based on flawed and unscriptural premises. We must reject all such teachings that are based on human logic, but which ignore and even contradict clear Scriptural facts. In this case, such Scriptures as John 8:58 and Phil 2:5-7 to name only two. I'm sure other contributors could add to this list.
  
  I've removed the links you provided because it is not our purpose on Beroean Pickets to promote the teachings of others when we consider these teachings to be false. There are matters that are subject to interpretation and on such matters we are willing to allow some latitude. However, there are some teachings which cross the line. 2 John 1:7 makes reference to teachings which we must reject out of hand. The teaching of a "non-prehuman Christ" is just such a teaching.

  • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-09 00:53:42

    Thank you for the feed back Eric, It was not without some reluctance that I made this advance knowing what reaction it might cause. In any case I will consider the 2 versus you have mentioned and reconsider how I have arrived to my conclusions. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

    • Reply by Yehorakam on 2018-09-09 22:57:11

      You could consider Mark 12:35-37; John 3:13; 6:38,62; 8:23; Heb 1:2,6; 2:9-18; 7:1-28; Col 1:13-20; John 8:37-40,56-59; John 1:9,10,14,30; Zech 4:2,3,10-14, Rev 5:6; 11:3,4.
      
      But, if you've already made up your mind Jesus had no pre-human existence, then there is no point considering those or other scriptures. The scriptures and Holy Spirit simply will not teach those that have already made up their minds.
      
      Perhaps it would be good to ask yourself: Who convinced you Jesus had no pre-human existence?...and in answering that you might get to the root of the problem.
      
      Much love,

      • Reply by jamesbrown on 2018-09-13 21:24:10

        I have checked the scriptures that you sited and you have done really well and many thanks for your hard work I will keep them in my bible as a reference, pity I cannot tell my friends where I got them, keep these beautiful golden nuggets of your coming, I relish them.

  • Reply by jamesbrown on 2018-09-13 02:20:02

    Well done Melti, you are a stickler and a champion for the word of God.

  • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-15 03:23:01

    Dear Eric, with considerable profundity I would like to respond to your criticism around my comments above, and to clear away any misconception I may have created in your and any other readers mind.
    
    Your response that I use a lot of human reasoning is exactly my point! As there is no clear explicit teaching found at John 1:1 about Jesus having a pre human existence, I was simply saying we should not ascribe to any one persons interpretation (Human reasoning)regardless of whether it is Arius ,Ellicot, and you or me either.
    
    It is indisputable however, as found in various bible translations, that efforts have been made to give the appearances that scripture is alluding to 2 persons, in this case Jesus and Jehovah and that they are one and the same. You ignore the point I made about the capitol W for word and how this could influence the understanding of this scripture down through the Centuries.
    
    I was simply making the point that using this scripture to make a case for a pre-existent Jesus before he came to Earth is to be guilty of reading into the text something that is not there. Something you accuse me of doing strangely enough.
    
    I will ignore your application of 2 John 2:17 as applying to myself as I whole heartily accept that the Christ has come in the flesh. My question is around whether Jesus had a prehuman existence prior to his appearance in the flesh. Just a Hebrew way of saying that Jesus was born the Messiah. The Apostle John was not addressing the point of whether Jesus had a pre human existence here either, just that he was the Messiah, the Christ, Gods Son, the one sent by God. A fact that many at the time denied.
    
    You seem to have made hasty conclusions around this matter giving me the idea you have a fixed opinion, much like Yehorakam below.
    
    If it is a scriptural analyses you want then let me briefly take you to task just on scriptures that you mentioned.
    
    John 8:58 Jesus simply says that before Abraham "ego ime". Greek for "I am". The NWT translated this as I existed. Search on bible Hub and you will see that there are numerous translations that try to give the impression of what the translator already believes. However Jesus simply said I am. Consider commentaries around this Greek expression.
    
    Looking through the context in John 7-8 there is a running war of words between Jesus and the religious leaders who denied Jesus as the sent one from God. They rejected his authority as the Son of God, that he was from God, sent by God, and the one prophesied to be the Christ.
    
    In his defence and in disgust in the religious leaders lack of faith, Jesus refers to Abraham as a man of faith and as one who "saw him and rejoiced"
    ( John 8:56). There is no record in the scriptures that Abraham ever met Jesus, if he had, surely this occasion would have been recorded in scripture?
    
    Clearly Jesus is speaking here figuratively, saying that Abraham a man of faith "saw" Jesus from afar, had an idea in his mind as to what the Messiah would be like, would have recognised Jesus if he was present, would have accepted him as the Messiah unlike the Pharisees who rejected Jesus and his claim as Gods Son, hence Jesus emphatic statement to the Jews, ego ime! I am the one. The one Abraham, Moses and all of the prophets looked forward to.
    
    These are just my thoughts, no-one need agree, love to all.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-16 10:02:12

      Alithia,
      
      Starting with the most important and arguably contentious issue: Should 2 John 2:7 (you cite 17, a typo I’m sure. We all make them.) be seen to apply to those who claim as you do that Jesus had no pre-human existence. You state: “Ellicott and others attempts to overcome the Trinitarian idea is based on another faulty idea; the idea that Jesus had a pre-human existence.”
      
      Now the text from 2 John that is relevant to our discussion is this:
      
      For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for,a that you may be fully rewarded. 9Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son.
      10If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. 11Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11 BSB)
      
      John is stating that a Christian who comes to promote a teaching to the Christian community that denies the “coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” is a deceiver and is to be shunned. You state that you support the thought that Jesus came in the flesh, but that denies the meaning of John’s words.
      
      To explain: You and I were born, as were all other humans descending from the original parents, but nowhere in the vernacular nor in the Bible is a person who is born described as “coming in the flesh”. Jesus was born from a woman as we were, but he is described as "coming in the flesh".
      
      “To come” both in English and in Greek means to arrive from somewhere else. To come or arrive, one must first have existed in the previous location. To assume otherwise requires us to play with words and we cannot do so unless there is

      
      clear scriptural evidence
      
      
      that allows us to.
      
      There were many in John's day who believed in the existence of Jesus. Josephus records is existence historically. But for Christians, it was imperative to understand his origins which is why the Bible writers spoke so clearly about such. (Mark 12:35-37; John 3:13; 6:38,62; 8:23; Heb 1:2,6; 2:9-18; 7:1-28; Col 1:13-20; John 8:37-40,56-59; John 1:9,10,14,30; Zech 4:2,3,10-14, Rev 5:6; 11:3,4.)
      
      On the next point, you state: “I was simply making the point that using this scripture to make a case for a pre-existent Jesus before he came to Earth is to be guilty of reading into the text something that is not there.”
      
      The article in question was not about proving the pre-existence of Jesus, so this is something of a Straw Man argument. When a belief is widely held within a group, it does not have to be proven over and over. That would bog down any discussion on any topic. We here all hold to the belief in a pre-existent Jesus Christ, and Yehorakam kindly took the time to list a number of the Scriptures (cited above) upon which that belief is based.
      
      You chose to comment on one which can be understood in more ways than one. Our position on this site is that when a text or passage is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved by seeking harmony from other scriptures. (I would invite you to comment on all of them if you have Scriptural proof we are misapplying them.)
      
      The Bible indicates that Adam, the first human son of God, came from nothing. However, no such explicit statement is made regarding Jesus. Instead, we have a plethora of Scriptures that speak of his coming from the heavens and being born as a human. To believe that Jesus never existed before requires us to accept human interpretation that ignores what is clearly stated. This was the point I was making when I said that your arguments were based on human interpretation and not Bible fact.
      
      Allow me to illustrate. You write:
      
      “Consider this. I am sure as a witness you must have thought at some time, the trouble trying to rationalise that Jesus as a pre human super creature surely had considerable advantage over every day ordinary human beings in maintaining his integrity. Having a broad knowledge and being completely knowledgeable about all things and knowing where he came from and where he was going to, surely would make it infinitely easier to endure under difficulty. And considering the idea that Jesus’ pre-human existence was for eons, his ministry and trials were for a relatively short time about 3 years or so. Compared to Adam who was as “green” as the vegetation he was surrounded by. This in no way can equate to a comparable fair “ransom” for mankind. Balancing the scales of Godly justice. How could we be asked to consider closely the footsteps of our Master who had zillions of years of experience and understanding that we do not possess?”
      
      You are establishing a premise here which you fail to prove, and just assume that the reader will accept.
      
      Why would we accept this as an accurate description of a pre-existent Jesus without an Scriptural backing?
      
      This is an example of the human reasoning and human interpretation to which I was referring. As logical as this may appear to some, it is based on an unestablished premise—an assumption—and so must be taken with a grain of salt. It was this type of ready acceptance of human reasoning that allowed us to believe the many false teachings of the Governing Body.

      • Reply by Vox Ratio on 2018-09-16 20:14:46

        Hi Meleti,
        
        This isn't really a disagreement, but more of a potential reason for understanding the unique language that John used in his gospel (Jo. 1:14) and epistles (1 Jo. 4:2; 2 Jo. 1:7) when discussing the circumstances surrounding Christ's flesh.
        
        Early church fathers (Irenaeus, Hippolytus et al.) have tended to converge on the idea that John was refuting a specific teaching by the heresiarch Cerinthus in these passages. Cerinthus taught that Christ "came" in the spirit upon Jesus' baptism and "left" again at his crucifixion. This may indicate that John's choice of language regarding the "come", "coming", and "became" texts was not so much to show that the Christ was from elsewhere (since that was Cerinthus' contention), but that he was instead borrowing his opponents language in order to refute it. If this view is correct, then when the early Christians heard John read aloud, they would have immediately understood who or what he was referring to.
        
        (For the record, I do think that the NT corpus strongly supports the notion that Jesus had a pre-human existence. However, the window of opportunity for disseminating a gospel of salvation was quite short (sub 14 years in fact, compare Gal. 2:1-2, 6 with Gal. 1:8). Thus, any doctrine which purports to be salvific would have to fit within this time period also).

        • Reply by Ludavid on 2018-09-17 08:42:27

          I am also very fond and very close to idea of not pre-human existence of our Lord Jesus (although I didn't totally discarded teaching of Jehovah Witnesses, what is my background)
          My opinion, is somehow like yours, that Gods Word is not so clear about that issue, and there is room for studying and contemplating about that.
          
          But I also think that ours diferent opinion about that issue is not reason to fight and arguing, and possibly divisions.
          I think, that is much more important to put our attention on Christ, to develop personal relationship with our Lord, and to encouraging each other to closely follow his footsteps.

      • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-20 07:17:08

        The Angel that visited Mary had a simple message. After Mary questioned how it would be possible without having sexual relations, the Angel stated that Holy Spirit would overshadow her, and then a Greek word is used which is genesis in English, or generated. It means only one thing it is the beginning, a genesis, you can not have 2 beginnings. Jesus genesis was in the womb of Mary. If Jesus had a pre existence then this does not make sense it is a contradiction.
        
        And in regards to the plethora of scriptures you mention I could take my time and deal with them , but I must say that it is in the understanding of them that matters. To me it is like learning to sing in another language, you may know many lines and many words but if you do not know what they literally mean or know what the theme or intention of a song is and then decide to debate with others around the meanings then it can be tedious to say the least and probably unproductive. You are strident in emphasising that you have the correct understanding. But in following Borean Pickets for a while I notice that in the 2 most central topics, the hope of a Christian and the nature of the Christ it differs little from Christendom in general. It is you say ambiguous and open to interpretation. I cannot accept Jesus died and gave it his all to preach about the Kingdom and to authenticate himself to have left us with the situation where we are not or cannot be convinced of our hope and of the person who we profess to follow, tht is my motivation for taking issue not to prove any academic point.

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-09-15 04:25:35

  Hi Alithia. my thoughts are about Satan crying foul. If the vase is broken, it does not matter what the original cost as long as the replacement satisfies the owner. Jehovah simply satisfied the laws of atonement. it takes no more, except in the eyes of the person who might attach some particular sentiment because of who gave him the vase. In Adam and Jesus case, though, the giver is the same.
  Therefore no foul. Objection over ruled !
  
  However, you are entitled to think otherwise.

  • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-15 18:54:57

    You are right about jehovah being the giver in both cases. However you still are dodging the point I was making about the replacement being like for like. Using the analogy of a vase is a very poor comparison.
    
    If you think a pre-existent super powerful, knowlegeble and experienced spirit with eons of existence is like for like with Adam who is limited by comparison then there is nothing more I can do to make my point.
    
    You may give additional time for consideration of my proposition that we have preconceived ideas that we will prosecute to the "death" in spite of the obvious logical, reasonable and common sense anomalies, that we would call out in instantly in any other arena of life.
    
    Let me demonstrate this by the use of an analogy that is similar to the one you use of the vase. A fly weight fighter loses a fair fight in a ring. The results are loss for the fighter and of the fighters family offspring. The promoter wanting to improve the fighters lot in life wants to make things better for the fighter and his family so he organises another fight. Again billing a fly weight but this time matching him against a heavy weight brought out of retirement who has a record and a reputation to match, that is one of never being defeated and winner by TKO in the first second of every match!
    
    Your vase analogy does not fit the facts, the example above is the point I want to make if Jesus had a prehuman existence, it is not like for like by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    Exercising my right to think otherwise.

    • Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-09-17 13:01:51

      According to scripture, the balancing is fine. Paul states in 1 Cor 15:45 "the first man Adam became a living person, the last Adam became a live giving spirit". I think that is all I was saying. You may not like the reference to a vase. Its only an illustration, nothing more. Of course Jesus is way above anything Adam was. Had he been faithful, then he would have had pride of place among humans, but what he did do was he paid the price.

      • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-20 06:11:31

        It is not that I do not like your illustration it is just not fit for purpose as illustrations are used to make a point, what you tried to make similar I am disagreeing with. What does Jesus becoming a life giving spirit have to do with the ransom balancing the scales of justice and Jesus life being offered as a propitiation?
        
        Note 1 Timothy 2:6 Where it say Jesus gave his life as a corresponding ransom for all!
        
        Vases and Fighters to the side think for a moment of your idea of a corresponding ransom ( A pre existence Jesus) and then ask who is or has to make all the assumptions and tell not only one story but numerous stories to harmonise the notion.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-16 10:10:21

      To say that the "analogy does not fit the facts" is to assume that the facts are established. But you have failed to provide the Bible proof that Jesus brought all his power, knowledge and experience with him as a human. There is nothing in the Bible record to support such an assumption. In fact, there are many experiences related in the gospels to indicate he was a mere human being just as Adam was.

      • Reply by Alithia on 2018-09-20 06:38:46

        It is also fair to say it is an assumption that he did not, or to any degree in between. I agree with you that there is an avalanche of scriptures that do just what you mention.
        
        Jesus was a man, born of a human mother, and in fact human in every way, except for Jehovah being involved in the begetting process.
        
        Meaning he did not pre exist himself like none of us or anyone prior to us. That is why Paul said at 1 Timothy 2:5
        For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus. A corresponding ransom. One can just hear the almost bewildered thinking of astonishment of Paul of how God brought about the salvation of mankind by this means! A man he says! A corresponding ransom?? I do not know of any man who could vaguely correspond to a pre existent Jesus. If one does then the stories start, the assumptions and all the rest of it which the Org is very good at when the want to fill in the tremendous gaps in there theology.
        
        If Paul, or anyone else had know of Jesus prehuman existence he never said anything about it in fact the Hebrew scriptures and any ancient Hebrew writings (which are vast) are stunningly silent as to any Jewish thought on a preexistent Messiah. How many opportunities is there where mention of some prehuman existence could have been mentioned or even alluded to where there is no other solid explanation?
        
        In as much as quoting scriptures there is no immediate need. Just as the scriptures at Romans regarding the superior authorities was understood, misunderstood then correctly understood by the Org! It really is getting to properly understand the scripture that is in question not taking other scriptures and giving them the same treatment too. This does not help getting closer to a correct understanding.
        
        The problem here I see is one of accepting that quite a few of the scriptures are "Hebrewisms, where the words do not mean what they literally say, as an example if a Sicilian mobster says to you that you will sleep with the fish, you can be sure that you will not be laid to rest in a quilted bed surrounded by fish, rather you will be chained to a heavy concrete weight and dumped far out to sea! In the same way there are many verses where mention is made of seeing God, going up to see God or descending from God or even being the firstborn of all creation. Being a first born for example in the Greek can mean having the rights of the first born. So Jesus of all creation has first rights in everything! This harmonises beautifully but if you want to stay with the other meaning that could mean he was a first creation that is another thing. But when you allow yourself to see these same scriptures used around other characters like the apostle Paul who "poured himself out" others ascending to God etc then you will start to realise there is another credible and more correct understanding of these expressions. And that as I mentioned one is reading in selectively perhaps unconsciously the preconceived ideas to fill the narrative.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-09-20 09:19:02

          Alithia, I'm using this comment to reply to both your most recent comments.
          
          First, I would like to direct you to the FAQ page, "Commenting Guidelines".
          
          "When making a comment in which you wish to expound some particular Bible teaching, please note that we require all to provide proof from Scripture. Stating a belief that is nothing more than a person opinion is allowed, but please state that it is your own opinion and nothing more. We do not want to fall into the trap of the Organization and requires others to accept our speculation as fact."
          
          The reason for this is that as Jehovah's Witnesses, we have suffered under a belief system based on the opinions of men, not on what is clearly stated in Scripture. To avoid following men, we now require all those who would presume to teach us (I include myself in this group) to provide Scriptural proof of their teachings and to deal with all Scriptures which might seem to contradict our conclusions. I have asked you repeatedly to deal with the Scriptures which you yourself state support the belief in a pre-existent Jesus.
          
          From your comment: "I agree with you that there is an avalanche of scriptures that do just what you mention."
          
          Yet, you have sidestepped this demand by means of even more speculative reasoning. I won't deal with all of it, but only one bit to prove my point.
          
          You state: "The Angel that visited Mary had a simple message. After Mary questioned how it would be possible without having sexual relations, the Angel stated that Holy Spirit would overshadow her, and then a Greek word is used which is genesis in English, or generated. It means only one thing it is the beginning, a genesis, you can not have 2 beginnings. Jesus genesis was in the womb of Mary. If Jesus had a pre existence then this does not make sense it is a contradiction."
          
          First, you need to quote the Scripture so others can verify your conclusion. It is Luke 1:35. The Greek word you refer to is gennaó. Anyone accessing the link I've provided can see that it does not "mean only one thing". Therefore, your premise is false, and any reasoning based on a faulty premise is sure to be flawed.
          Next you draw the conclusion that there cannot be two beginnings. Setting aside the discussion of Jesus' pre-existence for a moment, your statement flies in the face of reason and the power of God. You are saying that Jehovah could not take a spirit creature and transform him into a human via the procreative process. This must be the case, because that spirit creature had a beginning when first created and would have another beginning when transformed into a human embryo, hence two beginnings and since no one can have two beginnings, this action is beyond the power of God.
          
          To accept that Jesus did not exist before being born a human, I must trust in your words--that's all you've given us--that all the Scriptures that contradict such a conclusion really don't mean what they say, but must be understood differently because the Greek and Hebrew language is so very different. That requires me to rely on "wise and intellectual" ones to interpret those Scriptures for me. But Jesus said that "babes" would understand his teachings. Your comments are full of human reasoning but you do not draw us to God's word, but to the word of men. We must therefore trust in men again to believe. Yet God tells us not to do that. His word is enough for us. (Ps 146:3) Are the words of the Psalmist true, or are they just another example of "Hebrewisms, where the words do not mean what they literally say"?
          
          Sorry, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"

          • Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-09-20 10:54:00

            And the Word became flesh! Sometimes genesis can mean a "new beginning".
            Compare John 1:1 with John 1:14.

Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2018-09-11 12:04:05

When it comes to discussions like these I refer back to Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 2:1-5:

“So when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with extravagant speech or wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to you. For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him executed on the stake. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling; and my speech and what I preached were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power, so that your faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power.”

It also goes without saying (in Questions From Readers w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3) that “we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.” Why? Because antitypes can easily become “persuasive words of wisdom” and “extravagant speech” that have no Scriptural basis. To make matters worse, when such antitypes become doctrinally embedded, they cannot be easily changed without calling into question antitypes that have a scriptural basis and need not be changed.

This makes Paul's words even more imperative. Why? Because while Paul might have found it easier to accept correction upon being reproved, he knew his fellow Pharisees could not. Knowing such he simply said: “Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts.” He further went on to say, “that through us you may learn the rule: ‘Do not go beyond the things that are written.’” (1 Corinthians 4:5-6)

The question is—how far have we gone beyond what was written? And where we have, how long will it take us to be corrected? Take, for example just one of our teachings that Jesus died not on a cross but a stake. What happens when evidence becomes overwhelmingly otherwise? We know there was a time that scholars disputed over the existence of the ancient Hittites or whether even Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea. Yet historians have since uncovered evidence proving the Bible to be true and their doubts to be false. So why does our organization find it so difficult to correct its mistakes? And why must our present doctrines be so strictly enforced when evidence of the error becomes so overwhelmingly apparent?

Personally I have lost count of the antitypical errors that remain. Would I be guilty of heresy to reject what I already know to be unscriptural? What if I simply repeated Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 2:2 that I too “decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ” but added “and him crucified” instead of “executed on the stake?" Does it really matter when history gets so divided by “extravagant” and “persuasive words of wisdom” that we are at the mercy of dogma and everything else lost in translation and human reasoning? Should it really matter if I believe that the only remaining antitypical fulfillment is the actual return of the greater Moses, Jesus Christ?

Your brother in Christ,

sw