THIS WAS YOUR LIFE - a mormon story (MANY IMAGES)

[BulletMagnet]

Faith without works is dead. That's plain. However, that doesn't mean that at the time of the original "answer to the call" the answer wasn't sincere or without faith...I don't believe, however, that they are lost forever or that they have forfeited their salvation.

I don't dispute that point: however, the scriptures do present examples of those who do have faith and support it by works at one point, but later on, in one way or another, turn away from that path and lose God's favor. King Solomon comes to mind, for one. To take it a bit further, someone can repent after turning away and receive forgiveness (King David, after sinning with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, is one example, although God did not protect him from the consequences of his actions), but this doesn't "automatically" happen. Which leads into the next point:

As for Rahab, remember that in the OT all men/women were saved by works. In order to be righteous before God, they had to offer animal sacrifices as a replacement for their own lives. They also were required to follow very specific laws & do the best they could.

True, though the rituals weren't the most important thing, according to Hosea 6:6:

For in loving-kindness I have taken delight, and not in sacrifice; and in the knowledge of God rather than in whole burnt offerings.

Here and elsewhere (though I can't find any specific reference atm), Israel is still offering sacrifices and such as it's been instructed to, but the practice has no effect on the people's daily lives, and they practice fraud, deceit, etc. regardless of the offerings they made; the offerings meant nothing to the people who offered them, and God did not accept them. Even in the bigger picture, Israel was God's "chosen people" from the very beginning; however, this does not mean that God "automatically" forgave them for everything. Whenever they rebelled against him, he abandoned them, and would not take them back until they'd changed their ways; and eventually, after the nation as a whole rejected Christ, he left them completely. Think about it; as the scriptures say, "God is Love," but he is also supreme in Wisdom and Justice; if he allowed people to do whatever they wanted after "accepting" him, and forgave them regardless of their attitudes or actions, that would be neither wise nor fair, even from a human perspective.

[GaijinPunch]

Where, oh where, do people get the idea that the Bible A) is anti-dinosaur, and or B) does not speak on dinosaurs??? Both those ideas are false. Check out Behemoth and Leviathan in the OT. If those aren't dinosaurs I don't know what is.

I know of those. I'm not saying they're definitely NOT dinosaurs, I just don't know what they are. The Adam & Eve store pretty much leaves dinosaurs and all forms of evolution out of the picture. I went to a church summer retreat when one of the counselors talked about how he had friends that thought fossils were a complete test of faith, and dinosaurs did not roam the Earth.

[FRO]

BulletMagnet - I see what you're saying, but comparing the OT definition of salvation & the NT definition is like apples vs. oranges. Salvation is defined by Christ in the NT for the time he lived & that carries on today & beyond. The OT idea of salvation was an ongoing thing (somewhat works-based, though ultimately leaning on faith) that is more complex & more difficult to truly define. So again, Rahab's faith was ultimately what saved her, though her works certainly showed evidence of that faith.

[Dylan1CC]

I don't believe a man should live a God-fearing life, if anything I view him as a peer.

That depends on your definition of fear. If you talk to most non-denominational ministers, they'll tell you the verbage used in the original text was more akin to "reverence" or "deep-seeded respect" than what we think of as fear, or being afraid. There are instances where actual fear is in play (garden of Eden when Adam & Eve realized their sin & were truly afraid), but IIRC most instances of the term fear are as much a token of reverence than of fear.

My faith teaches us that proper godly fear is "Not a morbid dread, but as sincere fear of displeasing him out of love." Just as when one has a beloved parent and feels bad when they do something to hurt them.

Dylan1CC - man, that's a lot of info to dissemenate!
As far as the interpretation on Revelations 20, I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. You said that some of the resurrected rebel - I see no evidence of that in Rev. 20. It mentions that he goes out to the 4 corners of the earth, as well as Gog & Magog to deceive the nations & bring them to battle. It's not clear to me that he actually accomplishes that goal. In any event, I believe in the concept of "once saved, always saved", so if the 1,000-year reign is nothing but those who are "saved" then Satan (conceivably) could not deceive them into turning away from God at the very last. I would have to do some reading on that (& probably consult my dad, who is more an authority on this than I could ever hope to be).

It would appear that you have studied scripture quite a lot! I am embarassed to say I am not as well read as you are. However, I believe very firmly in the "faith" aspect, that while I don't understand the bulk of it, I know enough to have that faith. Thanks for sharing your references & views - it's always interesting to see things from another perspective, despite the differences.

Gog of Magog: Ezekiel 38 and 39 deal with this at length as a "forerunner" prophecy of sorts to Revelation 20:7 and 8. Remember, at the beginning of Revelation 20 Satan (and his demons) are abyssed and imprisoned for a thousand years. Then in verse 4 it mentions the 144,000 referring to them as "kings" again who are ruling with Christ.

At Rev 20:7 and 8 it says Satan is let loose from the abyss at the end of the 1,000 year reign and the name Gog of Magog is used again. Remember, this is after armageddon which takes place earlier (also in chapter 16 as Har-Mageddon)

EDIT: At Acts 24: 15, took me awhile to find it: Paul said: "I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."

This hope Paul had was that both dead "good" people and "bad" would get a second chance in the resurrection and 1,000 year reign of peace. If it was a hope that Paul expressed for both types of people, then again one would not think God would say "OK, you're good. Next on the list? Huh?! I resurrected you? Goodbye!"

Remember that Rev 5:10 also says that the 144,000 will "rule as kings over the earth" and remember also that the 1,000 year reign of Christ is peaceful. But some people will unfortunately not want to live under this peaceful new reign just as Adam and Eve chose not to live under God's rulership even though they were "perfect" as Satan was at one time. But still, others who were resurrected as "unrighteous" ones have the chance during the 1,000 reign of peace to turn around and make a conscious choice for good. This is why Satan is abyssed for 1,000 years so his subtle influence can no longer be felt for a period of time and these "unrighteous" ones have a new shot at repentence and reconciling.

EDIT: 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28: After the end of Christ's 1,000 year reign when Satan is finally destroyed, then the eternal reign begins when Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father."

For a really interesting read on Satan's origin, read Ezekiel 28: 13-19 where God tells Ezekiel an account about a certain cherub who resided in Eden who "became haughty."

Glad you enjoyed my post, I have enjoyed yours as well. I think it'd be hard to have a discussion this polite on other message boards, Shmups has a nicely unique group of folks!

[BulletMagnet]

Salvation is defined by Christ in the NT for the time he lived & that carries on today & beyond. The OT idea of salvation was an ongoing thing (somewhat works-based, though ultimately leaning on faith) that is more complex & more difficult to truly define.

It is true that the Mosaic law served as a precursor of sorts to Christ's sacrifice: the Israelites' animal sacrifices were "imperfect," or temporary, and had to be offered on a regular basis, while the death of Jesus, a perfect human, and thus an equivalent to Adam, did not have to be repeated, and eliminated the need for further animal sacrifices. However, this does not mean that once Jesus died God somehow "lowered his standards": as Malachi 3:6 says, "I am Jehovah; I have not changed." The specific means of supporting our faith with works is different now than it was back in Israel, but the principle behind it is still the same; as was mentioned before, what better reason does God have now to bestow unearned favor on those who don't serve him with constancy and consistency than he did then?

This explains, in part, the reason why Jehovah's Witnesses participate in our ministry the way we do: while back in Israel people sacrificed animals, crops, etc., we, being free of the obligation to do that, instead sacrifice our time and effort to teach others, as was Jesus's final request to his apostles ("Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." -Matthew 28:19-20a). And of course, God's commandment to exercise the "fruitages of the spirit" (Galatians 5:22) in our daily lives as well as in our worship has always remained the same.

[Specineff]

By the way, I got a message on my voicemail, that hell froze over for a few minutes today. They sure weren't expecting a topic about religion not exploding into a ball of flame in five posts. They asked if we could please let them know, it sure caught them off guard.




Ok, seriously, I'm glad to see this topic is being kept polite.

[Venom]

What do you make of the argument from improper sacrifice? It seems based on OT laws that Jesus would not qualify when considering the requirements laid down in Leviticus (cloven hoof, cud chewing, die of bloodshed (not asphyxiation, physically unblemished, etc.). It was also carried out by the Romans, and all sacrifices needed to go through the bloodline of Aaron.

Other than that, what do people make the the Jesus mythicist case? I have a few books by Price, Doherty, Archarya S on the subject that I haven't got around to reading yet. Also, I watched the opening statents to the Lincona/Carrier debate today, arguing physical vs. spiritual resurrection, resprctively. I found Carrier made an interesting case based off the writings of Paul, and the gnostic vs. sarcisistic (sp?) views.

Also, Dylan1CC could you point me in the direction of verses outside of the really obvious one in Leviticus that JW's use to justify the beliefs about their blood?

Interesting discussion so far.

[FRO]

What do you make of the argument from improper sacrifice? It seems based on OT laws that Jesus would not qualify when considering the requirements laid down in Leviticus (cloven hoof, cud chewing, die of bloodshed (not asphyxiation, physically unblemished, etc.). It was also carried out by the Romans, and all sacrifices needed to go through the bloodline of Aaron.

Jesus qualified because he was unblemished. In other words, He was a man without sin (the first since Adam, prior to the fall), & being also God, He was able to bear the weight/burden of having to "become sin" for us as He was physically dying on the cross. Many (including myself) believe He was the only perfect sacrifice - all animal sacrifices in the OT pale in comparison because only Jesus had the capacity to understand the sin he was atoning for, even though it was not His own.

[Dylan1CC]

Also, Dylan1CC could you point me in the direction of verses outside of the really obvious one in Leviticus that JW's use to justify the beliefs about their blood?

Acts 15:20 "but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." Paul goes so far as to repeat this in verse 29. This ties in with the verses you referred to in the OT which stated that "life is in the blood" and it was to be "poured out over the ground."

This is one way we show faith and appreciation in the value of Christ's blood and is also a protection. Pope John Paul contracted hepatitis after his blood transfusion after being shot back in 1980 (?).

Partly due to our efforts, there is now a wing in Johns Hopkins University devoted to bloodless surgery hospitals throughout the nation with both professional non-JW and JW doctors who practice bloodless surgery (my grandfather had surgery done at one a few years ago on the west coast and met a man who was not a witness who was having bloodless surgery done, there are people who are not witnesses who seek out bloodless surgery because of the risk of disease/aftereffects). It is very complicated but one method involved is a lazer scalpel which cauterizes incisions as they are opened, synthetic compounds which stimulate new blood cell growth, ect.

Some people confuse us with Christian Scientists who AFAIK politely refuse almost all forms of medical treatment.

[BulletMagnet]

What do you make of the argument from improper sacrifice?

Well, obviously Jesus wasn't an animal, nor was he offered up on Jerusalem's altar or anything like that, but as was mentioned above, the animal sacrifices offered in Israel were intended to be temporary, imperfect precursors to the eventual sacrifice of the Messiah; after all, Adam, a perfect man, was the one who originally sinned and subjected all his offspring to imperfection and death, and the equivalent of another perfect man, namely Jesus, was needed to permanently offset the original sin. Right in the beginning, after the original sin, God made the promise to Satan to undo what the latter had set in motion ("And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel." -Genesis 3:15) The "head wound" (a potentially fatal one) refers to Satan's attempt to divert God's purpose failing, and he being destroyed, and the "heel wound" (a nonfatal one) refers to Christ being killed, but then resurrected, having atoned for the original sin of Adam.

Various prophecies detailing the Messiah's arrival and life course are spread throughout the OT, and Hebrew scholars studied them extensively: in fact, around the time Jesus was born, due to their having studied Daniel's prophecy of the "70 weeks" that I referred to in an earlier post, people were expecting the Messiah to show up right about that time ("Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John [the Baptist]: "May he perhaps be the Christ?" -Luke 3:15). The "weeks," in case you're interested, play out something like this, according to Daniel:

There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

And you should know and have the insight, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. Daniel 9:24-25a

The "word to restore Jerusalem occurred in 455 B.C.E.*, when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem with permission from Persian king Artaxerxes to complete the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Taking into account the "day for a year" prophecy mentioned in an earlier post, "seven weeks," or 49 years, later the rebuilding of Jerusalem was completed, in 406. Count "62 weeks," or 434 years from there, and you arrive at 29 C.E.*, the year when Jesus was baptized, anointed, and began his ministry.

And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself...and he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offerings to cease. Daniel 9:26a and 27a

The "covenant" (the OT law requiring Jews to keep themselves separate from the nations via their various regulations) was kept in effect for "one week" (7 years) after Jesus was anointed in 29, through 36 C.E., when, as was mentioned in an earlier post, Peter was sent to the Gentile Cornelius, and from that point on Jesus' teachings were no longer limited just to Jewish people. However, at the "half of the week" (partway through 33 C.E., during Passover time), Jesus was killed, and the OT prophecies leading up to that point were fulfilled; from that point on the "sacrificies" of the Mosaic law were no longer necessary, as Jesus, the Messiah, had permanently nullified Adam's sin, as had been promised from the start.

*To avoid questions later, (if I recall my facts correctly) I use the terms "BCE" ("before Common Era") and "CE" ("Common Era") instead of BC and AD because, IIRC, the latter forms of dating incorrectly insert a non-existent "zero year" in between 1 BC and 1 AD, when in reality it simply progressed from one year to the other without a "space" in between.

Other than that, what do people make the the Jesus mythicist case?

I'm not familiar with the term, what comprises the "mythicist" case?

Also, Dylan1CC could you point me in the direction of verses outside of the really obvious one in Leviticus that JW's use to justify the beliefs about their blood?

Offhand, here's a reference or two from the NT, in the book of Acts:

Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. -Acts 15:19-20

A bit later in the chapter it's repeated for emphasis:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you! -Acts 15:28-29

Basically, as was originally mentioned in the OT, as you referenced, we believe that blood is sacred to God ("For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it." -Leviticus 17:11), and avoid taking foreign blood into our bodies, via either eating it or having it transfused in. This doesn't mean that we "don't believe in doctors," as some say, since we seek the best medical care possible as long as it does not involve giving us blood, since we also believe that life itself is sacred and should be preserved whenever feasible. We also leave some "borderline" issues not mentioned in the Bible, such as receiving certain chemical compounds derived from blood, to personal decision; some accept it, others choose not to.

[Specineff]

If I might point something out, and not aimed to start a fire, blood that gets transfused keeps on going and doing its job of providing life and oxygen, while ingesting it destroys it with little benefit for the body.

[CIT]

Interesting, I didn't know that Jehovah's Witnesses were vegetarian.

[Dylan1CC]

If I might point something out, and not aimed to start a fire, blood that gets transfused keeps on going and doing its job of providing life and oxygen, while ingesting it destroys it with little benefit for the body.

Although blood was ingested for "medicinal" purposes in Roman/ancient times, you're absolutely right on that point that a transfusion is obviously far more effective than the way they used it. We simply do not believe in using the blood/life of an imperfect man to prolong our lives. All other medical avenues to prolong our lives are absolutely exhausted however, whether it be "volumizers," synthetic blood cell enhancers, ect. as I mentioned before.

[Dylan1CC]

Interesting, I didn't know that Jehovah's Witnesses were vegetarian.

Nope, not vegetarian. Just not meat that has not been reasonably bled (IOW, I am glad I do not live in Canada where I hear you can get more than a little trace amount of blood in your pepperoni or hotdog as an example). I am a steak, A1 and potatos man all the way although I have a hankering right now for a big salad with balsamic venaigrette.

[Venom]

I have a lot to respond to, right now I need some dinner and to watch world junior hockey

Thanks for the verses and clarification about JW blood beliefs. I may have more to ask about it.

BulletMagnet: The mythicists are those who hold that a historical Jesus never existed. As I haven't read my books on it, I can't say much (old amazon order, they looked interesting). I know they advance arguments: from silence, past mythical figures, astrotheology, origin of the gospels (and epistles), etc. For a recent development in this, Lawsuit, where a priest is going to have to prove Jesus existed in court.

I'll get to the rest later/tomorrow.

[greg]

The definition of what a cult is may be debatable. A cult is typically held to be an unorthodox sect of a religion in which their views differ radically from the majority. Mormons believe that they can become gods in the afterlife and that God himself was some space alien from another planet who had attained godhood, and that Jesus's second coming was when he visited Native Ameican tribes a long time ago. (I'm not making this up, I swear.) JW's are more subtle in their differences with mainline Christianity, but the main point that seems to stand out to me (at least in my option), is the dispute about the deity of Christ. But hey, JW's believe that they have the right way figured out and that the rest of Christians are bonkers. They have the right to do so. This is founded on a dispute of scriptures, and at least not an invented third book of the bible with no bearings on historical and archaeological evidence whatsoever.

People here can debate on scriptural issues all day long. But the main thing that disturbs me about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is the strong focus on the centralization on a few human beings setting forth the rules and church doctorine, and even more alarming, the church-mandated excommunicaiton ("disfellowhipping" if you'd call it that) of those who reject the edicts of said establishment. People may come and go in my non-denominational church all the time, and they may reject their faith if they choose to do so. But they never hold votes over whether to shun people, and the pastors never encourage families to disavow their children. This may happen among individuals in mainstream Christian churches, and heck, it may even happen in entire churches (and I'm sure it does). However, this is not a systematic, church-wide method of handling those who leave manstream Christianity.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but this is why I consider the Watchtower/JWs to be a cult, and one of my major complaints with the group. I'm not blaming anyone on this board of doing this, but this is undeniably, historically endemic of the Jehovah's Witness sect (and Mormons as well).

[BulletMagnet]

If I might point something out, and not aimed to start a fire, blood that gets transfused keeps on going and doing its job of providing life and oxygen, while ingesting it destroys it with little benefit for the body.

True, but as was said before, our objection to blood is on scriptural grounds, rather than anything directly scientific (though over the years some documented advantages to not taking blood have come to light, as evidenced in the increasing use of bloodless surgery and the like).

Thanks for the verses and clarification about JW blood beliefs. I may have more to ask about it.

By all means do so; methinks by now it's clear that we're not the sort of faith which tries very hard to keep things secret.

BulletMagnet: The mythicists are those who hold that a historical Jesus never existed.

Ah, I see. I've heard of such a viewpoint before, but as I've already suggested, haven't researched its arguments much. Just from a "layman's" point of view, though, for the sake of argument, whether Jesus existed or not, considering the effects that the teachings credited to him have had, SOMEthing happened in the mideast around that time which got people's attention. IIRC, even Muslims believe that he was a real person, and a prophet (along with some other Biblical figures).

greg, let me try to clarify a few things on what you've mentioned: I can't speak for Mormons, obviously, but for my own faith I can mention a couple of things:

But hey, JW's believe that they have the right way figured out and that the rest of Christians are bonkers.

That's really not the way we look at it...we believe that the Bible contains instructions on how to please God, and are encouraged to study it regularly in order to better understand it; few other denominations teach their parishioners as such. Historically the Church tried for centuries to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people, even killing those who attempted to translate it. Obviously it's not quite that way nowadays, but still, how many churchgoers do you find, even if they've been attending for years, who can offer a well-supported explanation of what the Bible really teaches? We don't go door-to-door to "convert" people: we try to find people who really want to study the Bible, and help them to do so: they can make their own decisions about what to do from there. Coerced beliefs mean nothing, and that's not what we're looking for.

But the main thing that disturbs me about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is the strong focus on the centralization on a few human beings setting forth the rules and church doctorine...

There is a small group of Witnesses at our world HQ in Brooklyn (called the "governing body" by some) who "officially" determine specific courses of action within the organization; however, every time they instruct us to do something, they back it up with a scripture. They don't make decisions based on their own instincts or the like; everything's out of the Bible. We have no "traditions" which aren't based there.

...and even more alarming, the church-mandated excommunicaiton ("disfellowhipping" if you'd call it that) of those who reject the edicts of said establishment.

First off, the only people whom we ever "disfellowship" are people who have been voluntarily baptized, symbolizing their acceptance of the Bible's teachings and the dedication of the rest of their lives to serving God; no one who is excommunicated hasn't had everything explained to them, nor have they been robbed of the chance to back out if they decide that the faith is not for them. Second, if someone has been baptized and does something seriously wrong, we don't immediately disfellowship them right off the bat, but have him/her talk to some of the elders (those in charge of organizing things and such within the congregation) in order to figure out their mindset; if the person sincerely wants to make up for the wrong he/she's done, they'll get that chance. They're only sent away if they're unrepentent and unapologetic. Third, even if a person is disfellowshipped, but some time later has a genuine change of heart and wants to come back (and is willing to prove it through his actions), he can do so, though obviously it's better to be sure of your convictions before "taking the plunge" in the first place.

Second, the practice of not allowing those in who behave in such a manner is right there in the Bible:

But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked man from amongst yourselves. -1 Corinthians 5:11-13

As was mentioned above, if a person does anything contrary to his supposed "beliefs" that he wants, but still "says he believes" or whatever, does it make sense to believe that God buys that, or views it as acceptable? According to the scriptures, he doesn't (see some of my earlier posts for more on that).

Hopefully that at least explains the midset (and scriptural basis) behind some of what you mentioned.

[Venom]

I think that, even though all the wrongs religion has wrought, religion inspires hope, that through Death I'd like to think I don't just stop, but continue. I've been wavering these past two years, but I'm still proud to be a Christian.

I found that the hardest thing to deal with when I left christianity (non-denominational) and theism. That this is all there is. Makes you appreciate what you have, but it is sad at the same time. I want to see where things go and keep having new experiences.

Jesus qualified because he was unblemished. In other words, He was a man without sin (the first since Adam, prior to the fall), & being also God, He was able to bear the weight/burden of having to "become sin" for us as He was physically dying on the cross. Many (including myself) believe He was the only perfect sacrifice - all animal sacrifices in the OT pale in comparison because only Jesus had the capacity to understand the sin he was atoning for, even though it was not His own.

Fair enough, though the OT laws do require physical perfection as well. Prior to sacrifice Jesus appears to have been serverly abused, going against that. I can understand your taking it as lack of sin though. What do you make of him cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit in the wrong season. That story has never made any sense to me.

Acts 15:20 "but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." Paul goes so far as to repeat this in verse 29. This ties in with the verses you referred to in the OT which stated that "life is in the blood" and it was to be "poured out over the ground."

This is one way we show faith and appreciation in the value of Christ's blood and is also a protection. [...]

It is very complicated but one method involved is a lazer scalpel which cauterizes incisions as they are opened, synthetic compounds which stimulate new blood cell growth, ect.

Some people confuse us with Christian Scientists who AFAIK politely refuse almost all forms of medical treatment.

Yeah, Christian Scientists kind of scare me, especially when they impose their beliefs on their children when they are sick/injured (which can and sometimes does kill them). Here doctors can intervene in such things, which I'm glad they do.

How far does the belief go though? Is it simply a matter of appreciation of the sacrifice and protection, or do you really hold that your soul is in your blood (if so, are there special burial practices to preserve JWs blood?).

the animal sacrifices offered in Israel were intended to be temporary, imperfect precursors to the eventual sacrifice of the Messiah;

I think this only works retroactively, similarly with your example from Gen 3:15. These only appear to work as prophesy or temporary things (edit: Dan 9:24 might make a case for that) through retroactive shoehorning or really streching it as I think your bruising example does. With the issue of Adam's sinning, I have to disagree about it being possible for him to sin without having knowledge of good and evil. It could still be taken as things being set in motion, though the garden story read very much as a creation myth to me. Anyway, it's a debate that I've seen explode many times so I don't mind disagreement there. I would however like to know how we know that the snake is Satan (based in the OT), also the nature of Satan.

I'm actually slowly making my way through the bible at the moment, so lots of questions that are likely going to be answered later pop into my head...

That Daniel passage and interpretation look very interesting, thanks for going through it. I'll have to look into it and see if I agree with how it has been used.

[BulletMagnet]

Fair enough, though the OT laws do require physical perfection as well. Prior to sacrifice Jesus appears to have been serverly abused, going against that.

He had been beaten and scourged and such (not to mention sleep-deprived), but there wasn't a whole lot he could have done to prevent it. On a side note, IIRC the off-kilter "trial" that the Sanhedrin held to "convict" him before handing him over to Rome (in which they smacked him around a bit) was illegal according to Jewish law; not to mention, of course, that when they handed him over to Pilate, he wanted to release him right off the bat, and only subjected him to scourging, and eventually death, because his political office was eventually threatened.

What do you make of him cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit in the wrong season. That story has never made any sense to me.

He did so to emphasize something for his disciples: God did a similar thing to a bottle-gourd plant to make a point to Jonah (check chapter 4 of that book). Notice what Jesus says to those with him when they see that the tree has withered:

In answer Jesus said to them: "Truly I say to you, if only you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what I did to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountian, "Be lifted up and cast into the sea," it will happen. And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive. -Matthew 21:21-22

Basically, he was reinforcing their faith via the miracle.

How far does the belief go though? Is it simply a matter of appreciation of the sacrifice and protection, or do you really hold that your soul is in your blood (if so, are there special burial practices to preserve JWs blood?).

Well, for starters, methinks it's worth mentioning that we believe in the "soul" differently from most of Christendom: we pretty much equate "soul" with "life." In short, we don't believe that there's a piece of us that keeps living after we die, in one way or another. Here are a few scriptures to back it up:

For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beats, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beats, whether it is descending downward to the earth? -Ecclesiastes 3:19-22

For the record, the ancient Israelites did not believe in an immortal soul either. The above contrasts the teachings of heaven/hell for good/bad "souls": if animals and people are both the same thing as far as their "soul" is concerned, then how does one determine whether an animal has been "good" or "bad?" Where do their "souls" go after death?

For as respects whoever is joined to all the living there exists confidence, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 9:4-6

Pretty self-explanatory, methinks.

As for burial rituals and whatnot, there's nothing special there that I'm aware of...for viewings/funerals/etc. we'll rent out space at a funeral home or whatever and have the body prepared pretty much the same way most others do. Again, though, our main caveat as regards blood is not to take foreign blood into our own bodies.

I think this only works retroactively, similarly with your example from Gen 3:15. These only appear to work as prophesy or temporary things (edit: Dan 9:24 might make a case for that) through retroactive shoehorning or really streching it as I think your bruising example does.

Well, if the Israelites weren't waiting for the Messiah in order to finally have the original sin revoked ("cause sacrifice and gift offerings to cease," as Daniel 9:27 mentions), why exactly were they waiting for him? I won't reproduce the whole thing here, but read the book of Hebrews; here are a couple of noteworthy excerpts to this end:

In his saying "a new covenant," he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away. (8:13)

For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, men can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make themselves perfect. Otherwise, would the sacrifices not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away. (10:1-4)

Moreover, the holy spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: "'This is the covenant that I shall covenant toward them after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them.'" "And I shall by no means call their sins and their lawless deeds to mind anymore." Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (10:15-18 ) Compare Jeremiah 31:33,34.

Also, what other interpretations of the "bruise, etc" prophecy in Genesis have you heard? Why would God wait any longer in order to set in motion a way to make things right again?

With the issue of Adam's sinning, I have to disagree about it being possible for him to sin without having knowledge of good and evil.

The thing was, he had specific instructions not to partake of the fruit from that one particular tree:

And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die. -Genesis 2:16-17

So it's not like he just wandered up to some random tree and plucked a piece of fruit off of it unknowingly. Second of all, it's worth noting that the serpent chose to lie to Eve about the nature of the tree, since she had not been around as long as Adam and was more likely to fall for it; Adam, on the other hand, should have known better, but chose to go along with Eve instead of obeying what he'd been commanded ("And the man went on to say: 'The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate.'" -Genesis 3:12). Not to mention, there's no indication that the animals in Eden did not die, like he and Eve were originally supposed to: when God told Adam he would "die," he probably had an example or two to show him.

I would however like to know how we know that the snake is Satan (based in the OT), also the nature of Satan.

Well, for starters, do snakes talk on their own? Something or someone was making it do so, with the intent to deceive Eve. Offhand, I don't believe that there's a scripture in the OT which "directly" connects the creature to the devil, but when God makes the "bruise prophecy" he's obviously not talking to the animal. In the NT, if you look there instead, Revelation 12:9 refers to "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth."

As for the nature of the Devil, you probably gained from my above bits about the soul that we don't believe in Hell, or, by extension, that Satan's somehow been put in charge of it. However, we do believe that he is an individual spirit (as opposed to "the evil that resides in all of us," or something like that), a former angel who allowed himself to become proud and wanted God's rulership for himself, since he accuses man of only serving God for selfish reasons:

And he proceeded to show me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand in order to resist him. Then the angel of Jehovah said to Satan: "Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, Jehovah rebuke you, he who is choosing Jerusalem! Is not this one a log snatched out of the fire?" -Zechariah 3:1-2

Now it came to be the day when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them. Then Jehovah said to Satan "Where do you come from?" At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: "From roving about in the earth and from walking about in it." And Jehovah proceeded to say to Satan: "Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from bad? At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: "Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? Have you not yourself put up a hedge about him and about his house and about everything that he has all around? The work of his hands you have blessed, and his livestock has spread itself abroad in the earth. But for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has and see whether he will not curse you to your very face." -Job 1:6-12

There's a good deal more specific stuff about him, but atm I don't have time to find it. Anything else you want to know about my faith, though, don't hesitate to ask.

[FRO]

The definition of what a cult is may be debatable. A cult is typically held to be an unorthodox sect of a religion in which their views differ radically from the majority. Mormons believe that they can become gods in the afterlife and that God himself was some space alien from another planet who had attained godhood, and that Jesus's second coming was when he visited Native Ameican tribes a long time ago. (I'm not making this up, I swear.) JW's are more subtle in their differences with mainline Christianity, but the main point that seems to stand out to me (at least in my option), is the dispute about the deity of Christ. But hey, JW's believe that they have the right way figured out and that the rest of Christians are bonkers. They have the right to do so. This is founded on a dispute of scriptures, and at least not an invented third book of the bible with no bearings on historical and archaeological evidence whatsoever.

People here can debate on scriptural issues all day long. But the main thing that disturbs me about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is the strong focus on the centralization on a few human beings setting forth the rules and church doctorine, and even more alarming, the church-mandated excommunicaiton ("disfellowhipping" if you'd call it that) of those who reject the edicts of said establishment. People may come and go in my non-denominational church all the time, and they may reject their faith if they choose to do so. But they never hold votes over whether to shun people, and the pastors never encourage families to disavow their children. This may happen among individuals in mainstream Christian churches, and heck, it may even happen in entire churches (and I'm sure it does). However, this is not a systematic, church-wide method of handling those who leave manstream Christianity.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but this is why I consider the Watchtower/JWs to be a cult, and one of my major complaints with the group. I'm not blaming anyone on this board of doing this, but this is undeniably, historically endemic of the Jehovah's Witness sect (and Mormons as well).

This is something I've noticed as well w/ many JW's that I've known (save for those on this board & a couple of my wife's relatives). There is a passage of scripture (the reference escapes me) that basically says when you witness to someone & they outright reject the message, you are to "shake the dust off your feet" & move on. Many of the JW's I've had interaction with (again, those on this board notwithstanding) have demonstrated an unwillingness to associate with anyone outside of their faith for anything other than when they are witnessing.

Scripture commands believers to be "in the world, not of the world" (forgive me, I don't remember the reference), but I think those that behave in the aforementioned manner take it to the Nth degree. I'm not sure if it's because that's what they've been taught by their specific group, or if it's something largley concentrated in the midwest or something. You guys on the board are much more personable than any JW's I've met (save for my wife's aunt & cousin, who moved to Nebraska from California, where they've been for some time). Anyway, it's an observation that I've made over the last several years.

Mormon's, on the other hand (at least the one's I've met), have been very friendly & open, though when you counter several of their main points with scripture, they tend to get this defeated look on their faces & realize that there's no convincing you. I remember talking w/ a group of Mormon teens while on a Christian camp. It was a travelling camp, where the purpose was to travel for 10-11 days & admire God's creation (i.e. nature), so we visited sites like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, etc. to see the various natural rock formations & so forth. Anyway, when we stopped for food somewhere there was a group of Mormon teens on a similar outing, & a group of us along with one of our counselors struck up a conversation since we saw them reading what appeared to be Bibles (though it turned out they were reading the Book of Mormon). One particular girl was very nice, but she seemed to have an almost god-like reverence for Joseph Smith. The point is, they were quite friendly & willing to talk with us at length about the differences in our beliefs & theirs. When we visited the Mormon Tabernacle, however, there were a couple tour guides that almost kicked our group out due to a couple of people who were trying to stir up trouble. Not sure why they were doing that, but at least I can say it wasn't me.

[Dylan1CC]

This is something I've noticed as well w/ many JW's that I've known (save for those on this board & a couple of my wife's relatives). There is a passage of scripture (the reference escapes me) that basically says when you witness to someone & they outright reject the message, you are to "shake the dust off your feet" & move on. Many of the JW's I've had interaction with (again, those on this board notwithstanding) have demonstrated an unwillingness to associate with anyone outside of their faith for anything other than when they are witnessing.

"Shake the dust off your feet" was an instruction Jesus gave to the disciples he sent out into the cities for the minsitry regarding how they were to react when facing apathy, indifference, dis-interest or flat out opposition. IOW, if someone does not share your beliefs and makes it abundantly known, then respectfully wish them a nice day and leave as we are instructed to do at the door. The emphasis is on finding common ground and being polite even when the householder is angry. We even have records we carefully keep and update on people who tell us "Do not call here again."

Some of my relatives who are non-witnesses which me and my family vacationed with in Minnesota years ago when we were kids. The reason we did even though they did not share our beliefs is because like us, they had a respect for many of the values we did.

My dad spends a sizable amount of time with his Uncle and cousin who are catholic, visiting with them, helping them when they need an extra hand repairing things, ect. He and my mother do not spend much time with them outside of that though. Why? Because most of their recreational activities are related to their church, and so since we do not share their religious beliefs, we don't participate. But we stop over and visit each other now and then. Not like "Ohhh, you're a JW/catholic, sorry. Uh uh."

And BM covered everything on disfellowshipping. Outisde of the scriptures on it, think of this: would you listen to someone who knocked at your door who was talking about peacefulness, love, cleanliness, ect. and you knew that person at your door saying these things was later that night gonna get drunk, do some drugs or cheat on their spouse with little to no repercussions? Do as I say, not as I do is something that has hurt the credibility of all too many priests and ministers and it can and DOES have real damage to congregations within christianity. The term Jehovah's Witness is not a title or a right, we're taught it should describe your way of life.

If that person is allowed to do such things in the congregation with no counsel, what kind of influence does that have and what does that say to the rest of the people in the congregation? "I'll just go to the kingdom hall, study my bible and it'll be alright if I go against the scriptures like so and so did." The real viewpoint of disfellowshipping should be Jesus' excellent illustration of the prodigal son. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Also, it was not uncommon for Witnesses who were interred in concentration camps to risk their lives not only to speak with Jewish prisoners, but to share their food with them when possible as well. So we are not isolationists.

With the issue of Adam's sinning, I have to disagree about it being possible for him to sin without having knowledge of good and evil.

Sorry, I do not buy into the viewpoint of "Poor little 'child Adam' didn't know what he was doing." The matter of of the tree was a serious matter of obedience. And: 1 Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression." It may be reasonable to assume Adam had been alive a significant amount of years before Eve since he was assigned with naming all the animals and he surely saw that some animals died. If he could see that the animals aged and died and God had told him "You will die if you take from the tree of knowledge" then he had no reason to think otherwise.

Adam knew what she had done, yet he chose her over God. It was very calculating trap that the devil pulled on him and he gave right into it. Who knows how much better things could have turned out if Adam had reacted differently?

Also, let's say you are a wealthy philanthropist. One day you take pity on a homeless couple. You tell them "You can live in my building, eat any food you want, partake of any of our goods/recreation. But in return as a show of good faith, there is this one particular item in my building which I do not want you to take."

People may come and go in my non-denominational church all the time, and they may reject their faith if they choose to do so. But they never hold votes over whether to shun people, and the pastors never encourage families to disavow their children. This may happen among individuals in mainstream Christian churches, and heck, it may even happen in entire churches (and I'm sure it does). However, this is not a systematic, church-wide method of handling those who leave manstream Christianity.

And people my congregation can come or leave as they please as well. But again, if someone who professes to be a door to door minster in summary says to the elders (who are also ministers who meet with him in private away from the rest of the congregation at a non-meeting time) "Sorry guys, I don't really see anything wrong with having cheated on my wife, doing drugs, gambling away my paycheck ect. I really don't agree with the scriptures you just read." Then what would be the point of allowing him to continue to be a "Witness"/minister of god in the congregation when there is a scripture that specifically commands to "remove" him and admonish him until he realizes what he did was wrong and he did/could have hurt people? The same scriptural principal applies to women since they preach from door to door as well.

A woman here is disfellowshipped (I don't know why, because it's none of my business except for those who spoke with her) but her husband isn't. But he did not "disavow" her. When it comes down to whether or not she is sorry for what she did and if she wants to resume her door to door activities and congregation association, that is a private matter between she, her husband and the elders. If she didn't want to be in the congregation anymore, then she would not choose to be coming to the meetings or bringing her kids as well as she just did at our congregation meeting last night. Again, the story of the prodigal son.

edit: These bible based standards have real benefits since many who used to have severe problems with vices whether it be drugs, marital issues, drug addiction, criminal activity or what have you completely clean up between the time they are a bible study and when they are baptized as witnesses.

Mormon's, on the other hand (at least the one's I've met), have been very friendly & open

,

Not to be oversensitive, but if I was not taught to be friendly and open minded in my ministry, I would not have chatty, animated discussions every two weeks with a Pakistani Sikh man who believes in reincarnation.

Anyways again I hope I was able to provide some more insight into my faith. But while the thread is still friendly, I am now going to obey Jesus' words and "shake the dust off my feet."

[BulletMagnet]

Scripture commands believers to be "in the world, not of the world" (forgive me, I don't remember the reference)

I know the principle you're talking about, though exactly where it's found I don't know offhand, either. In any event, the thing that the aforementioned scripture is telling us to do is to be "separate from the world" in the sense that we don't do things that most others view as "normal" or "acceptable" if they conflict with the commands given to us in the Bible (getting drunk, sleeping around, cheating on your taxes, that sort of thing, the list goes on). As such, we stand out as different from most people, and in that sense are "no part of the world"; while this does mean that we can't participate in everything or become close to absolutely any type of person, this doesn't mean that we completely cut ourselves off from people. After all, there's the scripture at John 3:16 that you even see people holding up at ballgames ("For God loved the world so much that he sent his only-begotten son," etc.) just for starters; we don't hate all non-Witnesses or view them as somehow inferior. If someone wants to hear what we have to say (heck, right here on this topic people are asking questions and whatnot, and I'm doing my best to answer everything I can, as is Dylan, I'm sure) we'll certainly do our best to impart what we know, but if people, as in most cases, aren't interested, then as Dylan said we respect their decision and move on, without any sense of hatred or what have you. Even if someone is harsh or belligerent, we don't know what kind of a day he's had (or life he's lead); it's not our place to judge. As Romans 12:17-18 commands us to do, "Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men."

There's even a "stereotype" of sorts within the congregation, of someone new, who's just recently learned about the Bible and accepted it, who is earnest but overly zealous, and speaks to people he knows far too bluntly and doggedly about what he's learned. There have been specific instructions to make sure that we don't allow people to act like that, as it reflects badly upon our organization as a whole. Perhaps those you've met who have come across as cold fit into that situation, or perhaps that's simply a character flaw they need to address; all of us have 'em, unfortunately, and they can lead to misunderstandings.

[greg]

Many of the JW's I've had interaction with (again, those on this board notwithstanding) have demonstrated an unwillingness to associate with anyone outside of their faith for anything other than when they are witnessing.

To be fair, many run-of-the-mill Christians are the same way. They feel like it's a sin to have anything to do with anyone who isn't Christian. They have the philosophy that 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 as Bullet Magnet previously quoted means that they cannot associate/make friends with those who are "unsaved." This is utterly ridiculous since if this were the case, nobody would ever become Christian. They completely ignore verse 9 and 10 right above it! These are the same types of people who come up with dumb man-made rules like "you can't listen to secular music... your CD collection must be all Christian." Silly.

The verses are talking about hypocrites, not those who reject God. It's saying to beware of hypocrites and to not closely associate yourself with that person lest their hypocrasy seem condoned and possibly the church be damaged. These people should never be appointed to positions of authority, most importantly. People like this ought to be reprimanded, but the whole excommunication thing can go too far. A hypocrite is the worst. However, someone who has decided to reject biblical teachings (or anything in particular) is far more worthy of respect (IMHO) since at least they aren't being deceiving. Like when I was an English teacher in Japan... I'd ask the students if they enjoyed my class. Those who said "no" were at least honest, and I respected that. But people who outright reject God or whatever will just leave the church on their own accord because they could at least mow their lawns on Sunday morning or something. Hypocrites should not be approved of, and those around them should not be blind to what's going on. Heck, people who get fired from their jobs are "excommunicated" in a way, if you think about it. They're expelled from the company.

But for any church to dictate people to no longer associate with those who have left the church is what I'm getting at. Especially among family members. There are plenty of docmented cases of this. Maybe this gets more attention among Mormons and JW's. I don't know about JWs, but I know that the Mormon church is the only major church that commands divorce when one spouse leaves the church. People off the street are one thing. But when a church cuts through a family, that's a totally different story. That's what upsets me.

Anyhow, is the term "JW" offensive? It's a contraction that is easier to use when typing, but if it is objectionable, I apologize.

But with differences aside, I'm very glad that for the first time, there has actually been a real discussion about Christianity without becoming so degrading and infuriatingly insulting. Usually it's "Christians are so stupid because evolution is so flawless" or "Undamned gives christianity a good name." Or, "Christians are so stupid, but Greg is okay, I guess. You do a lot to make Christians look good." So much bigotry and intolerance has flooded topics like these on here in the past. I figured that UD, Spec, Dave and myself were the only Christians on here. I'm glad that there seems to be a bit more people on here who aren't embarassed to admit that they believe in God, since so many people belittle their beliefs.
[/url]

[Dylan1CC]

I don't know about JWs, but I know that the Mormon church is the only major church that commands divorce when one spouse leaves the church.

Absolutely not. In fact, divorce can be a sin. The emphasis is on keeping the marriage healthy regardless of whether or not the spouse is a believer or non-believer or disfellowshipped.

edit: Of course, if it's a situation where a spouse is being beaten, life endangered, ect. then obviously that person would probably want to end the union and would be advised to do so.

And yes, nothing wrong with "JW," I have typed it as an abbreviation myself here in this thread.

[BulletMagnet]

Maybe this gets more attention among Mormons and JW's. I don't know about JWs, but I know that the Mormon church is the only major church that commands divorce when one spouse leaves the church.

Actually, there's a specific scripture which addresses that:

But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. -1 Corinthians 7:12-13

Since our faith is based entirely on the Bible, that's obviously the principle we abide by as regards those sorts of situations. It is true that at times someone in a family is disfellowshipped, and while that person's relatives obviously can't completely abandon the person since they still have scriptural obligations towards him/her ("Certainly if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith." -1 Timothy 5:8 ), the relationship between them isn't the same as it was before. As was said above, though, this only happens when someone has studied everything, made their own unforced decision and a public statement (namely baptism) to back it up, claiming that he/she accepts the Bible's teachings and will live by them, and then later goes back on that promise. Anyone in that situation knows what they're getting into right from the start, and are by no means somehow obligated to do so if they don't truly believe what they're being taught, or do not plan to keep up the practices connected with it. Notwithstanding, the person's Witness friends and relatives, above all others, are the ones who most wish that this sort of thing didn't happen, believe me; even putting the spiritual stuff aside, we still miss them, simply because they're our family. In the end, however, they're the ones who have to make the decision.

Anyhow, is the term "JW" offensive? It's a contraction that is easier to use when typing, but if it is objectionable, I apologize.

Nah, that's fine.

[Dylan1CC]

Thanks for covering me on the verses, BM. Work is so busy all of a sudden tonight, headache city.

edit: Forgot to add, that was something about Mormons I did not know.

[Venom]

What do you make of him cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit in the wrong season. That story has never made any sense to me.

He did so to emphasize something for his disciples: God did a similar thing to a bottle-gourd plant to make a point to Jonah (check chapter 4 of that book). Notice what Jesus says to those with him when they see that the tree has withered:

In answer Jesus said to them: "Truly I say to you, if only you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what I did to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountian, "Be lifted up and cast into the sea," it will happen. And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive. -Matthew 21:21-22

Basically, he was reinforcing their faith via the miracle.

That's kind of my point, why would they be impressed by powers of destruction? The message appears to be "with faith you can do all things, for example killing things that displease you". For a laugh, check out www.godhatesfigs.com

Well, for starters, methinks it's worth mentioning that we believe in the "soul" differently from most of Christendom: we pretty much equate "soul" with "life." In short, we don't believe that there's a piece of us that keeps living after we die, in one way or another.

Ok, now I'm a bit confused. If I have this right from your previous post some will enter the spirit realm with God at the end, while others (the great crowd) will remain on earth. If all of the body fades away, and there is no spirit/soul, what is it that is joining God in heaven in the 144k? Or perhaps I'm missing something important, do JW only believe those alive in the end times have the possibility of eternal life in heaven or on earth?

Well, if the Israelites weren't waiting for the Messiah in order to finally have the original sin revoked ("cause sacrifice and gift offerings to cease," as Daniel 9:27 mentions), why exactly were they waiting for him? [...]
Also, what other interpretations of the "bruise, etc" prophecy in Genesis have you heard? Why would God wait any longer in order to set in motion a way to make things right again?

Oh, I don't deny that they were waiting for a Messiah, as to why, I think it's becoming apparent that I'm reaching the limit of my biblical knowledge. I don't like overstepping myself, so honestly I don't know.

Thanks for the verses in Jeremaih, interesting.

As for the bruise, it can be taken in a number of ways. If you take it as a prophesy, it is vague and fails to establish that it is about Jesus in the least. Seems that it could easily apply to any good person who ever lived or any person who ever fought evil. I think the verse is too vague to refer to anyone in particular. On the other hand, you could take it that it explains our dislike for snakes, which from my experience most people share. If you wish to get into radically different interpretations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity they use the enimity passage to justify their racist beliefs.

Not to mention, there's no indication that the animals in Eden did not die, like he and Eve were originally supposed to: when God told Adam he would "die," he probably had an example or two to show him.

I'm surprised you take this position. Most christians I talk with hold that there was no death in the world (well, except plants) before the fall.

As to Eden and the snake, I'll roll my response to you and Dylan1CC together. As I stated earlier, this argument seems to explode all over the place, and I don't wish it to here. It is likely we will simply disagree.

Ok, to say that something must have made the snake able to talk doesn't seem justified, just as easily you could say the humans lost their ability to communicate with animals after the fall. Adam was after all naming them and looking for a companion amoung them. The story says that the serpent was the most crafty of all animals, so naturally decieving, not needing to be taken by a spirit to do such things (as to why such a thing would be allowed in a supposedly perfect world, that's a whole other issue). Thus, the need for satan to use the snake isn't established.

The tree was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and they were not to eat from it. They are supposedly innocent and lacking in such knowledge. Thus, Adam and Eve are unable to make an moral/ethical judgements. So, when God says "don't eat from it" they can make no judgement as to if obeying or disobeying are good or bad. So, later on when the snake says that it won't kill them, that hold equally as much weight as god saying not to do it. Unless you want to make the claim that they could already make such judgements, in which case no change occured when they ate the fruit. It was simply a test. If you bring omnisience into this, then god wanted the fall to occur. Then if you subscribe to the trinity you get the absurd result that Jesus is being sacficied to himself to placate himself for something that he is responsible for.

I could say more about properties put on God, or other arguments, but I think you see what I'm getting at.

I really don't want to take over this thread or start a big debate. I've been glad to have some knowledgalbe people about this to ask questions of, and following the thread. My religious studies are still in their infancy, so perhaps I'll be able to keep up with you guys in a few years.

[Dylan1CC]

Regarding "what goes to heaven of someone who is the 144,000" Paul spoke of it as a "new body." One thing to remember is that the Hebrew word for "soul" is ru'ach which means "breath." God "breathed the breath of life" into Adam and the Greek word for soul is psy'che (sp?) which means "The whole person or a person's life entire."

Read these verses slowly, since Paul has a very...."scholarly way of writing." haha

1 Corinthians 15: 35-50

As for the snake, there can be no doubt in my mind that Satan used it much like a skilled ventriloquist uses a puppet (one way I have heard it put). And if it was just a snake, why would God speak to "it" at Genesis 3:14,15 and pronounce the prophecy that the future seed of the woman (Jesus): "He will brush you in the head." Revelation 12:9 later identifies Satan: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth." (abbreviated) Revelation 20:2 "And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."

Also, another hint we have of Satan being behind the woe in Eden are a series of verses I mentioned to Fro a few days ago. Venom, take your bible and look up Ezekiel 28:13-19 It talks about a cherub, an angel who resided in Eden. Very interesting!

[Diabollokus]

Any athesists reading this? I'm one, and the power of belive in you guys and knowledge you have is staggering, demands respect. I've just accepted the fact some day I'm going to die and add to the carbon and nitrogen cycles thus adding to soil nutrient content enabling more organic vegetation growth to be consumed and energy distributed in food chains. effectively my death promotes life, not quite reincarnation but its scientifically feasible provided I'm not cremated

When you think about it you never really die providing you have children in essence they are 99.9% indentical to you only some phenotypes are not represented. Only the memories that define you are lost. which one could argue represents a person. anyway I wonder what other atheists have to comment on this thread.

[BulletMagnet]

That's kind of my point, why would they be impressed by powers of destruction? The message appears to be "with faith you can do all things, for example killing things that displease you". For a laugh, check out www.godhatesfigs.com

"Theological Potholes Ahead," heh heh.

In any event, though I know you're half-joking here (or at least I think so), the "destroy stuff you don't like" bit obviously wasn't something Jesus used as an incentive to have faith:

So he [Jesus] sent forth messengers in advance of him. And they went their way and entered into a village of Samaritans, to make preparation for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set for going to Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this they said: "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and annihilate them?" But he turned and rebuked them. So they went to a different village. -Luke 9:52-56

On a side note, in case you weren't already aware, Jews and Samaritans didn't get along with each other, so there was likely some already-existing prejudice in what James and John said, of which Jesus was undoubtedly aware; as it says, though, he scolded them for even saying such a thing. The main thing with the fig tree, methinks, was simply that Jesus was able to make it do what it did (a superhuman feat, obviously) simply by speaking it; the same was the case with most of his other miracles in general. I don't think there was any specific significance behind the fact that he withered up the tree in this instance, at least I can't think of any offhand.

Ok, now I'm a bit confused. If I have this right from your previous post some will enter the spirit realm with God at the end, while others (the great crowd) will remain on earth. If all of the body fades away, and there is no spirit/soul, what is it that is joining God in heaven in the 144k?

Dylan made a reference to it above, but I'll expound a little; while the scriptures (as I quoted someplace in a previous post) do not support the idea of an immortal part of people which cannot die, they do say that God has the ability to remember a person's characteristics exactly, to the point where he can resurrect them and give them back the "breath of life" (as Dylan mentioned) that they lost when they died. Compare Matthew 10:29-31 - "Do not two sparrows sell for a coin of small value? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's knowledge. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore have no fear: you are worth more than many sparrows." This leads to the next bit here:

Or perhaps I'm missing something important, do JW only believe those alive in the end times have the possibility of eternal life in heaven or on earth?

Check Acts 24:14-15:

But I do admit this to you, that, according to the way that they call a "sect," in this manner I am rendering sacred service to the God of my forefathers, as I believe all the things set forth in the Law and written in the Prophets; and I have hope towards God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Note that the word "unrighteous" is used in a different manner than the word "wicked" in the Bible: while "wicked" people consciously and willfully practice things contrary to God's laws, "unrighteous" people simply do not know of the things God requires. Plenty of people throughout history never got the opportunity to be taught the Bible or its way of life; by bringing back to life these "unrighteous" people once the earth has been cleansed of those who have outright rejected that message (compare Matthew 24:14), it is promised that they will receive that chance.

As for the bruise, it can be taken in a number of ways. If you take it as a prophesy, it is vague and fails to establish that it is about Jesus in the least. Seems that it could easily apply to any good person who ever lived or any person who ever fought evil. I think the verse is too vague to refer to anyone in particular.

It's true that it doesn't specifically mention Jesus or the Messiah, but it would seem, at least from my perspective, that if God is talking about a way to reverse what's been done via the original sin (if you have any other ideas as to what he's talking about, let me know), he must be talking about someone rather extraordinary. After all, as some of the scriptures earlier mentioned, the equivalent of the perfect man Adam was needed in order to nullify his sin: since all of Adam's "normal" offspring, whether they eventually turned out "good" or "bad," are still imperfect, then simply living a good life and following the Bible ("fighting evil," as you put it), while certainly important, is not enough to permanently change anything.

On the other hand, you could take it that it explains our dislike for snakes, which from my experience most people share.

That one's a bit flimsy, if you ask me...while I also know lots of people who don't like snakes, I also know plenty who don't like spiders, scorpions, leeches, and a whole bunch of other such "unpleasant" creatures...and then there are plenty who don't mind them at all (or extreme cases like those wacko nature guys on TV, heh heh).

I'm surprised you take this position. Most christians I talk with hold that there was no death in the world (well, except plants) before the fall.

Well, if you want to really get into the details, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible specifically what the state of animals at the time was, but animals not living eternally seems to be a good explanation for allowing Adam to understand what "death" was. Then again, perhaps God simply explained it to him, but it's not recorded. We can't be sure, but in any event, somehow God made it clear to Adam just what "dying" was, so he knew what he was getting into when he ate that fruit.

Ok, to say that something must have made the snake able to talk doesn't seem justified, just as easily you could say the humans lost their ability to communicate with animals after the fall. Adam was after all naming them and looking for a companion amoung them.

While it's true that God gave Adam the assignment of naimng all the animals in Eden, I don't recall a verse wherein Adam was "looking for a companion" among them...can you point me towards it? I also don't recall any scriptural evidence that all animals could speak with Adam and Eve, though if you know of any I'd like to look it up. Also, Genesis 1:28 says that Adam and Eve should "have in subjection" the other creatures of the earth, signaling that, while God obviously didn't want them to hurt or abuse his creatures, it wasn't an "equal" relationship between man and beast. Again, if you can find anything to the contrary, by all means let me know.

The story says that the serpent was the most crafty of all animals, so naturally decieving, not needing to be taken by a spirit to do such things...

I'm not sure which translation you're using, but the one I've got (The New World Translation) renders the beginning of Genesis 3:1 (which I think is what you refer to above) as "Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field." I believe Jesus used the same original word at Matthew 10:16 when he told his followers to be "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves." In any event, if a "regular" snake is what caused Eve (and by extension, Adam) to sin, why would it do so? What reason would a snake, or any animal, for that matter, have to not only mess with Eve, but lie about God's true intentions?

(as to why such a thing would be allowed in a supposedly perfect world, that's a whole other issue).

Check my following two bits, it touches on that:

Unless you want to make the claim that they could already make such judgements, in which case no change occured when they ate the fruit. It was simply a test.

That's more or less the position we take on the situation: some have even suggested that, if Adam proved faithful for long enough, that God might have eventually allowed him to take of the fruit. Of course, that's just guesswork, but the fact remains that God allows free will in all his creation, for good or ill: without it, how could any of us (Satan included) be held accountable for our actions by God or the scriptures, if all of this was somehow pre-destined anyway? Also, note the scripture below:

If you bring omnisience into this, then god wanted the fall to occur.

Check James 1:13-15 -

When under trial, let no one say "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.

While God allows evil to exist for the time being (though not for eternity; compare Psalms 37:10-11) in order to prove wrong Satan's accusations about humankind (as with the case of Job, which I mentioned earlier on), he is not the origin of it.

Then if you subscribe to the trinity you get the absurd result that Jesus is being sacficied to himself to placate himself for something that he is responsible for.

That's another thing I figured I'd probably be bringing out at some point: Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same being. Rather, we view God and Jesus (as he was known on Earth, anyways) as separate beings, the latter being the "first-born son," or first thing created, by the former, and the "holy spirit," not as an actual being, but rather God's active force, his power, more or less. There's scriptural backing for this, but at the moment I don't have time to find it; next post I'll expand on it if you want.

I really don't want to take over this thread or start a big debate.

Well, speaking only for myself, I don't mind discussing these things, especially since the talk so far has been just about entirely civil and well-reasoned. In any event, methinks we've kind of already hijacked this thread from its original purpose anyways.

And I encourage you to keep studying the Bible: it's certainly not easy in the least, but it's far from impossible. The scriptures themselves promise that anyone with an earnest heart and the will to exert himself in his studies can understand them, regardless of education or prestige: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." -Matthew 11:25

EDIT: Diabollokus: First of all, thanks for your compliments. Second, I've heard the "death is a part of life" viewpoint before, and the whole "circle of life" idea in terms of dead matter giving birth (in a sense) to new life is obviously true, but if I can pose a question to you, if death is simply a natural part of life's process, why do we dread it so much? No other creature, to my immediate recollection, anyhow, makes as big a deal out of death, and the avoiding of it as long as possible, as humans do; we're supposed to know more about this sort of thing than animals do (such as the "life cycle" facts you mentioned), and that's supposed to give us at least some measure of peace of mind; why, at least for most, doesn't it do so? Obviously, some people (you being one of them, it'd seem) are more "accepting" of death than others, but by and large, we don't want to die ourselves, and are saddened even when someone old dies: why do we still miss them and wish they were still around, if it was "their time" to die anyway?

As I've said before, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone here, or anything remotely along those lines, but the above is something that's always struck me about the life cycle and how we react to it...I'm not sure if you've ever heard that POV before, so I figured I'd just leave it here in case you hadn't. If this is old news to you, my apologies, heh heh.