If you guys want to see something funny, ask djeggnog if all babies [whose] parents are not jehovahs witnesses will die at armageddon. He/She has previously stated repeatly that Jesus will kill them all with a sword. (there you have it [folks] jesus dont take shit from no infant [whose] parents [don't] get 10 hours in each month!) I will add to her defence he/she did not answer when i asked if jesus would torture the babies to; perhaps that much is unknown?
I believe you asked this question before in a different context, but I don't think I should speculate beyond that the Bible teaches: If Jesus should judge babies and young children in the same way that he judges the rest of unbelieving human society at Armageddon, then I'm confident that his judgment will definitely be a righteous judgment, for there were many babies and young children that perished along with their parents when God destroyed that ancient world in which Noah had warned would be deluged by water. Only eight souls survived and I'm just as confident that God's judgment upon that wicked world was rendered in righteousness, and so will the rendering of judgment upon our world by Jesus be in righteousness. (1 Peter 3:20)
Jehovah has not provided specific answers to all such questions in the Bible, but we do know from the Bible that the children of a believing parent will survive Armageddon since they are deemed "holy " before God (1 Corinthians 7:14) Again, in the case of the judgment rendered by God back in 2370 AD, there were absolutely no babies or young children that survived the execution of divine judgment upon that ancient world, but there are many people, including babies and young children, that the Bible does exclude them from the "unrighteous" that will receive a resurrection during Judgment Day. (Acts 24:15)
According to Matthew 2:17, 18, Jacob's wife, Rachel (the mother of Joseph and Benjamin), is mentioned in connection with a prophecy wherein Herod's murdered all male children two years of age and younger (in an failed attempt by Herod to murder two-year-old Jesus), in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy regarding Rachel's sons, the descendants of her two sons, that had been taken to "the land of the enemy," the grave, at Herod's order. Jeremiah's prophecy makes clear that those dead children will have "a hope for [their] future and "will certainly return from the land of the enemy ... to their own territory" when they are resurrected during Judgment Day under God's kingdom. (Jeremiah 31:15-17)
You also mentioned something in your post about parents getting ten hours a month, but I have no clue as to what it is you meant, since (a) you weren't on topic and (b) the OP (@flipper) wasn't discussing in this thread a thing about "[getting] 10 hours in each month." In reading your post, you came across to me as a bit scattered in thought, like someone that bitches and moans upon leaving Jehovah's organization to engage in loose conduct of some sort and now suffers from genital herpes as a recompense for becoming angry with Jehovah for something that (a) you did and (b) a judicial committee may have overacted to your doing.
Or, perhaps you're one of those angry people that had occasion to walk on the wild side, so that shunning has taken its toll upon your life (such as it is) and former relationships. I've seen such cases many times, but if someone should choose the bitch-and-moan or angry course, I don't fret about it; I let them be the kind of individual that they choose to be. You talk to me like you know me, but you don't know me at all!
We are dealing with a deranged person who cannot be convinced of anything, not even when her view is contradicted by the society itself. She will just run in circles logically and write wall after wall of text. Personally i think he/she need professional help; or at least is desperate for attention.
I don't think you know me, but how did you find out that I was deranged? (I had thought my derangement was a closely guarded secret, but I see now that that's not the case.) How do you know that I don't already receive professional help from a therapist or that I'm no longer as desperate for attention as I used to be?
Now back on topic :-)
So you have not a thing to contribute to the topic started here by @flipper regarding the Matthew 24:34-related issue? Why don't you start a new topic of our own so as not to hijack this thread?
What do you know about truth? Did you know that Jesus is the truth personified?
I know Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light" ... I'm not so bold as to call my religion "The Truth " as the one and only.
If you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then your religion is not in accord with the truth, for Jesus it was that bore witness to the truth and you cannot be walking in the truth and are instead "not practicing the truth." (John 18:37; 1 John 6) You see, I am "so bold" as to say that I do worship the true God, Jehovah, in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24), for all worship that is not based on truth goes to Satan the Devil, who accepts all such worship.
The bible also says" your word is truth"
Yes, the Bible does say this at John 17:17. What was your point in saying this? To let me know that you've committed a few scriptures to memory? I don't use the Bible in that way and quoting Scriptures to me without a purpose seems to me to be something a child might do to impress its parents. The next time you decide to tell me what the Bible "also says," please have a good reason in mind for doing this. Note that I have said not "a reason," but "a good reason ... for doing this." Thanks.
You want a question (I thought you could reason on my statements without needing a question.. you are simply used to the Wt system of question ..answer... why can't you pick up my points without a question ?? you are not at a Watchtower study !!here !!
No, I'm really not here to play stupid games like the one you describe here in your post with anyone. If you thought I was a clairvoyant, you're got another think coming.
But here is a question for you to make you feel more at home .... On what scriptural bases do JW call their religion " being in The truth " ?
To answer this question would be a bit difficult for me because I discussion is typically give-and-take, and in my previous post I had asked you, "What do you know about truth?" I don't recall you answering my question. And the post before my last one, I asked you as to one of those "prophetic predictions" to which you referred, Do you happen to have one of those? I don't recall you answer that question either. In fact, it is now clear that you had nothing at all to say to me -- no really -- but you wanted to join the discussion, and you did that so if you're happy, that's great.
I find it much more pleasurable to be friends with someone who says their searching for truth rather than having "the truth" because they believe they still might learn something new and valuable from another person !
But what if I don't want to be your friend? (I don't.) I don't come to this forum trying to make new friendships, but to discuss Bible-related topics. I have about 7,124,443 friends, many of whom I have never met. I'd like to make more friends, but I don't need to come to this forum to do that (and I don't).
I like a quote that goes something like this- walk with those who seek truth, run from those who say they have found it.
Hey, what you say here sounds to me like it might be axiomatic. Is it?
How do we know, according to the Bible itself and not human speculation, that a Bible prophecy has a secondary, larger fulfillment? Can you cite any scriptural proof to support this interpretive theory?
Have you ever studied the Bible with one of Jehovah's Witnesses before? I don't come to this forum to have pretend Bible studies with folks, but I'm sure if you really wanted to do so that you could find one of Jehovah's Witnesses and maybe arrange to ask him or her this very question, "How would we know when a Bible prophecy has a secondary, larger fulfillment? Personally, I'm not sure that the Witness would be in a position to answer this second question of yours regarding "interpretive theory," until first you will have clarified for that Witness what "interpretive theory" is. I think this question of yours to be on topic, but I don't see how it was you got from discussing the minor and major fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24:34 to "interpretive theory."
Now in another thread in which I was discussing with someone Hebrews 1:5, a non-NWT Bible translation (the CEV) had interpreted the verse, rather than translated it, so that it excludes Jesus Christ from being one of the "angels" about whom the apostle Paul is discussing:
Hebrews 1:5, CEV:
God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"
Hebrews 1:5, ASV:
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 1:5, KJV:
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 1:5, NWT:
For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?
Notice how the ASV, KJV and NWT do not interpret this verse as does the CEV.
When you read a verse like the one at Matthew 8:11 --
But I tell you that many from eastern parts and western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens
-- you may not be aware of it, but "Abraham," "Isaac" and "Jacob" here do not refer to the patriarchs, but to "Jehovah," Jesus" and "Jesus' anointed brothers" that will sit at God's "table" in the "kingdom of the heavens," that is to say, will enter the "Most Holy" in "Jehovah's Great Spiritual Temple." But this doesn't describe a case of "interpretive theory" at all, but figurative speech that represents spiritual things.
But there are too many prophecies contained in the Bible that have both a minor fulfillment and major fulfillment. First Corinthians 10:6-11 is prophetic in nature, for many Christians the things that the apostle Paul mentions in these verses had a minor fulfillment in its effect upon the early Christian congregation during the first century AD:
Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time." Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand of them in one day. Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents. Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.
These same things certainly have had a major fulfillment in its effect upon the present-day Christian congregation. But this doesn't describe a case of "interpretive theory" either. The Bible is the truth, not some theory. You didn't answer my question in the previous post, @Ultimate Reality, so let me ask you again: What connection do you believe there to be between the fulfillment of Bible prophecies and what you here refer to as "parallel dispensations"?
And, while you are at it, how do you know that any particular prophecy has a double fulfillment?
You really should seek out one of Jehovah's Witnesses to arrange for a home Bible study or do some research.
Good luck Ultimate Reality and Mad Dawg in getting DJ to answer that question. He didn't answer it the first or second time, as with so many questions he's asked.
I provide answers to all of the questions I'm asked. The fact that someone may not like or agree with my answer is not something that I care to consider when responding to someone's post though.
I challenge him to straightforwardly answer your question and to do it in five lines or less (it should take a lot less)
If this doesn't happen it indicates that once again he a) doesn't have a straight answer b) hopes to obscure that fact in a mountain of meaningless drivel.
Yes, I recall your issuing such a challenge to me, and I did answer the question that I was asked with straightforwardness, but all I can do is provide the water; I cannot make you drink any of it.
He'll also probably pretend - again - that he doesn't understand the question, that the question is not "clear", or he'll say he's not sure of your "motivation in asking it", or that he's not sure you deserve an answer because he's not sure you are "sincere".
I have no need to pretend that I don't understand someone's question. If I do not wish to answer a question without first knowing what is being asked, I think it prudent to seek a clarification before answering a question that I wasn't asked. Frankly, I think it to be rather foolish for anyone to answer a question when they do not understand it. But that's me.
Basically expect a torrent of bull, clumsy evasion and a professed inability to discern obvious meaning or understand clear, simple questions which borders on mental retardation. But here's hoping he surprises us.
If this is what you prefer to believe about me and my messaging style, then this will probably be the very last response that you'll be receiving from me. I don't know who the "us" is, but I do know that "us" will henceforth not include you. You feel a need to "name-call" and toss darts at someone, when I can simply ignore your posts as you continue to do this. BTW, I'd be ignoring your post not as someone suffering from mental retardation, but as someone that recognizes when someone is emotionally immature and is being intentionally abrasive for some reason. I come to this forum to interact with adults that behave as such and not as if they were juveniles.