Shiwiii

So you must be of the anointed? Doesn't the watchtower say that Jesus is only the mediator for the 144,000? emphasis mine: "The new covenant includes 144,000 anointed ones. They make up a new nation that is called “the Israel of God,” or spiritual Israel.—Galatians 6:16;Revelation 14:1, 4. 12. How do the Law covenant and the new covenant compare? 12 How do the Law covenant and the new covenant compare? The Law covenant was between Jehovah and the nation of Israel, and the new covenant is between Jehovah and spiritual Israel. Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant, and Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant." https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201410/a-kingdom-of-priests/#?insight[search_id]=e7002f2b-0d7b-4d45-a877-6963766dfd7c&insight[search_result_index]=0 "While Jesus' mediatorship operates solely toward those in the new covenant" Insight Vol 2 pg 362 You don't actually talk to Jesus, you just end your prayer with His name....right?

Under inspiration, Moses wrote. When he wrote exodus, he said that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know God's name. God told Moses this directly. It is my belief that no one before Moses knew God's name, based on Exodus. So to answer you plainly, yes

Moses wrote what he was suppose to write by inspiration. Since Exodus 6:2&3 tell us that Moses is the first to know God by His name and Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus so he would have written them by what he knew.

Actually it is the answer. Yes. I agree, that's why Moses wrote what he wrote. Moses had knowledge that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not and that is why when he wrote the accounts of Genesis he clarified what was meant. He knew the name of God and thus wrote it in where it should have been, under inspiration, to give us the context of the faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had for God.

They called on God

not for me to resolve, it is scripture. Exodus 6:2 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. Moses was the one who wrote Genesis, and thus the reason why I refer to Moses. Think about it, if you knew all of the characters of a story that someone had told you and they didn't, after the person who told you died, you write the story. Are you going to leave out the names of the characters just because the person who told you the story didn't know them? No, and neither would Moses. You would include all of the facts that you knew to make the story as accurate as possible.

so tell me how Abraham, Issac and Jacob missed out on this? God said He appeared to Abraham, Issac and Jacob only as God Almighty, so these three were not worthy to know His name, but the rest of the people were? Again, take into account who wrote Genesis, and who was the first to know God's name? Same guy...Moses.

Moses wrote Genesis, Moses knew Gods name according to Exodus 6. Of course he would write it where it applies in the earlier accounts. God told Moses that He did not make Himself know to Abraham, Issac and Jacob as "YHWH" but only as God Almighty.

Exodus 6:2 refutes you.

Amen

interesting that you quote exodus 6:2 &3 here. The name of God was only spoken in the Holy of Holies on one time of the year, and by Aaron and his successors. But I think I remember you saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have known the name.

We all must honor the Son just as we honor the Father.

Didn't G Jackson say under oath in court that he and the other GB's were not the mouth piece of Jehovah on Earth? Then how can you assimilate the words of the GB to that of GOD?!?!?!?

Your Ecc quote is take out of context. If you read the chapter you will see this is talking about the ability to sin under the sun. that is the problem, your org keeps you in the dark by not taking things into context, but rather cherry picking scripture to support themselves. By this point you have been so indoctrinated you cannot see the context. I've already addressed your Ephesians quote, to which you had no reply really. if one had a beginning then they would not be the same from eternity. Don't side track this. Jesus was salvation before anything was created. If that were not the case then Ephesians 1:4&5 would make no sense. A predestination doesn't happen after the fact. Once again, you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign. The reason why is because you cannot. If you would like to continue to discuss the topic of Jesus and creation or anything else, please start a new thread. We've exhausted this one only to prove that the booklet "what does the bible really teach" is wrong, the Bible does not teach a resurrection during the thousand year reign.

Jesus already spoke to those who have died. 1 Peter 4:6 tells us this. Also in Hebrews 11 scripture tells us of the OT saints who believed by faith, however they were given the same gospel that we have so that we and them would be the same, with one faith. Actually no, Jesus was "the way" from eternity. Hebrews 13:8 tells us this. He did not become, He always was. Again, you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign.

The account in Luke, salvation was given to that person with the faith in Jesus, not because that man died. Context context context. Acts 24 does not negate Hebrews 9, it supports it. Paul was apealing to their knowledge they already had of the resurrection. You are reading into the text your view of "following the resurrection ". It is not there and if you read the chapter instead of just the verse you will see that it isn't there. Salvation is known and owned this side of the grave. 1 John 5:13. It's not some later opportunity. The opportunity is now not later, by then it is too late. Once you die, that's it, no second chance or else Jesus died for nothing.

You are taking Romans 6:7 and 23 out of context. If you read it in context with the chapter as a whole you will see it. If you choose to selectively take a single verse then you will see what YOU want to see. Hebrews 9:27 and 2 Cor 9:10 spell a different picture than what you want to believe. Again, we are talking about a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign. Again, you have provided no scriptural support for your belief, only speculation. I have to conclude since this has been going on this long and you have not supported a resurrection DURING the thousand year reign, then it means that you cannot do so with scripture. I get it and fully understand. You believe it, I don't based on the Bible. So what does the Bible really teach? Not a resurrection during the thousand year reign as the book implies.

Your first sentence is refuted by the Bible itself at rev 20:4&5. Romans 6:7, if you read from verse 1 through to verse 7 you will see the actual context. When someone believes in Jesus, they then have died with Him of their former self. This has more to do with living for Christ for the sake of what He did for us. It has nothing to say about what you do for yourself in the means of dying. You cannot cover your own sins by your own death, or else there would be no reason for Jesus to have come and done it for us. Verse 23, yes sin deserves death and it is our belief in Jesus that gives us the free gift of God, eternal life. All will be judged according to what they did in their body in this lifetime. There is no second chance. 2 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." Hebrews 9:27 " And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"

It is quite interesting how the title of this booklet is similar to the question satan had to Eve. Both are questioning what God has told to man and interjecting an opinion outside of what God had said.

I understand and agree with you that this and other discussions should be about reasoning, however we cannot reason if we are not dealing with facts and merely using opinions. I am reading Rev 20:4&5 as they are written, these verses do not say during, but rather spell out exactly how things are going to take place and when. Yes, the chapter centers around the thousand years, no argument here on that. The fact is that each section of chapter 20 deals with something specific. This chapter is written chronologically, event after event and how each derives from the last. It would make no sense for Satan to be released after death and been abolished. Verse 4&5 tell us exactly in which order who is resurrected and when, there is no grey area here. Before the thousand years the first resurrection, after the thousand years, the rest. What you are trying to do is gather the events and contain them within the thousand years, which is just not possible. I think here you believe that the thousand years and the "last day" are synonymous, which they are not. While I agree that "Judgement day" is probably not a single day, it is not the 1000 year reign, there is no scripture to support this either. I answered you based on your "symbolic death" but you didn't clarify, instead you simply state I misunderstand. You will need to help me understand your thought then. By answering the questions I raised on this, you will be helping me understand. here it is again: judgement is after the thousand years are completed. Rev 20:7 tells us when the thousand years were over, and verse 11 starts telling us about the judgement. Again, I think you have the thousand year reign and the last day as synonymous. John 5:29 does not reveal that "during" anytime period. This is interjected bias on your part for a resurrection during the thousand years. John 5:29 does tells us what will happen AT judgement, some resurrected to life and others resurrected to judgement. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that after death comes judgement. This tells us plainly that there is no second chance. Both John 5:29 and Heb 9:27 speak of the same thing, but neither are talking about during the thousand year reign. We already have scripture that states otherwise! It is YOU who is trying to say it doesn't mean what it says, and that is why I am asking for scripture to support YOUR claim. You made a statement about belittling, but not you want to imply a lack of the ability to reason with soundness??? I'm giving you scripture that contradicts your claim. What you are doing and believing in is the same thing the serpent did to Eve. The serpent tricked Eve by asking if God really said they would die? Instead he made Even think that God was lying, kinda like you are doing by saying that when Rev 20:4&5 don't really mean before the thousand year reign and after. I have read your links and they too lack biblical support for its claims. There is no scripture to support this resurrection during the thousand year reign. Instead, like you, there is an assumption that judgement day and the 1000 year reign are one and the same. Included in some of the wording is "Judgement day will thus see the restoration of mankind to its original perfect state." How exactly is the term judge being used here? It is not, it is inventing a double meaning to the term judge. We see in Rev 20:12 that this is when the actual judging takes place, and this is after the thousand year reign, verse 7 tells us this. because I am not ignorant to the ways the WT works, does not mean I have ever been part of it. I disagree, if one wants to know then read the Bible.

No, you are trying to get away from the topic because you have no Biblical support for your belief. That's fine, I just won't follow you into the rabbit hole.

What revelance does that have on the topic? The Bible is our guide, right? So our answers must come from the Bible and nothing else, because that is the only inspired word of God.

Dwayne, Thank you for your reply. You have to look at the context of our conversation, which is about the resurrection during the 1000 year reign, not if there is a resurrection. Of course there is, but that is not the topic we are discussing. No actually God does not need us to do anything with or for Him. He can do away with death on His own. None of your scriptures state a resurrection during the 1000 year reign. You are putting limits on God and His ability to remove death. Think about it, why would God need everyone to come back to life to rid the world of death? Death is a physical expiration of the body. If one is already dead, can death sting again if that one is not alive? Unless you believe that there is something living after physical expiration... I quite agree. Further it states that those "first" resurrected are resurrected before the 1000 year reign, not during. The rest, after the 1000 year reign. There is no mention of ANY during this time period. You are believing then, that these ones will not "come to life", that is come to know God, until after the thousand year reign? So then these will not understand what is happening around them, not gain understanding, not realize Jesus is who He says He is, until after 100 years and then be subjected to judgement? no amount of teaching from any Elders, WT's, Awakes, shepherding calls, brothers/sisters, nothing until its time of judgement? Is that what you believe? It appears that way based on your thoughts on these ones being dead as in dead to their former way of life, and NOT coming to life as in a resurrection, but rather knowledge. Do you also think then that these that do not "come to life" until after 1000 years are the same ones who Satan gathers to make war with the saints? That is pure speculation and assumption. We cannot live on assumption, we live on scripture. I have addressed this with my explanation and questions above. It is either that these will not be resurrected, or they will not "come to life" in your terms, until the end of the 1000 year reign. At that time many will side with Satan and make war against the holy ones. Are these them that side with Satan? If so, then you may have a point, but we see that is not the case when looking at the rest of Rev 20 as a whole and in context. This judgement that occurs, after the war with Satan, is a judgement of both the good and the bad (see John 5:28&29).

Great, I'm glad you pointed this out to me. Your scriptural references I'd like to address one by one. Luke 23:43 " And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Where in this scripture does it state during the 1000 year reign? It doesn't. Revelation 20:6 " Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." Again, this does not mention that these will be resurrected DURING the 1000 year reign, only that they will reign and rule with Jesus during the 1000 year reign. Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books,according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." Nothing about resurrection DURING the 1000 year reign. Now lets take a look at a few verses before your Rev 20:6 quote, starting at verse 4: 4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." Here this states that those who were beheaded for their testimony about Jesus, and did not take the mark, are the ones who will reign with Jesus FOR a thousand years. This is not for 999 years, or 300 years, but the full 1000 years. So these cannot be the ones resurrected DURING the 1000 years. Even more is verse 5 " The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. " What happens to the rest of the dead? Not resurrected until after the 1000 year reign. So we see those who were resurrected prior to the 1000 year reign and those who were after the 1000 years, but no mention of ANY during. In fact, the exact opposite is true, "the rest did not", meaning NONE were resurrected during the 1000 year reign. So where in the Bible does it really teach a resurrection during the 1000 year reign? please provide your scriptural support.

So you agree that this book "what does the Bible really teach" tells that this resurrection is going to be during the 1000 year reign?