«Home

Who Can Answer This?

There were an electrician and a plumber waiting

in line for admission to the "International Home

Show". One of them was the father of the other's

son. How could this be possible?

Avatar
Newbie
90 answers

Yeah, life's partly about making choices; but it's a shame to make a life-changing decision without having all the important details sorted out. In my discussions with JWs, this is the major charge I lay before them: their non-disclosure of the most important facts.

I do not say JWs do this due with malicious intent; in fact, they do it - for those of them who're aware - while believing they're saving the person from sternal destruction. But, of course, terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of God; so that reason is suspicious at best.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@post

Does it really matter?? does it?? i guess i have to start a thread that will treat all this questions once and for all, i am quite new to this section but i have a book on all the questions i see here, i guess all this question has only one answer!! this i will look for a way to express very soon!! very very soon!!the jurisprudence f the living oracle is quite simple, though the ways of the lord is a mystry but what he has revealed has long been simplified, that is what i intend to reveal soon!! WACTH OUT!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

He made his choice, is that what life is all about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

He made his choice, is that what life is all about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Too bad . . .

Perrito4u never returned . . .

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a serious potential recruit. . .

And after he legally signs his rights away - definitely without knowing what he was signing - he'd have blocked all avenues for redress . . .

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@naomijt,

Okay, dear sis. . . I didn't want to rush to post a reply to the points you had raised; that's why I had to take the time and go back to recheck my assumptions from the Word and see if they had any substance. Rather than assert anything, I would like to just point them out and ask what your thoughts are:

Okay, perhaps you may want to have a look at a few statements which the Bible does make about this issue:

■   Gen. 35:18

     And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)

     that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

■   Moses had died and been buried (Deut. 34:5-6)

                     but he appeared at the transfiguration without his body (Matt. 17:3)

■   1 Kings 17:21-22 - when Elijah prayed that the soul of the child

                     should "come into him again", it is clear that the body was there,

                     but the soul was not in the body

Have you considered that the dead actually exist in a different sphere and are very conscious of their state in that realm? Indeed, in Eccl., the preacher was referring to things as appertains what happens "under the sun" (eg., Eccl. 9:3 - one event happen to all). But what does the same preacher say in that same book?

■   Eccl. 12:7 -

     Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:

     and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Compare this with statements in that same book confirming that the preacher knew that man's body and spirit are separated at death:

■   Eccl. 3:20-21 -

     All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

     Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward,

     and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

So, is there a consciousness beyond death? There's still more that could be shared on that - and I shall come back and share them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Your questions:

* does the spirit of man depart his body at death?

: The Bible does not say

* is the spirit of man conscious after the death of the body?

[b]: No; there is no consciousness in death (Psa 115:17; Eccl 9:5)[/b]

* what happens to the body at death?

: It disintegrates back to dust (Gen 3:19)

* what happens to the incorporeal parts (spirit/soul) at death?

: Apart from the fact that the incorporeal parts are said to be unconscious (asleep), the Bible doesn't tell us much more

* if the incorporeal parts survive death, where do they go?

: Hades, used to refer to death itself, or the state of death. But it is a state of unconsciousness, as seen from other scriptures.

As you must have noticed, where scripture is silent, I prefer to be silent.

Trying to find to almost everything sometimes leads us into trouble. We usually reach a dead end.

Knowledge is important in our walk with God, knowledge of scriptures. However, let's stick to the things that are clearly stated and that agrees with the general theme of scriptures.

Cheers!!!

P.S

jus seeing ur response. . .

I will be back

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, No. . I did not mean to say or imply that heaven and hell were that close. In my entries on this subject, there is only one thing that I have had to rethink carefully - paradise. I am still researching on what it is, and where that sphere is located; though, it does not mean that I had totally abandoned my perceptions on it - just that the new shades of interpretations on previous entries from others have made me think deeply about my assumptions.

That said, my persuasions have been that when people depart this world, they do not all go to the same place. Whatever the spheres they arrive at, it is not the place of final judgement (the Lake of Fire) nor heaven itself. In hades, the wicked dead experience torments as described in the Bible; and the blessed dead are in a different experience not involving the torments - but that does not mean that they are in heaven as yet.

Look forward to your thoughts to come.

Regards.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hell fire is real BUT IT IS NOT PRESENTLY BURNING!!!

Those that try to make the assumption that it is somewhere burning need to study their Revelations well-especially for the time and seasons of various events.

Many envangelists use this {truly} to scare people to accepting the Christain faith-which is unneccesary.

Instead of convincing someone about God's love to win him to Christ, why do you need to paint a picture that God does not send burning you to pieces!!!

And for a former bad boy like me. such threats dont do much!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pilgrim 1,

Thanks for that recap. I'm still too lazy to read up the whole bunch, but I can at least attend to the explanation you gave.

Firstly, from scriptures, I know that Jesus slept when he died like every dead person.

Secondly, Jesus didn't go to hell like some (e.g Copeland) have errornoeusly preached. He went to hades, the place of the dead.

An attempt to explain 1Pet 3:19-20 will be that he went to declare his victory to fallen angels. Still, I will rather be silent in this area.

Thirdly, I don't agree with your submission on Luke 16:26

The pattern of Jesus' stories can't be taken as something literal. We have other stories like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son that doesn't seem like real life experiences either. What we do with such stories is to pick the lesson from it.

What Jesus is passing across in the story in Luke 16: 20 - end is in Vs 29;

From the story, we see that there is a warning that there is a final judgement coming upon all flesh and God has provided himself enough witnesses, as such we do not need 'spirits' - extra biblical revelations to tell us about the gospel of Christ.

Extra biblical revelations is responsible for a lot of false teachings in the body today.

My dear, I will advise that we all stick to what is plain in scriptures and the others that are not too clear, we should leave till we meet face to face with Jesus when nothing will be hidden.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Chris: you've done Perrito a lot of good.

The website: www.freeminds.org/ referenced in your post is an invaluable source for JW-related material.

This link: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm deals with Watchtower Doctrines.

You'll see that Mormons have certain practices similar to the JWs; this isn't strange, since they're both high control groups.

Other wacky stuff could be found at this link: http://www.seanet.com/~raines/papers.html

Some items from here:

The Watchtower's Nazis Conflicts: A History of Watchtower Cowardliness and Witness Perseverance

The Watchtower's Half-Century Crusade Against the Germ Theory

Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks and Discrimination,

Why Jehovah's Witnesses Have Mental Problems,

Aluminum: Satan's Metal and Killer of Millions? The Watchtower's Incredible Crusade Against Aluminum

The above, from the article you posted, is brilliance. ambrose Bierce gave a witty, succint description, but memory isn't serving right now.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Chris: frankly, you haven't heard a tithe of it; no kidding.

After the Internet (= easy information access) got to mainland Europe, the growth of the JW religion slowed down really much. JWs are growing mainly in places where information isn't easy to come by. One other thing that has hurt them is that when it comes to the sexual molestation of children, the Catholic church is even more decent than they are. This is a bleak assessment; but it is true. Even I could prove it.

But I'll prefer to do it when Perrito our friend - who thinks he has found the one true Christian religion in the Jehovah's Witnesses - returns.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is refreshing to read this fruit of discussion. This is one reason I do like discussion: there's the potential to correct things (like I did much earlier on this board), to reevaluate/reevaluate things (as you've done), to dig into things (as Chris has done), to expose things (as Perrito is doing with help about JW doctrines).

When I received the part in blue, I knew there was nothing to add, and that dilution will be unworthy; so, I'll pass your commendation on (I already have).

Thank you!

0
Avatar
Newbie

You claim you want to talk about the bible; is it also a coincidence that your take on the bible mirrors the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses? You claim to be talking about the bible; yet, that's only what JWs told you. Why have you refused to tell the book you're "studying" with JWs? For one, I'm certain that the book - which is the basic textbook you're using in your "study" - isn't the bible; it is a book about the bible written by Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically, written by the Writing Department in Brooklyn, under the direction of the Governing Body* of Jehovah's Witnesses. Which of the JW brochures have you read? List them, eh. It appears you're interested in, and have an affinity for bible discourse; but because your knowledge is yet limited, you're a prime recruit for JWs: already, you've been thoroughly impressed, and are already toeing the party line in a few short months. It is because JWs attempt to becloud the issues concerning their practice of Chritianity that they continually tell potential recruits that they're only talking about the bible; yet the "textbook" for bible study isn't primarily the bible, but books written by the relevant department as directed by the Governing Body in Brooklyn. So much about discussing the bible.

*Governing Body: this is the name given to the 12 or so wise men who're the top decision makers in spiritual matters in the JW organisation. They are all part of the group of 144,000 who will eventually go to live forever in heaven; JWs call them the anointed class; in fact, JWs believe that this group cosntitutes (part of) God's visible government on earth, and that the men are part of God's Faithful and Discreet Slave. To keep this government going, they meet weekly in Brooklynn New York. And no, I'm not kidding; this is it; you can't make all this up.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Perrito: I see you've resorted to the regular JW tactic of attempting to demonise someone who as much as questions your beliefs. You asked: ", are you disfellowship (sic) or something?". First off, I must commend you for writing even the obvious, viz: "You know alot about JW's. . . "; if that admission was meant as a complement, then it is acknowledged.

Now, for the benefit of the others following this discussion (and yourself, since you're - by your own words - only 4 months or so into the JW world), I will write a few things about disfellowshipping amongst JWs.

JWs will "disfellowship" (or excommunicate) members who have defaulted in some way. The problem? Default could take any number of forms. As expected, they will disfellowship members who commit a number of sins. The regular, for which many JWs are disfellowshipped yearly - up to about 40,000 - is "fornication", or "porneia"; the definition of porneia in JW-land includes a number of sexual acts; "adultery" is a subset of porneia too. But you could be disfellowshipped for a whole lot of other things: if you disagree with JW doctrine and let it be known that you do not agree, you could be disfellowshipped; the absolute most heinous scriptural/spiritual crime a JW could commit is to express the thought that (s)he does not believe the Governing Body (that's the group of men in Brooklyn, New York, see above) are not God's Channel for dissemination of truth to the earth. This is taken as a denial of the presence of God's Government on earth; any JW who holds this view and does not recant and show repentance will be disfellowshipped.

The same goes for open disagreement with any number of well-known JW doctrines: you celebrate Christmas, you'll be disfellowshipped (henceforth, DF); you celebrate someone else's or your own birthday, you'll be DF'd; you celebrate Easter? You're DF'd. If you're a JW and you now say you don't want to be a JW anymore? You'll be DF'd. [This is one reason I was asking Perrito to think carefully about what he's getting into; in JW world, there's a very thin margin for thinking things through youself and expressing your opinion; opinion is allowed only if it agrees with the opinion of the GB]. We'll return to this DF theme if this discussion expands. But the worst is yet to come:

The "worst" includes what being DF'd means: once you're DF'd, no JW (anywhere on planet earth) is allowed to talk to you [JW "elders" may from time to time, perhaps once in a year, be allowed to talk to you with the aim of bringing you back to the fold if you're ready to face the consequences]. No JW will be allowed to talk to you, including members of your family (if you're not a minor). If you do business with other JWs and are dependent on them, your livelihood may become jeopardised. This draconian JW policy has broken many homes. [If your JW friend accepts a blood transfusion and is DF'd, then you cannot be a friend anymore with the fellow if you're also a JW; you could be DF'd for having a conversation with the fellow]. Essentially, being DF'd amongst JWs means you will be shunned; they wouldn't greet you, nor associate with you, no matter the reason for which you were DF'd; you're spiritually dead to JWs, and for all intents, also physically "dead".

You may now have realised why accusing someone of being Disfellowshipped is a first step to getting the fellow 'hanged'. Perrito: it appears you're unaware, but I don't discuss my religion (or lack of it) on this board. What that has meant is that I have been said to be a Christian, a Muslim, a fake Muslim, a Shia Muslim, an unfaithful Christian, and recently, an Atheist; you've sugegsted another: not just one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a Disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness. I welcome you to the Club of those not paying attention to what matters but speculating on a poster's religion.

I suspect your JW handlers advanced this 'explanation'; this is no surprise. JWs regularly prey on people who don't understand much of their doctrines and their practice of "Christianity"; the informed fellow is their nightmare, and the way they explain this away is to suggest that the person must have been disfellowshipped, which would be why they know so much about JWs; this is one reason JWs decree that their members must not talk to people who have left the religion. My position has been that the recruitment drive of JWs works because there's uneven information and knowledge; you're proving it to be correct.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@naomijt,

I should rather be thanking you.

With regards to IDINRETE's enquiry, I'll try and give it a go (hoping that I don't get him wrongly).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thanks pilgrim1.

I can see you are doing a good job helping out on the issue

Basically, i'm too lazy to read through. Av been watching out for responses since i posted but din't get any b4 i gave up.

Can u tell me in brief what Idenrete question is? Thanks

0
Avatar
Newbie

@IDINRETE,

I'm doing okay, and you?

Well, what exactly would you like me to focus on? The rising of the saints who left their graves. . in relation to Chrit's resurrection; or what might have happened to those same saints? I've had questions of this sort sent my way previously; but I don't want to presuppose yours. It would be my pleasure to share what I think when you can direct me on what you really would like me to address.

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi Pilgrim

Im fine thank you.

my questions is on the two verses 52 and 53 of Matthew ch 27  "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Elders manual? This is creepy,

Did the bible say anything about transfusion?

0
Avatar
Newbie

You apparently didn't read the whole of the post; the answer to your question is clear from there. You expected a "Yes" or "No" answer; you should know - as JWs do well to pretty know - that seldom are complex issues resolved by "yes" or "no"; read the post with your JW bible "study" mind. You're yet to answer the simplest questions about your 4-month bible "study" with JWs:

Perrito4u:

1) Which book are you "studying" with JWs at the moment?

2) Are you studying with and "elder", a "pioneer", a "publisher", or an "elder-pioneer"?

Why haven't you answered? I could tell you why this is important to the question fo this thread and the subject of the other thread. But you aren'te giving anywhere near as much as I have. Read the response to Luke 23:43 and JWs interpretation of it, eh. And, if you insist on "Yes" or "No", I could give you several "Yes"/"No" types that your JW handlers will back off quickly from. For instance:

1) Does the bible mention organ transplants?

2) Or, even simpler: does the bible mention anything about smoking?

3) Or, does the bible mention anything about having an "Elder's Manual"? (I bet you don't know about this JW book; only Elders have it, and you won't lay your hand on one even if you're a Ministerial Servant.)

4) Is there anywhere where the bible mentions to do Wathctower Study?

Justice couldn't be done to these questions by "Yes"/"No", one reason being that these aren't those sort of questions. If you're able to read the text in blue in my last post, we could have a further discussion on this topic; if not, then discussion has about ended on that topic along that path.

And, let's go step by step: give direct answers to the questions I have asked on this thread prior to your last question; that'll be fairness. Setting the agenda as the study conductor does in the JW sessions appears to be rubbing off, eh. And, er, we're talking about the JW religion (that trick about "religion is a snare and a racket" got tossed years ago); JWs peddle their religion as the one true religion, so, what're you about saying "let's talk about the bible, not religion"? And, which bible? The New World Translation?

Meanwhile: you appear to have disappeared from this thread: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html ; there's stuff there needing your attention.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nimshi Did Jesus go to paradise "Today", meaning the same day? If Yes, then what bible reference do you have to support that?

You didn't answer We can talk about the topic you posted from your friend but lets not cross that bridge yet. I still have to answer Pilgrim.1's question too. Lets go a step at a time.

And If you can, don't bring up religion, lets talk about the Bible not religion. I have no idea what religion all of you are and it doesn't really interests me. I came here to have conversations about the Bible, not religion.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Perrito4u: I'll attempt a response your question; the bulk of my response will be to show why the JW interpretation of Luke 23:43 is self-serving to JW theology, and the attempt of the Governing Body of JWs to impose meanings convenient to their interpretation of scripture on the text. I don't claim to have the correct answer to the interpretation of Luke 23:43, but I can say - without being pretentious - that the JW interpretation could be shown to be faulty. Below, from an old friend who has done the good work of responding to this as well as anyone with his understanding of JW theology would.

Notes for clarification

"Society" below refers to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, that is, one of the legal bodies representing Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs use "Society" to mean the leaders of the JW organisation; this group (exclusively men) are also called the "Governing Body" (GB), or the core of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave Class (FDS). These are all JW buzz-words; so it is enough to know that "Society", GB, FDS all refer to those who determine the doctrine of Jehovahs Witnesses.

"

Part of the confusion for individual Jehovah's Witnesses stems from the fact that according to Watchtower doctrine, the paradise spoken of by Jesus at Luke 23:43 refers, not to heaven, but to an earthly paradise, to be established during Christ's millennial reign. Christ, so says the Society, could not have promised the man paradise that very day, since the paradise refers to a future time and place. (Hence, the NWT rendering of Luke 23:43.) The Society offers nothing other than their dogmatic claim that such is the case.

The Greek word translated "paradise" at Luke 23:43 is paradeisos, and it is used only three times in the New Testament. It consistently refers to heaven, not an earthly paradise as the Watchtower Society dogmatically states. Consider:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. --2 Corinthians 12:2-4

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. --Revelation 2:7

If we allow scripture to translate scripture, there is no reason to doubt that paradeisos at Luke 23:43 refers to heaven, as it does in each of the other NT occurrences. And, as noted, the Society has offered no evidence to the contrary. But what about the fact that Jesus went to the tomb for three days? How is this to be reconciled with Jesus' promise to the evildoer that they would be together in paradise that very day?

Again, it is Watchtower doctrine - not scripture - that clouds the issue. The Watchtower Society denies that Jesus and mankind in general possess an immaterial spirit element; therefore, according to the Society, the fact that Jesus' body was placed in the tomb for three days precludes any possibility of His having gone to heaven. But such a position contradicts Jesus' own words at Luke 23:46:

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

Compare the prayer of Stephen recorded at Acts 7:59:

Both Jesus and Stephen confirmed the existence of the incorporeal spirit element of man. Both expected their spirit to leave their body at the moment of death and return to God, as taught in scripture:

There is not a shred of evidence to support the Society's claim with regard to Luke 23:43. In the name of all that is logical, how can one honestly accept the Society's dogmatic position on Luke 23:43 in view of the facts? The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the Watchtower Society. They have offered nothing other than the obvious: that the scholarly translation of Luke 23:43 conflicts with their doctrines, and therefore must be a mistranslation. We see the Watchtower Society once again conforming their scripture to their doctrine rather than their doctrine to scripture.

"

Perrito4u:

1) Which book are you "studying" with JWs at the moment?

2) Are you studying with and "elder", a "pioneer", a "publisher", or an "elder-pioneer"?

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

However, hadēs (αiδης, commonly translated as ‘hell’ in our English Bibles) should not be confused for mnēmeion (μνημειον – tr. as grave, tomb, or sepulchre).

The nature and experiences between these two spheres are not pointing to the same things. The difference is this:

● the body is buried in the grave (mnēmeion)

● but the spirit/soul leaves the body and goes on to hadēs (αiδης

Death is defined as ‘the body without the spirit’ (James 2:26). Long before that, Eccl. 12:7 noted that man’s body is dust that returns to earth while the spirit returns to God who gave it. What all these point to is that man’s spirit and soul survive beyond the grave – and that is what is shown in Luke 16.

In Luke 16, both Lazarus and the rich man died and were buried (v. 22); but the experiences after death gives us the understanding that their incorpreal parts (spirit and soul) survived the grave and were very conscious to engage in some activity of sorts – as in the case of the rich man in verse 23 & 24:

● in hell (hadēs) he lift up his eyes

● he was in torments

● he saw Abraham afar off

● he cried and said

Dear Perrito4u, think on these things and maybe they will then help you reconsider what you argue about hell - for the Bible demonstrates that Hell is not the grave.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Perrito4u,

Hi there. I would like to say that there's good sense in what Chrisbenogor and Nimshi have pointed out earlier. It was not my intention to weigh in at this point, but having waited for your answer to my request and found none, it might be best to throw in a few here.

If you maintain that sheol = grave = hell, there would definitely be problems with holding that view. I don’t think the Biblical texts maintain such a position – and that was why I had asked about Luke 16:23 on the pointer to Hadēs (Greek Ἅιδης, Aidēs, Āidēs, Haidēs).

The word Hadēs (or Haidēs) should not be confused for ‘grave’. The NT uses a different word in reference to our ‘common’ grave:

[list]Grave (Greek μνημειον – mnēmeion), or Graves (μνημα – mnēma)

●   John 11:17 (KJV) – ‘Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave (mnēmeio) four days already.’

●   John 11:38 (KJV) – ‘Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave (mnēmeio). It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.’

●   Rev. 11:9 – ‘And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves (mnēma).’

●   Matt. 27:52-53 (KJV) – ‘And the graves (mnēma) were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves (mnēma) after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.’[/list]

The words ‘grave/graves’ occur in those verses in many English translations and versions in agreement with the KJV. The word ‘grave’ also answers to ‘sepulchre’ as in Acts 13:29 in the KJV – ‘And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre (mnēmeion)’. In this verse, other translations use various words such as:

[list]●   Tomb

Amplified [AMP]

Analytical Literal Translation [ALT]

American Standard Version [ASV]

Contemporary English Version [CEV]

English Standard Version [ESV]

English Majority Text Version [EMTV]

Gods WORD [GW]

Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB]

International Standard Version [ISV]

Literal Translation [LITV]

New American Standard Bible [NASB]

New Century Version [NCV]

New English Translation [NET]

New International Version [NIV]

New King James Versions [NKJV]

New Living Translation [NLT]

Revised Version [RV]

Weymouth NT [WyNT]

Young’s Literal Translation [YLT]

●   Sepulchre

Darby

Douay Rheims Bible [DRB]

Geneva

James Murdock NT [JMNT]

Webster

●   Grave

Wycliffe New Testament [WNT][/list]

There’s no confusing these terms, for we can see that the ‘tomb’ in Matt.27:60 (KJV) answers to the ‘sepulchre’ in Luke 23:52 (KJV).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Chris, you say:"leave things as they should be and not force interpretations". Then Luke 23:43 should read:"Jesus answered him I tell you the truth today you will be with me in paradise" NO COMMA. Now let me ask you what I asked Nimshi:

Did Jesus go to paradise "Today", meaning the same day? If Yes, then what bible reference do you have to support that? So we can understand what Jesus really meant since we not using any commas. They were added in translation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nimshi     Did Jesus go to paradise "Today", meaning the same day?    If Yes, then what bible reference do you have to support that?

I have Bible reference to support that he didn't,

0
Avatar
Newbie

Chris: brilliant work; no condescension.

Below, I offer additional comments to help in understanding JW teaching, and on the fundamental result of your comment about Jesus and the consistency of interpreting Luke 23:42. . .

The rendering Chris offers is the one most supported by scholars; but no amount of reasoning or proof will make any JW agree with you. The reason is hidden in Perrito4u's words: "I think the Bible doesn't contradicts itself", which, properly read, means: "I think the bible cannot contradict the Jehovah's Witness interpretation". JWs will reposition clauses, and remove (completely) from their translation of the bible anything they think could contradict their theology.

Why would a JW (and, most likely P[b]errito4u[/b], since he's about one of JWs) not agree regardless of the evidence? Here:

Correctly placing the comma - as Chris suggests - will destroy at least two of the JWs' doctrines:

1) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that most humans will not go to heaven (hence, the criminal will not go to heaven)

2) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that that humans do not possess a "spirit" (as in body, spirit, soul); they also believe that humans do not posses a soul.¨

The above are fundamental and non-negotiable for JWs.

A note on Chris' post: Jesus is reported to have used the expression "I tell you the truth" or "Truly I tell you today" at least 70 times, and nowhere - as Chris correctly shows - is the JW version translated as they presented it.

Note the quote from Perrito4u:

The two translations mentioned above are the only two known translations that agree with the JW translation. The one by George Lamsa "is not a translation of the Greek New Testament at all, but rather a translation of the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta.". Perrito4u: ask your JW handlers about this.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Perrito4u: you're still not citing your references. This should be easy since you appear to be using the Watchtower CD ROM. And, is your favourite translation the New World Translation? Citing the references is important; and it should be easy for you to do.

Your arguments are consistent with what JWs teach. The punctuation in the scripture under discussion was adopted by JWs because it appears consistent with the rest of JW theology, viz: paradise will be established here on planet earth; Jesus will be the ruler of the new 'system of things', but ruling from heaven; the criminal will be with Jesus in the sense that the criminal will be ressurected after Armageddon and will be part of the "new earth"; a spin-off of the above is that the administration of the new Earth will be presided over by the JWs, who will welcome the faithful who have died; this is one fo the reasons the JW leaders purchased  placed "Beth Sarim", for example, to welcome people like Abraham, Devid, etc etc who JW say will not be in heaven, but will be part of a paradise earth, since heaven is open for only 144,000 humans who must have died after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. . .

pilgrim.1: regarding Hell and Hades: to JWs these two are interchangeable. The trick, however, is in understanding what they mean. Hell, or Hades or Sheol is the "common grave of mankind"; it is not a fiery place, but is a place of "inactivity". In the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), Sheol is the word used. Therefore, in JW theology:

Hell = Hades = Sheol = 'common grave of mankind"; again: Hades is Greek, Sheol is Hebrew.

The above is important:

JWs believe that Jesus went to Hell, and that happened during the parts of three days for which he was dead. They cite Acts 2:31 to support this:

The above is from the NIV. The KJ version uses "hell" in place of "grave"

But to make it all appear consistent, JWs explain that Luke 16:19-31 isn't literal; thus the "fire" in hell is not literal, but symbolises total "destruction", just like fire consumes (a little kid asked about the ashes; but I don't know JWs response to that; perhaps Perrito4u could help. . .)

Perrito4u: which Jehovah's Witness book are you currently "studying" with Jehovah's Witnesses? And, on what page are you in the book?

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Perrito4u

This could have gone down easily, but you have decided to make it a bit difficult, tell me what degree you have in rendering text, can you not see that you are at an obvious disadvantage. Let me humor you anyway

The parts in bold red above can be seen as introductory statements, they always come first. It still doesn't change anything the introduction comes first and then the message follows, but if you still have even a morsel of the real quest for truth you will ask yourself why only that verse was modified, ask them to show you which of Jesus statements are similar to the explanation they are giving. Let me do to the above verses what they did to that verse in the book of luke

Matthew 5:26 (New Living Translation)

And if that happens you, surely won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 11:11 (New Living Translation)

“I tell you the truth of all, who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!

Can you see how the meaning changes if I do to the verses what was done in the book of luke?

I know you are beginning to sway their way already, but something brought you close to this people in the first instance, which is the real quest for the truth, so try and balance things out here, take what they tell you and bring it here for others who have a different opinion to see, then you can carefully sit and ponder, then pray to your God also to help you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pilgrim.1 I don't really think is important my references but the fact that what I posted makes alot of sense. Will soon post the Luke 16:23 question.

*************************

Chrisbenogor:

Matthew 5:26 (New Living Translation)

And if that happens, you surely won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 11:11 (New Living Translation)

“I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!

This is proof that the translations change. Same Bible, 2 examples from your posting. Different how they began the sentence. This same translation starts Luke 23:43 with I assure you.

What was your point again?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Em, Perrito4u. . there are a few things that interest me in your submissions.

1. Could you address Nimshi's request, please? He asked for the references of your reflections.

2. Since there were no punctuation marks in the early Greek manuscripts, what justifies your own inclination to use preferred versions where the comma comes just after "Today"?

3. What about the enquiry on Luke 16:23?

0
Avatar
Newbie

It was not until the 9th century C.E. that punctuation came into general use.  Luke was written, what,    1st Century?   Luke was written in[b] GREEK[/b]!! Therefore when this book was written there were no punctuations. They were added in translations.   I think my explanation of why the comma doesn't go where you think, is clear.    If it was true what you say than the Bible is clearly contradicting itself. I don't think that's possible.   Do you?   Or was Jesus Lying? According to the Bible, "Today" or "that same day"  Jesus didn't got to paradise. I posted alot of proof of this.        Be careful dude.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Perriotu, I have been reading with keen interest, the points you make are quite disturbing so I did a bit of research and dug up some things for you since my guess is that you do not bother to do that any longer.

Jesus spoke aramic and not greek, so that leaves us to wonder the competency of luke in rendering the text. If we look at the text well you should see that your explanation has holes in it, jesus was speaking on that day, not the day before and not the day after, putting the comma where it is would mean he was lying all along, is that what you are saying?

Now about your claim for consistency let us look at the character of jesus, did he have a particular syntax when saying things like this? Yes he did, here are some examples I came up with

Matthew 5:26

I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny

Matthew 6:2

I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Matthew 8:10

"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Matthew 10:15

I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matthew 10:23

I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 10:42

I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

Matthew 11:11

I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 16:28

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 18:3

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

My dear perriotu if you are really seeking consistency of jesus, I think the way he structures his sentence should remain the same, which in this case is:

"I tell you the truth" - "(What he has to say)"

So how do we interpret the passage in question? Easy, since we know how Jesus uses the phrase "I tell you the truth" there is no need to read it as "I tell you the truth today."

Luke 23:43

"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

One thing you have to keep in your head is it all boils down to the individual or sect, we could go down the road of analysing it from aramic to greek to hebrew to english and even to your mother tongue and you will see how one needs more than the spirit to really fully understand the bible.

Be careful dude.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Matthew 5:26 (New Living Translation)

And if that happens you, surely won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 11:11 (New Living Translation)

“I tell you the truth of all, who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!

These don't change the meaning. They don't sound right but can be understood the same way if you think about it. But if you do change Luke 23:43 it changes the meaning and contradicts other verses. I already posted why. Very clearly!!! Here, let me post it again. Let me copy/paste:

Jesus was not resurrected on the day he died, but on the third day from his death. Thus, he could not have come into his kingdom on the day of his death. Then where was he during those three days, before his resurrection? Acts 2:24 says: "God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it." So Jesus was in the grip of death during that time. Acts 2:27 further says concerning him: "You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption." Hence, Jesus was in Hades, which is mankind's common grave. And the Bible says that there is "no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [LXX, Hades]." So he was out of existence in Hades, as was the evildoer.―Eccl. 9:5, 10.

Then, on the third day from his death, God raised Jesus from the dead as a mighty spirit creature. But the evildoer was not raised; he stayed in the grave.―1 Pet. 3:18.

When Jesus, after his resurrection, materialized to appear to his disciples, they asked him: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus showed that the answer was, No. The time had not yet come for his kingdom to be established.

Then, was God's heavenly kingdom, with Jesus as king, established at any time during the lives of the apostles? No, for about sixty-three years after Jesus' death and resurrection the apostle John was inspired to write that God's kingdom was still in the future. (Revelation chapter 12) And it would be under that future kingdom that paradise would be restored.

Thus, the Translation I use, in its rendering of Luke 23:43, is consistent with the truth of God's Word concerning the establishment of God's kingdom, the Paradise earth that will be restored under Kingdom rule, the condition of the dead, and where Jesus was during those three days.

Other translators have also seen the difficulty involving the comma in this scripture. The Riverside New Testament avoided the problem by not putting in a comma at all, rendering it: "I tell you truly to-day you will be with me in Paradise." On the other hand, The New Testament by George M. Lamsa renders it: "Truly I say to you today, You will be with me in Paradise." Also The Emphasised Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham reads: "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

So what Jesus was saying was that when God's kingdom by Christ was established at a time then future, and when Paradise was restored to the earth, this evildoer could expect to be resurrected to have an opportunity for eternal life.

I think the Bible doesn't contradicts itself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Perrito4u: nice you returned!

Which of the JW books are you quoting or copy/pasting from? Do a favour by citing the references clearly.

The JW argument for punctuation in the words of Jesus to the criminal is quite clear, even if flawed as argued by others.

Please cite your references clearly; I guess you have the JW CDROM with all the information, so that shouldn't be difficult.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Is the Grave the same place as Hades described in Luke 16:23?

0
Avatar
Newbie

New King James Version Ecclesiastes 9:5,10

{

5 For the living know that they will die;

But the dead know nothing,

And they have no more reward,

For the memory of them is forgotten.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going }

New American Standard Bible Ecclesiastes 9:5,10

{

5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going. }

I cited from translations I normally don’t use, to prove a point and so nobody says I have "different" Bible. My point is:

Sheol = Grave That’s where they are, presently, until the Resurrection.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dear Perrito4u,

The first thing I observe is that, while you are arguing against punctuations, you have favoured a translation here that has misplaced the punctuations marks, if any.

On the whole, the one question I would need to ask is this: where are the departed believers presently until the Resurrection?

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Luke 23:43

In the Translation I use of the Holy Scriptures Luke 23:43 reads: "And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.'" Jesus said this in answer to the following request of one of the evildoers hung beside him: "Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom."―Luke 23:42.

However, other Bible translations punctuate Luke 23:43 differently. For instance, the King James Version says: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

There is no question but that the position of the comma changes the meaning of the verse. In the King James Version the comma's being placed before the word "today" makes it appear that Jesus told the evildoer that he would be in Paradise that very same day. This would mean that Jesus would have to come into his Kingdom, and that Jesus, as well as the evildoer, would be in Paradise on that very day that he was speaking.

In the original Greek language of the Christian Greek Scriptures, how is this sentence punctuated? It is not punctuated at all. Why not? Because the writers of the Greek Scriptures did not use punctuation at that time. The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Volume 23, page 16, states: "No attempt to punctuate is apparent in the earlier manuscripts and inscriptions of the Greeks." It was not until the 9th century C.E. that punctuation came into general use. Although later Greek texts such as that of Westcott and Hort put the comma before the Greek word for "today," they did so according to their own understanding and religious beliefs. However, neither the comma nor any of the other punctuation was there in the older Greek texts.

Where, then, should the comma be put? What is the testimony of God's own Word on this matter? What did Jesus himself say? Did he believe he was going to inherit his kingdom and be in some kind of Paradise immediately after he died, in that same twenty-four-hour period?

Earlier, to his disciples, Jesus stated: "The Son of man must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." (Luke 9:22) The two angels at the tomb told the women who had come there: "He is not here, but has been raised up. Recall how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be impaled and yet on the third day rise."―Luke 24:6, 7.

Jesus was not resurrected on the day he died, but on the third day from his death. Thus, he could not have come into his kingdom on the day of his death. Then where was he during those three days, before his resurrection? Acts 2:24 says: "God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it." So Jesus was in the grip of death during that time. Acts 2:27 further says concerning him: "You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption." Hence, Jesus was in Hades, which is mankind's common grave. And the Bible says that there is "no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [LXX, Hades]." So he was out of existence in Hades, as was the evildoer.―Eccl. 9:5, 10.

Then, on the third day from his death, God raised Jesus from the dead as a mighty spirit creature. But the evildoer was not raised; he stayed in the grave.―1 Pet. 3:18.

When Jesus, after his resurrection, materialized to appear to his disciples, they asked him: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus showed that the answer was, No. The time had not yet come for his kingdom to be established.

Then, was God's heavenly kingdom, with Jesus as king, established at any time during the lives of the apostles? No, for about sixty-three years after Jesus' death and resurrection the apostle John was inspired to write that God's kingdom was still in the future. (Revelation chapter 12) And it would be under that future kingdom that paradise would be restored.

Thus, the Translation I use, in its rendering of Luke 23:43, is consistent with the truth of God's Word concerning the establishment of God's kingdom, the Paradise earth that will be restored under Kingdom rule, the condition of the dead, and where Jesus was during those three days.

Other translators have also seen the difficulty involving the comma in this scripture. The Riverside New Testament avoided the problem by not putting in a comma at all, rendering it: "I tell you truly to-day you will be with me in Paradise." On the other hand, The New Testament by George M. Lamsa renders it: "Truly I say to you today, You will be with me in Paradise." Also The Emphasised Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham reads: "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

So what Jesus was saying was that when God's kingdom by Christ was established at a time then future, and when Paradise was restored to the earth, this evildoer could expect to be resurrected to have an opportunity for eternal life. He would be included among those mentioned at Acts 24:15, where it states: "There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." As an "unrighteous" person he would be resurrected and given the opportunity to learn of God's purposes and requirements. If obedient to God and his King-Son, he would live forever on that Paradise earth, qualified to be among those of whom Psalm 37:29 foretold: "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."

0
Avatar
Newbie

@huxley,

If you do not understand, you don't have to make false assertions, huxley. I don't claim to understand everything, and that is what expositions are about - even though it may not appeal to you.

As regarding paradise, I have shown earlier that it is a different sphere from heaven. The Bible speaks about several spheres of heaven in various ways:

      John 14:1 - "In my Father's house are many mansions:

                          if it were not so, I would have told you.

                          I go to prepare a place for you"

     There is also the "third heaven"  - 2 Corinthians 12:2

Many people simply read "heaven" and then assume that is all there is. However, with respect to paradise, it is a sphere where the righteous dead are held unto the day of the final judgement. This is clearly distinguished metaphorically in Luke 16 as Abraham's bosom (v. 22) as distinct from the place where the wicked dead are reserved unto the day of judgement ("hades" - v. 23). When Christ spoke about 'paradise', He was referring to the place where the blessed dead are reserved until they come forth into the Day of eternity at the resurrection.

Granted. The question is: where do they go?

There is no indication that He was hiding anything from His listener in that passage. However, I cannot force my own assumptions into it to infer therefore that the man in question fully understood what Christ said to him - at best, it was a prospect that would delight his heart, for he understood he was not going to hades. Whether or not he fully grasped the meaning of paradise cannot be inferred from that passage alone.

I think that you would need to go to the text and see for yourself.

I could say that the repentant man was in paradise inspite of Jesus' resurrection. There's no confusion there in as much as hades is not to be confused for paradise.

As above - answered already.

I think you're needlessly repeating yourself - as this is as much to ask as earlier:

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pilgrim,

Not quite clear what you are saying here. What did Jesus mean?  There are many times when you seem to understand what Jesus meant.  Can you read the meaning out of this text?

I submit that,  Jesus anticipated his death and the bandit's dead as well.  With full knowledge that they were both going to die and in view of the prevailing belief that the dead either go to hell or paradise, such words in Jesus's mouth would make sense.

If Jesus meant something other than the surface meaning, it is not obvious if the bandit would have got the full meaning of the words.  Why would Jesus deliberately want to hide or mislead his listener?

Was the bandit wicked?  Why did Jesus promise him entry into paradise?

Presumeably, that promise would have been kept and the two would have met in paradise.  When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?  Or did the bandit never went into paradise, in spite of Jesus.

So where is paradise?  What is paradise?

And is the bandit still in paradise awaiting the judgment day?

0
Avatar
Newbie

The question of what Jesus meant in invoking paradise for the criminal becomes clear when one considers "a reading" of the promise Jesus made.

Peritto4u: where are you when you're needed?

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@mazaje,

The killings cropping up into your rejoinders again, yes? I am still waiting for your answers to the questions I raised about atheistic murders - you seem to be evading that same issue and always repeating this same point in every thread. Have you made a better world for yourself with atheistic murders, mazaje - or are you the only person who is so ignorant of that fact as well? Even when you want to ask the question in reference to your initial assertions, I have pointed out why you were wrong - I left you a simple request, have you offered any?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Not quite, yet. The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) claim consistency in their understanding/teaching of this doctrine. The number 144,000 for them is literal. Excluded from this number is everyone who died before Jesus Christ was born (this position is used to explain the Acts 2:34 earlier quoted), so the Israelites of old are all disqualified. As of their current teaching, there're about 8,000 or so of the 144,000 still living and breathing. An extension of this doctrine is that only Christians will get to heaven, as is obvious from the above.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That about sums it all up.

You have to apologise for what you believe is right. Nobody needs to apologise if they're telling the truth. You wouldn't need to defend your god if he wasn't imperfect.

LOL. A discussion means that both parties interact. Not with you. You preach. You don't share. The other party has to sit and listen because you, and only you, are correct.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You anticipated me, for I was coming to point out to huxley that he might have been looking at the JW's interpretation of those chapters (7 and 14) - which was why I had asked him not to stop short at the earlier verses in those chapters.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, that only 144,000 humans will get to heaven; of course, they're able to provide bible verses to support the view, even if the doctrine is debatable. But according to them, the chance of being one of the 144,000 wouldn't be as small as it would appear; the pool from which the 144,000 will be drawn is quite small compared to the number of humans who have ever lived.

Revelation 14 v 1-5:

JWs don't interpret all of the above literally, but, we get the idea.

Below, I'm linking an ongoing discussion with a potential Jehovah's Witness convert: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@huxley,

I think that the first issue has been established, even if at all you may argue on about other things. The point is that your assertion that "only 144,000" were going to heaven was wrong - and that assertion could not be based on any reading of the Bible as you had alleged earlier:

I was interested in seeing that "reading" you had asserted, for it was not true. It is indeed hepful that people refrain from making these wild statements and holding them as what they have read from the texts - whereas we know that is not the case.

I don't see how it could have been written so as not to be understood by them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@mazaje,

That is not true - the Bible doesn't teach what you have asserted as highlighted. It is because people take these postures already that is why they make such assertions and run away with them. Abraham was not a "Christian"; Melchizedek was not one either; the godly men of the OT were not living in the Christian era - but these are all spoken of as people who belong to the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). An active rejection of Christ and a life spent in promoting unrighteousness is one of the reasons why people will be denied that Kingdom. It does not help to just make wild assertions and just run away with them.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.