JWs & The Bible

[Pete in Panama]

In Catholicism, we in recent decades more used the "New American Bible: Catholic Edition" but the most recent one I bought is the "Revised Standard Edition: Catholic Edition", which is a better choice for ecumenical Bible study programs because it tends to more use more word-for-word translations as the RSV has been the most widely used Bible in theological circles.

interesting

 

[metis]

This will be my last response to you on this thread.

I think it is clear that your everyday conversations with people you disagree with is to constantly try to insult and demean.

Having a conversation with you can never end peacefully no matter how one tries, because your hatred for those you consider "fundamental", shines through. That blinds one

When one has played the kind of disingenuous games you've repeatedly played here, what are we supposed to do, cheer you? You may take it as personal insult, but when one is dishonest by repeatedly posting dishonest things, that's not a personal insult-- it's a fact. Thus, calling a spade a "spade" is not an "insult".

The GB existed in the first century with Jesus apostles.

I call them the "Apostles" or the "Twelve", which is more compatible with the scriptures. After all, isn't you JW's that insist on using the correct names.

All in the Christian congregation were baptized and annointed - the body of Christ.

Correct.

They prophesied that apostasy would rise and take over the congregation, once the last individual holding strain was gone.
It was present, just not dominating.

They said there would be apostacy but not that the entire Church would be taken over. If that had happened, then Jesus promise ton guide his Church would have to be considered as being false.

We have an example of super-fine apostle - false apostles who opposed Paul, and Paul had to encourage young Timothy to stand up to them.
even Jesus to the congregation warned that they repent lest he take away what they had.

Correct.

Paul said that God would let an operation of error go to them that the would believe the lie. So that is what happened when the man of lawlessness 'sat in the temple of god, proclaiming himself a god".

Yep.

The GB was allowed to fade out, as the apostasy - a deviation and turning away from the truth - took root in the congregation. wicked men took over, or took the lead. God allowed it, just as he allowed the Israelite nation to be disciplined when they lost their city and temple and went into captivity to Babylon.

The Jesus' promise wasn't fulfilled, according to this.

So even though there were annointed ones who more than likely tried to oppose the man of lawlessness, because that apostate tyrant was powerful, they did not prevail.
The apostate Church showed by vivid display what happens to those who do not conform to its authority.

Again, se above.

Starting in the late first century and into the 2nd, different groups claiming to be the "true Church" appeared, and this created sever problems, including the fact that they used different canons. such as Marcion, who only used a part of Luke and eliminated the other Gospels from his canon. The canon you use is from the Catholic canon, which is quite funny in that you say the Church went into apostacy and yet you use our canon [minus the Apocrypha-- another story] that was selected in the 4th century. IOW, you're trying to have it both ways.

Anyhow, I gotta go, and sorry if I get rather hot under the collar at times-- this is what happens when one is married to an Sicilian for 54 years.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...there the the JWs DIR on RF...

Dang! I looked, I even searched on the RF auto-search thing & got nothing. How do u get there?

...we could try harder.

Live is short, no hurry. I got the time so I was looking for someone here to see if he(she) could put it in clearer wording.

 

[nPeace]

Dang! I looked, I even searched on the RF auto-search thing & got nothing. How do u get there?

@Deeje can probably help you out there. I came across it once, but it seems hard to find.

Live is short, no hurry. I got the time so I was looking for someone here to see if he(she) could put it in clearer wording.

You seem to really want that conversation. I am sorry it didn't work out.
I tried. I really did, but it seems I didn't understand what you wanted.
Even now, I would admit, that I still don't understand what you want to do, clearly.

Maybe communicating between us is somewhat of a challenge, because of the time factor.
You seem to want to write short, and I don't have the time or ,mindset to do the same because my mind is in overload with the things I have to do, while at the same time trying to respond to threads, and sometimes what can happen if I don't put down what I have to say, while my train of thought is clear in focus, it can become jumbled with other thoughts, and the other things i am working on.

I'm not very good at multitasking brain-wise, i guess.

 

[nPeace]

This will be my last response to you on this thread.

When one has played the kind of disingenuous games you've repeatedly played here, what are we supposed to do, cheer you? You may take it as personal insult, but when one is dishonest by repeatedly posting dishonest things, that's not a personal insult-- it's a fact. Thus, calling a spade a "spade" is not an "insult".

I call them the "Apostles" or the "Twelve", which is more compatible with the scriptures. After all, isn't you JW's that insist on using the correct names.

Correct.

They said there would be apostacy but not that the entire Church would be taken over. If that had happened, then Jesus promise ton guide his Church would have to be considered as being false.

Correct.

Yep.

The Jesus' promise wasn't fulfilled, according to this.

Again, se above.

Starting in the late first century and into the 2nd, different groups claiming to be the "true Church" appeared, and this created sever problems, including the fact that they used different canons. such as Marcion, who only used a part of Luke and eliminated the other Gospels from his canon. The canon you use is from the Catholic canon, which is quite funny in that you say the Church went into apostacy and yet you use our canon [minus the Apocrypha-- another story] that was selected in the 4th century. IOW, you're trying to have it both ways.

Anyhow, I gotta go, and sorry if I get rather hot under the collar at times-- this is what happens when one is married to an Sicilian for 54 years.

Well. I really did not intend to have any discussion with you, but you asked a question, and I decided i would answer. I anticipated this, but I think we humans tend to keep trying for some reason, even when we get bitten on the butt by angry dogs.
Take care.

 

[nPeace]

My post #139: Jesus, otoh, is referred to as being the "Cornerstone" for the Church, which is far more important than just being a "rock" ["Kephas"].

You're conflating two things, namely that Jesus is the "Cornerstone" of the Church, which is the most important stone, and Peter, otoh, is the stone or rock ["kephas" can be interpreted as being either] that one sees from Acts through the Epistles whereas Peter's name is almost always mentioned first amongst the Apostles and sometimes just being rendered "Peter and the others". Also, it is Jesus who tells Peter to "feed my sheep...", which is not mentioned of any other of the Twelve.

Again, this is essentially a side-bar as the main question is what exactly is the Church that Jesus created and promised to guide if it's not the CC? Name it. You can't, because there is no other Church that could even remotely fulfill that promise. And this is the exact same Church that selected the scriptures you use, so if that church supposedly fell into "apostacy", then why not give your Bible away to someone who can appreciate and use it even though it's from the Church you claimed slipped into "Christendom".

And I just can't help and notice that you cannot even be honest enough to admit that the Catholic Church is not a "secular" organization as you posted before, and I even mentioned it to you again as a reminder. Why can't you even admit that you did not tell the Truth? Even if you had admitted that you were "mistaken", that would have sufficed. But no, you couldn't even do that.

...though nineteenth-century nationalism is often seen as essentially secular, the most powerful of these identities were frequently religious. Indeed the clergy often played a major role in promoting a national consciousness. While a ‘national church’ readily saw itself as the embodiment of the nation’s past history, present identity and future aspirations, religious minorities usually had a more ambivalent relationship with a nationalism that was always in some degree exclusive.

Nationalism and Christianity
Many of the classic histories of nationalism12 see it as an essentially secular ideology – even as a ‘political religion’, substituting for a declining Christianity.

Christianity and nationalism in nineteenth-century Europe

Maybe some people don't understand what secular and secularization means.
Why, maybe they don't even know what being of the world, or being part of the world means.
(John 17:16) They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

Am I to be blamed for someone's ignorance.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I'm really quite used to their tactics as I lived next two JW families for many years. These were nice people though, but they fell victim to the GB propaganda as well. Fortunately, thy eventually left, and they very much admitted that it is very much a "cult". ...

If u get a chance, what does "GB" mean?

Yep, and they cannot answer it, and I have asked this same exactly question to several of them here over the years. Instead, all ya get is smoke & mirrors, whereas they'll deflect on to something else, often with a huge plate of "word-salad" that ya have to wade through. Then they'll falsely claim that they answered it, as we've seen on this thread.

Ah. Hope I'm not too late asking but I'd be grateful if u could help me out about the thing of Jesus and the church he "said he would guide until the end of time". Where did u say that's from?

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje can probably help you out there. I came across it once, but it seems hard to find.

@Pete in Panama if you look at the Forums list you will see in “Abrahamic”, then “Christianity DIR” and selecting that will give you a sub menu....find “non-Trinitarian” and the JW DIR will be there.

Jehovah's Witnesses DIR

 

[nPeace]

If u get a chance, what does "GB" mean?Ah. Hope I'm not too late asking but I'd be grateful if u could help me out about the thing of Jesus and the church he "said he would guide until the end of time". Where did u say that's from?

Just in the event that metis does not respond, GB is short for Governing Body.

I'm interested in the answer to your last question too. I think the answer would be Matthew 28:20. Perhaps to some persons, the Church is the ones Jesus sent out to make disciples.
At that time they were not the body. None of them were anointed by holy spirit. They were not sons of God - born again.

The Church was formed in 33 CE, after Jesus' death.
(Colossians 1:18) and he is the head of the body, the congregation.

(1 Corinthians 12:27, 28) 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation. . .

(Ephesians 1:22, 23) 22 He also subjected all things under his feet and made him head over all things with regard to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

 

[Kenny]

@KenS you asked, 'What is the mystery of the Kingdom?' Mark 4:11

I hope you don't mind reading, becase I am going to ask you to do a lot... in the Bible, that is.
However, take your time, because we need to be on the same page, primarily where the scriptures are concerned. So happy reading.

The sacred secret of the kingdom was not known to those living before Christ came, shedding some light on it. It was revealed to the apostles, by spirit, and declared as good news. (Ephesians 3:5-19) (1 Corinthians 2:7-13 ) (Colossians 1:24-29)
The sacred secret of the kingdom involves ...

1) God's purpose (Romans 16:25-27) Which is? (Genesis 3:15) (Ephesians 1:8-14)
2) the seed - Christ in union with the holy ones (Colossians 1:27) - that is the body of Christ, which must be complete, in unison with Christ Jesus (Colossians 1:28) the primary part of the promised seed.
3) people of the nations (Gentiles) being a part of that body (Romans 11:25) (Context - Romans 8:1-11:25) - actually joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with the holy ones in the promise (Ephesians 3:6) of ruling with Christ in his heavenly kingdom. (Romans 8:17) (Galatians 3:29) (Luke 12:32) (2 Timothy 2:12) (Ephesians 1:11-14) (Revelation 5:10) (Revelation 20:6)
4) a rulership by the Messiah with joint rulers in heaven, ruling over subjects on earth.​

Let me know when you are finished, and if we are in agreement with everything stated so far.
* While you may use the expression mystery, I am using sacred secret. We both are referring to the same thing, hopefully. I'm also using holy ones. You'll likely use saints.

Thank you! Very complete and will be working on it.

 

[nPeace]

@Pete in Panama if you look at the Forums list you will see in “Abrahamic”, then “Christianity DIR” and selecting that will give you a sub menu....find “non-Trinitarian” and the JW DIR will be there.

Jehovah's Witnesses DIR

Thanks Deeje. That's really hard to find. One has to dig through a lot. I went that far, and turned back after I hit a dead-end with a few earlier tries.
It's like going through a jungle.

 

[Deeje]

Thanks Deeje. That's really hard to find. One has to dig through a lot. I went that far, and turned back after I hit a dead-end with a few earlier tries.
It's like going through a jungle.

One could be forgiven for thinking they buried it

 

[nPeace]

One could be forgiven for thinking they buried it

Buried like in a billion years of sedimentary categories.

 

[metis]

If u get a chance, what does "GB" mean?

"Governing Body" of the JW's that tells them what they must believe and how they must act.

Ah. Hope I'm not too late asking but I'd be grateful if u could help me out about the thing of Jesus and the church he "said he would guide until the end of time". Where did u say that's from?

I have to leave very shortly for an appointment, so let me give you some verses that directly or indirectly deal with this:
Acts 2[42]
Ephesians 5[25-26]
I Timothy 3[15]
Matthew 16[18]
Hebrews 13[17]
Matthew 18[17-18]
Matthew 23[2]
I Corinthians 5[5]
I Timothy [1[20]

If there's a question, I'll be back here at RF later today.

Take care.

 

[nPeace]

If u get a chance, what does "GB" mean?Ah. Hope I'm not too late asking but I'd be grateful if u could help me out about the thing of Jesus and the church he "said he would guide until the end of time". Where did u say that's from?

Just to inform you Pete, what metis said to you is misleading.
You can see that from post #122, where he asked the question he did. From there, you can follow the conversation.
GB refers to those taking the lead in the congregation, with the assigned responsibility to feed Jesus' sheep.
Perhaps metis forgot that he implied the GB existed continually from the first century. Or maybe... something else.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace and @Brian2


I did not want to interrupt your discussion other than to point out that I like both of your last points re the Parousia (παρουσια) of Jesus as it applies to his second coming.

Παρουσια in the early literature was used both in the sense of a "presence" and an "arrival" and it is the context which differentiates the usage in a phrase.
In the peri-c.e. era it most often referred to the visit of a king or another high official (and therefore the preparation for the coming of this official).
In this sort of context, It was typically an arrival that had a purpose in mind or a noteworthy arrival such as when the word spreads that Judith arrives at the camp of Holofernes (Judith 10:18) or when the Messiah “will return in glory” (apo Baruch 30:1) though Ignatius also uses it of the first “appearance” of the Messiah Jesus at his incarnation at birth.

I’m not involved in the thread but I just wanted to point out that both of you are correct in the useage and I like your references and the points you made to historical context.

I hope your spiritual journeys are wonderful.

Clear

 

[Kenny]

The sacred secret of the kingdom was not known to those living before Christ came, shedding some light on it. It was revealed to the apostles, by spirit, and declared as good news. (Ephesians 3:5-19) (1 Corinthians 2:7-13 ) (Colossians 1:24-29)

Agreed.

The sacred secret of the kingdom involves ...
1) God's purpose (Romans 16:25-27) Which is? (Genesis 3:15) (Ephesians 1:8-14)

I agree that "it involves"... just to make sure we are on the same page (because I think we are on it) - Genesis 3:15 - is the vehicle that gets us to Eph 1:8-14

2) the seed - Christ in union with the holy ones (Colossians 1:27) - that is the body of Christ, which must be complete, in unison with Christ Jesus (Colossians 1:28) the primary part of the promised seed.

Right on!!!

3) people of the nations (Gentiles) being a part of that body (Romans 11:25) (Context - Romans 8:1-11:25) - actually joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with the holy ones in the promise (Ephesians 3:6) of ruling with Christ in his heavenly kingdom. (Romans 8:17) (Galatians 3:29) (Luke 12:32) (2 Timothy 2:12) (Ephesians 1:11-14) (Revelation 5:10) (Revelation 20:6)

Yes on the Gentiles. Yes on the joint heirs. Ruling with Christ... but I believe not just heavenly kingdom but on this earth too. Which I don't think you have an issue with... but you can share otherwise.

4) a rulership by the Messiah with joint rulers in heaven, ruling over subjects on earth.

Here... I'm not sure. wouldn't it also be one earth? Revelation 21:1-4,7 (and others)

 

[nPeace]

I actually forgot I was to respond to this post.
Again, Brian, thanks for answering.

Yes

Yes?
I don't understand. How does one answer Yes to the question, Are angels spirit or flesh?
It's not a question requiring a Yes or No answer.

Yes

Do angels materialize physical bodies?
You say Yes, angels materialize physical bodies.

Yes

Jesus being resurrected as spirit, could materialize physical bodies. You agree.

a human

You say Yes, jesus was born on earth a human.

yes

Jesus died, you agree. Yes.

yes

Was Jesus raised flesh? You say Yes,

Okay, so here is what you believe Brian.
Angels are ________, 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.

That's your belief.
I'm not sure why you didn't properly answer the first question, Are angels spirit or flesh?
If you had, I could put your beliefs about angels in proper perspective.

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 resurrected as spirit, and he could materialize physical bodies. - 1 Timothy 3:16 ; 1 Peter 3:18, 19 ; 1 Corinthians 15:35-52
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

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.

Post 115: ""I don't really see these as commands or even necessarily as instructions.""
In Post 119 you give a quote from what I said and it shows what it says.
You seem to be answering 2 posts (112 and 115) in Post 119.
I was on one forum where there was a link to the post you were answering in the answer post. That was helpful. It is hard to go back and search for things.

Thanks for pointing to the post.

Matthew 9:35-38 ; Luke 8:1 ; 10:1, 2 ; Romans 10:13-15, the message (the kingdom of God), the territory (all the nations of the earth), and the duration (until the end of the world, before the end comes).

I don't really see these as commands or even necessarily as instructions.
It is good to go with more than one person if you are intending to go out specifically to spread the Word.
Certainly pray for more workers and if you are called to do that by the Lord then do it.
I think that the Christian Church has done that sort of work in the past and in places where the gospel has not been heard. It is different times now and different methods are used. The JWs also use different methods in these days of Covid.

The Gov Bod I guess has made the spreading of the WT message a priority, esp since the time is seen as very short these days and since the preaching began.
In Australia it is probably getting to the point where many younger people have not heard the gospel and many people just do not want to hear it these days. It is probably time to come up with new methods, maybe door to door like the JWs. But we do not make these things into a command and part of being obedient to God. It is a matter of being called to do it by the Lord.

So you are saying that you don't see what as necessary or commands - message - the good news of the kingdom ; the method - being organized to go door to door ; the territory - wherever people of all nations can be found throughout the earth ; the duration - until the end?

JWs have not changed their methods during the Covid19 pandemic.
They always used other features - public, informal, letter, telephone...
It's just that this situation caused them to use one of those other features more, and the doo to door is not used at present since safety is not thrown out the window, nor neighborly love. All these are required along with declaring the good news of the kingdom.
That is why if a landlord requests that we do not call on their properties, we do not. It's not a loving thing to say, "Well Jesus told his followers to go to people's houses, and so we must go to theirs." Nor would it be wise.

Many JWs cannot go door to door because of health challenges, nobody commands that they get out of their bed or chair, and go.
Some JWs are inactive. They have not preached for months. None of them have been kicked out, according to you.
So you were misinformed.

The door to door ministry is the primary way we carry the good news in following the example set by our Lord Jesus Christ. It may not be house to house, but hut to hut, car to car, truck to truck, ship to ship, bush to bush, cave to cave... wherever people are, is where we look to go.
That is the principle. That is the important thing - the focus.

Apparently you are deciding whom should be preached to, how important the work is, and when and how to do it.
The Lord has not sent you. You want to come up with your own way of doing things.
You don't have that authority, Brian. Jesus does.

The passage that comes to mind is: Matt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
There is no other message, and that it a problem that the JWs have, because they have a different message, one that is not found in the Bible, but is found coming from the mouths of the Governing Body.
There never was one particular method to spread the gospel. Show me where one method is given as the way to do it. That method also comes from the mouth of the GB and in this time of pandemic the methods have changed so what excuse have they got? Or maybe they don't need one, only Christendom needs one.

Where did you read JWs saying there is only one method of sharing the good news? Can you please provide the Watchtower that says that?
What message do JWs have that is not in the Bible?

Romans 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
Romans 10:15 means that people need to be sent to preach the gospel.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is that Jesus is setting up a Kingdom here on earth now, and has been for a while and is collecting citizens for it all the time. The Kingdom cannot be seen like others because the citizens are part of each earthly Kingdom and walk amongst us. The Kingdom will come in it's fulness when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead and rule as King from New Jerusalem with His Father on earth.
The Gospel of Grace is that Jesus died for our sins so that all who believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There of course is more to the gospel than that.
The 2 Gospels are the one Gospel.
I usually talk about Jesus and the gospel on this forum,,,,,,,,,,,along with other things.

You have your own beliefs. Evidently you were not sent, and you don't seem to think you were.
Were you called? How do you know when you are called? Do you hear a voice?

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace and @Brian2


I did not want to interrupt your discussion other than to point out that I like both of your last points re the Parousia (παρουσια) of Jesus as it applies to his second coming.

Παρουσια in the early literature was used both in the sense of a "presence" and an "arrival" and it is the context which differentiates the usage in a phrase.
In the peri-c.e. era it most often referred to the visit of a king or another high official (and therefore the preparation for the coming of this official).
In this sort of context, It was typically an arrival that had a purpose in mind or a noteworthy arrival such as when the word spreads that Judith arrives at the camp of Holofernes (Judith 10:18) or when the Messiah “will return in glory” (apo Baruch 30:1) though Ignatius also uses it of the first “appearance” of the Messiah Jesus at his incarnation at birth.

I’m not involved in the thread but I just wanted to point out that both of you are correct in the useage and I like your references and the points you made to historical context.

I hope your spiritual journeys are wonderful.

Clear

Hi Clear. Brian and I are in disagreement on the usage of parousia in the text we were considering, so I am not sure how we can be both correct... but thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[nPeace]

Agreed.



I agree that "it involves"... just to make sure we are on the same page (because I think we are on it) - Genesis 3:15 - is the vehicle that gets us to Eph 1:8-14



Right on!!!



Yes on the Gentiles. Yes on the joint heirs. Ruling with Christ... but I believe not just heavenly kingdom but on this earth too. Which I don't think you have an issue with... but you can share otherwise.



Here... I'm not sure. wouldn't it also be one earth? Revelation 21:1-4,7 (and others)

Thanks.
Just to be clear... There is to be a universal family both in heaven and on earth. Yes?