Why do Jehovah's Witnesses change the meaning of John 10:17-18?From the kings james one?

[YoursTrue]

That is correct; I am not a Chabadnick, though I have great appreciation for them. But I'm just not into making people into the Messiah who haven't fulfilled the prophecies.

Yes, having all Jews move to Israel is difficult to imagine -- ultimately it will only be accomplished by the messiah. Yes, Chabad teaches this as well.

So my question is, if so many thought that M. Schneerson was the messiah, why didn't he move to Israel? I guess that would be a starter if the Messiah lives in Israel, no? Here's what I think, we're living in days that were foretold.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I posted elsewhere, Halakha determines who is a real Jew, which basically means those born of a Jewish mother and those who have formally converted.

Although the main body of Chabad is the US, they have shluchim (Missionaries) all over the world. They are great ministers to the Jewish people, and they receive a lot of financial support from Jews who are not Chabad. I really enjoy their yearly telethon.

I can only guess that they weren't really convinced that M. Schneerson was the messiah, and maybe M. Schneerson didn't think he was either. I mean he lived in the United States and so did many of his followers. If I thought that you or the Chabadnicks were telling me the truth about God, I'd go along with it. But -- as you guessed -- I don't. Have a good one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ah ... thank you for your answer. Do you think it's possible the messiah will be born maybe in China or Australia? What about Israel? By the way, not that it's important, but I've been to Israel quite some years ago, went to Masada also the wailing wall in Jerusalem. It was a visit, I didn't live there.

I don't think it matters where the messiah is born.
I'm glad you enjoyed your visit to Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So my question is, if so many thought that M. Schneerson was the messiah, why didn't he move to Israel? I guess that would be a starter if the Messiah lives in Israel, no? Here's what I think, we're living in days that were foretold.

You're asking me to go inside the heads of Chabadnicks. Sorry, but that is beyond my abilities.

I do not personally think we are in the last days.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think it matters where the messiah is born.
I'm glad you enjoyed your visit to Israel.

It was interesting. So we've already agreed, haven't we, that it would be phenomenal if all the Jews were to go to Israel. Based on reality, virtually impossible. I would say it's like the idea that life just came about by itself with a combination of chemicals. You know, the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're asking me to go inside the heads of Chabadnicks. Sorry, but that is beyond my abilities.

I do not personally think we are in the last days.

There were many that did not think they were in trouble with the Roman forces prior to the razing of the temple in Jerusalem in the 1st century (C.E., of course). It's late -- good night, shalom, erev tov.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was interesting. So we've already agreed, haven't we, that it would be phenomenal if all the Jews were to go to Israel. Based on reality, virtually impossible. I would say it's like the idea that life just came about by itself with a combination of chemicals. You know, the theory of evolution.

Well its like saying it would be wonderful if there were no more sickness. It's an unreasonable idea, since such will never be the case until the world to come. In the same way, your statement "wouldn't it be wonderful if all the jews lived in Israel" is an unreasonable longing because it is not going to happen until the messiah returns.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There were many that did not think they were in trouble with the Roman forces prior to the razing of the temple in Jerusalem in the 1st century (C.E., of course). It's late -- good night, shalom, erev tov.

What are you talking about? Chabad started in 1775. It wasn't around during the Roman times.

Laila tov, my friend.

 

[Mark La Buda]

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses change the meaning of John 10:17-18?From the king james one?I think the king james one is right.And the Jehovah's Witness one is wrong.

Do you have some sort of vendetta or mission against JWs? Many of your posts are about them.

 

[Frank Goad]

Do you have some sort of vendetta or mission against JWs? Many of your poss are about them.

No.I have no vendetta against JWS.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.I have no vendetta against JWS.

Since you say you are a Methodist, may I ask why you are a Methodist, how long have you been a Methodist, and why you do center your questions mainly to and about Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Frank Goad]

Since you say you are a Methodist, may I ask why you are a Methodist, how long have you been a Methodist, and why you do center your questions mainly to and about Jehovah's Witnesses?

I am Methodist because that is the religion I wanted to be.I have been Methodist ever since I was 18.And I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses so much because I like having conversations with them.Because they are so friendly.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am Methodist because that is the religion I wanted to be.I have been Methodist ever since I was 18.And I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses so much because I like having conversations with them.Because they are so friendly.

So you're Methodist because you want to be rather than, let's say, Catholic, is that right? Or Jewish. Or Buddhist. John Wesley was an interesting person, wasn't he. And you'd rather question Jehovah's Witnesses instead of Catholics or Jews about their beliefs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are so friendly...

 

[Frank Goad]

So you're Methodist because you want to be rather than, let's say, Catholic, is that right? Or Jewish. Or Buddhist. John Wesley was an interesting person, wasn't he. And you'd rather question Jehovah's Witnesses instead of Catholics or Jews about their beliefs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are so friendly...

Yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

I see. Rather than question Catholics, Buddhists, etc., (Jews, Southern Baptists, Methodists perhaps...) because Jehovah's Witnesses are so friendly and -- they're not?

 

[Brian2]

Some of them did. Many of them never happened, but are myth and legend.

Myth and legend take time to develop but the gospel message of the Messiah resurrected by God was preached from the start by those who knew.

 

[Brian2]

Do you realize that the Law said that if the Jews obeyed the Law, they would come to be a Kingdom of priests, right? Not sure if you answered this in another post, so please overlook if I missed it.

Sorry, I don't see what there is to answer.

 

[cataway]

There are Chabadnicks that refer to the Rebbe as "deity." These are heretics. But they are OUR beloved heretics. The mission of Chabad is to lovingly support Jews coming into deeper observance, and that is a very very good thing. I have often attended Chabad in my past, and find them to be a wonderful bunch. But they are a small minority of the Jewish world. You cannot judge Judaism by Chabad.

Yes we are still waiting for the messiah to come. We will know the Messiah because he will fulfill ALL the prophecies. So far, no one has managed to do that. Yes, one of the things the messiah will do is bring all the Jews back to Israel.

they did not recognize him the first time he came .whats the difference this time ?

 

[Brian2]

Here is your reading.
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth the body that is dead a body as it hath pleased him, and to every body that is dead his own body.

You are happy with that... imo, ridiculous beyond any reason whatsoever, belief.
I will stick with what is a reasonable Bible teaching.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they [the dead] come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest [the (dead) person] is not quickened, except it [the person] die:
37 And that which thou sowest , thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it [the person that has died] a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed [the person that has died] his own body.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It [the dead] is sown in corruption; it [the dead] is raised in incorruption:
43 It [the dead] is sown in dishonour; it [the dead] is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It [the dead] is sown a natural body; it [the dead] is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

The person that has died, is the dead.
So let's see if you are still not going to admit your belief is contrary to scripture.

The scriptures say, it is not the body that is sown, but it is the dead.
You say it is the dead body that is sown, and that body is given a body.
Which is correct? The scriptures, or you?

The scriptures say it is the dead that are raised up.
You say it is the body that is raised up.
Which is correct? The scriptures, or you?

1Cor 15:36You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else.

According to these verses, what is sown is the dead body of the person.

1Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

The passage goes on to continue to speak about the body that is buries, the seed that is sown.
It is this seed that is changed into a spiritual body with power and glory.

I would say that you are trying to read the JW doctrine into the text and trying to end up with no physical in the resurrected body at all, just a spirit.
You put verse 37 in big letters and underlined etc but don't realise that the verse is speaking about the body that is sown. You make a big deal about verse 37 saying that what is sown is NOT the body that will be but do not seem to realise that I agree with that. It is not the body that will be because it is changed to a body with different qualities.
It does not say that it is swapped over for another body, it says the seed (dead body) is given glory and power. In this way it is not the body that was sown.
Jesus immortal and powerful spiritual body of His resurrection was also physical, and the blood (life of the body) was given for our ransom, Jesus could say in Luke 24 that He is "flesh and bone" (not flesh and blood).

The passage is speaking about the dead body (seed that is sown) all the way through and does not start talking about the "dead person" as you have in your version of 1Cor 15:35-44
Read 1Cor 15:37 and realise that the dead body is the seed which is sown and which is transformed into the same type of body that Jesus had after His resurrection. The body that He had all through the post resurrection stories and the body the disciples saw Him ascend to heaven with.
This would be why Daniel 7:13,14 says that He is "one like a son of man". But of course He was immortal and powerful and imperishable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Myth and legend take time to develop but the gospel message of the Messiah resurrected by God was preached from the start by those who knew.

The gospels were written decades later, after oral traditions had evolved.