Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 91 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • EasyPrompt
    EasyPrompt

    Matthew 26:26-28


    "As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf, and after saying a blessing, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."


    Eating the bread and wine at the Lord's Evening Meal is symbolic of being part of that specific covenant. It is specific direction for those in that covenant.


    Luke 22:19,20


    "Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf."


    What covenant was Jesus talking about? The covenant for a Kingdom.


    Luke 22:29,30


    "I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel."


    Literally taking in wine and bread doesn't save anyone. Jesus blood is what saves someone, and their faith in that blood.


    Romans 14:17-18


    "For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit. For whoever slaves for Christ in this way is acceptable to God and has approval with men."

  • enoughisenough
    enoughisenough

    easyprompt...Matt 26:28 says plainly: for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.( new living Bible )////or this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (new american standard) JW mixed two different covenants so they can keep people in bondage to themselves.

  • EasyPrompt
    EasyPrompt

    It doesn't bother me if somebody wants to partake or not partake. It's just not required for someone who is not in that specific covenant.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Vanderhoven7

    We do not know exactly what God revealed to Adam, certainly more than what is mentioned in Genesis. So your "argument" is nothing more than mockery: why did God have to tell Adam about everything? By the way, the concept of Primordial revelation is worth mentioning here.

    In Catholic theology, there is an opinion that the natural-supernatural revelation given to the first human remained in subsequent generations, but there was no unanimous opinion about its content. Generally, it included knowledge of one God and natural moral obligations, and the report on the Fall and the promise of the Redeemer (Genesis 1-3). It was also not clarified how this revelation remained, how divine providence ensured its preservation. The Church never made it an official teaching, it always remained an opinion, and even the teaching authority condemned the stricter form of traditionalism, i.e., that the idea of God is only accessible from tradition. In contrast, it proclaimed that man could read God's existence from the world of reason in the created world (D 1622, 1785), and did not see the means of salvation for fallen humanity in the primordial revelation (D 1785). For the Church, only the Old and New Testament revelations are binding.

    Historically, the Church Fathers spoke of the seeds of truth (logoi spermatikoi) found in the world and that philosophy can be traced back to Moses. There is a possibility that the pre-Old Testament revelation (Adam, Noah) would have passed on to paganism. In the 15th-16th centuries, discoveries showed that millions of pagans lived outside Europe, and primordial revelation was posited for them as a possibility of salvation. From the 18th century, missionaries reported that natural peoples also have knowledge of morality and the origin of humanity, so many began to explain the connection between Christianity and human nature on this basis, but they forgot about the real difference between nature and grace. Naturally, they based the transmission of the primordial revelation on the Bible's chronology, thinking that it was easy to bridge the 5-6 thousand years from Adam to Christ.

    The French traditionalist trend denied that human reason could recognize God, the creator, on its own, so it explained the existing concept of God from some primordial revelation. At the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, religious historians W. Schmidt, W. Koppers sought to prove the existence of primordial revelation from the monotheism found in various backward tribes and some remembrance of a paradisiacal state. However, they did not rely sufficiently on the philosophy and psychology of religion. Others were satisfied to refer only to the unity of moral consciousness and the religious imagination of man as a memory of primordial revelation.

    Historically, the preservation of primordial revelation cannot be proven, but as far as God has revealed His universal will to save (1 Tim 2:5-6), we know that humanity has always been under the enlightening and motivating influence of grace. It is not necessary for man to specifically clarify this spiritual-moral existence, but it cannot be denied that from it a reflex-like behavior may have arisen. Thus, man could have a sense of his creation, his dependence on divinity, the difference between good and evil, moral responsibility, and could harbor a tentative hope for some realization of justice. Under the influence of grace, these experiences could be constantly renewed.

  • EasyPrompt
    EasyPrompt

    Hi again enoughisenough...


    Jesus blood is poured out for anyone who is willing to take advantage of the ransom. But it is not necessary to partake of the emblems to be show faith in that blood, just like it wasn't necessary for Christians to be circumcised. It was difficult for Jewish Christians to realize that too.


    Those who are raised up in the future resurrection during the 1000 year reign will not partake, and yet the blood is enough for them.


    The purpose of the Lord's Evening Meal was to remind those of the 144,000 to keep awake until the Lord came to take them to their assignment. It's not like some kind of "golden ticket" or something. That's why the ritual will end when the marriage of the Lamb happens. Partaking of the wine and bread is a ritual, just like circumcision was a ritual, or the old Passover meal was a ritual. It was an expression of faith, but in and of itself it didn't save anyone.


    Parts of Christendom have taught people for years that everybody needs to partake of the emblems, but that's not what the Bible teaches. Abraham was considered righteous by faith, and he wasn't even baptized.


    There are two different covenants. Jehovah can't let a human "marry" a spirit creature. The first covenant is where Jehovah adopts the 144,000. By adopting the 144,000 and changing them into a new creation, the same kind as His son, Jehovah provides the legal basis to unite the two. Jesus himself makes the second covenant, the marriage covenant, with the 144,000. The covenant for the Kingdom is the marriage covenant. The marriage of the Lamb is when they are joined in the Kingdom, "taking home the bride". When anointed ones partake, they are just showing that they are aware that they are in that marriage covenant.


    Those who will live on the earth don't have to be "changed" so they don't need those two covenants. The application of the ransom blood to them is poured out without their needing to partake of the wine/bread because they are not in the marriage covenant. They are automatically made part of that arrangement because Jesus took Adam's place. When he took Adam's place, he automatically inherited his kids and as their Eternal Father he now intercedes for them.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Either Ecclesiastes is inspired or not. You cant have it both ways. If inspired, it is the inerrant word of God. If not, your Bible is corrupt and the whole falls with the part. If inspired, then the dead truly know not anything, or Holy Spirit lied.

    @vienne

    As already pointed out the term "under the sun" appears 29 times in the book of Ecclesiastes so that people wouldn't get the wrong ideas. It was helpful to me when I was examining the WT "proof scripture" to view all 29 instances in order, at the same time. Here they are for your perusal:

    Ecc_1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

    Ecc_1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

    Ecc_1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

    Ecc_2:11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

    Ecc_2:17 Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

    Ecc_2:18 Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.

    Ecc_2:19 And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.

    Ecc_2:20 Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.

    Ecc_2:22 For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?

    Ecc_3:16 And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

    Ecc_4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

    Ecc_4:3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

    Ecc_4:7 Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.

    Ecc_4:15 I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead.

    Ecc_5:13 There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.

    Ecc_5:18 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

    Ecc_6:1 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:

    Ecc_6:12 For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?

    Ecc_8:9 All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt.

    Ecc_8:15 Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.

    Ecc_8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

    Ecc_9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

    Ecc_9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

    Ecc_9:9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

    Ecc_9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

    Ecc_9:13 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:

    Ecc_10:5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:

    After reading all these, it is obvious that the scope and primary view of Ecclesiastes is "under the sun", "this life", this physical body etc.


    A dead body, rotting under the sun, in "this life" knows nothing at all....just like scripture says in Eccl. 9: 9 "
    that is thy portion in this life"

    But your consciousness is eternal, just like dozens of other scriptures and especially Jesus himself confirms.

    By the way, you never answered why you don't except the limited scope of Ecclesiastes 10:19 - "money is the answer for everthing" while rejecting the limited scope of the statement of "the dead know nothing at all"?

    The bible is a not a buffet where a person can just willy nilly decide which scriptures to put on their plate and which ones to reject because they don't seem palatable.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi AQ

    ((So your "argument" is nothing more than mockery))

    Hmmmm...but isn't the content of my manufactured conversation exactly what you believe?

    Let's look at each verse you referenced, one by one, you believe teaches eternal torment of human beings


  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Vanderhoven7

    "but isn't the content of my manufactured conversation exactly what you believe?"

    It rather sounds more like a childish caricature of it...

    It's not the Catholic doctrine, but a medieval superstitious idea that God created two kinds of eternity: for the good, heaven, where everything is beautiful and good, and for the bad, hell, which is a big torture chamber, and we can be terrified for the rest of our lives about which one we will end up in. A baptized person is predestined for salvation, but his realistic choice is to consciously reject and play away this salvation. God did not create hell; that creature with free will: the free choice of the angel and man, the continuation of life without God for an eternity. Damnation is a conscious and intentional persistence in sin, that is, a complete lack of repentance.

  • Rattigan350
    Rattigan350

    How can the dead know anything? At death the circuits are turned off. Like when you turn your computer off, the RAM loses power and everything in memory is gone. The brain is more like an EPROM, where instructions are remembered after power is turned off and when power is turned back on, it can continue with the instructions that it has in its programming. That is what it is like when a person is resurrected.

    But people people haven't been resurrected since the apostles day so none of the EPROM brains have been repowered. So they dead know nothing.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Rattigan350

    That sounds exactly like an atheist-materialist would say...

    Read THIS and THIS.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit