by Momofmany 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
JT--- God needed mediator because it is only through the shed blood of jesus christ that we can redeem ourselves . It took a perfect man to cancel out the sin of adam thus freeing all worshippers from the animal sacrifices of ancient Israel .
Heathen, yes, i understand your beliefs, and thank you for your reply; however, I might as well be speaking Mandingo as to enter into a Christian thread and refer to an infinite and unlimited God. Reminds me of what a fool I can often be.
j
Reminds me of what a fool I can often be.
You aint the only one there ...... I wish atheists would just start their own threads and leave the rest to those that want to discuss the topic at least .
sounds like momofmany had some progress in waking her mother up as to the fraud that the WTBTS is . There is nowhere in the bible that says the great crowd can't participate in the lords evening meal .You can only approve yourself as what the apostle Paul stated .Let a man after scrutiny .... 1 corinthians 11 : 28 . I also notice it doesn't mention women, something I think the WTBTS likes to overlook ....
What I think is probably most offensive is the assertion that the word "mediator" is not used in the broad sense at 1 Ti 2:5.
The "broad sense" is certainly the most natural reading of the text, heis kai mesites theo kai anthropon
TD,
My point above is that the Society doesn't deny that Jesus is a mediator for all mankind in line with 1 Timothy 2:5 when it comes to the RANSOM itself.
Everyone is going off saying that the Society is asserting that Jesus is not the mediator for all mankind in these other areas. People are mixing apples with oranges. Every excerpt provided above or that you will find where the Society says that Jesus is the mediator only for the 144,000 is clearly talking about the NEW COVENANT and clearly NOT TALKING ABOUT anything else, like the Ransom or Prayer, etc.
Mom can write the Society for an explanation but they will simply explain what I have already said above. Jesus is certainly the ransomer and redeemer (thus a mediator of sorts) for ALL mankind and the Society agrees with that. Jesus is certainly the person through whom we may approach God in prayer AND THE SOCIETY AGREES WITH THAT.
Only with respect to this funky belief about only 144k going to heaven does the Society say that when it comes to those persons' privilege to go to Heaven to serve as Kings and Priests there, that that agreement, that contract, that covenant is what was entered into between them and Jesus as God's agent and it is he who then goes before GOD on their behalf to assert and fulfill the terms of that contract/covenant. That is what the Society means when it says that Christ is only mediator for THOSE persons WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEW COVENANT.
There simply is no conflict or contradictions OTHER THAN THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE ITSELF that teaches only 144,000 go to the heaven or that the NEW COVENANT does not embrace all Christians.
-Eduardo
Hey Ed,
My comment wasn't directed at you and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I do understand your point. Within their doctrinal framework the Witnesses' use of the term does make a certain sense.
What I had in mind was the August 15, 1989 questions from readers which said:
"Consequently, 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 is not using "mediator" in the broad sense common in many languages. It is not saying that Jesus is a mediator between God and all mankind. Rather, it refers to Christ as legal Mediator (or, "attorney") of the new covenant, this being the restricted way in which the Bible uses the term. Jesus is also a corresponding ransom for all in that covenant, both Jews and Gentiles, who will receive immortal life in heaven."
The unqualified claim here is that the Bible itself uses the term "Mediater" in only a "restricted way" that does not include anyone outside the new covenant.
Reasonable people (Like yourself) can point out that Christ as Ransomer and Redeemer for the rest of mankind does make him a "mediator of sorts" but that is simply a common sense observation that is not specifically taught in the Bible, at least according to The Watchtower.
I think the average Witnesses, who for whatever reason is confronted with this aspect of JW doctine for the first time finds this idea terribly offensive because this is certainly not the most natural reading of the captioned verses. Generations of believers (And this includes JW's) have read these particualr verses and drawn no small comfort in the thought that it applies to them.
(On a more generic note, the JW claim is utter hogwash. Paul is clearly talking about "men" in the collective sense -huper panton and there is no indication that he is using the term, "Mediator" --mesites as an esoteric, legal term. In common usage, the word simply meant, "One who makes peace between two parties.")
I think the society deliberately displaces it's followers from feeling any sort of equality .Thus we have this dogma of the great crowd needing their leadership despite all the false prophesy and abhorrible history of their cult . How many times have they said they are speaking for God and been totally wrong ? I feel certain there are still many flaws in the belief system . What I think is really sick about this is the baptismal oath of obedience to the ORG .
Eduardo.....The problem tho is that the Society has not been consistent in this interpretation. Thus they have on occasion cited 1 Timothy 2:5 to refer to Christ's exclusive mediatorship in prayer (as an intercessor) for all Christians:
***g78 7/8 pp. 6-7 A Man Who Found It ***
Catholics believe that image worship can cause the "saints" to act as mediators between God and the worshiper. However, the Bible indicates that this is wrong, for we read: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5) Besides Jesus Christ, none can mediate with God on our behalf. (Compare John 14:6; Acts 4:12.)
*** w02 7/1 p. 8 Worship God "in Spirit" ***Is it proper to pray to Jesus’ earthly mother, Mary, or to particular "saints," asking them to intercede with God in one’s behalf? The Bible’s direct answer is: "There is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus."—1 Timothy 2:5.
See also 15 August 1958 Watchtower, p. 503, 15 May 1969 Watchtower, p. 314, 1 July 1974 Watchtower, p. 396, 15 February 1975 Watchtower, p. 112, 1 December 1988 Watchtower, p. 5, 15 February 1997 Watchtower, p. 28, and 15 February 2000 Watchtower, p. 27. So if the Society is discussing Catholicism, they interpret the scripture one way (i.e. as referring to everyone who approaches God through Jesus), but if they are talking about themselves, they interpret it an entirely different way (i.e. as referring only to the 144,000 in the New Covenant). In another article that had nothing to do with Catholicism, the Society also referred to Christ's mediatorship in general terms without the "technical" legal sense in their use of the term elsewhere:
*** w57 4/15 pp. 237-238 When All Men Again Worship One God ***When Jesus Christ was on earth did he imitate the mighty hunter Nimrod and try to lead men to worship him? No, he did not. ...He sought first a share in the kingdom of God and told his followers to do the same thing, saying: "You must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will come to pass, as in heaven, also upon earth.’ ....Then to show there is only one right form of worship and only one way to the one true God, Jesus said to his followers: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6, RS) The reason why Jesus said this was that he had come here to be the go-between or mediator between Jehovah God and men. Under divine inspiration the apostle Paul declares: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." (1 Tim. 2:5, 6, NW) Being a perfect man on earth and dying sinless as a martyr for God’s kingdom, Christ Jesus offered to God the one acceptable ransom sacrifice for the sins of mankind. So he alone can serve as mediator.
And finally, consider this passage which explicitly refers to Jesus as the mediator for mankind and who acts as mediator with respect to prayer:
"The Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is mankind's redeemer, so he is mankind's mediator. Therefore, our prayers should be addressed to God through, or in the name of Jesus. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) This being the case, there is absolutely no Biblical reason why men should canonize saints or pray to them." (Awake!, 8 July 1969, p. 24)
So it is a small wonder why many ordinary Witnesses are confused about the matter.
Now compare those statements quoted in my last post with the following (also cited by TD):
*** w89 8/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***Consequently, 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 is not using "mediator" in the broad sense common in many languages. It is not saying that Jesus is a mediator between God and all mankind. Rather, it refers to Christ as legal Mediator (or, "attorney") of the new covenant, this being the restricted way in which the Bible uses the term. Jesus is also a corresponding ransom for all in that covenant, both Jews and Gentiles, who will receive immortal life in heaven.
You see what I mean? They say that 1 Timothy 2:5 refers to Christ's mediatorship for anyone who approaches God in prayer, and then simultaneously they say that the same scripture DOES NOT MEAN this and only refers to a legal mediatorship between God and the 144,000.
Howdy,
Actually Leolala, your excerpts prove the point very well that the Society does say that Christ is a mediator for all mankind when it comes to Prayer. And that was essentially in line with what I was saying that the limited use of "mediator" as a term, limited to only 144,000, is only used when they are discussing the New Covenant in line with their theology.
I understand what you are saying in that the term itself "mediator" is used in different ways, sometimes incorporating mediatorship for all mankind and sometimes in a narrow sense of making the New Covenant effective, but I do not agree that these are inconsistent. It simply is just a matter of using a term that does have different meanings in different situations. Perhaps more care should be or could be given so as not to cause confusion. I think the one excerpt you provided does this well by saying that Christ is a mediator for the 144K when it comes ot the New Covenant but of course is a ransomer ([otherwise mediator in a different sense]) for all persons.
Often the Society doesn't put out there the qualification when talking about the mediatorship role of Christ in enforcing the New Covenant but I think for persons who are thoughtful about the information there isn't much confusion. this would be especially so for bible students who are familiar with the many scriptures that support the idea that Christ is a mediator in various ways for all persons (who desire it.)
It seems to me that it is only those that want to read something like what has been presented in this thread and have a knee-jerk reaction without really looking at what the Society is saying or more importantly without examining what Jehovah's Witnesses' belief really is, namely that JWs do believe that Christ is the intercessor for prayer, the redeemer for all, the ransomer, the creator by which God created all, and so on.
Having said all of that, again the very claim regarding the new covenant I believe to be wrong as I personally don't believe the Society is correct to assert the 144K as a literal number and the basic claim about these persons special heavenly role but that is a different topic.
I guess the reason that I have posted 3 times in this thread is because the matter between the original poster and his mother could be so easily cleared up with just some basic study of what JWs do believe and what the Society's does teach about this and now according to the latest post, even the JW mom is now confused since it seems the son (original poster) didn't understand how the Society uses the term mediator in a limited sense when it is discussing the New Covenant (doctrine).
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
Eduardo...The matter isn't simply using the term in different ways when referring to prayer or referring to the mediatorship of the New Covenant. What makes this an inconsistency is that they cite the SAME SCRIPTURE in support of both definitions and then say when discussing one definition that the OTHER definition is not what is meant by the scripture. That's a contradiction if I've ever seen one.
