JWs & The Bible

[nPeace]

@Brian2 next you'll be telling me the Bible teaches the Trinity - father, son, and holy spirit, one God, and JWs deny what the Bible says.

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace said : "The use of the word arrival, still applies to being present."
Yes, if someone arrived, it refers to someone who is present.
If someone WILL arrive, it refers to a future presence after arrival.
If someone arrived in the past, but is gone, it refers to a presence in past tense.


nPeace said : "Never is the word used for coming."
While there is another specific word for "coming" (so there is no reason to use this word referring to someone who is "coming down the hill" in a spacial sense), it is used for an arrival, i.e. will arrive in the future, has now arrived, or a past arrival.
I'm not sure I understand why the nuance between the perfect sense of "he came" or "he arrived" is important to the discussion you and Brian2 (and perhaps others) are having.
Also, since παρουσια is used for “Advent”, such as the “advent” of spring (when spring "comes" or "arrives" or "is here"), the nuance is difficult to ferret out.

I honestly don’t care if one says, Spring has Arrived, or Spring came, or Spring is present though I think, in modern parlance, “Spring is present” implies it came or it arrived.

I didn’t look at much of your post because much of it was irrelevant to the specific point of nuance of meaning. I haven’t read much of the discussion you are having and so I don’t know why the nuance is important to you or Brian2 or any other poster. It simply didn’t strike my interest at this point. I was simply pointing out that both of you were correct, depending upon context.


I hope your journey is good nPeace.


Clear

Am arriving, and has arrived are two different occasions.
Am I correct?
Therefore, you are mixing in something entirely different to what is written.
Because of the idea of coming, you assume arriving.

 

[Clear]

nPeace said : "Am arriving, and has arrived are two different occasions."
It can be either two different occasions OR two descriptions of a single occasion.
It will depend on the context.
As I said, I haven't looked at the debate or discussion you are having.


nPeace said : "Because of the idea of coming, you assume arriving."
Actually, I have not told you what I am assuming since I haven't looked at the debate or discussion you are having.
I have merely described the multiple potential meanings of the word παρουσια and it's nuances and wished you good luck in coming to your own opinion as to how the word should be translated in whatever references you are discussing.

Clear

 

[nPeace]

nPeace said : "Am arriving, and has arrived are two different occasions."
It can be either two different occasions OR two descriptions of a single occasion.
It will depend on the context.
As I said, I haven't looked at the debate or discussion you are having.


nPeace said : "Because of the idea of coming, you assume arriving."
Actually, I have not told you what I am assuming since I haven't looked at the debate or discussion you are having.
I have merely described the multiple potential meanings of the word παρουσια and it's nuances and wished you good luck in coming to your own opinion as to how the word should be translated in whatever references you are discussing.

Clear

I'm referring, not to the debate, but what you posted, and what you said.
I already said what the conclusion is.

 

[Deeje]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace said : "The use of the word arrival, still applies to being present."
Yes, if someone arrived, it refers to someone who is present.
If someone WILL arrive, it refers to a future presence after arrival.
If someone arrived in the past, but is gone, it refers to a presence in past tense.


nPeace said : "Never is the word used for coming."
While there is another specific word for "coming" (so there is no reason to use this word referring to someone who is "coming down the hill" in a spacial sense), it is used for an arrival, i.e. will arrive in the future, has now arrived, or a past arrival.
I'm not sure I understand why the nuance between the perfect sense of "he came" or "he arrived" is important to the discussion you and Brian2 (and perhaps others) are having.
Also, since παρουσια is used for “Advent”, such as the “advent” of spring (when spring "comes" or "arrives" or "is here"), the nuance is difficult to ferret out.

I honestly don’t care if one says, Spring has Arrived, or Spring came, or Spring is present though I think, in modern parlance, “Spring is present” implies it came or it arrived.

I didn’t look at much of your post because much of it was irrelevant to the specific point of nuance of meaning. I haven’t read much of the discussion you are having and so I don’t know why the nuance is important to you or Brian2 or any other poster. It simply didn’t strike my interest at this point. I was simply pointing out that both of you were correct, depending upon context.

It matters if you believe that Christ's "presence" and his "coming" are one and the same event. We believe that Jesus' "presence" needed a complex, multi-faceted "sign" to indicate that it had taken place (Matthew 24:3-14)....but his "coming" or "manifestation" is as judge and needs no such sign, since all mankind will experience what that means.
Matthew 24:30....
"The sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Can you see the difference? Jesus' "presence" indicated that he was already here and that the foretold events would take place in the world right up until he shows himself as judge.....these world events were to indicate that fact, getting his disciples ready for the final showdown. But at his "coming" everyone will be aware of what is taking place and what it will mean for them. Why will they "beat themselves in lamentation"? Because the "goats" will be aware of his condemnation and of their immanent demise.

 

[Kenny]

Young's Literal Translation
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Verse 7 reads much the same way in all transactions...
New International Version
Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Why the kingdom?
The verses say, to establish peace, and rightness, or righteousness, and justice... forever
It reminds us of the words that rang out in the ears of those shepherds who were visited by the angels...
(Luke 2:13, 14) 13 Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory in the heights above to God, and on earth peace among men of goodwill.”
The Kingdom will accomplish basically two things, mentioned there. There is more.... Yes, I know it's a book I wrote, but it's my favorite. It's also the theme and overall message of the Bible, which shows the harmony of the scriptures, and proves a number of things, including the truth related to the theme of this thread.

In summary ...
The kingdom of God is a government set up by God, in the hands of the one whom God appointed ruler - Jesus Christ.
(Daniel 2:44) . . .“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,

.

Agree with all of this...

Y

So no. It is nothing in the heart of men
Jesus Christ chose men to rule in that kingdom with him.
(Luke 22:28-30) 28 “However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
It is a little flock compared to the other sheep.
(Luke 12:32) . . .“Have no fear, little flock, for your Father has approved of giving you the Kingdom.
The kingdom rules the earth - its domain - from heaven.
(2 Timothy 4:18) . . .The Lord will rescue me from every wicked work and will save me for his heavenly Kingdom. . . .
It will accomplish God's will, as stated in Ephesians 1:3-14

I may give you the other part shortly, but please take your time, no rush.
I still want to hear you on those scriptures mentioned earlier.

Here I have some points...

Yes, it is an earthly kingdom but it still has to do with our hearts for the "kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" and the Holy Ghost dwells in our innermost beings. Remember that He first writes in our hearts and you can't have a physical kingdom if the heart isn't in the kingdom as well as "the kingdom is within you".

Kingdom living includes sowing the word of God in our hearts (Mark 4)... so reigning first starts within and the kingdom first starts in the hearts of man.

The Father rules in Heaven but, as you mentioned, Jesus Christ rules on earth. Paul currently is in the heavenly Kingdom or the Kingdom of Heaven but when The Word returns, Paul will be with Jesus in the Kingdom of God on the earth.

 

[nPeace]

Agree with all of this...

When you say you agree with all of what was said, is it to say you have read through all the way to post #205, and you didn't miss any, including post #203, which includes...
The kingdom rules the earth - its domain - from heaven.
(2 Timothy 4:18) . . .The Lord will rescue me from every wicked work and will save me for his heavenly Kingdom. . . . ?

Hope you aren't exhausted.

Here I have some points...

Yes, it is an earthly kingdom but it still has to do with our hearts for the "kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" and the Holy Ghost dwells in our innermost beings. Remember that He first writes in our hearts and you can't have a physical kingdom if the heart isn't in the kingdom as well as "the kingdom is within you".

Kingdom living includes sowing the word of God in our hearts (Mark 4)... so reigning first starts within and the kingdom first starts in the hearts of man.

The Father rules in Heaven but, as you mentioned, Jesus Christ rules on earth. Paul currently is in the heavenly Kingdom or the Kingdom of Heaven but when The Word returns, Paul will be with Jesus in the Kingdom of God on the earth.

Can you give me scripture for all you said here.
Verse by statement. Or vica versa.

Also, I know it was a lot, but did you forget to respond to post #200?
That's extremely important.

 

[nPeace]

@Clear to further clarify. .. Please let me know when you arrive home.
Okay. I will let you know when I am at home.
The use of the word coming cannot apply period ... unless your home is in my house.
Then I would say, please let me know when you are arriving, or coming.

So because people apply Jesus words to his return to the earth, in the flesh, they inserted the word coming, based on a belief and assumption.
parousia was never used that way... not until "Christianity" in the second century - as was verified by the information you posted, and myself as well.

As Deeje pointed out, the disciples wanted a sign of Jesus arrival as king - his royal presence.
His coming would occur later, when he returns to judge, as stated at Matthew 24:30.

Hope that makes it clearer.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace and @Deeje

Thank you Deeje for the explanation.

I think Deejes comment seemed, to me, simplest to understand. Arrival...presence, either is fine with me.

I have not been following your discussions other than to point out παρουσια has been used as arrival, advent, and presence.
I think the use of "second coming" by modern Christians probably refers to his coming as Judge whether it is the correct usage of the term or not.
As for myself, if a Christian says they are awaiting the "second coming", or the "final advent" or his "return to earth in the end times" or etc, I think I will understand what they mean.
If you have been discussing which term is correct this is fine, I have not been following the discussion and hope the discussion is fruitful for you.

Clear

 

[Deeje]

Yes, it is an earthly kingdom but it still has to do with our hearts for the "kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" and the Holy Ghost dwells in our innermost beings. Remember that He first writes in our hearts and you can't have a physical kingdom if the heart isn't in the kingdom as well as "the kingdom is within you".

Hey Ken...if I may chime in here.....
I have issues with the whole "Holy Ghost" concept. When you hear the word "ghost" what immediately springs to mind? There is no "Holy Ghost" in any part of the Bible....."ghost" is from a German word "geist" (as in poltergeist) and it means "spirit".....

The Greek pneuʹma (spirit) comes from pneʹo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ruʹach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ruʹach and pneuʹma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Habakuk 2:19; Revelation 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit......All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects. So right away I see referring to God's spirit as a "ghost" is designed to support the trinity.

The Holy Spirit is not a separate entity in scripture....not a third "person" in a godhead. God's spirit is the means he uses to exercise his power and his will. God's “power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while the electric current flowing from the battery is the means of its delivery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures. It is why we call it his "active force".

If you might remember the time when Moses was downhearted with all the responsibility of the people whom God had rescued from Egypt...they were a complaining bunch and he was feeling the weight of them. God told him to gather 70 capable men, elders from the tribes.....
Numbers 11:25...
"Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders; and when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do so again.
"Some of the spirit" is not describing an entity.

He also said concerning two men who had prophesied in the camp...."Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit on them!” "

The disciples were "filled with the Holy Spirit"......so how can it be a person?

If the Holy Spirit was a person, these scriptures would make no sense.

Kingdom living includes sowing the word of God in our hearts (Mark 4)... so reigning first starts within and the kingdom first starts in the hearts of man.

Hearts are where kingdom seeds are planted and where they grow if there is rich soil, but the Kingdom is the place where some will reign with Christ as "kings and priests" (Revelation 20:6) and the domain over which they rule is 'among mankind' here on earth as John says in Revelation 21:2-4.

Jesus' reference to the 'kingdom being within you' was Jesus addressing the Pharisees and making them aware that the representative King of God's Kingdom was right there among them, and they failed to accept him. The Kingdom was never 'within' those wicked hearts.

The Father rules in Heaven but, as you mentioned, Jesus Christ rules on earth. Paul currently is in the heavenly Kingdom or the Kingdom of Heaven but when The Word returns, Paul will be with Jesus in the Kingdom of God on the earth.

If you remember Revelation 14:1, 144,000 are seen with Christ in heaven...chosen from among mankind to rule over the earth. Earthly Mt Zion was no longer the seat of God's worship. (John 4:20-23) This is a heavenly location.

The 144,000 are "kings and priests" so they need sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties....and kings do not rule one another. They do not need to be on earth to rule humans. When God ruled his people in ancient times, he did so through earthly representatives. Christ too was God's earthly representative and when he returned to heaven to 'prepare a place' for his disciples, he left trained apostles to carry on the work he started...they in turn trained others and Christianity was to grow in a field of weeds until the harvest time.

I believe the harvest is not far off and we all need to be on the same page as Jesus, not with the weeds who want to misrepresent Christ and his Father.

 

[Kenny]

Also, I know it was a lot, but did you forget to respond to post #200?
That's extremely important.

sorry... missed that one.

 

[nPeace]

sorry... missed that one.

That's okay. Easy to miss an express train.

 

[Kenny]

That's okay. Easy to miss an express train.

LOL... just as along as the express train can make a stop to listen.

 

[nPeace]

LOL... just as along as the express train can make a stop to listen.

Come on Ken, give the nPeace some credit, will yah. That's the whole purpose. How else would I have known that you didn't properly answer the questions, and then missed them entirely.
I'm keeping track of everything you say, so that I know where you are.
I'm hurt.

 

[Kenny]

Come on Ken, give the nPeace some credit, will yah. That's the whole purpose. How else would I have known that you didn't properly answer the questions, and then missed them entirely.
I'm keeping track of everything you say, so that I know where you are.
I'm hurt.

Don't take it that seriously... you have been doing a great job. It was just the image of the express train...

 

[nPeace]

Don't take it that seriously... you have been doing a great job. It was just the image of the express train...

Come on Ken. Can't you take a joke... Sheesh. I'm good.
@KenS anyway, my train has supernatural brakes. They can stop instantly, and turn instantly... just like the celestial chariot Ezekiel saw.

 

[Brian2]

@Clear to further clarify. .. Please let me know when you arrive home.
Okay. I will let you know when I am at home.
The use of the word coming cannot apply period ... unless your home is in my house.
Then I would say, please let me know when you are arriving, or coming.

So because people apply Jesus words to his return to the earth, in the flesh, they inserted the word coming, based on a belief and assumption.
parousia was never used that way... not until "Christianity" in the second century - as was verified by the information you posted, and myself as well.

As Deeje pointed out, the disciples wanted a sign of Jesus arrival as king - his royal presence.
His coming would occur later, when he returns to judge, as stated at Matthew 24:30.

Hope that makes it clearer.

It could happen that Jesus would make Himself invisible and come and be present and then go away and come again to judge the earth.
Do you think that Jesus comes and stays for a while and then goes away and comes again?
I still cannot see that Jesus would be crowned as King when He comes the first time. How is that scriptural?
If Jesus was appointed to be firstborn, higher than the Kings of the earth, (Psalm 89:27) and He has been that at least since Paul wrote Colossians, that would mean that He has been crowned as something since going to heaven and seeing His Father (as in Dan 7:13,14) where He was given an everlasting Kingdom. Dan 7:13,14 and Ps 89:27 seem to have happened before His ascension since Jesus said before He ascended that He had been given all power in heaven and on earth.

 

[Brian2]

No. The king rules over his domain. King - ruler. Dom - domain.
Watch.

It's hard to argue when the WT has it's own definitions of words and you believe them instead of the dictionary and the use of "Kingdom" in the Bible.
If you mean by your post that Kingdom is the domain over which a King rules then we can agree.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, Brian.
Your cards are not staying up.
Jesus was raised spirit. He manifested different physical bodies.
What are you finding hard to understand about that.
What you believe is not the important thing here.

Do we have to go through those scriptures again?
Okay. I don't have time to waste, so one final time.
Brian says
Angels are spirits, and they materialize physical bodies, and if Jesus was raised spirit, he could materialize physical bodies, but Jesus was not raised spirit, but rather he was born flesh, died flesh, and was raised up flesh.

Here is what the Bible says.
Angels are spirit. - Hebrews 1:7, 13
Angels materialize physical bodies. - Genesis 19:15, 16 ; Genesis 32:24-30 ; Judges 13:3, 6, 8-14 ; Zechariah 1:10, 11 ;
Matthew 28:2-7 ; Acts 10:30-33 ; Acts 11:13
Jesus was born a human, on earth. - John 1:14 ; Philippians 2:7, 8 ; Hebrews 2:14
Jesus died. - Isaiah 53:12 ; Romans 5:6-8 ; 1 Peter 3:18 ; 1 John 4:10
Jesus was resurrected as spirit, and he could materialize physical bodies. - 1 Timothy 3:16 ; 1 Peter 3:18, 19 ; 1 Corinthians 15:35-52

So according to the scriptures...
Angels are spirits, and they materialize physical bodies, and Jesus was raised spirit, he also could materialize physical bodies, and he did, but Jesus was was born flesh, died flesh, and was raised up spirit.

This is also what JWs believe.
I think it's clear to see that JWs beliefs are in harmony with the Bible. Not yours Brian.

You do not answer the scriptures I gave, the plain scriptures which show that Jesus was raised as a man with a physical body. (John 2:18-22, Matt 28:5)
All you do is provide texts which cannot be said to say for sure that Jesus was raised as a spirit.
You say that Jesus materialised different bodies to appear to the disciples and the scriptures don't say that, it is all invention.
1Tim 3:16---"was declared righteous in spirit". This seems to say when Jesus was declared righteous. It was when He was in spirit, and that was after He died and before He rose.
1Pet 3:18-20---"made alive in spirit in which He went and preached to the spirits in prison" Which spirits were they? The ones who had been disobedient in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while the ark was being built.
For a start He would not have preached to angels. He preached to the spirits of dead people, the ones who went to prison /sheol/ hades.
Do you really think that He went to preach to angels?
1Cor 15:35-52---
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

That shows that the body we die with is raised incorruptible and in power, it is a spiritual body. It is not a "spirit" body, as you may want us to think or even think yourself, it is a spiritual body, and as Vine tells us, one of the language experts JW use at times, that means it is a body that can be controlled by our spirit. That it does not mean that it is a spirit can be seen in the use of the word "spiritual" in other places in the New Testament.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The above section shows what we bear the image of. Just as we bear the image of Adam, a living soul, so we also bear the image of the second Adam from heaven, a life giving spirit. In the Greek it does not say that the Last Adam became or was made a life giving spirit. The first Adam became, the last has was a life giving spirit from eternity. The insertion of those words makes all the difference. And even if it meant that the last Adam became a life giving spirit it does not mean that He rose as a spirit. When he ascended to heaven He filled all things and even lives in us as a life giving spirit, as God. But this does not mean that He is not in heaven on the throne as the resurrected Jesus. He is both God and man and so can fulfil all of who and what He is.
Eph 4:10He who descended is the very One who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things.
A verse which the WT has translated "give fulness to all things", which does not seem to agree with the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation at all. It is easier to see why the GB disagrees with the Bible and says that God is not everywhere.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Flesh and blood are symbols of corruption but Jesus was changed to be incorruptible and immortal just as we will be. I will add a verse that you left out.
53For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
It is not that the physical body is done away with, it is changed by being clothed. The physical body becomes incorruptible and imperishable.
Roams 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.
The WT would be delighted if it did not have the plain scriptures that say that Jesus rose bodily,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but those scriptures exist and so it has to use scriptures of Paul's that aren't 100% clear and say they mean what they do not.
I have heard that a theory is that the body of Jesus disappeared and could be hanging in state somewhere in heaven. How gross. Worse than wearing a cross to symbolise the redemptive death of Jesus, the gospel which brought in the start of the Kingdom 2000 years ago so that Jesus could be the King over Christians. Yes the early Christians were accused of having another King and Jesus was accused of being the King of the Jews. Both true accusations.
But if you cannot answer the scriptures I present then that shows something about the JWs and the Bible.

 

[Clear]

Hi @brian and @nPeace

Does your present discussion center around whether the resurrection of Jesus (and the rest of mankind) is a physical resurrection or not?
Or do I misunderstand your discussion?

Clear
τωνενετζω