A couple of subjects to toss into the mix:
What were the range of ideas and beliefs Jews had about a return to Gan Eden.
What were the range of ideas and beliefs and the actuality about a pure bloodline Jewish race.
THE "OTHER SHEEP" ARE NOT GENTILE CHRISTIANS, because...............
by Titus 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
TD
I've given it the "college try" when it comes to understanding this interpretation, but can't get past the transfer of action between subject and object:
Two Origins:
"And I have other sheep which are not of (Greek εκ - Literally From, Out of) this fold;
..those also I must bring (Greek αγω - Literally "I lead") and they will listing to my voice..
One Destination:
and they will become one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus speaks of only one sheepfold. We could assume the existence of a second sheepfold as a logical corollary to "not of this fold" but the metaphor does not demand it.
And even if we do, the predicate links both origins with the act of becoming one flock. It would take extraordinary linguistic evidence to sustain the idea that the sheepfold(s) are the destination(s) that the sheep are led to instead of the origin that they are led from
-
pirata
@djeggnog:
Thank you for your reply. Please view my assertions as arguments ("a discussion in which disagreement is expressed") and not as "attacks". I appreciate your counterarguments.
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.
I interpret the term "Jewish Christians" as Jews who were baptized, the "Nation of Israel" as Jews in general, and "Spiritual Israel" as all Jews and Greeks who were baptized. That is why I called it a strawman. Christendom does not claim that the entire "Nation of Israel" is the little flock, they only claim that those Jews baptized as Christians are the little flock.
I will take a look at the remaining counterarguments later on.
-
Titus
Pirata, you have a PM.
-
djeggnog
@Essan:
Can I suggest that the vast list of - largely irrelevant - counter-questions in djeggnog's post above not be answered until he has provided full answers to the fairly simply questions in the OP. Let's stick to one question at a time - the original question, remember who asked it, what it was, and who is obliged to answer it. Let's keep it simple.
What questions did I ask here that you thought to have been "largely irrelevant"? I know the original question and I have been responding to it as best I can, but some of the arguments presented here by some -- @pirata included -- weren't simple ones, so I felt a need to unravel some of these arguments in order to make it clear that none of them were accurate or responsive to the question that the OP (@Titus) that asked in this thread.
Don't fall for the JW defensive equivalent of 'squid ink' - a pointless clouding of the waters - avoiding simple questions through endless irrelevant counter questions, answers to questions that weren't asked (sleight of hand), and generally making things hopelessly and needlessly convoluted, so that - they hope - their inability to give s straight answer to a simple question goes unnoticed.
What do you think about this response to your non-question about me? Do you think it to be a straight answer to your non-question, a cloudy, perhaps an irrelevant counter question or a case of my using a bit of sleight of hand in order make things "hopelessly and needless convoluted"?
@elderelite:
I know you don't want to talk to me but perhaps you could help me out this one time... you say Paul was on the first century Governing Body... could you please support that with a scripture or two? a bible account that mentions it? something? anything?
I don't mind 'helping you out' at any time as long as what you want is help. I'm not sure that you do want help from me though, @elderelite.
When at Acts 15:2-30, you read how Paul took a dispute over Christian circumcision to "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," those men sent out a letter that was handed out to the multitude of Christians in Antioch, Syria, by Paul and Barnabas' hand, and by the hands of others that received guidance from those who were taking the lead over the congregations back during the first century AD, they deciding this matter, along with the spirit, as a governing body. No, the words "governing body" are not used in the passage I cite here, but neither are the words "abstain from blood transfusions" found anywhere in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the words "cigarette smoking is an unclean practice" nor words that suggest how elders should "once a year" make a review of "disfellowshipped or disassociated" ones that may be living in the territory assigned to the local congregation and assign two elders to call on selected ones in order that they might explain to such individuals what they can do to return are in the Bible.
But we find at Acts 15:16-18 that the brothers in Jerusalem that, as I said, acted as a "governing body" for the Christian congregations during the first century AD in deciding that it wasn't necessary for uncircumcised Christians to be circumcised did so with the guidance of holy spirit (Amos 9:11, 12), even though there wasn't found anything in the Bible that accordingly provided specific direction to them. Just as during the first century AD, decisions are being made today by responsible and spiritually mature brothers that are taking the lead in keeping watch over our souls, and whether you feel this way or not, @elderelite, Jehovah's Witnesses would do well to grow up and cooperate with the direction being provided them by the governing body.
@Mad Sweeney:
Paul was on the first century Governing Body
Watch Tower President Fred Franz disagrees that a first century Governing Body even existed.
So I should agree with someone now deceased that when alive was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, who then went rogue? I believe the Bible directs Jehovah's Witnesses to 'remember those who are taking the lead" among us, those "who have spoken the word of God" to us, and then as we "contemplate how their conduct turns out [to] imitate their faith," which in Fred Franz' case, I did. (Hebrews 13:7) I actually did contemplate how his conduct turned out over the years, and during his declining years, things didn't turn out so well for him as it seems that he lost interest in the truth, becoming doubtful as to whether he had, in fact, found the truth. At least, this is how I see it.
@TD:
Jesus speaks of only one sheepfold.... [T]he predicate links both origins with the act of becoming one flock. It would take extraordinary linguistic evidence to sustain the idea that the sheepfold(s) are the destination(s) that the sheep are led to instead of the origin that they are led from
There are two folds, but one sheepfold, one shepherd.
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@pirata wrote:
I interpret the term "Jewish Christians" as Jews who were baptized, the "Nation of Israel" as Jews in general, and "Spiritual Israel" as all Jews and Greeks who were baptized. That is why I called it a strawman. Christendom does not claim that the entire "Nation of Israel" is the little flock, they only claim that those Jews baptized as Christians are the little flock.
Well, you have yet to expose a strawman here for what the QFR article debunks is Christendom's claim that the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) are solely "Jewish Christians." If you don't see this, then you don't understand the argument and shouldn't be labelling the statement in the QFR article as a strawman, when you yourself don't comprehend the article. I've examined already in an earlier post how you read and I find this post of yours in follow-up to be wanting. We agree on what "Jewish Christians," "nation of Israel" and "spiritual Israel" all mean. But how do these things constitute a strawman? Frankly, you are using this word "strawman" in a way that suggests to me that you don't understand what the word "strawman" in this context even means!
A strawman is an argument in which one argues against something totally unrelated to the real argument because they wanted (for whatever reason) to speak slightingly about the real argument, except they really didn't understand the real argument, like, in this case, you don't understand what the QFR article does to Christendom's position on the "little flock" being Jewish Christians, and so you (for whatever reason) want to speak slightingly against the real argument that exposes the fallacy of Christendom's position, but you, not really understanding what the WTS' argument means, opt to erect a strawman yourself in arguing that you know what the terms "Jewish Christians," "nation of Israel" and "spiritual Israel" all mean when the QFR article doesn't argue the meaning of these terms.
Thus, until you should address the real argument, you are positing a strawman argument about which no one cares to discuss. I would suggest, @pirata, that you get someone else -- and I mean someone that you trust -- to help you to comprehend the real argument being made in that QFR article, so that you know whether or not your dissent is based on something stated in the article itself or whether or not it is based on what bigotry you have against the WTS. If its against the latter, then it's a false argument, a strawman.
@djeggnog
-
Essan
@Djeggnog
What questions did I ask here that you thought to have been "largely irrelevant"?
Nearly all of them, including this one.
What do you think about this response to your non-question about me? Do you think it to be a straight answer to your non-question, a cloudy, perhaps an irrelevant counter question or a case of my using a bit of sleight of hand in order make things "hopelessly and needless convoluted"?
Yes. I think it's a complete waste of time. I wasn't talking to you and I'd like not to talk to you further, if that's OK. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, I'd just like you to plainly answer the OP's questions, rather than making distractions out of countless other issues. For that reason, I won't be responding to you further.
Let's see if a simple question - the OP's - can receive a straight, sound JW answer.
-
Titus
Few simple questions for @dj:
1
*** w80 7/15 p. 26 The “Fine Shepherd” and His “Other Sheep” ***
(3) “The sheepfold” (John 10:1): The Kingdom fold of the Abrahamic Covenant arrangement
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
*** it-1 p. 522 Covenant ***
The Abrahamic covenant is “a covenant to time indefinite.” Its terms require that it extend on until the destruction of all God’s enemies and the blessing of the families of the earth have been accomplished.—Ge 17:7; 1Co 15:23-26.
OUESTION1:
Why does Jesus lead them out of the sheepfold, or out of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is "a covenant to time indefinite"? (John 10:2-5)
2
*** gt chap. 80 The Sheepfolds and the Shepherd ***
Jesus now uses an illustration in which he mentions three sheepfolds and his role as the Fine Shepherd.
Let assume that it is true. then we have:
- Sheepfold1 - is identified with the Mosaic Law covenant arrangement
- Sheepfold2 - congregation of anointed Christians who will rule with Christ in heaven
- Sheepfold3 - those who will live on the Paradise earth
We can say this:
The sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from - the Sheepfold1.
OUESTION2:
Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)
3
QUESTIONS3:
Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY? TODAY! Isn't the answer - from Sheepfold3?
Or you claim that all GB members were under the the Mosaic Law before?
4
Jesus calls his own sheep by name and leads them out of the Sheepfold1, which is the Mosaic Law, according to gt. (John 10:3)
He leads them out of the Sheepfold1, and brings them in the Sheepfold2.
OUESTION4:
Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?
OK. That's four questions:
1) Why does Jesus lead the sheep out of the Abrahamic Covenant? (John 10:2-5)
2) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)
3) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY?
4) Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?
I am looking forward to your answers.
Please, keep it simple!
Support every answer with the WT publications.
Thanks!
COMRADE TITO
-
elderelite
I don't mind 'helping you out' at any time as long as what you want is help. I'm not sure that you do want help from me though, @elderelite.
When at Acts 15:2-30, you read how Paul took a dispute over Christian circumcision to "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem," those men sent out a letter that was handed out to the multitude of Christians in Antioch, Syria, by Paul and Barnabas' hand, and by the hands of others that received guidance from those who were taking the lead over the congregations back during the first century AD, they deciding this matter, along with the spirit, as a governing body. No, the words "governing body" are not used in the passage I cite here, but neither are the words "abstain from blood transfusions" found anywhere in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the words "cigarette smoking is an unclean practice" nor words that suggest how elders should "once a year" make a review of "disfellowshipped or disassociated" ones that may be living in the territory assigned to the local congregation and assign two elders to call on selected ones in order that they might explain to such individuals what they can do to return are in the Bible.
But we find at Acts 15:16-18 that the brothers in Jerusalem that, as I said, acted as a "governing body" for the Christian congregations during the first century AD in deciding that it wasn't necessary for uncircumcised Christians to be circumcised did so with the guidance of holy spirit (Amos 9:11, 12), even though there wasn't found anything in the Bible that accordingly provided specific direction to them. Just as during the first century AD, decisions are being made today by responsible and spiritually mature brothers that are taking the lead in keeping watch over our souls, and whether you feel this way or not, @elderelite, Jehovah's Witnesses would do well to grow up and cooperate with the direction being provided them by the governing body.
and so again i ask.... Where is there any indication, at all, of any sort, that paul was on the first century governing body?
-
Titus
DISCLAIMER:
I discuss this with the assumption that the publications of JWs contain the truth about this matter, and they will help me to get the answer and understand it.
Please, notice that this is the topic of the thread!
Thanks!
-
designs
Titus, if you have acces to the Watchtower's in the 60s you will see articles and illustrations on the changes and 'refinements' as they were called regarding John 10. Fred Franz was at his theological core a Dispensationalist and saw multiple layers and solutions in texts.
For a comparison find the work by Theologian J. Dwight Pentecost called 'Things To Come' and study the chapters on Covenants, who they each apply to and what their historical and Millennial applications were thought to be.