Can a JW please answer this one question, pretty please?

[sooda]

How long do you think it will be before you go stark raving mad in your eternal stay on earth? 100,000,000,000,000 years? 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years? It doesn't matter. That's still less than .000000000000000000000000000001% of eternity.

After the 4th grade I was taught that Eden and the Adam and Eve story were about the transition from hunter gatherers to agriculturists. .. an allegory.. That humans organized into small groups, planted and harvested and built stone granaries... INSTEAD of trusting in God's providence.

To me it was always interesting that God rejected Cain's offering preferring bloody meats to vegetables.

The story, presumably set in Bahrain based on the Dilmun tablets doesn't really make sense as a fall from grace or wholesale disobedience.. more like explaining a period of change for humankind.

Where is the "sin"?

 

[Clear]

@Deeje said : “…this feels more like another inquisition than a discussion…”

I apologize if this deeper look at specifics has been uncomfortable for you. If asking you specific questions feels like a "persecution" of sorts, I do not mean cause you any terror or discomfort. However, it is “specific” answers I am looking for. So far, I have not been particularly critical of your differing theories and differing interpretations other than pointing out the errors in attempting to change the definition of the word “immortal” to support your theology.

I am starting to feel more empathetic to the point @SA Huguenot made in the O.P. where it is difficult to get SPECIFIC answers. One problem is that religionists tend to make vague and broad-sweeping claims that fall apart in the details. Jehovahs Witness interpretation is a 19th century phenomenon and it is so very different than early Christian interpretation of the texts and doctrines. Thus it may take a bit of analysis to understand some of these new interpretations, the new doctrines and the new textual changes that have occurred inside the Jehovahs Witness Movement.

Another problem is that we ALL have bias and tend to see and define the world in which we live in accordance with those biases. The definitions you want to use are not the same as most Christians use and this a bit distracting for accurate discussion.

For example, in post #117 you presented a new re-definition of the word “immortality” by claiming “Immortality means that life is indestructible.” (Deeje, post #117). However, the truth is that “Immortality” simply means one is not mortal. The resulting dictionary meaning is “the ability to live forever” (i.e. an unending living existence). By correcting this error in post #119 you were not being persecuted in any way. You were simply being corrected.

When you again attempted to re-define “Immortality” by saying “… immortality apparently implies more than that its possessor will live forever. It seems to indicate a particular quality of life…” (Deeje, post #123). When I corrected this error in post #126, it was not persecution but simply a correction of definitions. While Jehovahs Witnesses will unavoidably see the world through their specific bias (we all do this), this does not include the right to re-define dictionary words for the rest of the world so as to fit that specific bias.

This includes adding historical concepts to scriptures that are not really there. For example, in reference to Adams intelligence and knowledge base and his deep moral characteristics that were in him at his creation, you claimed that Genesis 2:15-24 “….says in Genesis that God undertook to educate Adam himself. (Deeje, post #109) Yet in this text, the ONLY thing God says to Adam is that he may eat of any tree, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil lest he die. This single, specific, prohibition, is hardly an “undertaking to educate Adam”.

It is quite apparent to readers that you are adding personal biases and theories to your definitions and to the biblical text. While I understand that this sort of biased communication happens, it skews communications to the point that they are inaccurate and difficult. If I point out an error or ask why you think Genesis 2:15-24 refers to a “moral education” of Adam, it is not "an inquisition". It is a simple request for clarification and knowledge. To describe it as "an inquisition" is another "skewing" and "bending" of reality. IF there is no good justication for your claims, there may be discomfort, but there is no “inquisition” going on.

I hope you do not see a simple discussion as an attack. We ALL tend to do see things through our own personal bias (myself included). The point is that the DEGREE of bias and skewing of and re-defining of words and scriptures you engage is creates difficulties to individuals who do not have your bias, or who use dictionary definitions for words instead of Jehovahs Witness definitions or for individuals who do not share your movements interpretations of scriptures.

If words don’t seem to mean the same to Jehovahs Witnesses as they do to the rest of the world this is not the fault of the rest of the world. Entire histories are added onto a single scripture to support opinions and interpretations which are not shared outside of your specific religious movement. As your theories diverge further and further away from ancient Christian interpretations, it creates difficulties following the logic you are presenting.


Perhaps I can explain my reasoning underlying the specific questions so that readers can see my logic.


IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS INTERPRETATION, THE POST RESURRECTION PEOPLE ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN WILL HAVE THE SAME MORAL IMPERFECTIONS AS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE

In Jehovahs witness theology, God will ultimately “re-create” bodies of individuals who lived before and “download” a copy of their prior personalities into these post-resurrection bodies. Regarding these “re-created”, “post-resurrection” individuals :

Clear asked : “Regarding those who were oppressive and sought position over others (during their lifetime), are they given the same prior personality that had the tendency to be oppressive and seek pre-eminence over others? Etc, etc. OR, will their personalities and characteristics be modified to make them more fit to live in harmony without lies, oppression, anger, war, etc. (post #119)
Deeje responded : “They will be raised as the same people who died.” (#127)


However, heaven must be inhabited by individuals who have learned and mastered social and moral laws which produce harmony and joy else it cannot BE a “heavenly” existence. One cannot allow liars and oppressors and robbers to inhabit heaven else that would destroy it’s eternal harmony and joy. This was a basic assumption in early Christian worldviews. Heaven was to be inhabited by resurrected individuals who did not lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor oppress, nor manipulate. They were "heavenly people" who lived with others in total harmony and joy, forever.

The Jehovahs Witness interpretation is that individuals in “heaven” who rule with Jesus and those on the New earth have the same imperfect moral characteristics “downloaded” into them. They still lie and steal and cheat and rob and oppress and hurt one another. The religious theories created and adopted by the Jehovahs Witnesses on this specific point have no advantage over the ancient Christian models. I think early Christian models were more rational and logical. If the Jehovahs Witness model is not as rational, nor as logical, nor has any other advantage over the earliest Christianity, then there is no need to adopt the re-interpretation of text or doctrines Jehovahs Witnesses offer.

What is the advantage of Jehovahs Witness theories and interpretations? They cannot simply claim “we came up with the best interpretations” since many christian movements make this same claim. They cannot simply say “we get our doctrines from the bible” since other claim this. Etc. etc. What is the advantage?


Regarding @SA Hugenuot and the point of the O.P. If the current individual is annihilated and NOTHING of the person exists, then the new person which is re-created later is NOT the original. It is a similar person, but not the original. If I had a classic 1957 chevy automobile as a youth and it is wrecked, I can buy another one 40 years later and restore it perfectly to be just like the original. It is still, not the original car. This may have been the point for SA Hugenuot. If HE is not going to be “saved” or “rewarded” for uncomfortable sacrifices, or difficult moral efforts made in mortality, then, for him, there is less motive to engage in difficult moral efforts. If I have a dog that knows I am going to euthanize him in a year, how would this affect his motivation to love me or be loyal to me?


THE NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE FALL OF ADAM OFFERED BY JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

Deeje clarified : Material creatures cannot be immortal. They rely on external things to stay alive…What God gave man initially was the ability to keep living without aging sickness or death (post #110)

The problem with this theory is that J. Witness theory says Adam is material and thus could not have been immortal. The ancient Judeo-Christian worldview is that Adam was both material (made from dust) AND his body was immortal in that it would not have died. Adam is told not to eat and IF you do [then] you will die. While this does not mean the ancient Christians were more or less correct, it is simply that their religious worldviews had a different basis than that created by the Jehovahs witness.

The theological repercussions are different in this relatively modern J.W. theory of interpretation.

What is the advantage of adopting this new set of interpretations offered by Jehovahs Witnesses? They are not more “biblical” than the interpretations of others who used the bible to create their beliefs. The Jehovahs Witness theories do not rid us of any great theological problems that their interpretations themselves do not create. What is the advantage of adopting the more modern Jehovah Witness system of interpreting the ancient texts?

For example, I see more disadvantages and mistakes of translation in the new interpretation of the New Testament scriptures Franz created for the Jehovah Witness than advantages and corrections. I think the result would have been MUCH better if they had used authentic translators to create their New Testament instead of the dogmatist Franz. The tendency to hold dogma as a priority over textual purity is, I think, very unwise.

By saying this, I do not mean disrespect nor meanness, but merely an observation that there does not seem to be any advantage of new J.Witness interpretations over the old Judeo-Christian interpretations.

In any case, I wish all, including Jehovahs Witness and you Deeje, a wonderful life and a wonderful and insightful journey as you gain insights and come to your own beliefs regarding God and what we are doing in this life.

Clear
ειδρακνεω

 

[ecco]

If you don't know Marcion is, you don't know much about the history of your New Testament. Perhaps you should have taken a few minutes to look him up.

Marcion is not in the New Testament. This is why I don't feel a great sense of urgency to read of him.
Same with Augustine and Luther.
These are men adding their bit to the bible.

Apparently, you really don't want to know and understand the history of your Bible. I'm OK with that. It's really not surprising that you don't want to.

IiB

 

[ecco]

Jesus came to fulfill all the OT, ie being himself the lamb slain and coming to His temple.
But there was no more temple, no more animal sacrifice, no more dietary rules, no more
rituals, no more the priesthood etc.
He contradicted many OT things such as declaring what you eat has no effect upon your
life; that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands; that He Himself is our great high
priest etc etc etc..
If you look at a religion like Mormonism or Catholicism you see a return to all these things.
But the OT itself spoke of the end of the old covenant (reading Zechariah today and the
breaking of the staff of beauty - representing the covenant the Jews will not abide by.)

The degree of picking and choosing in order to maintain one's beliefs is exceedingly high. How do you do it?

 

[ecco]

How long do you think it will be before you go stark raving mad in your eternal stay on earth? 100,000,000,000,000 years? 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years? It doesn't matter. That's still less than .000000000000000000000000000001% of eternity.

After the 4th grade I was taught that Eden and the Adam and Eve story were about the transition from hunter gatherers to agriculturists. .. an allegory.. That humans organized into small groups, planted and harvested and built stone granaries... INSTEAD of trusting in God's providence.

To me it was always interesting that God rejected Cain's offering preferring bloody meats to vegetables.

The story, presumably set in Bahrain based on the Dilmun tablets doesn't really make sense as a fall from grace or wholesale disobedience.. more like explaining a period of change for humankind.

Where is the "sin"?

Are you sure you wanted to direct that response to me?

 

[PruePhillip]

The degree of picking and choosing in order to maintain one's beliefs is exceedingly high. How do you do it?

I do it by not reading books written by Joseph Smith; Taze Russell; the
Catholic Church; Augustine; Luther; Miller etc..

Have you read Russel's The Kingdom Come 1907?
Out of print and not available in JW libraries. I suggest you might be
disfellowshipped for reading it.
Russel stated that you could read your bible for a thousand years
and not gain the wisdom you would gain by reading his six books.
And if you stopped reading his books then within two years of reading
only your bible you would be back in the dark.
That's how people thought Jesus had appeared invisibly, in what, 1878?
And he would end the "system of things" in 1914, or was that 1915 or
1925 or1975?

Just read two things:
1 - Matt, Mark, Luke and John - this gives us Jesus' own words
2 - The Acts and the Epistles - this gives you the nature of Christ's church.

These books are without human intervention.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@RedhorseWoman

If I understand correctly, you were a Jehovahs Witness in the past. Is this correct? IF so, THEN perhaps you can clarify for me.

Yes, I was an active JW for 30 years. I'll try my best.

Regarding Adam and his initial Characteristics I THINK that Deeje is saying that in Jehovahs Witness interpretation :

1) Adams initial body was mortal. That is, the body God created for Adam would have died if no change was made to it. Is this correct?

Yes, Adam was created with a mortal body, but JWs believe that, as long as he obeyed God's laws, that mortal body would have continued on indefinitely.

2) If Adam had "been obedient", God had planned to Give the mortal Adam fruit of the tree of life to make him both immaterial and immortal. Is this correct.?

Not quite. If I remember correctly, Adam would have been granted "everlasting life" but he wouldn't have been immortal. Similarly, any who make it into the "New System" or who are resurrected into the "New System" will be granted everlasting life if they pass the "test" when Satan is released at the end of a thousand years. The only beings granted immortality would be those of the 144,000 Heavenly class.

3) God created Adam from nothing, and therefore God also created the intelligence and moral characteristics Adam possessed. Is this correct?

Basically, yes...but Adam was also given free will to either obey God or disobey him. Not sure if this fully answers this question for you.

Thank you in advance for any insight into these very specific questions.

Clear
ειδρακφιω

You're welcome.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@Deeje said : “…this feels more like another inquisition than a discussion…”

I apologize if this deeper look at specifics has been uncomfortable for you. If asking you specific questions feels like a "persecution" of sorts, I do not mean cause you any terror or discomfort. However, it is “specific” answers I am looking for. So far, I have not been particularly critical of your differing theories and differing interpretations other than pointing out the errors in attempting to change the definition of the word “immortal” to support your theology.

Honestly, I find your comments to be quite intriguing. As a JW, I never thought to question what the GB taught us, and I simply accepted that we should not delve too deeply or question too much. I'm sure that Deeje is doing the same. She is well-versed in what she has been told, but it does seem to be quite superficial and questioning things as you have done definitely raises the specter of persecution for her.

For example, in post #117 you presented a new re-definition of the word “immortality” by claiming “Immortality means that life is indestructible.” (Deeje, post #117). However, the truth is that “Immortality” simply means one is not mortal. The resulting dictionary meaning is “the ability to live forever” (i.e. an unending living existence). By correcting this error in post #119 you were not being persecuted in any way. You were simply being corrected.

When you again attempted to re-define “Immortality” by saying “… immortality apparently implies more than that its possessor will live forever. It seems to indicate a particular quality of life…” (Deeje, post #123). When I corrected this error in post #126, it was not persecution but simply a correction of definitions. While Jehovahs Witnesses will unavoidably see the world through their specific bias (we all do this), this does not include the right to re-define dictionary words for the rest of the world so as to fit that specific bias.

This point definitely made me step back and re-consider what I had been taught. JWs teach that being immortal means that the person cannot die or be destroyed--not even by God. Jesus was granted immortality but humans can expect only to attain to everlasting life as long as they don't "mess up."

It is quite apparent to readers that you are adding personal biases and theories to your definitions and to the biblical text. While I understand that this sort of biased communication happens, it skews communications to the point that they are inaccurate and difficult. If I point out an error or ask why you think Genesis 2:15-24 refers to a “moral education” of Adam, it is not "an inquisition". It is a simple request for clarification and knowledge. To describe it as "an inquisition" is another "skewing" and "bending" of reality. IF there is no good justication for your claims, there may be discomfort, but there is no “inquisition” going on.

You need to keep in mind that JWs are definitely not Biblical scholars and most don't even possess much of any sort of education. The points they bring out are what they have been told is "truth" by the Watchtower Society. They are also told by the Watchtower Society that all JWs know more about the Bible than anyone, so to be corrected on things they have been taught does seem to them to be an attack.

Perhaps I can explain my reasoning underlying the specific questions so that readers can see my logic

.

IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS INTERPRETATION, THE POST RESURRECTION PEOPLE ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN WILL HAVE THE SAME MORAL IMPERFECTIONS AS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE

In Jehovahs witness theology, God will ultimately “re-create” bodies of individuals who lived before and “download” a copy of their prior personalities into these post-resurrection bodies. Regarding these “re-created”, “post-resurrection” individuals :

Clear asked : “Regarding those who were oppressive and sought position over others (during their lifetime), are they given the same prior personality that had the tendency to be oppressive and seek pre-eminence over others? Etc, etc. OR, will their personalities and characteristics be modified to make them more fit to live in harmony without lies, oppression, anger, war, etc. (post #119)
Deeje responded : “They will be raised as the same people who died.” (#127)

JWs believe that those who exhibited those types of personality traits would not be among those whom Jehovah will resurrect. Supposedly, all those either entering into the New System or being resurrected into the New System would be those who were meek and who exhibited the "new personality" that becoming a JW purportedly brings into being.

What is the advantage of Jehovahs Witness theories and interpretations? They cannot simply claim “we came up with the best interpretations” since many christian movements make this same claim. They cannot simply say “we get our doctrines from the bible” since other claim this. Etc. etc. What is the advantage?

Silly...this is very simple. JWs are Jehovah's people and are the only true Christians on the face of the earth. Any other religions making similar claims are merely false Christians who are being deceived by Satan.

What is the advantage of adopting this new set of interpretations

offered by Jehovahs Witnesses? They are not more “biblical” than the interpretations of others who used the bible to create their beliefs. The Jehovahs Witness theories do not rid us of any great theological problems that their interpretations themselves do not create. What is the advantage of adopting the more modern Jehovah Witness system of interpreting the ancient texts?

Through methodical indoctrination techniques, JWs are made to accept the claims of the men of the Governing Body who have appointed themselves as the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and declared that the Holy Spirit guides them (and only them) to release teachings that are "truth." The advantage is that this allows the JWs to proclaim themselves to be "Jehovah's people" and special. Not adopting the interpretations of the Governing Body will lead to expulsion from the JW organization and everlasting destruction at Armageddon.

 

[Clear]

Yes, I was an active JW for 30 years. I'll try my best.



Yes, Adam was created with a mortal body, but JWs believe that, as long as he obeyed God's laws, that mortal body would have continued on indefinitely.



Not quite. If I remember correctly, Adam would have been granted "everlasting life" but he wouldn't have been immortal. Similarly, any who make it into the "New System" or who are resurrected into the "New System" will be granted everlasting life if they pass the "test" when Satan is released at the end of a thousand years. The only beings granted immortality would be those of the 144,000 Heavenly class.



Basically, yes...but Adam was also given free will to either obey God or disobey him. Not sure if this fully answers this question for you.



You're welcome.

@RedhorseWoman :

I JUST NOTICED THAT YOUR LAST POST WAS POSTED WHILE I WAS WRITING THIS POST

Thank you so much for the clarification you provided. That answer was clear. Can I ask for a bit more information?

The Jehovahs Witness Deeje said that "Material creatures cannot be immortal." (post #110), but the original Adam was a material creature and, if I understand you correctly, this material body did not need to die unless acted upon by some external circumstance. That is, Adam had a material, immortal body. Have YOU heard of this theory that a "material creature" cannot possess immortality?

Secondly, you make a distinction between "immortality" and "eternal life" in that you describe Adam as having a mortal body "that would have continued on indefinitely" ( i.e. immortal in that it did not need to die) however you qualify that Adam could have been granted "eternal life" but "he wouldn't have been immortal".

What is the distinction between "immortality" and "eternal life" in Jehovahs Witness theology?

Again, I thank you in advance for any clarification on this specific question that you can provide.

Clear
ειφιφυακω

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@RedhorseWoman :

I JUST NOTICED THAT YOUR LAST POST WAS POSTED WHILE I WAS WRITING THIS POST

Thank you so much for the clarification you provided. That answer was clear. Can I ask for a bit more information?

The Jehovahs Witness Deeje said that "Material creatures cannot be immortal." (post #110), but the original Adam was a material creature and, if I understand you correctly, this material body did not need to die unless acted upon by some external circumstance. That is, Adam had a material, immortal body. Have YOU heard of this theory that a "material creature" cannot possess immortality?

Secondly, you make a distinction between "immortality" and "eternal life" in that you describe Adam as having a mortal body "that would have continued on indefinitely" ( i.e. immortal in that it did not need to die) however you qualify that Adam could have been granted "eternal life" but "he wouldn't have been immortal".

What is the distinction between "immortality" and "eternal life" in Jehovahs Witness theology?

Again, I thank you in advance for any clarification on this specific question that you can provide.

Clear
ειφιφυακω

When you gave your previous comment along with the actual definition of immortality, as I mentioned, it made me step back and re-consider what I had been taught. However, here is what JWs believe on this matter.

JWs believe that there is a very distinct difference between "everlasting life" and "immortality." A being that is granted everlasting life will not die of natural causes (we just assumed that if that person fell off a cliff they would be instantly resurrected or suffer no damage...that was never clarified for us) but they could be destroyed by God if they sinned in some way.

Sinning was considered to be unlikely, however, since those entering into the New System or being resurrected into the New System would have a thousand years to gain perfection, which would make it unlikely that they would screw up, although that possibility was always there as well as the threat of immediate destruction by God if they did so.

Immortality to a JW means that the being cannot be destroyed in any fashion...not even by God.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Clear]

When you gave your previous comment along with the actual definition of immortality, as I mentioned, it made me step back and re-consider what I had been taught. However, here is what JWs believe on this matter.

JWs believe that there is a very distinct difference between "everlasting life" and "immortality." A being that is granted everlasting life will not die of natural causes (we just assumed that if that person fell off a cliff they would be instantly resurrected or suffer no damage...that was never clarified for us) but they could be destroyed by God if they sinned in some way.

Sinning was considered to be unlikely, however, since those entering into the New System or being resurrected into the New System would have a thousand years to gain perfection, which would make it unlikely that they would screw up, although that possibility was always there as well as the threat of immediate destruction by God if they did so.

Immortality to a JW means that the being cannot be destroyed in any fashion...not even by God.

Does that clarify things?

YES, that was wonderfully clear and it was what I have been trying to learn for many posts. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.




Regarding your comment on the Jehovahs Witness attitude that "Any other religions making similar claims are merely false Christians who are being deceived by Satan. [RedHorseWoman, post #148)


I noticed this tendency previously but I had assumed it represented a characteristic of a single personality type rather than a characteristic of a religious movement. However, I do notice this tendency among religionists, perhaps some more than others.

For example, a Jehovahs Witnesses describes their a theory of “sleep death” modeled after “unconscious sleep” and promptly labeled it as the “ancient Jewish belief”. While I understood the claim was made as an attempt to enhance the credibility of the theory, still this was never the early Jewish nor Christian model at all. It was the abuse of historical facts that was so bothersome.

I offered examples from the scriptures and multiple other Jewish texts where the Jews describe their actual ancient belief in "dream sleep" where there is communication and cognisance and mental activity going on. I offered examples of Jewish commentary from their mishnaic texts, including the Talmud that describes the cognizance and communication of the dead spirits of mankind while they are in hades/spirit world/world of spirits (whatever one wants to call the state of spirits after they are separated from the body and await resurrection).

Examples of scriptures that show "dream" sleep and communication from God during dreams as their model included :

God came to Abimelech in a dream, Gen. 20:3.

· he dreamed, and behold a ladder … reached to heaven, Gen. 28:12.

· God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream, Gen. 31:24.

· Joseph dreamed a dream, Gen. 37:5.

· this dreamer cometh, Gen. 37:19.

· We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter, Gen. 40:8.

· Pharaoh dreamed … he stood by the river, Gen. 41:1.

· Joseph remembered the dreams which he dreamed, Gen. 42:9.

· Lord … will speak unto him in a dream, Num. 12:6.

· If there arise … a dreamer of dreams, Deut. 13:1.

· man that told a dream unto his fellow, Judg. 7:13.

· Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, 1 Sam. 28:6.

· Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream, 1 Kgs. 3:5.

· against them that prophesy false dreams, Jer. 23:32.

· neither hearken to your dreams, Jer. 29:8.

· Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, Dan. 2:1.

· Thy dream … are these, Dan. 2:28.

· Daniel had a dream, Dan. 7:1.

· old men shall dream dreams, Joel 2:28 (Acts 2:17).

· diviners … have told false dreams, Zech. 10:2.

· Lord appeared unto him in a dream, Matt. 1:20.

· warned … in a dream that they should not return, Matt. 2:12.

· angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph, Matt. 2:19.

· being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside, Matt. 2:22.

· I have suffered many things … in a dream because of him, Matt. 27:19.

Ultimately, I offered three pages of scriptural references in addition to the actual Jewish claims to the contrary in the Talmud and other Judao-Christian texts supporting the historical concept that the ancients believed that God communicated to them during sleep, by dreams and visions.

The resulting justification I was given why Jehovahs Witnesses dismiss both scripture and historical data was that the Christians and the Jews were corrupt and apostates and the father of the Jews was the devil.

It was unsettling to see the ease with which one could both use Jewish scriptures to support a theory, yet claim the same Jews were “apostates” when their scriptures and text did not support the Jehovah Witness theory.

While I actually enjoyed the Jehovahs Witness missionaries I've met and thought they were wonderful and kind and they did not seem to be pushy or mean-hearted towards the Jews and early Christians, the sample size was only perhaps 4 Jehovahs Witnesses in my life.

In any case, I VERY MUCH appreciate the clarification and simple, direct answers you were able to provide me regarding my questions. I hope your spiritual journey in this life is insightful and wonderful and happy @RedhorseWoman.

Clear
ειφισισιω

 

[Clear]

@RedhorseWoman mentioned : "Immortality to a JW means that the being cannot be destroyed in any fashion...not even by God."

This is very, very interesting, that is the concept that what God Gives, he is unable to take away. Yes, this is not the meaning of "immortality" in any dictionary or religious lexicon that I am aware of. This is another example of what I was trying to explain in the prior discussion. IF one makes up unusual or non-standard definitions, then this only makes efficient and clear discussion more difficult. Also, if one uses this non-historical and non-standard definition in describing historical principles, then the resulting premises and theories will be skewed by the changed definitions. To the extent that the definitions are incorrect, it can affect the accuracy of the historical premise. I think the two posts you have given have been more clear and insightful than the last 5. I am grateful and impressed.

Thanks

Clear

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@RedhorseWoman mentioned : "Immortality to a JW means that the being cannot be destroyed in any fashion...not even by God."

This is very, very interesting, that is the concept that what God Gives, he is unable to take away. Yes, this is not the meaning of "immortality" in any dictionary or religious lexicon that I am aware of. This is another example of what I was trying to explain in the prior discussion. IF one makes up unusual or non-standard definitions, then this only makes efficient and clear discussion more difficult. Also, if one uses this non-historical and non-standard definition in describing historical principles, then the resulting premises and theories will be skewed by the changed definitions. To the extent that the definitions are incorrect, it can affect the accuracy of the historical premise. I think the two posts you have given have been more clear and insightful than the last 5. I am grateful and impressed.

Thanks

Clear

You're welcome. Despite the fact that I am considered an "apostate" and someone not to be trusted as far as JW teachings are concerned, the reality is that I, unlike most JWs, have no agenda. I simply relate to the best of my memory and ability what I had been taught when I was a JW.

 

[ecco]

The degree of picking and choosing in order to maintain one's beliefs is exceedingly high. How do you do it?

I do it by not reading books written by Joseph Smith; Taze Russell; the
Catholic Church; Augustine; Luther; Miller etc..

In other words, you prefer to keep blinders on. That's not surprising.

Have you read Russel's The Kingdom Come 1907?
Out of print and not available in JW libraries. I suggest you might be
disfellowshipped for reading it.

I might be disfellowshipped from what?

Just read two things:
1 - Matt, Mark, Luke and John - this gives us Jesus' own words
2 - The Acts and the Epistles - this gives you the nature of Christ's church.

These books are without human intervention.

I was under the impression that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were human.
All research shows that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not in a position to record any of Jesus' comments. Have you ever seriously wondered about how someone could have accurately recorded all 2000+ words of the sermon on the mount?

It seems you know little about the creation of your NT. By showing that you have no interest in even learning who Marcion is and what his views were, you reinforce your preference to maintain your very low standard.

 

[SA Huguenot]

No replies or an explanation on my question obviously means the JW's are unable to supply a logical answer, and admit to being wrong