QFR August 15, 2014 - Resurrection and Marriage

by wisdomfrombelow 69 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RichardHaley

    Just reciently looking at another thread on this but can't remember where. One poster said Jesus was avoiding a loaded question from the Saducees in the contex of levitical/brother in-law marriage. If ressurected to everlasting life/imortality then this mosiac law is not needed since they would be like angles...(never dying) therefore the reason for Jesus answer. Makes sense, of course that dosen't automaticly make it true... just saying.

  • Maat13


    thanks for the summary


  • LoisLane looking for Superman
    LoisLane looking for Superman

    Guys - guys - guys ...

    Look for the "hook".

    Why would GB/Legal be okay with this nu -lite, now???

    What age group, is targeted here???

    Who is sitting at the Kdumb Hall, obedient to the letter, mesmerized by all things WT?

    JW widows, and widowers, that's who.

    Whether they have a little or a lot, WT GB and Legal know all those sheeples will die, come on guys, it is what happens to human beings, no matter what the con men say.

    So GB/Writing Dept/Legal Dept say let's give them a nice fantasy to dream on. They already think they are all going to be living on a paradise earth, young and beautiful and vivacious and and and their LOVED ONE will be there to marry them again!!! Oh Boys, we have got a winner, here! Why I can see those poor lonely widows and widowers reading this crap, with tears of this new "enlightenment" fall from their eyes. (WT GB/Writing Dept/Legal Dept ... with evil knowing laughter).

    "Oh course!" they say, "Jehovah (The Israelite God of War YHWH)... ALWAYS provides for his people."

    What a wonderful provision.

    What is REALLY behind this is getting the older ones warmer up to this " nu " idea? Their death beds await along with creepy, smiling Elder's instructed from Headquarter's to get those breathing bodies to sign over everything to JW.org, before their last dying breath.

    Greedy sons of ...

    Really? You are telling me God just happened to be flying around and now he decides to "tell" Headquarters some nu -lite scripture that would make old lonely people happy and JW.org will just happen to benefit with millions, possibly a billion dollars, more? Follow the money. WT is all about the money. Cha- ching .


  • LostGeneration

    Oub summed it up...but this is just more bull$hit designed to "keep them in".

    I actually remember several conversations around this topic when I was in. Married women would flat out insist that they would be able to be with their husband if he died. I recall having a bit of fun teasing them with "Thats not what the bible says!" Of course it was always ended with the we dont really know excuse...

    Just like the recent "Miscarried babies might be resurrected" article, the whole goal of the WTS is to keep people trapped in the cult based on lies about the future.

  • Quendi

    This latest flip-flop is just another reason I am so happy to have heeded the Bible's advice to "get out from among them and separate" myself. Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this thread. As Oubliette constantly reminds us about Jehovah's Witnesses: It's a cult!


  • konceptual99

    This article says nothing new in practical terms. It simply says they don't know and so the answer to the question is "could be". It's yet another case of them documenting they know nothing but other than that nothing to see here IMHO.

  • never a jw
    never a jw


    You are so cynical, so perverse, and so right. Why would the channel of communication gratuitously make an ass of themselves again, unless their actions serve a "greater good".

  • baldeagle

    This subject is receiving a lot of attention in many congregations. As mentioned some are comforted and happy that this article says, It is possible that Jesus’ words about marrying and the resurrection apply to the heavenly resurrection.” Now factor in the great capacity for hope, imagination and expectation that JW’s uniquely have. Even with all the changes and flip-flops they will view this as the right understanding finally.

    We all know this subject has been addressed numerous times in “Questions From Readers.” It had been very troubling for many individuals. The October 15, 1967 WT already mentioned here made these comments as well:

    “It is understandable that Christians might be concerned about marriage prospects in the resurrection, since the strongest human emotional ties are often with regard to one’s mate. Many faithful servants of God who look forward to living forever on earth and whose mates have died would like to have support for their hope that they could be reunited as husband and wife in the resurrection. While not being callous to their sincere feelings, we must admit that apparently Jesus’ words apply to the earthly resurrection, and they indicate that those resurrected will not marry or be reunited in a marriage relationship with former mates.”

    “This has long been understood and taught by Jehovah’s witnesses. As far back as The Watchtower of November 15, 1904, page 345, we read in a discussion of these verses: “True the glorified Church will not marry, but there is no reference here to the Church class, the Bride class. The question did not refer to saints, but to any ordinary Jews under the Law. . . . Nothing in the illustration implied that either the woman or any of her husbands were followers of the Lord.”

    “As indicated by correspondence we have received, this conclusion is one difficult for some to accept because of the strong influence of human emotions. While we can sincerely sympathize with those who have lost mates in death, we must honestly admit that the conclusion discussed above is the one suggested in the Scriptures.”

    This teaching needed to change and also provide a veneer or appearance of hope and possibility to all those still troubled.

    “Evidently” Jesus thought the year 2014 was the right time to do it!!

  • jwfacts

    The confusion is very JW centric, because of their belief in an earthly resurrection. The Bible never mentions an earthly resurrection, but the Watchtower tries to apply this Scripture to its earthly resurrection doctrine, when there is little doubt that it is referring to those in heaven. They have still left it up in the air, due to Jesus' reference to Abraham, and the Watchtower belief that Abraham will be resurrected onto earth.

  • Pistoff

    A perfect example of bad logic, both their old position and their new one.

    They assume the Saducees were asking about an earthly resurrection, they assume Jesus was talking about earthly, no heavenly, no earthly, no heavenly.

    We don't have any idea whatsoever what Jesus was thinking, or the Saducees; none.

    We can guess, which is what they have done repeatedly and on both sides of the fence.

    Anyway, they have made dogmatic statements about this that witnesses have used to make life changing decisions, rather than just saying each person has to decide for themselves whether to remarry or not, and acknowledging the strong emotional bond one has to a deceased mate.

    But they can't picture themselves as the all knowing if they say something like that, so they have positively stated one way or another.

    How can it make any sense to anyone??

    They have reasoned that Jesus MUST have been talking about an earthly resurrection, but that is because THEY believe in an earthly resurrection.

    It makes me think of the whole logic scene in the Princess Bride:

    Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
    Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
    Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
    Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
    Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
    Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
    Man in Black: Australia.
    Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
    Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
    Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
    Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
    Man in Black: Then make your choice.
    Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
    Man in Black: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
    Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
    Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
    Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]
    Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
    Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
    Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]
    Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
    Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

    The WT writers ARE Vizzini, without the charm.

Share this