@Psacramento:
The other sheep were indeed gentiles, hence the circumcision and dietary restrictions issues addressed in Acts and by Paul.
No, they weren't. And what does the dietary issue addressed by Peter and the circumcision issue addressed by Paul (and other members of the governing body during the first century AD) have to do with Titus' question here regarding the other sheep not being exclusively Gentile Christians? Whatever your point was (or is!), I don't see the relevance of your mentioning of these issues.
You are wasting your time Dude, it is interpretive man-made doctrine and they know it.
What's "interpretive man-made doctrine"? Are you saying that what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the "other sheep" is "man-made doctrine"? If so, on what basis do you say this? What do you suppose the "other sheep" at John 10:16 to be?
@myelaine:
I think that because of the "privilege and hierarchy" of the jewish system the early church had a template for the church as well as what one might call a "[genealogy]" in God.
What exactly do you mean by a "'genealogy' in God"? What template of the Jewish system of worship do you imagine to have been the foundation of the Christian church? To what exactly is this "privilege and hierarchy" of the Jewish system to which you refer here?
therefore the new church writings, by the inclusion of some OT writings and of course OT "theology", was really magnifying the doctrine of God and providing a continuity of privilege and hierarchy within the church structure...
What "OT writings" or "OT 'theology'" provided "a continuity of privilege and hierarchy" within the church?
this authority was to govern the church not lord it over them...
What authority other than that of the Christ governed the church?
@heathen:
my point was that there is no longer a high priest and the priestly arrangement does not apply .
In Christ, the Jewish arrangement with respect to the Levitical priesthood does not exist, but with Jesus as High Priest, what need do Christians have for such when Jesus is immortal and he is able to plead to God on behalf of Christians forever? Are you familiar with what the apostle Paul states at Hebrews 7:23-25 regarding Jesus' having "his priesthood without any successors"? Or is there some reason that you do not consider Jesus to be a High Priest?
The jews did have a hard time accepting the belief that gentiles were equal in Gods eyes .
What Jews do you mean? Christian Jews or non-Christian Jews? If the latter, what is the significance of your mentioning them here, since those Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah? Now, @heathen, I do agree with you that Jewish Christians had difficulty with the admittance of Gentiles into the new Christian faith, which is why the apostle Paul has to admonish the Christians in the cities of Colossae and Galatia, where in the former there were mostly Gentile Christian believers and in the latter the Judaizers sought to discredit Paul as an apostle in a mixed Jewish/Gentile environment. (Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28).
I'm not going off topic and discuss the Christian arrangement . The fact is the 2 fold of sheep the WTBTS claims are the GC and LF is misused even though I do believe there are 2 groups .
I don't follow you here: You say you are not discussing the Christian arrangement, which suggests that you are discussing the Jewish arrangement (for some reason), and yet, in the very next sentence, you would then go on to suggest that the understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses have as to who the "other sheep" are to whom Jesus refers at John 10:16 is "misused" (your word), but with what exactly do you take issue with regard to the great crowd (GC) and the (LF) when Jesus refers to his "other sheep" and doesn't at all mention the GC at John 10:16?
@Titus:
Yes. But, have they ever explained their (and my) official teaching in any publication? That's what I ask. Debator? BANE? Alice?
What "official teaching"?
It IS "interpretive man-made doctrine", but it is also interesting to notice that that "interpretive man-made doctrine" has never been interpreted in any WT publication.
What exactly have you found to be "interpretative man-made doctrine"?
"One shepherd ONE flock" (John 10:16) Only 1 flock?
Yes.
"LITTLE FLOCK of the Christ's brothers" and "GREAT FLOCK of the other sheep". 2 flocks? I don't get it...
No, just one flock, two sheepfolds, and one of these folds is only a "little flock " in comparison with the other fold. Get it?
@brotherdan:
In Search of Christian Freedom" by Ray Franz said that there were GB members that believed the real truth, that Jesus WAS referring to Gentile Christians. Sydlik was notorious for this belief. However, I assume that there never was a 2/3 in favor of change.
How does saying that by "other sheep," Jesus was at John 10:16 referring to "Gentile Christians? Even though this is what many of Christendom's churches teach, this isn't "the real truth." Daniel Sydlik didn't favor changing his belief that Jesus could not have been referring to Gentile Christians when he made reference at John 10:16 to his "other sheep." Until his death in 2006, he had never part of any "2/3 in favor" of teaching the racial superiority of Jews over the Gentiles, which is what I hear you saying here. That is the basis of Christendom's interpretation of "other sheep," but I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out what Raymond Franz has to do with any of this.
Loved that article, by the way, Titus. It's so funny how they dance around the question. They go off course by saying that this belief does not take into account Adam and Eve. How did we ever fall for this stuff?!?!?
What question do Jehovah's Witnesses "dance around"? What does any of this discussion about the "other sheep" at John 10:16 have to do with Adam and Eve, if anything?
@pirata:
This makes it clear that the fold of "sheep" that Jesus contrasted with the "other sheep" could not have been the nation of Israel, for only a small remnant of that nation recognized Jesus Christ as their shepherd....
A good straw man argument because instead of disproving Christendom's claims that the little flock are "Jewish Christians", they instead disprove that the little flock is the Jewish nation as a whole (which no one ever claimed it was)
How exactly do you see this statement as a "strawman"? Anyone associated with the nation of Israel that should become a Christian would be what? A Samaritan Christian? A Gentile Christian? What? In this context, when you read the words, "a small remnant of that nation," how do you conclude that this sentence (that you quoted here from the QFR article) does not disprove Christendom's claim that the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) are solely "Jewish Christians"? After reading your criticism of this particular statement, it became apparent to me that you didn't understand the sentence that you read, so let me clarify what it is saying just a bit here:
If the fold of "sheep" that Jesus contrasted with the "other sheep" were solely Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "the nation of Israel," mean -- then why did only a small remnant of Jewish Christians -- which is what the words, "that nation," mean -- accept Jesus as the Messiah? What this particular sentence you're attacking here as being a strawman disproves is Christendom's claim that the little flock are only "Jewish Christians" since only a small remnant of Jewish Christians became a part of the "little flock," and if "the full number of people of the nations" -- or Gentile Christians -- had come into this sheepfold, then spiritual Israel, "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), would then have been complete. But many centuries would pass before the "other sheep" to which Jesus referred at John 10:16 would be brought into union with the "little flock," which is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses teach and what Christendom does not teach.
When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were "joint heirs with Christ," his "brothers." (Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 8:17) Logically, then, the "other sheep" would be persons who are not his "brothers" but who are brought into close association with them.
Faulty logic.
A (disciples) are called B (little flock). A are called C (brothers). D (gentiles) are called C. Therefore D must also be A. That is like saying "Group A are Americans. Group A are called Humans. Russians are called Humans. Therefore Russians must also be Americans." The "logical" conclusion is based on that faulty logic.Your logic here involving disciples, little flock, brothers and Gentiles -- four (4) things -- is quite faulty, and so I do agree with you even though I totally miss your point (that is, if you even have one other than that of bashing the WTS):
Where A=disciples, B=little flock, C=brothers and D=Gentiles, and A=B, A=C and D=C, D does not necessarily equal A or B, for D may not equal A and D may not equal B.
Then you go on to expand on this "logic substituting Americans, Humans and Russians --- three (3) things -- doesn't exactly make any sense either:
Where A=Americans, B=Humans, C=Russians and D=(who knows?), and you seem to be suggesting that C=A, but this logic, in a word, is "cracked."
Now if A=Americans, B=New Yorkers, C=Humans and D=Russians, and A=B, A=C and D=C, similar to the above, D does not necessarily equal A or B, for, in this case, D does not equal A and D does not equal B.
Forget all of this and just tell me what you find to be so illogical about the following statement:
When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were "joint heirs with Christ," his "brothers." (Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 8:17) Logically, then, the "other sheep" would be persons who are not his "brothers" but who are brought into close association with them.
Moving on: The first to accept Jesus as the Messiah were the Jews, but only a remnant of them did so. Consequently, we read how in Romans chapter 11 the apostle Paul illustrates the situation in which spiritual Israel found itself in pointing out the reason wild olive branches (Gentiles) came to be grafted into the garden olive tree of spiritual Israel due to the unbelief among Jews that had had first "dibs on" (a US expression, meaning "claim to"), so, as verses 17-23 describe, the natural (Jewish) branches of the garden olive tree were broken off permitting the wild (Gentile) branches to become a part of that garden olive tree (spiritual Israel).
So with this in mind, when we read John 10:16 (or when I read this verse!), it is clear that the sheep of the "garden olive tree" sheepfold was a congregation consisting of the spiritual brothers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that these Jewish and Gentile Christians were of "this fold," so, logically, these "other sheep" that Jesus mentions at John 10:16 that he says there were not of "this fold" would be another sheepfold that would become one flock with "this fold" under the "one shepherd," Jesus. To suggest that Jesus is discussing a racial preference at John 10:16, with the Jewish Christians of one fold being superior to the Gentile Christians of another fold is totally ridiculous and disparages the Lord Jesus Christ as a kind of racist!
[H]e will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.... Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? ... And in reply the king will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"—Matt. 25:31-40. The "sheep" here mentioned are revealed to be different from Christ’s brothers.
Ignores the reasonable interpretation that brothers could be judged by how they treat their other brothers, thus drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion.
Not at all. Perhaps you didn't notice that the "sheep" that are the ones put on Jesus' right hand are called "righteous ones" and are not referred to by the king as "my brothers"? Matthew 25:31-40 is not talking about how spiritual brothers treat their spiritual brothers, but how these "righteous ones" or "other sheep" treat the king's anointed brothers, for "a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens," as Jesus indicated at Matthew 11:11, is greater than was his second cousin, John the Baptist.
Now Jesus' cousin, John, didn't live to become one of Jesus' anointed brothers, for he died centuries before these "righteous ones" or "other sheep" had actually come on the scene, giving their support in connection with the work that Jesus' brothers have been directed to do. There is no "unsubstantiated conclusion" here, for Jesus clearly distinguishes his " brothers" from these "sheep," when he says that "to the extent that you did [these things] to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me," so these "righteous ones" or "other sheep," have to be different from "Christ's brothers."
The apostle Paul, writing to fellow Christians, states: "[God] chose us in union with [Christ] before the founding of the world."—Eph. 1:4, 5.
contradicts the Watchtower teaching that if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, all humans would live on the earth (Why would God choose brothers to go to heaven before the founding of the world if they were all going to live on the earth?).
The difference in the time element regarding the foreordination of the reward definitely points to two different destinies.
I don't know a thing about any "Watchtower teaching," for Jehovah's Witnesses teach folks what the Bible teaches, the Watchtower magazine (as well as the other WTS publications) that you are here disparaging is simply a Bible study aid, but I'm sure you knew this already. Anyway, the point that I would make here is that there is no contradiction in what Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to God's purpose that humans live forever here on the earth.
God did not foreordain a heavenly destiny for any human until after Adam and Eve's sinned in Eden at which time the very first Bible prophecy, recorded at Genesis 3:15, was uttered, for it was at this time "before the founding of the world," meaning before any children were born to Adam and Eve, that God foreordained a heavenly destiny for Adam's not-yet-born offspring in order that by means of the kingdom in which Jesus' brothers will serve as co-rulers with Christ and as underpriests, those "sheep," for whom the ransom provided the basis for righteousness being imputed to redeemable mankind, might eventually "be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:21) Of course, you are free to disagree with me here, but I see no contradiction at all in anything that the Bible teaches.
The rest of the article is based on assuming the material presented above is true. Also tosses in the word 'evidently'
I think it silly for you to be having a proverbial cow over the use of a word like "evidently," which I know happens to be one of many words lambasted here to excoriate the opinions of the WTS, whereas this word -- whether one doesn't like the way in which it is used by the WTS or by Jehovah's Witnesses generally -- is a synonym for words like "undoubtedly," "apparently," "clearly" or "obviously."
Thanks for raising the questions Titus. I am doing more real personal study (ie. thinking about what I read) because of questions like these on the site than I have ever done in my life. I look forward to your thoughts after you have studied it too!
You really need to stop what you are doing now, and see if you can arrange to have one of Jehovah's Witnesses study or re-study the Bible with you (it has to be someone, mind you, that is qualified to teach!), because IMO your "personal study" of the Bible has been useless, for there is much that you clearly do not understand and cannot hope to understand by studying the Bible on your own and by reading some of the posts that I have read on this forum. Ignorance and bigotry (did I say ignorance?) really abound here for no one that claims to have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses or to have studied with one of Jehovah's Witnesses here seems to have learned what the Bible teaches on so many related things.
@snowbird:
Nice breakdown, Pirata.
How so? As I point out above, what things @pirata wrote here made no real sense at all.
@cameo-d:
The flock sheep and the other sheep have nothing whatsoever to do with bloodlines or ethnic origins. Jesus said that was all useless [genealogies], remember?
This is true.
@pirata:
cameo-d: What does it have to do with?
This comment of @cameo-d's has to do with the making of racial distinctions between someone being born Jewish (being of the "little flock") and someone being born non-Jewish (i.e., being a Gentile and being of the "other sheep"), both of which are interpretations that make Jesus out to be some kind of a racist if it were so that Jesus was separating one people from another on the basis of "bloodlines or ethnic origins." I think you may be a bit over your head in trying to comprehend all that is being said in this thread so far (and what you said is only going to confuse @Titus!) I don't mean just what @cameo-d's post.
@Nostromo:
They just cant admit that they have been wrong all this time. It was originally Rutherford's idea and the GB loves that tradition more than what the Bible actually teaches.
What was Rutherford's idea? That the "little flock" were Jewish Christians and the "other sheep" were Gentile Christians?
Evidently -- there's that word that some of "you guys" don't like -- you aren't aware that Joseph F. Rutherford, who at the time was the WTS president, gave a discourse entitled "The Great Multitude during the convention held in Washington, DC, on June 1, 1935, in which he explained that the "other sheep" wasn't a secondary heavenly class, but an earthly class. (At that time, these "other sheep" were referred to as "Jonadabs" [Jeremiah 35:18, 19].) I believe you're making things up here.
About Sydlik, from the freeminds site: "In the mid-70, when I was at Bethel, my friend Dan Sydlik told me that the other sheep of John 10 were the Gentiles. That made so much sense to me, and it fit so well with the actual state of affairs, that I rejected the two-class fiction then and there, even when I thought that the WTS was still God's organization."
What you quote here from another website with reference to something that Daniel Sydlik allegedly said to someone else about a "two-class fiction" is, I believe, pure fiction and hearsay.
@djeggnog
