Shiwiii

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Adamic death is what all mankind suffer. It will be done away with during the millennium. How else will people live until the end of the millennium and progress to perfection. 

Where is the scriptures that support this? Your Romans quote doesn't say any of this. It appears to me that these theorys have no scriptural basis.

21 hours ago, John Houston said:

HollyW, the answer is no! During Christ 'presence' which began when after sitting at his Father right hand for a time, he then was given the kingly authority. He first removed all of satanic influence from heaven. Such the war in heaven. Then those who were to be in heaven with him, the apostle's, his mother, those firstfriuts. And then any of the 144,000 dying faithful, would be trans formed in a twinkling of an eye not remaining in the grave. That is the understanding from scripture. Before the outbreak of the great tribulation, the remaining ones of the heavenly class will be called up to heaven, to take part in the removal of wickedness from the earth, being sealed with their brothers; kings and priests with Jesus Christ! 

Having destroyed governments and wicked off the earth, Satan and his demons are abyssed for the 1000 yrs., while Jesus reigns. During this time survivors are healed from sin and imperfection, the earth from the devastating effects of mankind before. Those who succumbed to death and are in Jehovah's memory will hear Jesus' voice as he calls them forth from the common Grave, back to perfect life under much better conditions. Learning from the "opened scrolls" all the earth will be united in the knowledge of Jehovah , as John seen in vision eating from the tree of life, so to speak. Gaining access to the status that Adam and Eve had before our Heavenly Father , before Satan is loosed one last time.

This is a nice story, but it would be much more believed if it had scriptural backing. In particular the scripture that I asked in the beginning of this post. :

On 6/19/2016 at 3:42 PM, Shiwiii said:

Can someone point me to the scriptures used by the society that state there is a resurrection during  the thousand year reign. 

7 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

 

So even though righteous people like Abraham, Job, David, etc., will be resurrected during the 1000-year reign, they will have to brought to perfection.- even though the text says theirs will be a resurrection to life.

Can you provide scripture to back up this claim of a resurrection during the thousand year reign?  

49 minutes ago, John Houston said:

I am laughing at your reasoning. What is being read into what I said? If what Paul said about "all things", would that mean the things, the same as the former things upon earth which will be done away with? 

I will show you exactly what you said and how you are reading into the scripture something that isn't there: 

21 hours ago, John Houston said:

Shiwii, yet verse 28, of Paul's word state that when Jesus finished his reign, he will subject himself back to his Father, as he was in the beginning as it was before Adam sinned.

again in verse 28 you seem to believe this takes place prior to the eradication of death, satan and hades.

Here is YOUR words:

On 6/21/2016 at 0:04 PM, John Houston said:

That is what John wrote at John 5:28,29. Jehovah gave his Son, this authority during this time with his corulers, to right things and after things in heaven and on earth is perfect as it was in the beginning, Jesus hands it back to Jehovah all in perfect condition. Humans  perfect, the earth globally perfect, heaven perfect. Now Satan is loosed one final time on us on earth.

Do you see here where you believe that Satan is still around? last sentence you wrote. 

What part of Satan still being around is everything subjected to Jesus? Its not. You need to go back and think this one through again, or clarify your position better. 

55 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Wow, how can a sensible person miss this? When Jesus hand back the Kingdom reins, would not it be finish, would not AT THAT MOMENT death be swallowed up?

yes, however your timeline does not fit the timeline given in Revelation 20. It is only when ALL THINGS are then subject to Jesus does this happen and that is not until Satan, hades and death have been cast away (Rev 20:14), then the kingdom is handed back over. 

58 minutes ago, John Houston said:

You are twisted in your thinking your reasoning with scripture.

I am taking scripture as it is and basing my point upon it. You however still fail in providing scripture to support a resurrection DURING the 1000 year reign. 

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

Ones like you feed off of debate from ones like me, but even Jesus walked away. So am I. 

This is your get out of jail free card, so you can run away from what scripture says, not me. I'm ok with that, seen it many many times. 

Shiwii, yet verse 28, of Paul's word state that when Jesus finished his reign, he will subject himself back to his Father, as he was in the beginning as it was before Adam sinned. - John

You are reading into the verse something that is just not there.

1 Cor 15:28 "when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all."

Ask yourself what are the "all things", how can all things be subjected if death, hades and Satan are not yet abolished in your version? Those would be things that are not in subjection,  thus this would not fit this scripture. 

During those 1000 yrs. mankind fallen in death will be able to be healed; also the earth. -John

Again, you do not provide scripture to support this claim.

Your beliefs are not based on scripture, all scripture, you have cherry-picked what you want to believe. - John

All one has to do is read my post and see that scripture supports what I'm saying,  because scripture is used. 

3 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

 

I really wish you would put YOUR thoughts down, instead of cut and pasting from some other source. 

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

Shiwiii, how do you understand Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 15:23-28? There Paul spoke of those being brought back during "his presence". When he hands over the kingdom back to Jehovah at the end of the 1000 yrs, then all would be perfect, death will be swallowed up. All will have been raised from the grave. So how is it the way you reason does not jibe with what Paul is saying here in scripture?

Glad you asked John. I don't understand your question of my reasoning not jiving with what Paul said. I am only using scripture.

1 Cor 15:23-28 is a description of the order of resurrection. First Christ, then those who belong to Christ. that part I think we agree on. The first resurrection. There is no mention of the second resurrection in 1 Cor 15:23-28. Where I think we differ is the establishment of "the end" in verse 24. This part is after the 1000 years, and after the release of Satan to again mislead, after everything. Notice though in verse 25, where scripture tells us that Jesus must reign until the last enemy is defeated (death). Where in Revelation does it talk about death being done away with? Rev 20:14 which comes directly after the second resurrection in verses 12&13. The account in 1 Cor is a brief synopsis of what is going to happen. We know that this is not written in chronological order because of what Revelation 20 says. It is telling us what order those who are resurrected will be, not when the events take place. This set of scriptures parallel those in 1 Thess 4:15&16. Again, there is no mention of a second resurrection in these set of scriptures either. 

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

We all know that during Christ reign HIS VOICE, will call those from the grave, not his Father's correct?

No and yes. Yes it will be Jesus voice. I say no because you are eluding to this happening during Jesus reign, it is not. 1 Thess 4:16 tells us that Jesus voice will raise those who died in Him, then those who are still alive, who are in Christ, will join those who were resurrected. We know that these ones are righteous because they are in Christ, so according to Rev 20:4&5 this has to be the first resurrection and they are those who will reign with Jesus. This happens at the return of Jesus as stated in 1 Thess 4:15. This allows for the co-rulers to actually rule for a full 1000 years. If it were just a few here and a few after 10 years and a few 400 years into the 1000 year reign, then there would be co-rulers who did not reign for the full 1000 years and scripture doesn't state "rule and reign for 600+ years of the 1000 year reign".

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

That is what John wrote at John 5:28,29.

yes, it is Jesus voice. John 5:28&29 supports Rev 20:12-15 as the 2nd resurrection. Daniel 12:2 also supports this account in John and Revelation. 

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

Jehovah gave his Son, this authority during this time with his corulers, to right things and after things in heaven and on earth is perfect as it was in the beginning, Jesus hands it back to Jehovah all in perfect condition. Humans  perfect, the earth globally perfect, heaven perfect.

I'm with you up to this point. 

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

Now Satan is loosed one final time on us on earth. That is what scripture teaches. That is what you read from scripture, correct? The Bible is united in thought on this matter.

Here is where I disagree, When everything is perfect is after Satan has been destroyed. Revelation 21 speaks of a new Heaven and a new Earth, thus made perfect. This can only happen after Satan has been defeated, or else it wouldn't be perfect. Revelation chapter 20 tells us nothing about everything being perfect, only that Jesus will rule and reign for 1000 years. There is nothing in scripture that speaks of this 1000 years of being made perfect, nor of a resurrection during the 1000 year reign. It is after the 1000 years that Satan, the beast, the false prophet and death and Hades are destroyed, then and only then can everything be perfect. 

12 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

It doesn't mean they are now being resurrected (out of the grave)  at the end of the 1000-year reign.

Rev 20:13 says otherwise. 

12 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Again, the expression “come to life” has to be understood according to context.

from the context in verse 4, it is that of coming back to life from being dead, and the context doesn't change into verse 5. 

20 hours ago, Glenn Leider said:

The key to understanding when the earthly resurrection takes place is in the clause "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.)" at the start of verse 5. Since verse 4 states that the ones with "thrones... came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years," these ones who "came to life" means they were resurrected as perfect beings.

While I agree that this portion is key to understanding the whole, you seem to be omitting the fact that the rest of the dead did not come back to life until AFTER the 1000 years have ended. No matter what we think about what or whom will be ruled during the 1000 years, scripture still states that the second resurrection does not occur until after the 1000 years have ended. 

20 hours ago, Glenn Leider said:

The foregoing shows that the general resurrection would have to take place during the 1,000 years, for those resurrected to "come to life" at the end of the 1,000 years.

but you have not provided scripture that states or supports a resurrection during the thousand years, it is only a guess in your presentation of the idea. I want to know what scriptures are used to support the societies idea of a resurrection during the thousand years which is in direct opposition to Rev 20:5. 

Can someone point me to the scriptures used by the society that state there is a resurrection during  the thousand year reign. 

3 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Yes, I believe he is. I believe more light will come on this, organizationally. Let's leave it there for now. Thanks

 

So you do not side with the society on this issue, but rather hope they will change to what you believe. 

The synonym for mediator is intercessor.  So you do not believe that Jesus is your mediator?  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediator

Melinda, 

 What are your thoughts on the information that JW Insider posted? 

Glad to hear it. 

my favorite character was Kevin.

10 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

 

 

(Colossians 1:18-20) . . .He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; ¹⁹ because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

 

(1 John 2:1, 2) 2 My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. ² And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.

 

(Matthew 20:28) Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

(1 Timothy 2:5, 6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time.

(Titus 2:13, 14) while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to set us free from every sort of lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people who are his own special possession, zealous for fine works.

(Hebrews 9:28) so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin, and he will be seen by those earnestly looking for him for their salvation.

 (Isaiah 53:12) For that reason I will assign him a portion among the many, And he will apportion the spoil with the mighty, Because he poured out his life even to death And was counted among the transgressors; He carried the sin of many people, And he interceded for the transgressors.

(Romans 6:10) For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God.

(1 Peter 2:24) He himself bore our sins in his own body on the stake, so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness. And “by his wounds you were healed.”

 

  

*** w08 12/15 p. 14 par. 14 Appreciate Jesus’ Unique Role in God’s Purpose ***

¹⁴ What about those who are not in the new covenant, those who hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven? While not participants in the new covenant, these are beneficiaries of it. They receive forgiveness of their sins and are declared righteous as God’s friends. (Jas. 2:23; 1 John 2:1, 2) Whether we have a heavenly hope or an earthly hope, each one of us has good reason to appreciate Jesus’ role as the Mediator of the new covenant.

 

So who is your mediator? 

I Like This story

13 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Most churches I went to, you had to abide by their rules, policy or what they believed.  If one church said no pants, we could only wear dresses.  However if the society said men wear ties, it's a major crime against humanity. (smile)

I've never been to or heard of a church that has rules like you mention. 

14 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

I understand how the society will use certain quotes to support certain reasoning on the scriptures, however, I may not entirely agree with them or the author of the quote.

So do you agree that the society has misrepresented some of the scholars they have cited?

36 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

You would have to show me where we have to adhere to every interpretation of scripture or what policy says that.  I have never been taught that.  If at the meetings we give different thoughts on what a verse means no one says that's wrong or you are going to be reproved for saying that.  Of course there are basic tenants of faith we all must adhere to or we would not be Jehovah's Witnesses.  If I suddenly start saying God is a Trinity, that is a against a main tenant of our belief and of course I would get a talking to and if I continued to harass the congregation at meetings and everyone that would listen to me, this would most definitely cause problems.

If you need me to dig up something I will, but I think you know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to admit it.

38 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

I'm not sure what part of the world you are from but when I grew up in school misquote and taking out of context is entirely two different things.

I looked up the word misquote from two different dictionaries:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/misquote

verb 1.  to quote (a text, speech, etc) inaccurately

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misquote

 

1. to quote incorrectly.

2.  Also, mis`quo•ta′tion. an incorrect quotation.

Now you just want to argue semantics instead of the subject. If you must, then it is actually a citation and not a quotation. I can understand why you want to do your best to sidetrack the point, to defend the society. 

40 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Concerning the cross, I've read many articles on it and some writings that said it was in the shape of the letter T or some others say it was just an upright tree.  I know there was probably a large sign above Jesus head so that may have made it look like the letter T.  I'm not sure, I wasn't there.  The most important thing is Jesus died so that we can have life.

You missed the point. What was cited by the society was misleading based on what they wanted the source to say and what the actual source said. The implication was that the Imperial Bible Dictionary supported the views of the society, when in fact the opposite is true. This type of practice is throughout the publications of the WT and they have been sued because of misrepresentation before. The dishonesty and misleading is the point I was trying to make about not citing the full text/context.

It matters not if Jesus died on a cross, or a stake or a milk crate, He died for our sins.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

I personally have never been told I have to agree with everything in every publication whether old or new.  In the meetings, different brothers and sisters will give their understanding of what certain verses may mean which may not be exactly in accord with what's written in a publication and sometimes the elders don't know or ask us to go research it and let them know the next time we meet.

This is the most vague answer about this as I have seen.  You may not be aware, or you just may be allowing yourself to be unaware, I cannot say. What I can say is that all jw's are to adhere to the societies interpretation without question. If your understanding of scripture deviates from the societies, you are corrected/reproved and if you do not accept the societies view, you are "labeled". You do not have to respond to this portion of our conversation, as you already have, but I cannot accept your answer on this. 

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

Wrong is wrong whether it's the society or those among any of the religions or Christendom, either intentional or unintentional. 

13 hours ago, JaniceM said:

As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land.

So then what was the point of your statement? Was it not to show just how the wrongs of the society are the same, or less wrong then that of other groups?

15 hours ago, JaniceM said:

However as far as scriptures go, we are encouraged to read all the scriptures.  That's why they are quoted for reference.  I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. 

I copied this for reference so we can be clear as to what you did say without digging into the thread. It does seem pretty clear from this statement that you DO see what I am trying to say and admittedly notice that the society has at times quoted out of context. You did not use the word "misquote" but the concept is there.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

If the society lists a quote to make a point, it doesn't make it a misquote such as changing entire words, anymore than I would quote part of a verse for emphasis or to make a point. 

I never said changing words, I said quote out of context by omitting the full quote, thus changing the meaning.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

However, to get a fuller perspective, it's best to read the original author's full statement to get a better sense of things.  Many Christians or publications quote other references or parts of scripture.  I don't automatically assume they are trying to mislead but I know the verse they quote may not be entirely in the context of the chapter or surrounding verses.  I also don't want to just depend on one source or the society for my infomation, so some quotes (NOT ALL), I look up to make sure I get the full quote especially if only part of the quote is listed.

yes, I agree it is best to research the quote. I am in complete agreement. Have you ever found where the society has quoted only portions of something, leaving out information that is in direct opposition to their claim the quote said,  to fit their agenda?

If not, I will give you a perfect example:

In the reasoning book under the section for "cross" there is a quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary and it reads :

"The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376."

The actual rendering has a bit more to say. I will have to type this out as I cannot cut and paste it, but I will provide you with a link to the entire book online. It has been made readily available in such a way that it cannot be mistaken. I have also gone and physically held this book and seen it with my own eyes. omitted parts are underlined:

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries.Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment. A traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however always even then...  -https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/376/mode/1up

The article continues to talk about a pole that pierces a person from the rectum and up through the mouth. Also it talks about the different shapes used in crucifixion, X, T and the traditional cross.

"But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not precisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus t- and making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered" -  https://archive.org/stream/theimperialbible01unknuoft#page/377/mode/1up

Now does this sound as if it supports the societies view of the cross or the exact opposite once read in full context? 

It is by these omissions they change the meaning to fit their agenda. That was my point of not fully quoting a scripture, you can make the Bible say whatever you want if you only quote what you want and not what the context really means.  

As far as different doctrines, I don't expect the society to be totally infallible in their understanding and neither have they ever said they were.  

But they require you to believe them as if they were, no?

As I've mentioned, I come from different denominations and have seen changing doctrines and teachings from one church on the corner this week to a different teaching the next week visiting the church down the street.  I've seen mainstream televangelists preach hellfire/no hellfire, Unitarian/Trinitarian and still undecided, make predictions every Sunday that fail to come to fruition, not to mention the history of Christendom deliberately murdering our people and taking our land. 

So what? Does their wrong make the wrongs of the society right?

I also did not use the word misquote.  You continue to twist my words.  

I quoted you, it was you who said "Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

I did not twist your words, you admit that to get the context of the source the society quoted, you must look it up yourself and NOT rely on the society.  

If you think I did misquoted you, then do you feel that it was dishonest?  Is that not what I'm trying to say about the society? 

On 6/8/2016 at 1:30 PM, Sonita said:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 

wait, I Thought That The Spirit / Soul Goes Into Nonexistence Until The Resurrection? 

So not many jws know that the society has excluded Jesus from being their mediator.  Interesting, but they have to have a mediator,  right? I mean, how could a regular jw have access to God otherwise?

56 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

Hi Shiwii,

The comment about the goats was not directed at the society for we are not wandering about, but well organized in carrying out the ministry work and take care to study with new ones for several years including after baptism.  The remark was a little sarcasm on my part that if there is no organization or structure in place for a congregation or gatherings to receive direction to aid in following through in our ministry, we would be as Jesus said like sheep without a shepherd, or constantly butting heads like goats, not knowing what to do or either arguing tossed and blown about like so much of the world.

So by organized, you mean changing doctrines and interpretations as the need suits? For example the organ transplant ban and lift, not really knowing who your faithful and humble servants were until recently? and the people of Sodom and Gamorrah being resurrected? Do those changes demonstrate organization and sheparding?

"Yes, I agree terms like Trinity or hellfire would be describing certain concepts, also like rapture, Lord's prayer, Lord's Evening Meal, Memorial, etc."

Good, glad to see you do not hold the hard and fast rule among most witnesses. 

"If you notice, I stated the website is to point people to information about the kingdom and of course there is information about Jesus, the ruler of God's kingdom.  Once there people can learn how they can put faith in Jesus and receive everlasting life by means of him. "

Isn't that suppose to be the Bible and not a website that you agree misquotes not only scholars but also the Bible? See my answer below.

"I myself don't always quote a whole scripture if I'm trying to make a point or I can include part of it in the thoughts I am writing.  I do understand what you mean though as I have had to look up some quotes of the society most notable if they quote an outside reference on a matter, commentaries or certain scholars or experts.  Sometimes things may not be in the exact context in which it was written and I would rather have all the facts and not a one-sided opinion. "

Would you not deem this as a sort of dishonesty? Especially if it taken out of context to promote a view point of the society? 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Instead of being herded as sheep, they wander about butting heads like goats.

This is because they do not have the "Good Shepard" as their master. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an organization. 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Words such as "organization", or "governing body" seem to be a big bone of contention when it should not.  These are just descriptive terms.

 do you mean like Trinity and Hell? 

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

Therefore two (2) initials of a website designed for dispensing information about God's kingdom can hardly be considered worship or bowing down to an idol. 

Directing people to a website for salvation IS idolatry, especially when we should be pointing people to Jesus for salvation as the Bible says we should.  

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

I support the preaching of God's kingdom and if that appears bias with regard to the society or "organization", I certainly do not apologize for their endless efforts toward that goal.

I think your goal and the goal of the society are not one in the same. I was just overlooking at the "text of the day" threads and saw that conveniently the society had not fully quoted a scripture. This causes one to only see what the society wants them to see. Thus the objective is not the same for the follower as it is for the leaders. I can elaborate if needed.