Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
aqwsed12345

slimboyfat:
Proverbs 8:22 is a well-known mistranslation in the LXX, the correspondent Hebrew verb here (qanah) doesn't mean "create", but "acquire", "buy," "possess", "have" etc. It's well translated by ancient Bible translators like Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome. The Christian in the first centuries were aware of the only the original text can be regarded as inspired, a translation is just a translation, an interpretation, which can be even unintentionally wrong. That's why Jerome hasn't translated the Vulgate from the LXX into Latin, but directly from the Hebrew. Not a big surprise the NWT follows a bad translation. Check:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm
Neither "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" nor "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation" PROVE that the Son is the first created being, since grammatically this is not a necessary, but only a POSSIBLE interpretation of this text, which is clearly excluded by other scriptural statements.
Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" (literal translation)
If we want to free the passage from the possessive structure, it could be interpreted as: "the firstborn over all creation." The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. The Greek prototokos = firstborn: here it means superiority and eternal preexistence, not the first creation. He is the distinguished heir to everything that has been created. We need to start from the meaning of "universal heir, main heir," who, due to his origin, owns everything that the Father has created.
According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a special position in the family and receives a larger share of the inheritance than the other children. The use of language in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalm 89:27, not because he was literally Jesse's first child (since he was the youngest), but to symbolize the power of Israel's kingdom.David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)
Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, although Manasseh was chronologically the first (Genesis 41:50-52). God called the nation of Israel "my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22). So when Jehovah says, "I will make him my firstborn" (Psalm 89:28), he is actually calling a later-born son (David) the firstborn, meaning not a temporal dignity, but a title indicating dignity. Similarly, when God called Israel as a nation his own firstborn (Exodus 4:22), he obviously did not mean it chronologically, because Isaac's firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Moreover, Israel was Jehovah's firstborn, even though it was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
It is therefore undeniable that the apostle here wants to express the primacy of the firstborn over the creatures. But that Christ is not included among the creatures is evident from the following.
Jewish rabbinical writers called the God (the Father) as Bekorah Shelolam, which means exactly the same as what Paul used here: the firstborn of all creation. By the way, the Father does not need to be called the firstborn over all creation, because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born either but proceeded. However, Jesus still came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The prototokos appears in Hebrews 1:6 as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is depicted as the Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God's glory (and his image) (1:3), the Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Revelations 3:14 "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation"
The correspondent Greek word here (arkhé) does NOT mean "beginning or beginner in time", but "origin", "source of action", of "first principle". No contemporary Greek-speaking reader would interpret this verse like the JWs do, since arkhé was a well-known term back then.
The arché from which the English word architect (= architect) is derived. According to scholars of the Greek language, its literal meaning is: origin, causation, source, uncreated principle. Therefore, Jesus is the architect, or the Creator of the Universe, as made clear in Col 1:16-17. He was in the beginning (arkhé) with the Father (Jn 1:2; Heb 1:10). He created every creature, and he was before every creature, so He himself could not be a creature (a created entity). In Rev 1:8 (often rendered as Alpha) and 21:6 (cf. Is 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the arcké is applied to the Almighty God, so it is not possible that it means a created being, as claimed by groups like JWs influenced by Arianism. A similar terminology (first and last, Alpha and Omega) also refers to Jesus: Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; 3:14, and 22:13.16. Therefore, both the Father and the Son are fully God.
The "beginning of God's creation" does not mean that he is a creature. For in Him, everything was created, without Him, nothing came into being that has come into being, and He was in the beginning, not in the beginning created. The "arkhé" signifies power, dominion, rule, and principle. We find the meaning of "power" in many places in the New Testament. The beginning (arkhé) is also called powers (e.g., Eph 1:21, Col 2:10), as well as the beginning point in time. Neither usage implies that what is called the beginning is part of what it is the beginning of. On the contrary, we know from elsewhere that everything was created in Him, without Him nothing came into being, etc. Here, it is not a temporal beginning - if you look at the context, it is about Jesus' office and dignity, not his age. According to this, the beginning is of creation, not of the Son.
Here, it rather says that the Son is the origin, cause, (primordial) source, fountainhead, uncreated principle, or beginning of creation because everything was created through the Son, without Him nothing came into being that has come into being; and everything in heaven and on earth was created in Him, everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything is held together in Him.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
On the other hand, it helps to understand the verse and the meaning of the word "beginning" (αρχη) if you compare it, for example, with how Col 1:18 speaks of Jesus:
"He is the beginning…"
Furthermore:
"I am coming soon, and my reward is with me, to repay everyone for what they have done. I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:12-13)
The same word "beginning" (αρχη) is used in the Bible for the Father in Rev 21:6, so αρχη obviously does not mean a creature.
It is also worth noting that, just like the concept of Logos, arkhé has its own precedent in Greek philosophy.
Ancient Greek philosophers called the arkhé the primal principle, primal cause, to which they always traced the origin of things, i.e., from which the world is built, i.e., what is the beginning of the world. Thus, the "arkhé" is the principle from which the cosmos originates. The New Testament writers adopted these Greek concepts and filled them with new content: according to Christian teaching, 'the beginning' or 'arkhé' of the created world is the Godhead, which includes the Son as well.
Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Indeed, he declares that he created everything, and without him nothing came into being that came into being It follows logically from all of this that it cannot belong to the created, became things, so it cannot be the "first creature" either. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with his own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13 , Psalm 95:5-6). Creation is the work of God alone and directly. Another question is whether God is more than Father: He is also Son, and when God created, then the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit created.
The fact that Christians considered the Son to be God and uncreated long before the Arian controversy can be well supported by contemporary sources, including the writings of the apostolic fathers.
The formulation of John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word..." (as opposed to "became", or "is created", or "came to be", as in John 1:3) was an important reference during the Arian controversy, since Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father. Arius insisted ‘there was when he [the Logos] was not.’ The opponents of the Arianism pointed out that according to John 1:1a the Son "in the beginning" already "was", not became, and consequently is not a creature, and did not come into existence in time, but is eternal like the Father.
In order to condemn Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea formalized the creed, according to which the Son is "begotten from the Father before all ages (æons), Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father". At the same time, the synod anathemized those, who say 'There was a time when He was not;' or 'He was not before he was made;' or 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'.
Can it be considered "late" that this was dogmatized "only" in 325? Well, this just proves that it was simply not an issue before Arius came along. But this reproach is hypocritical on the part of a denomination that did not even exist until the end of the 19th century, and whose basic doctrines were only developed decades later, such as two-class salvation theory only in 1935
92
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
aqwsed12345

This discussion is about God did NOT mean what JW interpretation asserts here.
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
aqwsed12345
Due to their apparent theological bias, the Watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that Jesus is also a created being. It is clear that Jehovah's Witnesses try to avoid having to admit that Christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4). Instead, the Society teaches that "Christ was the only one created by God," and that then He "created everything else with Jehovah." (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth From this perspective, Christ is not the Creator God but merely the first created angel - "The greatest angel is Jesus Christ, who is also called Michael." (Watchtower, November 1, 1995, page 8)
Jesus is eternal and the Creator (see Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 3, 10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13). In addition to the above clear references, the Scriptures also state that God alone is the Creator (see Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:28; 44:24; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 2:10).
However, did God actually create only one angel, and then use this angel to create everything "else"? No! God testifies that He Himself created the heavens and the earth, "alone," "by myself." (Isaiah 44:24)
The Scriptures clearly state: "I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me?"
Therefore, the Bible declares that everything was created by the Son, that the Holy Spirit was present at creation (Genesis 1:2), and that the LORD (Jehovah) was "alone" there. This only makes sense if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the one true God.
The idea that a lesser God (demigod) participated in creation, separate from "Jehovah," is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2, 8, as well as the fact that the Father did not create alone but with the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30). Creation is an exclusively divine ability, and no created being can even serve as a means for creation. God is the unique source of creation, as He does not cooperate with any tools, partners, or materials in the work of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. No one and nothing can create as God does. The creative capacity of God is an incommunicable attribute for any creature. To be able to create, that is, to bring existence from nonexistence, one must be God.
If, however, "in Him all things were created," it would necessarily follow that He Himself was also created in Him (through Him), which would be a contradiction. Therefore, the Son is not a created being.
The Watchtower presents several arguments in defense of the insertion of the word "other" in verses 16-17:
- In Luke 13:2, some Bible translations render this word as "the rest," "everyone else." - But here, there is additional information that is not found there. It is written that these people were also Galileans. However, it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Luke 21:29 - It is written that the fig tree also belongs to the category of trees. But it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Philippians 2:21: This is a perfect own goal. Paul logically did not list Timothy, whom he praised, among those who seek not Jesus' interest but their own. The Watchtower's "logic" would demand this in this case as well.
Just because the Watchtower brought some translations where the word "pas" is translated as "everything else" in other places does not automatically justify their method. They need to construct a parallel between the specific Bible passages' message, speech situation, etc., and Colossians 1:16-17. The speech situation was different in those cases because it was stated about the unique entity (opposed to "everybody else", or "all other tings") that they were also Galileans, they were also trees, or it could not be said about Timothy that he was profit-seeking - so the reference is not good. The parallel does not work because the mentioned examples either do not have the factor justifying "everyone else," or it is present but guaranteed by an explicit mention (classification) that is missing from Colossians 1:16-17.
In Greek, there is indeed such a tendency, but the examples brought up are very different from the one in the Colossians letter. Numerous other places say that Peter was also an apostle, that Paul and his companions were imprisoned, that everyone who went to the temple threw something into the collection box, and so on. However, here it is not at all self-evident that the word "other" should be there. We saw that the "firstborn of all creation" in 1:15 could very well be a dignitary name denoting inheritance, and the immediate continuation lists everything created in him, further distancing the verse from the examples intended for parallelism. The verse emphatically repeats at the end that "everything was created through/by him", and the New World Translation is forced to insert the word "other" here and in the next verse. It is therefore difficult to convince anyone that the meaning of "everything else" is unambiguously present in the text.
The predicate "created" can only refer to what was actually created, i.e., the powers and principalities that can be identified with angels, and which are elsewhere (Colossians 2:10) said to be headed by Christ.
The insertion of the word "other" is unjustifiable because it falsifies the Watchtower's concept into the sacred text, which is a source to be quoted later with authority. This is, by the way, the essence of a sectarian interpretation, not the context of the text. That is, they put their conclusions and elaborations into the apostle's mouth. This is what is unacceptable in a Bible translation. Translation is a different genre than biblical explanation, let alone religious debate.
Some amateur Jehovah's Witness apologetics websites (whose enthusiasm earned them a rebuke from Brooklyn, saying that they are not needed, and they will represent and defend "the truth") try to defend this translation, but on very similar grounds.
The argument related to Colossians 1:16 brings up several examples where it is clear that the "others" are of the same type as the one being discussed - such hypothetical gods, trees, names, governments, people, Galileans, and so on. These examples linguistically only demonstrate that if the context is already clear, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted from "all things" in Greek. For example, everyone else also gave to the treasury, and so did the poor widow. Those who were crushed by the tower in Siloam were also Galileans, as were those to whom Jesus compared them. Peter was an apostle, and so were the other apostles. But how it would become clear from the context of Colossians 1:16 that Jesus is also a creature is not clear. It is the Watchtower Society that needs to smuggle this in: precisely with such a biased translation, for which there is no basis in the text. I would like to draw particular attention to Colossians 1:17, which states, "he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist", - not "He became before all other things" etc. As, of course, John 1:1 and 1:3 also state: "In the beginning was the Word", and "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." I am curious when the Watchtower will "rethink" this as a "New Light", of course only "logically": i.e., by inserting an "other" word after "everything" and "nothing" in their translation.
The other loophole is that "everything" does not necessarily mean everything, and is based on the fact that in the said place, the reader is specifically told what "everything" Paul is talking about.
92
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
aqwsed12345

There was only one topic here, the Bible verse of Ecclesiastes 9:5. And you quickly dismissed my argument related to THIS Bible verse. Well, yes, this Bible knowledge of JWs consists of parroting about a dozen "one-liner" "proof texts", then as soon as it falls out of their hands, as if nothing had happened, the tape goes on.
Here is a whole book about the subject: Salmond, Stewart (1903). The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.
Also this is for you: Sleep as a metaphor for Death proves life after death
Most of the biblical passages that allegedly support the concept of soul sleep are found in the Old Testament. The Old Testament teaches very little about the state after death. Eternal life is mentioned only once (Daniel 12:2), and the resurrection of the dead is referred to clearly only twice (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2). This is probably because the Mosaic Covenant concerns earthly life.
The Bible indeed draws a parallel between physical death and sleep, but this does not imply that if the dead "sleep," they cannot be conscious. "Sleep" always refers to the body, never to the soul. Nowhere is it written that the soul or spirit falls asleep, sleeps, or ceases to exist. Comparing death to sleep is a figure of speech. The dead body resembles a sleeping body. Moreover, believers do not grieve over death because it is not a permanent state. It is as insignificant as a little sleep, from which we awaken and rise. Based on this figure of speech, however, we should not teach. If someone sleeps, they still exist and occasionally dream. The annihilation of the soul, according to Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, cannot be substantiated based on this expression.
In the following section, Apostle Paul uses the word "sleep" for three different concepts: natural sleep, indifference, and death: "So, then, let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober, for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober and put on the breastplate of faith and love and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him. " (1 Thessalonians 5:6-10). The last sentence does not want to emphasize that it doesn't matter if we are indifferent, but rather that it doesn't matter if we die; we still live with Christ: If a man belongs to Christ, he has a connection with Him that nothing can destroy.
Paul also says elsewhere that death does not separate us from God (Romans 8:38-39), and a similar thought is in 2 Corinthians 5:8-9: "Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to be pleasing to him."
Such verses can be understood as referring to physical death as seen from the perspective of the living. This metaphor is used partly because physical death resembles sleep and partly because, for the Christian, death is only a temporary state since we will rise from the dead. It suggests that death is not as final as it appears because we await the resurrection of the dead. I do not believe, however, that conclusions about the state of the soul should be drawn based on this figure of speech.
"Sleep" is a metaphorical expression, and the soul does not sleep like the body. I would respond that the Bible does not even say metaphorically that the soul sleeps, so it is not necessary to accept any such speech. The Scripture refers to physical death and resurrection with the metaphor of sleep and awakening. This tells us nothing about the state of the spirit. When a Christian dies, their spirit departs to be with Christ, who will then bring this spirit back to Earth with him, where it will unite with a new body in the resurrection.
The depiction of death as sleep is a euphemistic description, which is not only common in Judaism but also among other peoples. In our language, for example, the expression "resting in the grave" is used. This is a phenomenological language, that is, a description of something as it appears, not as it is. An external observer sees a dead person as if they were asleep (especially since they usually die in bed). The same applies, for example, to expressions like "the sun rises" or "sets" or "travels across the sky." This image appears many times in the Bible (both in the Old and New Testaments), and two heretical views have emerged from this. The Watchtower Society concluded from this that the soul ceases to exist after death ("annihilated" = annihilation doctrine), and God recreates the soul during the resurrection (in this case, it is interesting that only this "copy" will be rewarded or punished by God, not the real, original soul). The other heresy claims that the soul indeed sleeps, unconscious until the resurrection, at which point it awakens from this slumber (Luther, Adventists). However, both views are contradicted by numerous passages in the Scriptures, for example, 1 Samuel 28; Job 19:26; 26:5-6; Isaiah 14:9-11. 15-17; Matthew 17:3; 22:31-32; Luke 16:19-31; 23:43; Philippians 1:21-24; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Peter 3:19; Hebrews 12:1; Revelation 5:8; 6:9-10; 7:10; 20:4. In all these places, the souls of the dead are alive, conscious, and aware.
In Mark 5:39 and Luke 8:52, Jesus plays with words and projects the resurrection (it is no coincidence that he uses these expressions precisely at the resurrection of the dead). "He did not die, he is just asleep": that is, she will wake up/rise. The others took sleep literally (that's why they laughed at him; if Jesus had talked about the soul's sleep, why would they have mocked him if the Old Testament also speaks of death in this way in several places?) In John 11:11 and following, there is a similar misunderstanding among the disciples: they think that Jesus is talking about "the peace of sleep" "So Jesus told them plainly: Lazarus is dead". That is, Jesus was not talking about the peace of sleep, but about death when he said, "Lazarus has fallen asleep". Here, too, Jesus only used the word sleep to refer to the resurrection, which he clearly explains to Martha later in the passage (John 11:21-26). To all this, one can add that in none of these cases does Jesus speak of the "SOUL's sleep", but simply of sleep, which can therefore be interpreted, for example, as referring to the body, i.e., the body sleeps, the soul lives (compare, for example, Romans 8:10; 1 Peter 3:18).
In many languages there is no difference between the words for death and sleep, especially in their early forms. Their meaning depends on the context of the text. Sects usually exploit linguistic anachronisms in their "arguments". This is yet another reason why sola scriptura is absurd. The expression "falling asleep" is a euphemism, meaning to pass away or physically die (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). Every nation calls death a sleep; Christians know why, don't they? It is because the dead will rise. Jesus will raise them from the dead, and so their death is just a sleep. Every Christian's death is just a sleep; for the Lord will raise them on the day of life when the time of this night passes. See 1 Thessalonians 4:13 and following. The real death is only spiritual death (separation from God --> damnation). Jesus, using the Old Testament's way of expression (2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10), mentions Lazarus' death as falling asleep. Sleep is a euphemism for death, which also appears in the New Testament in several places (Matthew 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 11:30; 15:6). The disciples do not understand Jesus' words, or they take them literally. According to popular belief, sleep in a critical condition of a seriously ill person signals the beginning of healing or improvement in the situation. Jesus then speaks openly about Lazarus' death, which proclaims the hopelessness of human fate and, at the same time, speaks of the significance of this death event according to God's plan. Jesus' work is in the service of awakening faith and strengthening it. In Jesus' eyes, death is only as significant as sleep: he has the power to wake people from it. He does not say anything about the dead being in an unconscious state. However, it does indicate that the intermediate state is a temporary condition since the "naked" soul is an incomplete form. Indeed, only God is immortal in Himself, but humans are not just a combination of body and life force; their consciousness survives death. See, for example, the souls of Noah's contemporaries (1 Peter 3:19-20), Moses (Matthew 17:1-5), the martyrs' souls (Revelation 6:9-11, 7:9-17), Jesus' promise (John 11:25, Mark 12:27), and Paul's hope (Philippians 1:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8).

Regarding the expression 'immortality of the soul', first of all, it should be mentioned that this term can be misleading. The word 'death' can only be applied adequately to humans, not to the soul. For this purpose, it would be more appropriate to use terms such as incorruptibility, invulnerability, or imperishability. Using the word 'immortality' in reference to the soul may create the false impression that humans do not actually die since the essence of humans is the soul, which is immortal. In contrast, the Catholic teaching can be summarized as follows: a person who has died is dead, although their soul lives. It would be more appropriate to use a different expression in the above sense, especially considering that Thomas Aquinas himself preferred to use the word 'incorruptibility' instead of 'immortality' in relation to the soul.
The aversion to the word 'soul', mainly observed in Protestant circles in the new theology, is largely based on the conviction that the assumption of the separate soul (anima separata) excludes taking the reality of death seriously and the significance of resurrection, and builds on the unfounded belief that it can, so to speak, 'cheat' the crisis of death. Well, the examination of the Thomas Aquinas's theology about the soul does not support this opinion, as Thomas does not conceive the immortality of the soul in a Hellenistic sense, as if the fact of death would leave the integrity of the human person untouched and, consequently, would not mean the cessation of life in a certain sense for the complete human being.
To support this, we must start with Thomas's concept of person: 'persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia' ("a person is an individual substance of a rational nature"), and further, 'subsistens in rationali natura' ("subsisting in a rational nature"). The term 'individual substance' in the definition excludes considering the soul as a person on its own, as the soul is only an incomplete substance due to its relation to the body. Likewise, the use of the term natura, which Thomas uses in the sense of 'specific difference' (differentia specifica), leads to a similar conclusion. Accordingly, only that intelligent being can be called a person which carries its own species or nature in its entirety. The soul does not fully contain the peculiarity of the human species, as 'the soul is part of the essence of the human species'; hence, it 'cannot be called an individual substance' or a person. The designation of person applies to the human composite as a complete substance, in its entirety. Thus, death results in the cessation of the independent human person, and the remaining separate soul, on its own and without God's external intervention, is incapable of life according to its nature and can only regain its species-defined human existence with God's help in the resurrection. What remains of the person after death is the 'supernatural' separate soul, capable only of receiving vague knowledge, much more identical with the abstract continuity mentioned by Ratzinger or J. Pieper - which can create the personal basis for resurrection as a germ of life - rather than an independent and active soul as Plato imagined. Therefore, it would be rash to conclude that St. Thomas did not take the devastation of death seriously and was promising some kind of unharmed continuation of human essence.
92
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
aqwsed12345

Ding: The interpretation presented above does not contradict the fact that the Ecclesiastes is considered an inspired work of writing. The books of the Bible have their own genre characteristics that must be taken into account, as well as the time, context, circumstances of their writing, and where they are placed within revelation. The Ecclesiastes belongs to the so-called Wisdom literature (Poetic Books) within the Ketuvim part of the Old Testament. The narrator does not speak doctrinal truths to be taken literally, and cannot be taken as such.
In addition to ignoring the genre specificity of the given biblical book, JWs interconnect the entirely correct observation that the entire Holy Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) with the false conclusion that therefore every part is equally valuable and carries equal weight. The consequence of this view is the neglect of salvation history and deviation from Christ as the center of Scripture - primarily to eschatological sidelines. Just as stones are taken from a quarry, they take revelations from the most diverse places in the Bible, and - mostly without regard to the context and the circumstances of their origin - they freely combine them.
They barely distinguish between the Old and New Testaments, promise and fulfillment, and even reject the terms Old and New Testament, replacing them with the expressions "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures".
We can talk about the "knight's jump" method (jumping from one place to another in the Scripture like a knight moves on a chessboard), without regard to the context of salvation history.
Since Jehovah's Witnesses barely - at most only superficially - distinguish between the old and new covenants, promise and fulfillment, law and gospel, they arrive at doctrines such as the veneration of the "name of Jehovah," legalism (e.g., the total prohibition of blood), total death, and the like. Former Jehovah's Witness Hans-Jürgen Twisselmann notes that "the Watchtower Society applies New Testament texts so 'legalistic way' as if we were still living in the age of Jewish law," and therefore questions whether "the veneration of the name Jehovah is not a relapse into pre-Christian thinking." "However, we must reject any teaching that falls back behind Christ, for example, into Jewish law".
92
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
aqwsed12345
The narrator of the Book of Ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that Jesus and his apostles later preached. The author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open). He looked at the world based on the Law of Moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds. However, Jesus and the apostles offered a greater perspective, including the promise of heavenly reward after death. The author of Ecclesiastes did not possess the full revelation that the evangelists had. Or do you also claim along with him that there is no better thing for a man under heaven than to eat, drink, and be merry, etc.?
Revelation happened progressively on many subjects: for example, Abraham or Solomon could have known almost nothing about the soul and its fate, Jesus spoke a lot about it, and even more was given to the apostles. Therefore, in this question, one cannot refer to Old Testament texts without taking into account the later, New Testament revelations.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 does not teach unconscious existence after death, but only that the dead have no share in anything that happens under the sun. They also quote this in their continuation, and I have never claimed that the dead know what is happening on earth. But perhaps they are willing to accept literally (also for themselves) that the dead have no more rewards?
Because maybe they also agree that, in the final analysis, not everything is in vain, and that there are better things for a man to do than to eat, drink, and enjoy life. If they accept this, don't hey feel that they are contradicting Ecclesiastes?
First, the verse itself only says that the living about the future know only that they must die; however, this depressing awareness is more valuable than the underworld state, which completely lacks knowledge. The Old Testament sage does not yet know about the reward after death; the earthly reward after death would be immortal fame, but this is also vanity, as people quickly forget. Therefore, the living are in full use of their senses and can still enjoy life; but the deceased, even the souls of the righteous, are in a state of numbness and sad silence together. Ecclesiastes here speaks of the deceased of the Old Testament, pre-Christian times. Before Christ accomplished his work of redemption, heaven was closed; and during this time, the deceased were all together in the underworld in a joyless, sad existence, although they were chosen for eternal salvation. In this respect, their life was sadder than that which people live in this world. Hell, the underworld (Genesis 4:16, 30, 33), where all the dead gathered (Job 30:23) before Christ had accomplished his great work, was, in the case of the wicked, a place of real hell, indeed a place of supplication (Job 26:5); but also for the righteous, as a porch of hell, it was not a place of joy, but of silent sadness (Psalm 29:10, 87:13, Isaiah 38:18, Ecclesiastes 9:10), and in this respect, it was not that place where God is exalted and praised, as it is on earth. Only through Christ did death cease to be sad, because he opened heaven, that place where God is exalted and praised. The praying Christian should remember the death of sin and eternal death in hell, the place of punishment for the damned, where God is not blessed and exalted.
The whole message of the book is that if we view life without God, everything seems futile. The beginning of Chapter 9 also argues this point: anything can happen to anyone, whether they are good and religious or bad and irreligious, the same can happen to everyone (verses 1-2). But it's not enough for life to be unjust; humans, with their own wickedness, exacerbate the problems, and in the end, everyone dies (verse 3). This seems quite hopeless, but as long as a person is alive, there is reason for hope (verse 4). At least the living know what will happen to them: they will definitely die one day (and stand before God), but until then, they have the opportunity to change their fate (which can give hope). The dead, however, know nothing, they have no benefit from anything, and eventually, others forget them (verse 5). The earthly things they fought for vanish, and although they once loved or hated, it no longer matters: they can no longer participate in earthly matters (verse 6). It is not that they are unconscious or that they do not exist, but rather that they have fallen out of this world. Therefore, the lesson, indeed, God's will, is that one should enjoy the transient life – with work, honor, love, and joy – as long as possible (verses 7-9). Not because there is "nothing" after death, but because acting, thinking, and acquiring knowledge and wisdom must and can be done here in earthly life (verse 10). What matters beyond is what happened on earth.
The Watchtower Society teaches, based on this biblical verse, that when a person dies, they cease to exist. The dead do not see, do not hear, do not think. Humans do not have an immortal soul that would continue to live after death. This is the so-called annihilation, which is completely contrary to Christian teaching.
One of the basics of biblical interpretation is that you cannot cut a few lines or words out of the whole text and then extract something from it. The Bible should not be viewed in terms of individual sentences, but rather the teachings of individual sections or books. For example, one could refer to the words of Satan or the words of evil or foolish people in the Bible (e.g., "There is no God" Psalm 14:1). The same happens in this case. The Jehovah's Witnesses, in order to support one of their teachings - which almost their entire substantive teaching is based on - turn to the Book of Ecclesiastes, where a skeptical, hopeless, and disillusioned person pours out their heart, arguing with themselves. The entire Book of Ecclesiastes is a series of points and counterpoints. First, hopelessness and despair are expressed, followed by the positive response of faith. To refer to Ecclesiastes 9:5 as the final word and biblical teaching is like building a dogma based on the desert temptation without including Christ's responses.
Jehovah's Witnesses often read only individual Bible quotes and the accompanying Watchtower tracts, rather than the Bible itself. This is also the case here, because if they had read further in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as well as the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5, they would (perhaps) have noticed how flawed the picture is. The Ecclesiastes first formulates his statements as a thinking humanist, living in principles that do not provide him with a real answer, which do not belong to God: life is meaningless (Ecclesiastes 1:2); the only important thing is for a person to eat, drink, and enjoy themselves (Ecclesiastes 5:17; 10:19); morality is irrelevant (Ecclesiastes 7:16-17); there seems to be no afterlife justice (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21; 9:2,6). A Jehovah's Witness would surely shake their head and protest if someone told them that "one fate awaits everyone: the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean; the one who offers a sacrifice and the one who does not. There is one fate for all. No one can live forever, and no one can have confidence in this." A Jehovah's Witness would surely say that these are not God's thoughts but those of a desperate person who does not trust in the Lord. However, this passage immediately precedes Ecclesiastes 9:5, as it is taken from Ecclesiastes 9:2-4. Therefore, the same should be thought of verse 5.
Later, the Ecclesiastes rejects these thoughts, affirming with certainty: "man goes to his eternal home and the dust returns to the earth from which it came, and the breath of life returns to God who gave it. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:5,7,14)
On the other hand, the Ecclesiastes speaks of the deceased of the Old Testament, the pre-Christian times. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; at that time, the deceased were all together in the underworld (Sheol) in a joyless, dreary existence, even if they were chosen for eternal salvation. Although they were separate from those condemned to hell (see, for example, Ezekiel 32:17-32), this place - as the antechamber of hell - was not a place of joy but of silent sorrow, where even God was not praised. This is completely different from heaven, which was only opened by Christ's crucifixion. From that time on, death became joy, the saints who died began to praise God, and they began to intercede for us.
The pre-Christ Underworld (Sheol or Hades) is not the same as the post-Christ threefold state (hell, purgatory, heaven), although there are similarities. The underworld was a real hell (Gehenna) for the wicked, but for the righteous, there was no state of happiness with God.
Their main verse, Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, which says, "the dead know nothing," is limited to the context found in: "what happens under the sun," verse 6. Compare this with other verses where the same expression is found. "Two hundred men went with Absalom ... they went in their innocence and knew nothing." 2 Samuel 15:11. Another example: "The boy knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the matter." 1 Samuel 20:39. Paul says about a conceited teacher: "he is puffed up and knows nothing." 1 Timothy 6:4. So, were they completely devoid of thought or consciousness? No. It simply means they knew nothing about the matters at hand. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:5. The context explains it: "and they will never again have a share in anything that happens under the sun." Verse 6.
- The Ecclesiastes deals with what happens on earth – "under the sun." This coincides with the Old Testament worldview. The theme is how futile everything is if people try to live without God: "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless. What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun?" (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3).
- The author looks at it from the living's perspective, that everyone dies, but what they say about the dead is not entirely consistent, e.g., "the dead know nothing," (9:5); cf. "I declared the dead, who had already died, happier than the living, who are still alive." (4:2). "The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (12:7); cf. "Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (3:21).
- If we take some verses literally, disregarding the book's purpose, we would have to deny the resurrection and eternal life, e.g., "Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other... All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return." (3:19-20); At people's death: "Their love, their hate, and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." (9:6); "man goes to his eternal home." (12:5).
- The Ecclesiastes does hint at judgment and eternity: "I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work." (3:17, cf. 11:9; 12:14); "He has also set eternity in the human heart." (3:11). The author encourages us to remember the Creator and obey Him (12:1, 13).
- In summary, the Ecclesiastes teaches that the toil of earthly life without God is utterly meaningless because we will all die. However, based on this book alone, we cannot draw conclusions about the state after death, as that is not its topic, and its related statements are inconsistent.
The Watchtower primarily refers to Old Testament passages, especially the Psalms and the Book of Ecclesiastes, which speak of the transience of man, the broken relationship with God, and the created world in the state of death (e.g., Psalms 6:5; 49:14; 115:7; Ecclesiastes 3:18-22; 9:3-10). If we read these in isolation and do not consider their place in the history of salvation, then we indeed come to a one-sided opinion like Rutherford and his successors. This kind of exegesis, which extracts the texts from their soteriological and overall biblical context and does not take into account the progress, characterizes the Watchtower Society's Bible interpretation.
What is the place of the Ecclesiastes (qohelet) in the history of salvation? This is the level of man's Old Testament knowledge before the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The eternal life and death here - as in the Old Testament in general - do not yet have as clear certainty as in the New Testament. Even if the existence after death is repeatedly mentioned in some places of the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms 88:11; 139:8; Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37; Daniel 12:1; Job 19:25ff). (And except for Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:1ff, the rest are debatable.) Full certainty is only given with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by him, as the foundation of the general resurrection of the dead. In contrast, we encounter fear of the threatening judgment and the transience of earthly life in many places in the Old Testament, including Ecclesiastes.
The Qohelet is still strongly oriented towards the present world and has no certainty of resurrection to life. However, he reckons that "death is not the end of everything (3:17; 12:7)", that "there is judgment." Ecclesiastes 3:18ff, for example, speaks of "the godless man who only cares for himself, and compared to the animals, he realizes and must admit that there is no difference until death." The line of thought, however, consistently continues to Jesus Christ, who conquers death. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:3ff: "The 'under the sun' placement again recognizes that, passing by the sober reality of life next to God's order, the Ecclesiastes, with his observations, is back at the beginning. When Jehovah's Witnesses rely on such places, they do not realize that these are questions that find an answer and fulfillment with Jesus Christ. When Ecclesiastes 3:21 asks, "Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward?", the New Testament passage, 2 Corinthians 5:1, provides the answer: "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
81
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
aqwsed12345
For a Christian, only the moral commandments of the Old Testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them. This includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.
Take a look at the following verses: Mt 15:11, Mk 7:15-19, Acts 11:7-9, 1 Tim 4:3-5.
The Jehovah's Witnesses say that, yes, but in the Acts of the Apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the New Testament still forbids it. For Catholics, the Council of Florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between Jews and Gentiles in the early Church. Thus, the regulation was only binding under those specific circumstances. One could say it was a matter of church discipline.
The Bible also confirms this and provides an answer to why the apostles made this decision. Paul speaks of this twice. Rom 14:1-23, 1 Cor 10:25-32.
They generally bring up certain resolutions of the apostolic council (around AD 50). However, they quote a pastoral and not doctrinal decision of the apostolic council, which can be changed at any time according to the circumstances.
The apostolic council affirmed the eternal dogmatic truth that salvation for all people on Earth comes solely through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; the Old Testament was only a prefigurement, which was fulfilled. Therefore, the Church is catholic (universal), speaking to people of all times and places with the "royal decree" or the "Euvangelion."
In addition to this, the apostolic council also made pastoral, disciplinary decisions. From a purely pastoral point of view, Jews can maintain (not mandatory) the ritual and disciplinary rules of the Old Testament (based on the 613 commandments in the Torah), while the "multitude" of converted Gentiles (goyim) are obliged to maintain the 7 Noachide laws for the sake of peace. This includes the prohibition of bloodshed. However, do not forget that the apostolic council took place before the destruction of the Zerubbabel-Herodian Temple (AD 70), and after its destruction, the Old Testament "halakha" became practically impossible to maintain. Despite the two-thousand-year effort of Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism, a deep longing and sense of loss exist in every devout Jew, because they feel that something is deeply wounded within them, regardless of any Talmudic paraphrase... The stone heart, the stone temple was carved out, but the flesh heart, prophesied by the prophet, is given through the "sprinkling with water," the Eucharist becomes the new flesh temple at the center of man.
The prohibition of consuming so-called unclean animals described in the Mosaic Law was meant to strengthen the sense of separation of the Jews, incorporating a distinction between Jewish (holy) and Gentile (unclean) things into everyday life. This ceased after Christ's universal mission, so the distinctions between clean and unclean things also ceased, and the New Testament lifted these prohibitions (see Acts 11:7-9; Rom 14:14.20; 1 Cor 10:23-33; 1 Tim 4:3-5). The same applies to blood: "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean; rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." (Mk 7:15).
The prohibition found in Acts 15:20,29 may seem to be a reinforcement of the old law at first glance. However, in this case, the apostles are quoting the law applicable to foreigners living in Israel (Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15; 18:6-18). This means that, on one hand, converted Gentiles (or Christians in general) have been admitted to the "land of Israel," but on the other hand, they did not want to cause offense among the old "earthly" residents (see 1Cor 10:28-33). In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it. The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, were here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches.
In summary, the apostles' decisions were primarily pastoral and disciplinary, rather than doctrinal. They recognized the eternal truth that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, and the Old Testament's laws and prohibitions were, for the most part, no longer binding on Christians. The apostles aimed to facilitate harmony between Jews and Gentiles in the early Church, and their decisions were adapted to the specific circumstances of their time.
When does biological death occur, and how ethically permissible is organ transplantation, including blood transfusion? Here, of course, it is not a ritual consideration, but a deeper one that has guided us. Somehow, I concluded that although Old Testament anthropology is not based on today's abstract and experimental medicine, there is some truth in the idea that the "vital spirit" is in the blood; that is, as long as it is in the body, the given physical being (higher vertebrate) is alive. This is why, for example, Muslims and Jews prohibit the consumption of mollusks because their vital bodily fluid cannot be separated from their flesh. In the vertebrate body, cells absorb practically everything from the blood. If this medium is not present, their metabolism stops, and they begin to decompose.
The biological phases of human death (death throes - agony) are:
- cessation of mental functions
- cessation of sensitive functions:
- cessation of breathing
- cessation of heart function
- cessation of brain function
- cessation of vegetative functions: o cessation of metabolism
In the Middle Ages, for example, it was forbidden to dissect humans (more precisely, living humans) because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, a relic, a remnant, which will rise again. Who was considered a living human? This is where the "anima forma corporis" principle comes in. What does the Catholic Church teach about humans? Three universal councils produced dogma concerning this issue:
1. The General, Universal, and Holy Council of Vienne (1312)
"Substantia animae rationalis seu intellectiva sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter." "The substance of the rational or intellectual soul is the form of the human body in itself and essentially."
- spiritual substance of the human soul => substantia incompleta
- material substance of the human body => substantia incompleta
- spiritual-material human => substantia completa
- body and soul => metaphysical difference + metaphysical interdependence
- forma substantialis => substantial form
- substantia incompleta => incomplete substance
- The unity-difference of man – the hylomorphist synthesis of body and soul.
With this, extreme monist and extreme dualist conceptions of man were condemned: the extreme dualism of the objective idealist direction - Platonism: • + the body is the prison of the soul, it is only a garment, so transmigration of souls is also possible; • + the soul alone is the human being.
Objective materialist - Epicurean - sensualism: • only matter exists, the soul is merely a reflection of it. • matter-energy-information (soul) transformable reality; • this philosophical conception of man, based on the hermeneutic-Gnostic heresy, was in fact held by Teilhard de Chardin and Henri de Lubac, who were not condemned by the teaching office for their theory of evolution! The inductive natural scientific evidence does not support this conception of man.
• the Magisterium maintains the separate creation of the world, life, and man, because there are gaps in existence, and the existence of our ancestors is not a fairy tale. The existence of our ancestors (Adam and Eve) is real, and their creation story should not be dismissed as a mere fable.
1. Fifth Lateran Council (1513)
The condemnation of the Renaissance-era Neoplatonic heresy, which the Council labeled as "Averroism," involved the condemnation of the myth of the "transhuman spirit."
This heresy assumed that there is a general "Human Spirit" that exists within every human individual, and it is this spirit that gives the intellectual, rational properties to humans, being eternal within them.
From this, it can be seen that the vegetative functions of humans are also provided by the individual, intellectual, rational soul. Therefore, people with intellectual or physical disabilities cannot be killed in the name of any ideology because they also possess a complete spiritual soul, even if it cannot manifest itself due to their bodily or brain abnormalities. Thus, the prohibition of blood consumption was not solely for ritual reasons, as confirmed by the apostolic council.
Are Jehovah's Witnesses right? Their anthropology is different, for example, they do not consider the human soul to be immortal by nature, etc. They reject it for different reasons. I consider this to be a ritual law, not a dogmatic or moral one, although it does have anthropological foundations. The Church Fathers and their commentaries should be reviewed, as well as what both the Franciscan and Dominican Schools said about this issue, as they thoroughly dealt with human nature and the onset of death on both medical (much of which is outdated) and philosophical grounds. The prohibition would only be justifiable and reasonable in this case, with certain limitations.
The apostolic council essentially provides disciplinary rules, even if they have dogmatic-moral and ritual implications. It essentially repeats the seven Noachide laws so that pagan converts to Christianity maintain these external rules (of course, with an internal disposition!), while Jewish converts to Christianity can keep the 613 laws of the Torah, provided they attribute their salvation solely to the redeeming grace of Christ, resulting from internal, heartfelt actions, and reject the ritual-external justification conception prevalent among the Pharisees of that time.
However, the Old Testament's ritual and political laws have ceased to exist, and their observance is now sinful. Only the eternal dogmatic-moral truths remain. The ritual laws will never be revived, while the political laws can be revived if the Jewish people, as a collective (not as individuals), convert to the Catholic Church.
It is important to include this because I have heard enthusiastic, well-intentioned statements from traditionalists, describing how today's Rabbinic Jewish liturgy will be incorporated into Christian worship after the conversion of the Jews (I am omitting the explanation that, objectively, today's Rabbinic-Talmudic Judaism is not identical to Mosaic Judaism, even if some elements are distortedly present, but a human creation, just as pagan cults are not legitimate descendants of the pure Noachide cult, but distorted idolatry partly preserving them).
Dogma of the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438
The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches "that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" [ 1 Tim. 4:4], since, according to the word of the Lord [ Matt.. 15: 11 ], "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"; and it asserts that the indifference of clean and unclean foods of the Mosiac law pertains to the ceremonials which, with the rise of the Gospel passed out of existence and ceased to be efficacious.. And it says also that the prohibition of the apostles "from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled [ Acts 15:29] befitted that time in which one Church arose from the Jews and the Gentiles, who before lived according to different ceremonies and customs, so that even the Gentiles observed some things in common with the Jews, and occasion was furnished for coming together into one worship of God and one faith, and ground for dissension was removed; since to the Jews, by reason of an ancient custom, blood and things strangled seemed abominable, and they could think that the Gentiles would return to idolatry because of the eating of things sacrificed. But when the Christian religion is so propagated that no carnal Jew appears in it, but all passing over to the Church, join in the same rites and ceremonies of the Gospel, believing "all things clean to the clean" [Tit. 1:15], with the ending of the cause for this apostolic prohibition, the effect also ended. Thus it declares that the nature of no food, which society admits, is to be condemned, and no distinction is to be made by anyone at all, whether man or woman, between animals, and by whatever kind of death they meet their end; although for the health of body, for the exercise of virtue, for regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things not denied should be given up, since, according to the Apostle, "all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient" [1 Cor.. 6:12; 10:22]."
47
Luke 16: 19-24
by vlad in
1. watchtower
2. bible
19but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.20but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers21and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers.22now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of abraham.. also, the rich man died and was buried.23and in ha des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw abraham afar off and laz arus in the bosom [position] with him.24so he called and said, father abraham, have mercy on me and send laz arus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because i am in anguish in this blazing fire.. my old account does not seem to be working, so i am not a new member but i did not post loads anyway.

i am an now an athiest myself but anytime i ask jws about a scripture they say its pointless discussing it with me becuase i am only doing it to tear them down.
aqwsed12345

Is there life after death?
A contentious analysis of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus against Jehovah's Witnesses.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has always been a thorn in the side of the Witnesses, as it seems at first reading to naturally assume the survival of the soul after death. According to the traditional Christian explanation, the characters involved - if not literal - definitely represent individual people, not groups of people. The story is so well-known that the Watchtower Society was forced to provide a detailed explanation.
They consider the story to be entirely symbolic to cut off any reference to the soul and hellfire. Charles Taze Russell argued that Abraham's bosom, taken literally, could not be large enough for all Lazarus. However, this objection is shallow, as Abraham's bosom is depicted as large as there are people there, so the story is about a single Lazarus, not many. Then he says it is impossible to believe that the rich man went to a place of torment because of his wealth, and Lazarus was saved because of his poverty. But this is not a decisive argument, as the text does not talk about the reasons, only the fate of the two people.
According to them, "Jesus uses the rich man to illustrate the Jewish religious leaders," and "the beggar Lazarus illustrates those people who are denied proper spiritual nourishment and privileges by the religious leaders" (Greatest Man, Part 88). And what does the death of the two people "illustrate"? "Starting with the preaching of [John the Baptist] and Jesus, both the rich man and Lazarus die to their previous state or circumstances." This peculiar explanation relies on Luke 16:16, which precedes the parable by several verses, stating that "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached" - expressing the great change in circumstances. The needs of Lazarus-like humble people are now met by the scriptural truths mediated by Jesus, so they no longer need the "crumbs falling from the spiritual table of the religious leaders." The latter are in "symbolic torments" because they "stubbornly refused the Kingdom message taught by Jesus."
The only thing that can be opposed to this interpretation is that there is a clear shift between Luke 16:16 and the Lazarus parable, with two discourses inserted in between: about the full validity of the law and about divorce. Only then does Lazarus come. It is therefore an excessive boldness to connect as evidence what the Lord himself chose to speak separately. Nevertheless, here it is only an opinion against an opinion, so this explanation seems contrived to the reader who grew up on the traditional interpretation, but there is no blatant heresy in it.
The inaccuracy of the Watchtower explanation becomes clear from the fact that it cannot embrace the whole parable; and it turns the punchline into a meaningless appendix at the end of the parable. According to the Brooklyn headquarters, the torments described here are nothing more than "God's fiery judgment messages, proclaimed by Jesus' disciples," and the "rich man class" asks them to stop "proclaiming judgment messages." It would be appropriate now to clarify what kind of "judgment messages" the apostles proclaimed - because as far as I know, they preached the Gospel. Even to those who previously belonged to the "rich man class" (Acts 2:23). There is a serious inconsistency in the Witnesses' explanation: if there is no conversion after "symbolic death" ("the great chasm illustrates God's unchangeable, just judgment"), then why did Peter preach the forgiveness of sins to those who, in his opinion, "crucified Jesus with their sinful hands"? According to the explanation in the "Greatest Man," "the change takes place on Pentecost 33 A.D., a few months later, when the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant." Well, then why did Paul still preach repentance to the Jews (Acts 28:23)? We cannot use the loophole that during the great change, the "rich man class" still had to be offered a choice - because this argument undermines the finality and "symbolic death" nature of the change. What kind of "symbolic death" is it during which one can repent? It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have created purgatory independently of the Roman Catholics. Furthermore, according to the Watchtower, preaching is a "judgment message" for the "rich man class" - how can it also be an opportunity for them to repent?
In conclusion, the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is fraught with inconsistencies and contrivances that make it difficult to fully accept their explanation. The traditional understanding of the parable, which assumes the survival of the soul after death and offers a more straightforward reading, remains a valid perspective for many.
I would like to note in passing that only something with a literal meaning that is obvious to everyone and contains no internal contradictions can be used as a symbol. Listeners can only understand the underlying meaning if the literal interpretation evokes something in them, allowing them to infer the invisible spiritual reality. And what are we talking about here? Death and torment. If death is symbolic and the torments are also symbolic (as the book "The Greatest Man" claims), then the parable can only be complete if evildoers suffer literal torments after literal death. Otherwise, the Lord would have used a false image as the starting point for his teaching (the rich man tormented in the flames of Hades after his death). His teaching would then have no basis in reality: he would have based his message on a false statement. This is, of course, an impossibility – so the error lies in the teaching of the Watchtower.
The older explanation by Russell was as follows: The rich man represents the Jewish people, and the Gentile Christians represent Lazarus. While the Jews often begged the nations to alleviate the flames of their persecution, this was not possible. This could still be discussed in 1916, but a year later, the demarcation of the State of Israel began, and since 1946, Jews have been migrating back to the promised land en masse – undoubtedly due to the decisions of the great powers. So much for Russell's confident explanation.
But the Lord did not finish with this. He gave the parable an ending in which the Witnesses' knife breaks badly. The rich man asks Abraham to let Lazarus go and bear witness to his father's house and his five brothers. We see a clumsy explanation from the Brooklyn "faithful and wise servant," which says, "the rich man here openly admits that he has a closer relationship with another father, who is Satan, the Devil." What kind of evasion is this? The Pharisees did not "openly admit" before or after Jesus' resurrection that their father was the devil, and they did not plead with the "Greater Abraham," i.e., Jehovah, to end their torments. They did not feel any torment at all, although the rich man in the story was clearly suffering.
The Watchtower is playing a reverse game with the element that the rich man did not even know about the existence of the great chasm – because they "interpret" this chasm as the Pharisees being unable to convert. But what kind of twisted concept of conversion is it that someone wants to convert, knows how to do it, but cannot? It is ridiculous to try to justify this by referring to the Pharisees' fear of losing their livelihood, as they were such fierce enemies of Christ precisely because they were the "blind leading the blind." They did not oppose Him because they feared bankruptcy for their religious enterprise, but because they sincerely believed they were right. I wonder how ordinary Witnesses can accept such a theory from the Brooklyn headquarters – they must have to twist their Bibles upside down for that.
And it also needs to be explained why the rich man himself could not go to his brothers? I repeat: the rich man class is allegedly on earth and suffers torments there. He wants to repent but cannot (this assumption already contradicts the message of the New Testament, which says that now is the "time of refreshing," the "day of salvation"). But why can't he get up from his place (on earth), walk down the paved street on his own two feet, and tell his "religious allies" with his own mouth about the torments he is suffering? Why did he want to send Lazarus to his brothers – the very Witnesses who tormented him? It's even worse that Lazarus couldn't go either – so Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't bear witness to their "religious allies," lest they convert! Witnesses have always been proud of their logic: well, let them untangle this knot if they can.
Russell identifies the rich man and his five brothers with the two main Palestinian Jewish tribes, Judah and Benjamin, as well as the other tribes scattered in the diaspora, which is appealing but historically false: the other tribes didn't just disperse, their tribal identity ceased to exist. Nevertheless, we don't hear about Palestinian Jews following the spreading Christianity with great conversion intentions, as they were constantly hindering the spread of the word. If we stick to Russell's casting, we should rather talk about the rich man jumping out of the fiery hell without asking permission and starting to beat Lazarus with a whistle because he dared to go to the five brothers to warn them of the danger.
And further, Abraham replied to the rich man, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." So there is conversion after all; but for whom? According to the Watchtower, the five brothers represent the "religious allies" of the rich man class. Well, I respectfully ask: why didn't the "symbolic death" affect these "allies"? Didn't the new covenant apply to them? How did they earn this exceptional "third way" of staying with Moses and the Prophets while Christ's disciples carried the alleged "judgment messages" to the "ends of the earth"? This is a tricky question.
And the Lord, as if deliberately speaking this parable against Jehovah's Witnesses, continued: the rich man requested Lazarus' resurrection, thinking that the miracle would convince his erring brothers. This is the point where the these Bible Researchers' knowledge fails. Even the otherwise ingenious and resourceful Brooklyn teaching office remains silent at this point. For how could the previous, compulsive interpretation be forced onto what is said here? If "symbolic death" is a transition from the old covenant to the new, then "resurrection" logically means returning to the law. However, this is such a mental triple salto that even the "faithful and wise servant" would stumble, so they remain silent. But the question awaits an answer: why does the Lord mention resurrection here? The commentary escapes into generalities: "So God does not give special signs or miracles to convince people."
This is true, but a resurrection is only a "sign" or "miracle" if taken literally. So, Abraham denied nothing but Lazarus' bodily resurrection to the rich man. That is, Lazarus literally died, not just symbolically. However, neither Lazarus nor the rich man represents entire "classes" of people, but rather individuals, even if they are fictional, allegorical figures. So we have come to the conclusion that human consciousness remains after physical death. Thus, the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses that the whole person is destroyed at physical death has been refuted.
I presented this line of thought to several Jehovah's Witnesses who rang my doorbell (and were increasingly more educated), but all I achieved was that they no longer visited.
18
Luke 16:22-23? Explain this to me!
by tabande1 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
hello people, i would like to know the take the jw's have on this bit of scripture taken from the kjv of luke 16; 22-23..... 22 and it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into abraham's bosom: the rich man also died and was buried;.

23 and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth abraham afar off, and lazarus in his bosom.. will someone tell me the spill on this piece of scripture?
aqwsed12345

Is there life after death?
A contentious analysis of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus against Jehovah's Witnesses.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has always been a thorn in the side of the Witnesses, as it seems at first reading to naturally assume the survival of the soul after death. According to the traditional Christian explanation, the characters involved - if not literal - definitely represent individual people, not groups of people. The story is so well-known that the Watchtower Society was forced to provide a detailed explanation.
They consider the story to be entirely symbolic to cut off any reference to the soul and hellfire. Charles Taze Russell argued that Abraham's bosom, taken literally, could not be large enough for all Lazarus. However, this objection is shallow, as Abraham's bosom is depicted as large as there are people there, so the story is about a single Lazarus, not many. Then he says it is impossible to believe that the rich man went to a place of torment because of his wealth, and Lazarus was saved because of his poverty. But this is not a decisive argument, as the text does not talk about the reasons, only the fate of the two people.
According to them, "Jesus uses the rich man to illustrate the Jewish religious leaders," and "the beggar Lazarus illustrates those people who are denied proper spiritual nourishment and privileges by the religious leaders" (Greatest Man, Part 88). And what does the death of the two people "illustrate"? "Starting with the preaching of [John the Baptist] and Jesus, both the rich man and Lazarus die to their previous state or circumstances." This peculiar explanation relies on Luke 16:16, which precedes the parable by several verses, stating that "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached" - expressing the great change in circumstances. The needs of Lazarus-like humble people are now met by the scriptural truths mediated by Jesus, so they no longer need the "crumbs falling from the spiritual table of the religious leaders." The latter are in "symbolic torments" because they "stubbornly refused the Kingdom message taught by Jesus."
The only thing that can be opposed to this interpretation is that there is a clear shift between Luke 16:16 and the Lazarus parable, with two discourses inserted in between: about the full validity of the law and about divorce. Only then does Lazarus come. It is therefore an excessive boldness to connect as evidence what the Lord himself chose to speak separately. Nevertheless, here it is only an opinion against an opinion, so this explanation seems contrived to the reader who grew up on the traditional interpretation, but there is no blatant heresy in it.
The inaccuracy of the Watchtower explanation becomes clear from the fact that it cannot embrace the whole parable; and it turns the punchline into a meaningless appendix at the end of the parable. According to the Brooklyn headquarters, the torments described here are nothing more than "God's fiery judgment messages, proclaimed by Jesus' disciples," and the "rich man class" asks them to stop "proclaiming judgment messages." It would be appropriate now to clarify what kind of "judgment messages" the apostles proclaimed - because as far as I know, they preached the Gospel. Even to those who previously belonged to the "rich man class" (Acts 2:23). There is a serious inconsistency in the Witnesses' explanation: if there is no conversion after "symbolic death" ("the great chasm illustrates God's unchangeable, just judgment"), then why did Peter preach the forgiveness of sins to those who, in his opinion, "crucified Jesus with their sinful hands"? According to the explanation in the "Greatest Man," "the change takes place on Pentecost 33 A.D., a few months later, when the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant." Well, then why did Paul still preach repentance to the Jews (Acts 28:23)? We cannot use the loophole that during the great change, the "rich man class" still had to be offered a choice - because this argument undermines the finality and "symbolic death" nature of the change. What kind of "symbolic death" is it during which one can repent? It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have created purgatory independently of the Roman Catholics. Furthermore, according to the Watchtower, preaching is a "judgment message" for the "rich man class" - how can it also be an opportunity for them to repent?
In conclusion, the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is fraught with inconsistencies and contrivances that make it difficult to fully accept their explanation. The traditional understanding of the parable, which assumes the survival of the soul after death and offers a more straightforward reading, remains a valid perspective for many.
I would like to note in passing that only something with a literal meaning that is obvious to everyone and contains no internal contradictions can be used as a symbol. Listeners can only understand the underlying meaning if the literal interpretation evokes something in them, allowing them to infer the invisible spiritual reality. And what are we talking about here? Death and torment. If death is symbolic and the torments are also symbolic (as the book "The Greatest Man" claims), then the parable can only be complete if evildoers suffer literal torments after literal death. Otherwise, the Lord would have used a false image as the starting point for his teaching (the rich man tormented in the flames of Hades after his death). His teaching would then have no basis in reality: he would have based his message on a false statement. This is, of course, an impossibility – so the error lies in the teaching of the Watchtower.
The older explanation by Russell was as follows: The rich man represents the Jewish people, and the Gentile Christians represent Lazarus. While the Jews often begged the nations to alleviate the flames of their persecution, this was not possible. This could still be discussed in 1916, but a year later, the demarcation of the State of Israel began, and since 1946, Jews have been migrating back to the promised land en masse – undoubtedly due to the decisions of the great powers. So much for Russell's confident explanation.
But the Lord did not finish with this. He gave the parable an ending in which the Witnesses' knife breaks badly. The rich man asks Abraham to let Lazarus go and bear witness to his father's house and his five brothers. We see a clumsy explanation from the Brooklyn "faithful and wise servant," which says, "the rich man here openly admits that he has a closer relationship with another father, who is Satan, the Devil." What kind of evasion is this? The Pharisees did not "openly admit" before or after Jesus' resurrection that their father was the devil, and they did not plead with the "Greater Abraham," i.e., Jehovah, to end their torments. They did not feel any torment at all, although the rich man in the story was clearly suffering.
The Watchtower is playing a reverse game with the element that the rich man did not even know about the existence of the great chasm – because they "interpret" this chasm as the Pharisees being unable to convert. But what kind of twisted concept of conversion is it that someone wants to convert, knows how to do it, but cannot? It is ridiculous to try to justify this by referring to the Pharisees' fear of losing their livelihood, as they were such fierce enemies of Christ precisely because they were the "blind leading the blind." They did not oppose Him because they feared bankruptcy for their religious enterprise, but because they sincerely believed they were right. I wonder how ordinary Witnesses can accept such a theory from the Brooklyn headquarters – they must have to twist their Bibles upside down for that.
And it also needs to be explained why the rich man himself could not go to his brothers? I repeat: the rich man class is allegedly on earth and suffers torments there. He wants to repent but cannot (this assumption already contradicts the message of the New Testament, which says that now is the "time of refreshing," the "day of salvation"). But why can't he get up from his place (on earth), walk down the paved street on his own two feet, and tell his "religious allies" with his own mouth about the torments he is suffering? Why did he want to send Lazarus to his brothers – the very Witnesses who tormented him? It's even worse that Lazarus couldn't go either – so Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't bear witness to their "religious allies," lest they convert! Witnesses have always been proud of their logic: well, let them untangle this knot if they can.
Russell identifies the rich man and his five brothers with the two main Palestinian Jewish tribes, Judah and Benjamin, as well as the other tribes scattered in the diaspora, which is appealing but historically false: the other tribes didn't just disperse, their tribal identity ceased to exist. Nevertheless, we don't hear about Palestinian Jews following the spreading Christianity with great conversion intentions, as they were constantly hindering the spread of the word. If we stick to Russell's casting, we should rather talk about the rich man jumping out of the fiery hell without asking permission and starting to beat Lazarus with a whistle because he dared to go to the five brothers to warn them of the danger.
And further, Abraham replied to the rich man, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." So there is conversion after all; but for whom? According to the Watchtower, the five brothers represent the "religious allies" of the rich man class. Well, I respectfully ask: why didn't the "symbolic death" affect these "allies"? Didn't the new covenant apply to them? How did they earn this exceptional "third way" of staying with Moses and the Prophets while Christ's disciples carried the alleged "judgment messages" to the "ends of the earth"? This is a tricky question.
And the Lord, as if deliberately speaking this parable against Jehovah's Witnesses, continued: the rich man requested Lazarus' resurrection, thinking that the miracle would convince his erring brothers. This is the point where the these Bible Researchers' knowledge fails. Even the otherwise ingenious and resourceful Brooklyn teaching office remains silent at this point. For how could the previous, compulsive interpretation be forced onto what is said here? If "symbolic death" is a transition from the old covenant to the new, then "resurrection" logically means returning to the law. However, this is such a mental triple salto that even the "faithful and wise servant" would stumble, so they remain silent. But the question awaits an answer: why does the Lord mention resurrection here? The commentary escapes into generalities: "So God does not give special signs or miracles to convince people."
This is true, but a resurrection is only a "sign" or "miracle" if taken literally. So, Abraham denied nothing but Lazarus' bodily resurrection to the rich man. That is, Lazarus literally died, not just symbolically. However, neither Lazarus nor the rich man represents entire "classes" of people, but rather individuals, even if they are fictional, allegorical figures. So we have come to the conclusion that human consciousness remains after physical death. Thus, the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses that the whole person is destroyed at physical death has been refuted.
I presented this line of thought to several Jehovah's Witnesses who rang my doorbell (and were increasingly more educated), but all I achieved was that they no longer visited.
5
The rich man and Lazarus parable: ancient literature parallels?
by behemot in
1. watchtower
2. bible
in their book heaven: a history, colleen mcdannell and bernhard lang mention that some scholars doubt the authenticity of the parable of the rich man and lazarus (luke 16), given its strict parallels in ancient literature.. to support this they make reference to the following essays (which i don't have access to):.

isidore levy, la legende de pythagore: de grece en palestine, campion, paris 1927, pp.

310-12; ronald f. hock, lazarus and mycillus: graeco-roman backgrounds to luke 16:19-31, in journal of biblical literature, 196 (1987), pp.
aqwsed12345

Is there life after death?
A contentious analysis of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus against Jehovah's Witnesses.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has always been a thorn in the side of the Witnesses, as it seems at first reading to naturally assume the survival of the soul after death. According to the traditional Christian explanation, the characters involved - if not literal - definitely represent individual people, not groups of people. The story is so well-known that the Watchtower Society was forced to provide a detailed explanation.
They consider the story to be entirely symbolic to cut off any reference to the soul and hellfire. Charles Taze Russell argued that Abraham's bosom, taken literally, could not be large enough for all Lazarus. However, this objection is shallow, as Abraham's bosom is depicted as large as there are people there, so the story is about a single Lazarus, not many. Then he says it is impossible to believe that the rich man went to a place of torment because of his wealth, and Lazarus was saved because of his poverty. But this is not a decisive argument, as the text does not talk about the reasons, only the fate of the two people.
According to them, "Jesus uses the rich man to illustrate the Jewish religious leaders," and "the beggar Lazarus illustrates those people who are denied proper spiritual nourishment and privileges by the religious leaders" (Greatest Man, Part 88). And what does the death of the two people "illustrate"? "Starting with the preaching of [John the Baptist] and Jesus, both the rich man and Lazarus die to their previous state or circumstances." This peculiar explanation relies on Luke 16:16, which precedes the parable by several verses, stating that "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached" - expressing the great change in circumstances. The needs of Lazarus-like humble people are now met by the scriptural truths mediated by Jesus, so they no longer need the "crumbs falling from the spiritual table of the religious leaders." The latter are in "symbolic torments" because they "stubbornly refused the Kingdom message taught by Jesus."
The only thing that can be opposed to this interpretation is that there is a clear shift between Luke 16:16 and the Lazarus parable, with two discourses inserted in between: about the full validity of the law and about divorce. Only then does Lazarus come. It is therefore an excessive boldness to connect as evidence what the Lord himself chose to speak separately. Nevertheless, here it is only an opinion against an opinion, so this explanation seems contrived to the reader who grew up on the traditional interpretation, but there is no blatant heresy in it.
The inaccuracy of the Watchtower explanation becomes clear from the fact that it cannot embrace the whole parable; and it turns the punchline into a meaningless appendix at the end of the parable. According to the Brooklyn headquarters, the torments described here are nothing more than "God's fiery judgment messages, proclaimed by Jesus' disciples," and the "rich man class" asks them to stop "proclaiming judgment messages." It would be appropriate now to clarify what kind of "judgment messages" the apostles proclaimed - because as far as I know, they preached the Gospel. Even to those who previously belonged to the "rich man class" (Acts 2:23). There is a serious inconsistency in the Witnesses' explanation: if there is no conversion after "symbolic death" ("the great chasm illustrates God's unchangeable, just judgment"), then why did Peter preach the forgiveness of sins to those who, in his opinion, "crucified Jesus with their sinful hands"? According to the explanation in the "Greatest Man," "the change takes place on Pentecost 33 A.D., a few months later, when the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant." Well, then why did Paul still preach repentance to the Jews (Acts 28:23)? We cannot use the loophole that during the great change, the "rich man class" still had to be offered a choice - because this argument undermines the finality and "symbolic death" nature of the change. What kind of "symbolic death" is it during which one can repent? It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have created purgatory independently of the Roman Catholics. Furthermore, according to the Watchtower, preaching is a "judgment message" for the "rich man class" - how can it also be an opportunity for them to repent?
In conclusion, the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is fraught with inconsistencies and contrivances that make it difficult to fully accept their explanation. The traditional understanding of the parable, which assumes the survival of the soul after death and offers a more straightforward reading, remains a valid perspective for many.
I would like to note in passing that only something with a literal meaning that is obvious to everyone and contains no internal contradictions can be used as a symbol. Listeners can only understand the underlying meaning if the literal interpretation evokes something in them, allowing them to infer the invisible spiritual reality. And what are we talking about here? Death and torment. If death is symbolic and the torments are also symbolic (as the book "The Greatest Man" claims), then the parable can only be complete if evildoers suffer literal torments after literal death. Otherwise, the Lord would have used a false image as the starting point for his teaching (the rich man tormented in the flames of Hades after his death). His teaching would then have no basis in reality: he would have based his message on a false statement. This is, of course, an impossibility – so the error lies in the teaching of the Watchtower.
The older explanation by Russell was as follows: The rich man represents the Jewish people, and the Gentile Christians represent Lazarus. While the Jews often begged the nations to alleviate the flames of their persecution, this was not possible. This could still be discussed in 1916, but a year later, the demarcation of the State of Israel began, and since 1946, Jews have been migrating back to the promised land en masse – undoubtedly due to the decisions of the great powers. So much for Russell's confident explanation.
But the Lord did not finish with this. He gave the parable an ending in which the Witnesses' knife breaks badly. The rich man asks Abraham to let Lazarus go and bear witness to his father's house and his five brothers. We see a clumsy explanation from the Brooklyn "faithful and wise servant," which says, "the rich man here openly admits that he has a closer relationship with another father, who is Satan, the Devil." What kind of evasion is this? The Pharisees did not "openly admit" before or after Jesus' resurrection that their father was the devil, and they did not plead with the "Greater Abraham," i.e., Jehovah, to end their torments. They did not feel any torment at all, although the rich man in the story was clearly suffering.
The Watchtower is playing a reverse game with the element that the rich man did not even know about the existence of the great chasm – because they "interpret" this chasm as the Pharisees being unable to convert. But what kind of twisted concept of conversion is it that someone wants to convert, knows how to do it, but cannot? It is ridiculous to try to justify this by referring to the Pharisees' fear of losing their livelihood, as they were such fierce enemies of Christ precisely because they were the "blind leading the blind." They did not oppose Him because they feared bankruptcy for their religious enterprise, but because they sincerely believed they were right. I wonder how ordinary Witnesses can accept such a theory from the Brooklyn headquarters – they must have to twist their Bibles upside down for that.
And it also needs to be explained why the rich man himself could not go to his brothers? I repeat: the rich man class is allegedly on earth and suffers torments there. He wants to repent but cannot (this assumption already contradicts the message of the New Testament, which says that now is the "time of refreshing," the "day of salvation"). But why can't he get up from his place (on earth), walk down the paved street on his own two feet, and tell his "religious allies" with his own mouth about the torments he is suffering? Why did he want to send Lazarus to his brothers – the very Witnesses who tormented him? It's even worse that Lazarus couldn't go either – so Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't bear witness to their "religious allies," lest they convert! Witnesses have always been proud of their logic: well, let them untangle this knot if they can.
Russell identifies the rich man and his five brothers with the two main Palestinian Jewish tribes, Judah and Benjamin, as well as the other tribes scattered in the diaspora, which is appealing but historically false: the other tribes didn't just disperse, their tribal identity ceased to exist. Nevertheless, we don't hear about Palestinian Jews following the spreading Christianity with great conversion intentions, as they were constantly hindering the spread of the word. If we stick to Russell's casting, we should rather talk about the rich man jumping out of the fiery hell without asking permission and starting to beat Lazarus with a whistle because he dared to go to the five brothers to warn them of the danger.
And further, Abraham replied to the rich man, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." So there is conversion after all; but for whom? According to the Watchtower, the five brothers represent the "religious allies" of the rich man class. Well, I respectfully ask: why didn't the "symbolic death" affect these "allies"? Didn't the new covenant apply to them? How did they earn this exceptional "third way" of staying with Moses and the Prophets while Christ's disciples carried the alleged "judgment messages" to the "ends of the earth"? This is a tricky question.
And the Lord, as if deliberately speaking this parable against Jehovah's Witnesses, continued: the rich man requested Lazarus' resurrection, thinking that the miracle would convince his erring brothers. This is the point where the these Bible Researchers' knowledge fails. Even the otherwise ingenious and resourceful Brooklyn teaching office remains silent at this point. For how could the previous, compulsive interpretation be forced onto what is said here? If "symbolic death" is a transition from the old covenant to the new, then "resurrection" logically means returning to the law. However, this is such a mental triple salto that even the "faithful and wise servant" would stumble, so they remain silent. But the question awaits an answer: why does the Lord mention resurrection here? The commentary escapes into generalities: "So God does not give special signs or miracles to convince people."
This is true, but a resurrection is only a "sign" or "miracle" if taken literally. So, Abraham denied nothing but Lazarus' bodily resurrection to the rich man. That is, Lazarus literally died, not just symbolically. However, neither Lazarus nor the rich man represents entire "classes" of people, but rather individuals, even if they are fictional, allegorical figures. So we have come to the conclusion that human consciousness remains after physical death. Thus, the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses that the whole person is destroyed at physical death has been refuted.
I presented this line of thought to several Jehovah's Witnesses who rang my doorbell (and were increasingly more educated), but all I achieved was that they no longer visited.