The thief on the cross and jesus.Did they go to paradise underground?

cataway · Dec 16, 2020

Clear said:
Hi @Deeje

I am sorry not to respond earlier. As the covid spike rises where I am, my work increases.

1) GREEK απολλθμι RENDERED “DESTRUCTION” IS NOT ANNIHILATION

Deeje said : “The word in question is "apollymi" and according to Strongs, it means...
"to destroy
1.
2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
3. render useless
4. to kill" (post #33)

Yes, it can mean all of these things, but none of these things mean annihilation into “non-existence” but merely a change of form.
Also, remember, Strongs is NOT a tool for interpreters.

Απολλθμι, in all of its ancient uses referred to a “loss” of some sort. Loss of function, loss of use, loss of life, etc, “Loss”.

For example, in Papyri Petr III 51:5 it referred to “the money which they thought had been lost” (το αργυριον ο ωιοντο απολωλεναι).
In Papyri Oxy IV 742.23 (of 2 b.c.) the writer says “I am quite upset at Helenos loss of the money” (εγω ολος διαπονουμαι ει Ηελενος χαλκους απολεσεν).
In Papyri Fay III:3 the writer speaks of the loss of life, writing “I blame you greatly for the loss of two pigs…”.
In Papyri Tebt II 278:35 it speaks of the loss of a garment.
In Papyri Ryl II 141:21 a man complains “I lost 40 silver drachmae…” (The loss in the cases is a robbery – in a similar fashion to how the Talmud describes death as the spirits loss of a body). We use similar language sometimes in English parlance. ‘The man lost his life, trying to save the drowning child.” Etc.
In Papyri Petr II 4(1):4 quarrymen were worked “to death” and were “lost”.
When Christ prays in John 17:6 regarding the “men whom thou gavest me out of the world” he says in vs 12, “…I have guarded them, and none of them is lost…” (απωλετο), he is not speaking of the disciples being annihilated, but of being “lost”.
Similarly, when Luke 15:17, uses απολλυμαι, the youth is saying “the servants have bread enough to spare, but I perish here with Hunger.” The youth is not saying he is completely annihilated, but that he is losing his life.

The point is that in all instances in ancient usage, it represented NOT annihilation to complete non-existence, but some sort of loss.

2) THE COMPLAINT THAT JEWS WERE NOT LIVING PURE RELIGION
Deeje said : “I think you need to remember that the Jews had gone completely off the rails by the time Jesus came to take up his ministry.” (post #33)

“Completely” is an overstated generalization.
There were only certain jews who were condemned and often the condemnations made were for specific hypocrisy and for specific practices.
For example, Jesus never condemned either the Jews nor his followers for the ancient Jewish or Christian belief in a spirit that existed independent of the body.

3) THE ADMISSION THAT A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT DOES NOT PAY ATTENTION TO HISTORY WHEN ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A HISTORICALLY CORRECT RELIIGON
Clear said : “The Jews and Christians had their own interpretation of such scriptures and they are not the same as yours Deeje. Remember, the early Christian religion of the first few centuries and their interpretations is not the same as the Jehovahs Witness religion of the 1800s.”

Deeje replied : “No kidding....why do you think we separated ourselves as far away as possible from Christendom…”
Deeje said : “You seem to like referring to apocryphal works and the early church writings as backup for your claims, but they are not canonical scripture and are meaningless to me.”
Deeje said : “As I said, I have no interest in what Jews said or didn't say (past or present) that is outside of scripture.” (post #85 different thread)
2) Deeje claims : “… I have no interest in being "an authentic historian of Judeo-Christian beliefs" (Deeje, #115different thread)
3) Speaking of the ancient Jews and Christians, Deeje claims : “…I do not need their testimony about anything. “ (Deeje, #115 different thread)

The problem I see with ignorance of and apathy to the Earliest Christianity and it’s historical contexts and belief is that the Jehovahs Witnesses cannot be as historically accurate when they created their own religion. Additionally, the Jehovahs Witness system of interpretation of early texts is unmoored and unconnected with those same early beliefs and the context the scriptures were created in.

WHY DOES A MODERN AND NON-HISTORICAL RELIGION HAVE PRIORITY OVER ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY?
New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Deeje, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Clear
σεειδρω

arguing semantics ?

Clear · Dec 17, 2020

POST ONE OF TWO

Clear said : GREEK απολλθμι RENDERED “DESTRUCTION” IS NOT ANNIHILATION

Deeje said : “The word in question is "apollymi" and according to Strongs, it means...
"to destroy
1.
2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
3. render useless
4. to kill" (post #33)

Yes, it can mean all of these things, but none of these things mean annihilation into “non-existence” but merely a change of form.
Also, remember, Strongs is NOT a tool for interpreters.

Απολλθμι, in all of its ancient uses referred to a “loss” of some sort. Loss of function, loss of use, loss of life, etc, “Loss”.

For example, in Papyri Petr III 51:5 it referred to “the money which they thought had been lost” (το αργυριον ο ωιοντο απολωλεναι).
In Papyri Oxy IV 742.23 (of 2 b.c.) the writer says “I am quite upset at Helenos loss of the money” (εγω ολος διαπονουμαι ει Ηελενος χαλκους απολεσεν).
In Papyri Fay III:3 the writer speaks of the loss of life, writing “I blame you greatly for the loss of two pigs…”.
In Papyri Tebt II 278:35 it speaks of the loss of a garment.
In Papyri Ryl II 141:21 a man complains “I lost 40 silver drachmae…” (The loss in the cases is a robbery – in a similar fashion to how the Talmud describes death as the spirits loss of a body). We use similar language sometimes in English parlance. ‘The man lost his life, trying to save the drowning child.” Etc.
In Papyri Petr II 4(1):4 quarrymen were worked “to death” and were “lost”.
When Christ prays in John 17:6 regarding the “men whom thou gavest me out of the world” he says in vs 12, “…I have guarded them, and none of them is lost…” (απωλετο), he is not speaking of the disciples being annihilated, but of being “lost”.
Similarly, when Luke 15:17, uses απολλυμαι, the youth is saying “the servants have bread enough to spare, but I perish here with Hunger.” The youth is not saying he is completely annihilated, but that he is losing his life.

The point is that in all instances in ancient usage, it represented NOT annihilation to complete non-existence, but some sort of loss.

Cataway replied : “arguing semantics ?” (post #41)

Hi @cataway :

The definition of semantics is “the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.”.

So yes part of the point of the prior post concerns what words mean.

MODERN MEANING VS “HISTORICAL MEANING”

In the case of historical religion we are speaking historical meaning rather than modern meaning.

For example, in early Judaic and early Christian religion, the Judeo-Christians believed that there was a spirit inside of each individual and upon death, the body dis-integrated in the grave and the spirit, ultimately, returned to God (Eccl 12:7).

So, death and “destruction” of the body associated with death was not seen by them as “annihilation” into a “non-existence”.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RELATIVELY MODERN INTERPRETATIONAL SYSTEM (J.W.) AND THE ANCIENT BELIEFS AND INTERPRETATIONS

For example, Jehovahs’ Witnesses often offer Ecclesiastes 9:5 as an example of “soul sleep” (a doctrine that did not exist in early Judeo-Christian literature, but is only found in relatively modern literature)

Deeje offered : Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.... "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. 6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun..... 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." (different thread)

While Jehovahs’ witnesses adopted a theory of “soul sleep” where nothing happens, the ancient Jewish belief about both death AND sleep are very, very different and their interpretation of this scripture was quite different.

The Jewish Talmud discusses this scripture and what THEY though Ecclesiates 9:5,6 meant in multiple places. Since, in ancient Jewish and Christian theology, the spirit within man did not die at birth, and the spirit retained memories and cognizance, there was a great deal of discussion as to what it meant that the dead “do no know anything”.

The Talmud assumes the dead DO know some things, but other things they are not aware of and then explains what Ecclesiates meant.

For example :

The story of R. Hiyya and R. Jonathan walking through a cemetary introduces this scripture in a quaint, anecdote. While walking about in a cemetery, and the blue fringe of R. Jonathan trailed on the ground. R. Hiyya said : “Lift it up, so that they [the dead] should not say: Tomorrow they are coming to join us and now they are insulting us! He said to him: Do they know so much? Is it not written, But the dead know not anything? He replied to him: If you have read once, you have not repeated; if you have repeated, you have not gone over a third time; if you have gone over a third time, you have not had it explained to you. For the living know that they shall die: these are the righteous who in their death are called living as it says.

The reason given for not allowing the fringes to touch the ground (just as one is not supposed to read the torah aloud in a cemetary) is that it reminds the cognizant spirits of things they no longer are able to do (thus “mocking them”). While YOUR beliefs do not make this important distinction regarding the state of the dead, the ancient Jews AND the ancient Christians DID make distinctions about what the dead can and cannot do.

This respect for and respectful actions toward the cognizant spirits of the dead is both manifest and explained in other examples. For example the Talmud relates that the sons of a dead Rabbi (R. Hiyya) went out to cultivate their property, and they began to forget their learning.

“They tried very hard to recall it. Said one to the other: Does our father know of our trouble? How should he know, replied the other, seeing that it is written, His sons come to honour and he knoweth it not? Said the other to him: But does he not know? Is it not written: But his flesh grieveth for him, and his soul mourneth over him? And R. Isaac said [commenting on this]: The worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living? [He replied]: It is explained that they know their own pain, they do not know the pain of others. Is that so?”

The gist and purpose of such stories in the Talmudic literature is NOT to establish the doctrine that the dead are cognizant and communicative or that they have knowledge, this is clear. Rather, such teachings seek to clarify WHAT knowledge the dead actually have. Can they visit and know of our troubles? Can they see how their inheritance is being used? Do they know if we as their children are keeping the torah? Etc.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clear · Dec 17, 2020

POST TWO OF TWO

As another example from the Talmud involves a righteous farmer who heard a conversation between two spirits who had died. The story is as follows :

"Has it not been taught: It is related that a certain pious man gave a denar to a poor man on the eve of New Year in a year of drought, and his wife scolded him, and he went and passed the night in the cemetery, and he heard two spirits conversing with one another. Said one to her companion: My dear, come and let us wander about the world and let us hear from behind the curtain10 what suffering is coming on the world.11 Said her companion to her: I am not able, because I am buried in a matting of reeds.12 But do you go, and whatever you hear tell me.

So the other went and wandered about and returned. Said her companion to her: My dear, what have you heard from behind the curtain? She replied: I heard that whoever sows after the first rainfall13 will have his crop smitten by hail. So the man went and did not sow till after the second rainfall,14 with the result that everyone else's crop was smitten and his was not smitten.15 The next year he again went and passed the night in the cemetery, and heard the two spirits conversing with one another.

Said one to her companion: Come and let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain what punishment is coming upon the world. Said the other to her: My dear, did I not tell you that I am not able because I am buried in a matting of reeds? But do you go, and whatever you hear, come and tell me. So the other one went and wandered about the world and returned. She said to her: My dear, what have you heard from behind the curtain? She replied: I heard that whoever sows after the later rain will have his crop smitten with blight.

So the man went and sowed after the first rain with the result that everyone else's crop was blighted and his was not blighted.16 Said his wife to him: How is it that last year everyone else's crop was smitten and yours was not smitten, and this year everyone else's crop is blighted and yours is not blighted? So he related to her all his experiences.

The story goes that shortly afterwards a quarrel broke out between the wife of that pious man and the mother of the child,17 and the former said to the latter, Come and I will show you your daughter buried in a matting of reeds. The next year the man again went and spent the night in the cemetery and heard those conversing together. One said: My dear, come and let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain what suffering is coming upon the world. Said the other: My dear, leave me alone; our conversation has already been heard among the living. This would prove that they know? — Perhaps some other man after his decease went and told them."

The anecdote is meant to elucidate the concept that spirits are alive in that they are cognizant and communicate and, though they do not know about their children and their jobs and the typical things of the world (i.e. things happening “under the son” υπο τον ηλιον which the J.W. quote leaves out of verse six). The Talmudic discussion also concerns how the dead gained some knowledge of what was happening on the earth and relates that the dead seem to know some things because a person living had died and then told the dead what that person knew of events “under the son” (i.e. among the living).

The historical point is not that the ancient Jewish or the ancient Christian doctrines and worldview are either more or less correct than a religion created in the modern ages such as the Jehovahs Witnesses, but that the historical beliefs are different than the later doctrines with their different interpretations.

I am not saying the early and more original Christian doctrines are more or less correct than a religion created in the modern age, but I do think that the original Christian beliefs are more rational and logical than the doctrine and theories found in modern Christian movements.

To make this point that the ancient Jews DID believe in an afterlife of cognizant and communicative spirits, let me give another example from the Talmud. It involves a man Samuel whose father died while in the possession of money for orphans. Samuel is blamed as a thief. Samuel the tries to contact his father to find out where the money is, to try to return it and when communicating with the dead father, finds out more than he wanted to know. The Talmudic story is as follows:

"Come and hear: The father of Samuel had some money belonging to orphans deposited with him. When he died, Samuel was not with him, and they called him, 'The son who consumes the money of orphans'. So he went after his father to the cemetery, and said to them [the dead]. ...I Want Abba b. Abba the father of Samuel; where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.24 Meanwhile he saw Levi sitting outside.25 He said to him: Why are you sitting outside? Why have you not gone up [to heaven]?

He replied: Because they said to me: For as many years as you did not go up to the academy of R. Efes and hurt his feelings,26 we will not let you go up to the Academy of the Sky. Meanwhile his father came. Samuel observed that he was both weeping and laughing. He said to him: Why are you weeping? He replied: Because you are coming here soon. And why are you laughing? Because you are highly esteemed in this world. He thereupon said to him: If I am esteemed, let them take up Levi; and they did take up Levi.

He then said to him: Where is the money of the orphans? He replied: Go and you will find it in the case of the millstones. The money at the top and the bottom is mine, that in the middle is the orphans' He said to him: Why did you do like that? He replied: So that if thieves came, they should take mine, and if the earth destroyed any, it should destroy mine. “

The next Talmudic sentence is : “Does not this show that they know?”

The very purpose of the anecdote is to demonstrate that there ARE certain things that the dead know. This story is meant to show that the dead keep their personalities and prior memories of what was done when they were "under the sun" and alive.

It is in tractate Berakoth that R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: “Whence do we know that the dead converse with one another? Because it says: And the Lord said unto him: This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying.28 What is the meaning of 'saying'?29 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Say to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: The oath which I swore to you I have already carried out for your descendants.”

The discussion continues “Now if you maintain that the dead do not know, what would be the use of his telling them? … — So that they might be grateful to Moses?"

The point of the passage is that, if you wanted someone from the spirit world to know something, then you would tell one who was dying to pass on the message before they died and went to the spirit world where their ancestors had gone. Thus abraham was told in Genesis 15:15 As for you [Abraham], you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. or Genesis 25:8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people.

Such phrases were taken literally. At death, they were not going to annihilation into absolute "nothing", but were going to the world of spirits where their ancestors were.

In all cases, the ancient Jewish AND ancient Christian literature make very clear that in their belief system, the spirits of the dead are living in that they retain their prior knowledge, they are cognizant and they communicate with each other.

In any case, I hope the point is made, the ancient Jews DID believe in an afterlife and that they believed there were certain things spirits knew and that they were cut off from this life to the point that they did not have certain knowledge of things done among the living.

I hope your journeys are good and wonderful

Clear
σεακτωω

cataway · Dec 17, 2020

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Cataway replied : “arguing semantics ?” (post #41)

Hi @cataway :

The definition of semantics is “the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.”.

So yes part of the point of the prior post concerns what words mean.

MODERN MEANING VS “HISTORICAL MEANING”

In the case of historical religion we are speaking historical meaning rather than modern meaning.

For example, in early Judaic and early Christian religion, the Judeo-Christians believed that there was a spirit inside of each individual and upon death, the body dis-integrated in the grave and the spirit, ultimately, returned to God (Eccl 12:7).

So, death and “destruction” of the body associated with death was not seen by them as “annihilation” into a “non-existence”.

T

ah but you are tiring to argue to a point that you can not prove . you want to believe that there is something about mankind that lives on when the body dies . well,, the thing is ,your bible does not back that up . at best all that can be done is to contradict other scripture .

Brian2 · Dec 17, 2020

cataway said:
ah but you are tiring to argue to a point that you can not prove . you want to believe that there is something about mankind that lives on when the body dies . well,, the thing is ,your bible does not back that up . at best all that can be done is to contradict other scripture .

I have not seen one passage that this idea contradicts. Can you give some examples.

Clear · Dec 17, 2020

Hi @cataway

REGARDING THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT THE SPIRIT LIVES BEYOND THE DEATH OF THE BODY

I am arguing that the early Judeo-Christian literature describes the early Judeo-Christian belief that the spirit in mankind lives beyond the death of the body.

Cataway said : “ah but you are tiring to argue to a point that you can not prove “ (post #44)

You are confused.
I am arguing a historical point regarding the early Judeo-Christian belief that there is a spirit inside of individuals that lives beyond the death of the body.
The fact that the early Judeo-Christian literature is full of witnesses to this early belief is very good evidence that they believed what they said they believed.

While their literature is sufficient proof of their belief, what cannot be proven by literature is whether their actual belief on this point is objectively true or not.

Cataway said : “you want to believe that there is something about mankind that lives on when the body dies . “ (post #44)

I have not told you what I personally believe.
I was presenting early Jewish literature where they left written witnesses as to THEIR belief and how THEY interpreted the biblical text.
It is a historical point I am making.
I have not given an opinion whether the early Jewish and the early Christians were more correct than your Jehovahs Witnesses religion, merely what the early Jews and Christians said they believed.

Cataway said ; “the thing is ,your bible does not back that up . at best all that can be done is to contradict other scripture .” (post #44)

The early Judeo-Christians had their own beliefs that were different than the belief system your modern religious movement created.
The early Judeo-Christians had their own interpretation of scriptures that were different than interpretations of scriptures that your religious movement adopted.

Though some of the texts are similar, we are describing a different system of interpretation that you have that the earliest Christians did not have.
Thus, their beliefs may contradict YOUR interpretation, but the early Christians did not feel their beliefs contradicted the scriptures.

WHY DO THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, CREATED IN THE MODERN TIMES HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE EARLIEST AND MOST ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

I would as you the same question I asked Deeje.

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?
For example :

New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Cataway, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Clear
σιτωφιω

cataway · Dec 18, 2020

you speak of early Judeo-Christians had their own beliefs. approximately what year are you referencing ? like it or not things did begin to fall apart after the apostles had died . it was even foretold it would happen.

Deeje · Dec 18, 2020

lostwanderingsoul said:
Hi Deeje. I agree with most of what you say. However I would like more information on what the Bible says about who can "go to heaven" and when that would happen. I believe the Bible says no one has gone to heaven. And I think it says Jesus is going to set up the kingdom ON EARTH not in heaven. Can you give me more of your views on this? Thanks

Sorry LWS, You didn’t tag me in this so I missed your post.

The Bible is specific about who goes to heaven and for what purpose. Revelation 14:1-4 describes 144,000 who are “bought from among mankind” as “firstfruits” to God and the Lamb.
If there are “firstfruits” then a second “crop” is to follow.
We believe that these will be the subjects of the kingdom which is made up of the 144,000 with Jesus as their Commander.

In Revelation 7: 2-4; 9-10; 13-14, it describes two groups.....one group is numbered and the other is without number, but a large crowd.
The 144,000 are sealed before God brings his judgment on this earth. After that John sees another group who are attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb....so they are Christ’s disciples, but they are a separate group to the ones who are sealed, and chosen from among mankind.

Revelation 20:6 identifies the ones who are sealed as those who will rule with Christ in his Kingdom. They are also assigned as priests with Jesus as their designated “High Priest”.

The second group are said to “come out of the great tribulation”, which Jesus spoke about in his account regarding the last days of the present system. (Matthew 24:3-14)
Matthew 24:21 speaks of this tribulation on earth in this time of the end that would be worse than anything that has ever taken place on earth before....or ever will again....but there will be survivors.

Revelation 21:2-4 sees the kingdom of God ruling over the earth....a heavenly kingdom ruling over earthly subjects in order to bring us back to where God started it all in Eden. It will mean the end of all pain and suffering and even death itself will be no more...all those things will have “passed away” with this world system. (2 Peter 3:13)

Those who slept in death of the 144,000 were not to be raised until Christ’s return, which we believe took place in 1914 C.E. Jesus said that he would be with his disciples all through these last turbulent days....and that those who were dead in Christ would rise “first”. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) Those who were alive at the time of Christ’s presence, would not need to sleep in death but before the end comes, all would be taken, transformed for spirit life in heaven.

That is how we see it....

Clear · Dec 18, 2020

Hi @cataway

Clear said (POST #46) :

WHY DO THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, CREATED IN THE MODERN TIMES HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE EARLIEST AND MOST ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

I would as you the same question I asked Deeje.

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?
For example :

New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Cataway, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Cataway responded (POST #47) :
you speak of early Judeo-Christians had their own beliefs. approximately what year are you referencing ? like it or not things did begin to fall apart after the apostles had died . it was even foretold it would happen.

Cataway, as I pointed out, In my post above, “New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.”. Phillipians 4:3 mentions Clement “And I ask you, my true coworker, help these women since they have laboured with me in gospel, and with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.”.

IF Clements name is “in the book of life”, and he helped Paul teach the early Christian beliefs, then Clement doesn’t seem to be regarded by Paul as an apostate with apostate ideas. Clements letter to the Corinthians was written 70 a.d. or earlier and thus Clement is writing about the same time the Book of Revelations is being written by John.

If Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and the coworker of Paul in teaching the early Gospel, why do your beliefs and your interpretations of the early texts have priority over those of New Testament Clement?

Clear
σιφυφυω

lostwanderingsoul · Dec 18, 2020

Deeje said:
Sorry LWS, You didn’t tag me in this so I missed your post.

The Bible is specific about who goes to heaven and for what purpose. Revelation 14:1-4 describes 144,000 who are “bought from among mankind” as “firstfruits” to God and the Lamb.
If there are “firstfruits” then a second “crop” is to follow.
We believe that these will be the subjects of the kingdom which is made up of the 144,000 with Jesus as their Commander.

In Revelation 7: 2-4; 9-10; 13-14, it describes two groups.....one group is numbered and the other is without number, but a large crowd.
The 144,000 are sealed before God brings his judgment on this earth. After that John sees another group who are attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb....so they are Christ’s disciples, but they are a separate group to the ones who are sealed, and chosen from among mankind.

Revelation 20:6 identifies the ones who are sealed as those who will rule with Christ in his Kingdom. They are also assigned as priests with Jesus as their designated “High Priest”.

The second group are said to “come out of the great tribulation”, which Jesus spoke about in his account regarding the last days of the present system. (Matthew 24:3-14)
Matthew 24:21 speaks of this tribulation on earth in this time of the end that would be worse than anything that has ever taken place on earth before....or ever will again....but there will be survivors.

Revelation 21:2-4 sees the kingdom of God ruling over the earth....a heavenly kingdom ruling over earthly subjects in order to bring us back to where God started it all in Eden. It will mean the end of all pain and suffering and even death itself will be no more...all those things will have “passed away” with this world system. (2 Peter 3:13)

Those who slept in death of the 144,000 were not to be raised until Christ’s return, which we believe took place in 1914 C.E. Jesus said that he would be with his disciples all through these last turbulent days....and that those who were dead in Christ would rise “first”. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) Those who were alive at the time of Christ’s presence, would not need to sleep in death but before the end comes, all would be taken, transformed for spirit life in heaven.

That is how we see it....

Please let me follow up on this. The Bible says Jesus will return in the clouds with trumpets and angels. This seems like something that many people would see and it would be all over the news. If it happened in 1914, why are people not moew aware of it?

Deeje · Dec 18, 2020

lostwanderingsoul said:
Please let me follow up on this. The Bible says Jesus will return in the clouds with trumpets and angels. This seems like something that many people would see and it would be all over the news. If it happened in 1914, why are people not moew aware of it?

It seems that way until you understand exactly what he said to his apostles when he outlined the world events that would be a “sign of his presence”. (Matthew 24:3) The word “parousia” is erroneously translated “coming” in most Bibles in this verse, but it means “presence” in Greek. Now think for a moment.....would Jesus need to give a “sign” of something that was obvious to everyone?

We believe that Jesus’ “presence” comes before his judgment. There had to be a time period for all of the events that he foretold, to take place before he comes as judge and brings this world to an accounting. During this period, Jesus said that “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations” before “the end” would come. (Matthew 24:14)

We are in the final part of “the last days”, when all those features of the sign he gave have been fulfilled. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) No one knows exactly when the end will be, but God will give his son the go ahead when it’s time. (Matthew 24:37-39)

This witness has been given by his true disciples in all nations on earth, throughout all that time. When he comes as judge, there will be no excuse to offer him as to why those who identify as his disciples have not done as he instructed. (Matthew 7:21-23)

That is what the Bible says as opposed to what Christendom teaches.....the churches have never taken up the great commission because they do not have the backing of the King himself. (Matthew 28:19-20)

lostwanderingsoul · Dec 18, 2020

Deeje said:
It seems that way until you understand exactly what he said to his apostles when he outlined the world events that would be a “sign of his presence”. (Matthew 24:3) The word “parousia” is erroneously translated “coming” in most Bibles in this verse, but it means “presence” in Greek. Now think for a moment.....would Jesus need to give a “sign” of something that was obvious to everyone?

We believe that Jesus’ “presence” comes before his judgment. There had to be a time period for all of the events that he foretold, to take place before he comes as judge and brings this world to an accounting. During this period, Jesus said that “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations” before “the end” would come. (Matthew 24:14)

We are in the final part of “the last days”, when all those features of the sign he gave have been fulfilled. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) No one knows exactly when the end will be, but God will give his son the go ahead when it’s time. (Matthew 24:37-39)

This witness has been given by his true disciples in all nations on earth, throughout all that time. When he comes as judge, there will be no excuse to offer him as to why those who identify as his disciples have not done as he instructed. (Matthew 7:21-23)

That is what the Bible says as opposed to what Christendom teaches.....the churches have never taken up the great commission because they do not have the backing of the King himself. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Thank you for that. But do you also believe esus will physically return with trumpets and every eye will see him? Doesn't the Bible say something like that? Is that event still in the future?

Brian2 · Dec 18, 2020

cataway said:
ah but you are tiring to argue to a point that you can not prove . you want to believe that there is something about mankind that lives on when the body dies . well,, the thing is ,your bible does not back that up . at best all that can be done is to contradict other scripture .

I know I asked for some examples in the scriptures that this idea contradicts. I know that may be a tough ask so I will ask just for one if that is possible.

Deeje · Dec 18, 2020

lostwanderingsoul said:
Thank you for that. But do you also believe esus will physically return with trumpets and every eye will see him? Doesn't the Bible say something like that? Is that event still in the future?

As part of the end times prophesy in Matthew 24, Jesus said...
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity."

The dark days for mankind will come during the "great tribulation" when all will seem to be lost.....but then Jesus says something familiar.....notice he says again "the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven" and the reaction of earth bound humans will be grief......why? because they did exactly what the people of Noah's day did. (Matthew 24:37-39) They will know that their lives are about to end because they did not listen to the message that was offered as a warning to them, until it was too late, just as Jesus said.

In each of the eight occurrences in scripture, a form of the Greek verb erʹkho·mai, “to come,” is used. The term is here used in the sense of turning one’s attention to mankind, particularly to Jesus’ coming as Judge to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation.

At John 14:18-20 Jesus said...
"I shall not leave you bereaved. I am coming to you. 19 A little longer and the world will behold me no more but you will behold me, because I live and you will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in union with my Father and you are in union with me and I am in union with you."
This indicates to us that only those 'chosen ones' who will be with Christ at the end, will actually "see" him....but those of us on earth will clearly discern what is taking place.

As for the "clouds", these tend to obstruct vision rather than facilitate it, but observers can “see” with eyes of understanding.
Acts 1:9...as Jesus was ascending to heaven.....
"After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight."

The clouds obscured their view of him and the angel said....“Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky.” (Acts 1:11)

Since Christ was to come in the same "manner" as he left, what were the circumstances of his departure? Only his apostles got to see it, and it was without public knowledge or fanfare. So if Jesus has been present all this time, overseeing the work that he commanded his disciples to do, and we have observed all the facets of the sign since 1914 (calculated from a prophesy in Daniel) then we are now deep into the time of the end, awaiting the outbreak of the great tribulation, which could occur more suddenly than anyone can imagine. This is why Jesus said. at Matthew 24:43-44...

"But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it."

It could be any time....there will be no warning.

cataway · Dec 18, 2020

Clear said:
Hi @cataway

Clear said (POST #46) :

WHY DO THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, CREATED IN THE MODERN TIMES HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE EARLIEST AND MOST ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

I would as you the same question I asked Deeje.

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?
For example :

New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Cataway, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Cataway responded (POST #47) :
you speak of early Judeo-Christians had their own beliefs. approximately what year are you referencing ? like it or not things did begin to fall apart after the apostles had died . it was even foretold it would happen.

Cataway, as I pointed out, In my post above, “New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.”. Phillipians 4:3 mentions Clement “And I ask you, my true coworker, help these women since they have laboured with me in gospel, and with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.”.

IF Clements name is “in the book of life”, and he helped Paul teach the early Christian beliefs, then Clement doesn’t seem to be regarded by Paul as an apostate with apostate ideas. Clements letter to the Corinthians was written 70 a.d. or earlier and thus Clement is writing about the same time the Book of Revelations is being written by John.

If Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and the coworker of Paul in teaching the early Gospel, why do your beliefs and your interpretations of the early texts have priority over those of New Testament Clement?

Clear
σιφυφυω

me and Deeje. we speak as one

Brian2 · Dec 19, 2020

cataway said:
me and Deeje. we speak as one

Does that mean too you have washed your hands of me or shaken the dust off your feet because I refuse to accept your message over what the Bible says?

Clear · Dec 19, 2020

Clear asked both Deeje and Cataway :

WHY DO THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, CREATED IN THE MODERN TIMES HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE EARLIEST AND MOST ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

I would as you the same question I asked Deeje.

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?
For example :

New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Cataway, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had? (post #46)

Cataway answered : "me and Deeje. we speak as one" (post #55)

Hello @cataway

What does this cryptic response mean?

Deeje did not answer this question when I asked Her the same question.

Does your response mean that the Jehovahs Witnesses do not think the religion they created has priority or advantage over the religion the apostles taught Clement?

Clear
ακσιειω

Deeje · Dec 20, 2020

Clear said:
Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had? (post #46)

Clear...it is clear to us that we are talking to ourselves with reference to the things you are posting.
You post reams of quotations from sources that we do not recognize as inspired....if you think they are, then that is up to you.

Let me offer you this....
"It was not until men like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century that the need arose to catalogue the books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by now spreading throughout the world, made it imperative to pronounce a clear-cut distinction between what could be received as Scripture and what could not. So we need to work back from the lists at the end of the second century in order to fill the remaining gap of about a hundred years."

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963285?q=clement+alexandria&p=par

Clear said:
Deeje did not answer this question when I asked Her the same question.

We take Daniel 12:4; 9-10 as applying in "the time of the end" which Daniel was inspired to write about some 500 years before Christ came. There was to be a 'cleansing, whitening and refining' of God's people at this time, which meant a thorough examination of all that Christendom taught to see if their teachings were in fact, scriptural. Our brothers found them to be in error....gross error, so the cleansing began and it has continued into this 21st century. (The time of the end spans the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.)

We understood the need for 'cleansing' because of the filth that was introduced by the weeds of Jesus parable over many centuries. These were not sown recently. The need for 'whitening' also became clear as the stains from religious errors continued to lead people down the wrong road. 'Refining' involves removing impurities...which we did over time because it is a process. So rather than being a "new religion", Jehovah's Witnesses cleaned the slate and went back to the scriptures and took out every impure teaching they found that did not align with the Christian scriptures.

We see ourselves as a continuation (or restoration) of first century Christianity, not a product of the weeds of counterfeit Christianity, sown by the devil, as Jesus warned about. Christendom does not even acknowledge who these "weeds" are and how long ago they were sown.

Your reference to Jewish beliefs at the time of Christ also leaves out what Jesus thought of their teachings. (Matthew 23) If you wish to rely on two thoroughly corrupted religious systems who teach nothing relevant to where we are in the stream of time, and who do not acknowledge who Jesus was.....one continues to deny him, whist the other turned him into a three headed deity, I'm sorry but you have nothing relevant to say to us.

Does your response mean that the Jehovahs Witnesses do not think the religion they created has priority or advantage over the religion the apostles taught Clement?

We do not see that the "church", after the end of the first century, went in a good direction. Those who led the church became apostate in their thinking and then the rot set in just as Jesus and the apostles foretold. (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 6-12; 2 Peter 2:1) The "commands of men" began to be more important than the teaching of Christ.....just as had happened to Judaism. (Matthew 15:9)

The result of that weakening saw the Roman Emperor Constantine declare "Roman Catholicism" to be the state religion.....not because he was a Christian, but because he was an astute politician....the only way to unite his divided empire was through one religion practiced by all.....a disgusting fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. You can't mix true worship with false worship. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) Israel tried to do that and look what happened to them...(Numbers 25:1-5)

So because the "mother church" spawned many daughters, that doesn't mean that genuine "Christianity" spread in the world....it meant that the weeds had spread everywhere, spiritually contaminating every person it touched. That is why we needed the 'cleansing, whitening and refining.'

God's people are told to "get out of Babylon the great" (the devil inspired empire of false religion) or we will experience the same fate as she does when God brings about her end. (Revelation 18:4-5)
We believe that we have done that.....have you?

Deeje · Dec 20, 2020

Brian2 said:
Does that mean too you have washed your hands of me or shaken the dust off your feet because I refuse to accept your message over what the Bible says?

Well, that is just the point....you don't take what the Bible says over our message because you interpret the Bible to suit your own beliefs. You don't need us to tell you that your ideas are not in line with Christ's teachings...he will do that. Go in peace...what have we got to tell you that you want to hear? See ya...

Hockeycowboy · Dec 20, 2020

Brian2 said:
There are NO other places where Jesus uses "today",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And there were no other days where He was going to die, either.
He couldn’t tell the thief ‘tomorrow.’

The thief on the cross and jesus.Did they go to paradise underground?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Witness for Jehovah