Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
aqwsed12345

How can the Watchtower Society reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with Hebrews 1:10?
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

You're missing the point... the Watchtower emphasizes that God's word is intact, the available copies and manuscripts are authentic and reliable. This is what they assert, see the links above! Then, when it comes to the alleged "erasing" of "Jehovah" from the New Testament, are these very same manuscripts no longer reliable? Since there is no evidence for this theory (only speculation), this is both a conspiracy theory and undermines the credibility of the New Testament: if the text was falsified in this respect, how do we know that it was only in this respect?
The WTS quotes Kurt Aland, obviously agreeing with it: "the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero".
And no, not "the early Septuagint did use the divine name", but there was also such a textual tradition, which was probably prepared by smaller, heterodox groups, since the main branch of Judaism centered in Jerusalem, as well as Hellenized Judaism, had already avoided and prohibited the "use" of the name YHHW.
The Watchtower is
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

You can look for interesting Watchtower quotes:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270810
On the one hand, they emphasize here that the text of the Holy Scriptures has survived authentically, without falsification, we can trust the surviving manuscripts, but at the same time they spread the conspiracy theory that ALL the manuscripts regarding the alleged "Jehovah" in the New Testament have been falsified. For example:
Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”—Das Neue Testament—zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893
Authority of Copies and Translations. Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy. There is solid evidence and sound reason for believing, however, that the available manuscripts of the Sacred Scriptures do provide copies of the written Word of God in nearly exact form, the points in question having little bearing on the sense of the message conveyed. God’s own purpose in preparing the Sacred Scriptures and the inspired declaration that “the saying of Jehovah endures forever” give assurance that Jehovah God has preserved the internal integrity of the Scriptures through the centuries.—1Pe 1:25.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002178
Reliability of the Bible Text. Appreciation of the reliability of the Bible is greatly enhanced when it is realized that, by comparison, there are only very few extant manuscripts of the works of classical secular writers and none of these are original, autograph manuscripts. Though they are only copies made centuries after the death of the authors, present-day scholars accept such late copies as sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the text.
Extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Scriptures were prepared with great care. Respecting
the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar W. H. Green observed: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 5) The late Bible text scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon made this reassuring statement in the introduction to his seven volumes entitled The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the Papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used. . . . But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts. In this respect they are an acquisition of epoch-making value.”—London, 1933, Fasciculus I, p. 15.
Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, Sir Frederic Kenyon stated: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”—The Bible and Archæology, 1940, pp. 288, 289.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893
33
Does the Governing Body already know that Jehovah (the name) came from Babylon the Great?
by Chevelle in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i'll start by stating the obvious... according to the watchtower, the catholic church is a huge part of babylon the great which is led by satan and his demons.

raymundus martini, a catholic monk (who "represents" babylon the great to some extent), woke up one day in the 13th century and decided to alter yhwh so it can be easily pronounced.

hence the spanish-ish version of yhwh was created... jehova... (sounds something like this in spanish: heh-o-va).
aqwsed12345

iloowy.goowy
"Do you realize that the same could be said for Yeshua's name?"
This is true, except that there is a biblical precedent for the transliteration of other biblical names (including that of Jesus): his original Hebrew/Aramaic name (Yeshua) was already transliterated into Greek by the apostolic writers of the New Testament: Iesous. So the name of Jesus is legitimately transliterated to "Jesus" in English, but the Hebrew name YHWH was never Greekized, etc., so it should not be transliterated that way.
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

"scholar"
"The said scholar's opinion is that the nine reasons are sufficient proof for the insertion of 'Jehovah'"
Which "scholar's opinion"? Howard? Read what he wrote about this, on the first page, he even distanced himself from you and declared that his hypothesis does not justify that you can arbitrarily include it in the New Testament without manuscript evidence!
"If the name mentioned in the Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with God's distinctive personal Name then what name is it that Jesus referred and how is it then to be sanctified or hallowed?"
It's simple: it didn't refer to any "name" in terms of content, because "name" here means God's being. "Hallowed be the 'name' of God" is a simple Hebraism, meaning "Hallowed be God!". Read what your publication says about this, which I quoted on page 3.
The Tetragrammaton simply has no role in the context of the New Testament, in the NT the name what is relevant: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized, and the name that is above all (Philippians 2:9) is that of the Lord Jesus.
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

"The evidence is that ordinary Jews in the first century used the divine name in the form Yaho. It is natural to assume that Jesus used the divine name whenever the occasion arose, unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no record in the NT that Jesus subscribed to any superstition that the divine name was to be avoided."
You really are indeed a funny guy with a real WTS ant colony mentality :D ΙΑΩ was not his original reading of the Septuagint, but in all probability that of a marginal heterodox Jewish sect. For mainstream Judaism associated with the Jerusalem temple cult and the Sanhedrin, the everyday "use" of YHWH was completely forbidden.
While the name Yahweh is not Yahweh himself, in the Scriptures the "name" often represents the thing expressed by the name, and thus "the name of Yahweh" refers to Yahweh himself, who cannot tolerate any kind of profanation of his person. The pious can be characterized as those who fear the name of Yahweh. In fact, any violation of God's commandments is a desecration of his name. The often apostate Israel, therefore, brought disgrace upon the name of Yahweh with every sinful act. This is why the prophets often rebuked Israel for the desecration of Yahweh's name, most sharply Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi.
Under such circumstances, the belief gained ground that the name of Yahweh should really be relegated to the sanctuary as the most appropriate environment, because only the consecrated personnel, the priesthood, could use it without profanation. The command given to the priests to invoke the name of Yahweh upon the sons of Israel during the blessing (Numbers 6, 27), seemed to confirm that only they were entitled to pronounce the name of Yahweh.
Under the influence of this increasingly widespread view, after the Babylonian captivity, out of respect for the sanctity of the name of Yahweh and to avoid profanation, a custom developed among the Jews to utter this sacred name less and less, then to write it less frequently in ordinary, profane documents (e.g. contracts), and finally not to utter or write it at all. According to the scholars (rabbis), this outcome sufficiently protected the name of Yahweh from profanation.
The practice of refraining from the use of the name Yahweh, or of increasingly withdrawing it from common use, can be observed from the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – AD 54), knowing nothing of the former general use of the name Yahweh, is evidence that the replacement of the name Yahweh with Adonai was probably already a completed fact in the 3rd century BC. The advice Ben Sirach, who lived in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 2nd century BC, which we read in Ecclesiasticus 23:9, points to this: "Do not accustom your mouth to oaths nor habitually utter the name of the Holy One".
Witnesses to the avoidance of the use of the divine name Yahweh include:
The earliest translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Alexandrian Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX), which was made in the 3rd century BC, always replaces the name Yahweh with the word Kyrios (= Lord).
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (died AD 54), possibly of priestly descent, writes that the four-letter divine name engraved on the high priest's golden head plate could only be uttered in the holy place (the temple) by those whose ears and tongues had been purified by wisdom. Elsewhere he says that to address God, people are allowed to use the word "Lord".
Josephus Flavius (died around AD 100), a Jewish priest and historian, informs us that it is not permissible to speak of that name, i.e., it is not permissible to pronounce the name that God revealed to Moses.
Rabbi Abba Saul, who lived in the first half of the 2nd century AD, already declares anyone who dares to pronounce the name Yahweh as it is spelled to be excluded from eternal salvation. He therefore threatens the person with punishment in the afterlife. No earthly judge judges such a person; only blasphemy against Yahweh is punished by earthly courts. However, a legal scholar of the 4th century, Rab Chanin, relying on the authority of the famous Rab (died 247), declares: "Whoever hears the name of God (Yahweh) mentioned from someone's mouth is obliged to excommunicate him immediately."
Since the mere pronunciation of the name Yahweh has been classified as a deadly sin by the rabbis, this teaching about the name of God has become increasingly complex among the Jews (especially among the so-called "mystics"), because the name of Yahweh, holy above all, was almost equated with the divine essence. Philo and Onkelos believe that the mere pronunciation of Yahweh's name in Moses' book is forbidden. According to Onkelos, "Whoever pronounces the name of Yahweh, let him be killed, let the entire community stone him, both the newcomer and the native, when he pronounces the Name, let him be killed."
And it is a firm principle in Rabbinic law that while all other sins can be atoned for in this life, there is no atonement in this life for the desecration of Yahweh's name; neither repentance, nor the Day of Atonement, nor suffering can wipe it out, in fact only the death of the penitent can.
Since the distrustful and at the same time unreliable Eastern man, prone to lying due to his character, frequent swearing was also very common among the ancient Jews, and in the oath the name of God is invoked, it is natural that the danger of desecrating the name Yahweh was most often at the thoughtless swearing. Therefore, rabbinism has long referred the prohibition contained in Exodus 20:7 mainly to the oath. Philo exclusively understood it about the oath. Josephus Flavius also writes that the third commandment (according to Jewish calculation) prohibits us from swearing in any vain thing. Similarly Onkelos, whose targum translates this verse of the Hebrew text as follows: "Do not swear by Yahweh's name in vain, for Yahweh does not hold him guiltless who swears falsely by his name."
Since, therefore, the sin committed by the careless pronunciation of Yahweh's name could not be made good by any earthly atonement, the Jews in Christ's time, looking for a way out, deliberately avoided naming God Himself in the oath and only swore by the heaven, the earth, Jerusalem, their own head (life), mistakenly thinking, on the one hand, that such an oath is not binding, and on the other hand, that they thus avoid the desecration of the divine name, and can indulge in the bad habit of vain, thoughtless swearing with impunity. However, our Lord Jesus spoke out against this erroneous understanding and thoughtless swearing and showed his contemporaries that such an oath, not directly on the name of God, but indirectly, is in fact an oath to God, because it involves reference to God as the creator and lord of those things.
It is noteworthy that the first Christian witness who informs us that the Jews read the word Adonai instead of the four-letter divine name is Origen (185-254), who, among other things, writes: "There is an unutterable four-letter name, which is also written on the high priest's golden forehead plate, and it is pronounced Adonai, although this is not what is written in the four letters; in Greek, it is expressed with the word Kyrios."
Albert Pietersma takes issue with Howard's claim that "we can now say with almost absolute certainty that the divine name, יהוה, was not rendered by κύριος in the pre-Christian Bible". He holds that the Septuagint Pentateuch originally contained κύριος, and that the hebraizing insertion of the tetragrammaton in some copies can be seen as "a secondary and foreign intrusion into LXX tradition". Emanuel Tov states that "the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters in Greek revisional texts is a relatively late phenomenon."
Martin Rösel holds that the Septuagint used κύριος to represent the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrew text and that the appearance of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in some copies of the Septuagint is due to a later substitution for the original κύριος: "By means of exegetical observations in the Greek version of the Torah, it becomes clear that already the translators of the Septuagint have chosen 'Lord' (kyrios) as an appropriate representation of the tetragrammaton; the replacement by the Hebrew tetragrammaton in some Greek manuscripts is not original." He recalls that, although κύριος was obviously the name that early Christians read in their Greek Bible, "Jewish versions of the Greek Bible, including Aquila and Symmachus as well as a few LXX manuscripts," had the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters or the form ΠΙΠΙ imitating Hebrew יהוה and also recalls the arguments for the originality of the Greek transcription ΙΑΩ. However, in view of the inconclusive nature of the analysis of the manuscripts, he proposes evidence internal to the Septuagint text that suggests that "κύριος is the original representation of the first translators", delimiting his research in this matter to the Pentateuch texts, since these were the earliest and provide a glimpse of a translator's theological thinking, for, as he said earlier, "the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by theological considerations when choosing an equivalent for the divine name". In some contexts, to avoid giving the impression of injustice or harshness on the part of κύριος, they represent the Tetragrammaton instead by θεός. Thus the immediate context explains the use of θεός as avoidance of the default translation as κύριος, while "it is hardly conceivable that later scribes should have changed a Hebrew tetragrammaton or Greek ΙΑΩ into a form of ὁ θεός". The presence of κύριος in the deuterocanonical books not translated from Hebrew but composed originally (like the New Testament) in Greek and in the works of Philo shows, Rösel says, that "the use of κύριος as a representation of יהוה must be pre-Christian in origin". He adds that this use was not universal among Jews, as shown by the later replacement of the original Septuaginta κύριος by the Hebrew Tetragrammaton; and he says that "the ΙΑΩ readings in the biblical manuscript 4QLXXLevb are a mystery still awaiting sound explanation. What can be said, is that such readings cannot be claimed to be original."
The Jews were not afraid of "superstitiously" pronouncing the name, but of unnecessary invocation of the Person behind it, reckless, insignificant, aimless, or malicious mention (the "in vain" in Exodus 20:7 refers to this). Understandably, due to their terrifying experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's name.
There is no indication in the Bible that Jesus ever uttered the name. The burden of proof would be on you, which you obviously don't do enough. This is speculation. I know that every time you see the word "name", you immediately associate it with the term YHWH, but this can even be supported by the publications of the Watchtower, that this term refers to the being of God. Hallowed be the "name" of God = Hallowed be God himself!
If Jesus in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21) had pronounced the Name while reading Isaiah (61:1-2), wouldn't that have caused an outrage among the "superstitious" Jews, wouldn't they have attacked him immediately? Instead, we read that they listened attentively to the reading (4:20), and even initially received his added words positively (4:22).
I know that in the Witnesses' minds, the Watchtower's dozen hypotheses consolidate into fact.
The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into ancient Greek as early as the 3rd century BC (this is the Septuagint), and such translations were made later as well. However, all these translated the text of the Old Testament. Of course, it is acceptable that some translators retained the Tetragrammaton in the Greek translation (and here we are not talking about the original Greek text of the New Testament!).
However, it is already the unproven theory of the WTS, lacking any factual basis, that the writers of the New Testament, the Christian Greek Scriptures, using these Septuagint versions, also transferred it into the Greek text of the New Testament. Out of the 15 Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, 14 directly come from the Hebrew Scriptures, yet there is not a single New Testament fragment that contains the Tetragrammaton!
However, most Witnesses, when they see the fragments of the Septuagint in the Appendix of the NWT or the image of the Hexapla fragment in this article, and the Association claims: this "proves that the name of God was used in the Christian Greek Scriptures," they automatically adopt and consider this baseless conclusion logical. Why? Simply because the complete system of the borrowed theory is already in their head, they trust the WTS, so this information, without any checking, ends up on the appropriate shelf of the existing system, in the box labeled "Evidence". The WTS manipulates extremely effectively. This is how a fiction becomes a fact, even a dogma, in their minds as well.
This is all you are doing, to bring out the YHWH associated with the Hebrew Old Testament cult, a Judaizing tendency that is completely foreign to the theological environment of the New Testament.
66
The 144,000 and the Great Crowd of Revelation
by Leolaia in
1. watchtower
2. bible
8-11; ch.

as in ch.

like the "great crowd", they are "of every race, language, people, and nation (cf.
aqwsed12345

The Christian's heavenly hope - The unity of all Christians
Does the Bible support the division of Christians into two classes?
“I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:20-24)
The main signs by which his disciples can recognize each other based on the words of Jesus: love and unity. The perfect unity for which He prayed is realized both in this life and in the future.
God, who so wanted His children to be united, promised the same hope to all who believe in Him: eternal life, deep communion with Him in heaven. Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of our faith. It does not belong to the visible, material world. (1 Corinthians 15:50.53; 2 Corinthians 4:17-18). For now, we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12). This was God's original will, that man should live forever in perfect relationship with Him. There we reach the fullness of our relationship with Him, the Father, and all our fellow believers.
The purpose of Jesus' coming was to "...seek and save the lost." (Luke 19:10). Because of our sins, we were far from Him and from God, we were alienated from our Creator (Ephesians 2:1-3), we were enemies (Colossians 1:21). Jesus triumphed over sin (Romans 8:3-4), brought forgiveness and reconciliation with God (Colossians 1:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21). He renewed our lives (Ephesians 4:20-24; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:16), so that we can once again be children of God, again we can call Him Father (Romans 8:15, John 1:12-13), and be in eternal communion with Him, Jesus, and all those who love Him.
Everyone who serves Jesus will be where Jesus is!
"Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain, but if it dies it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor." (John 12:24-26)
In the context of the above scripture, Jesus is speaking about his upcoming sufferings and the fruit of his suffering and obedience, which brings redemption to all who obey him. He also draws a parallel that his followers must be ready to give up their own lives (not necessarily in a physical sense, but primarily in a spiritual sense), and he also promises them that they will be with him forever; if they have shared in his sufferings, they will also share in his glory. Similar statements are made in the 2 Timothy letter and the Gospel of John.
"The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us" (2 Timothy 2:11-12)
"“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way to the place where I am going.”Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:1-6)
Jesus encourages his disciples to trust in him, for he came to show the way to the Father, to prepare a place for us, and to take us into his heavenly glory, into eternal communion with him and the Father. His statements about the way suggest that for everyone who wants to follow Jesus, this is the way and this is the goal.
Despite these clear statements by Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that there are two groups of Christians, with two kinds of hope. One group (consisting of 144,000 chosen ones) has a heavenly hope, while the other group (the great crowd) can count on an earthly hope. They can only come to this conclusion at the expense of ignoring the clear words of Jesus and the apostles.
In addition to the words of Jesus mentioned above (where Jesus clearly says that all who serve him and all who believe in the word of the apostles will be together with him and will see His glory in its fullness, and partake in His joy, Revelation 3:12-21), there are countless scriptures in the New Testament that speak of the heavenly hope of Christians (Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 10:34; Philippians 3:20; Colossians 1:5; 1 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Ephesians 2:6). Jehovah's Witnesses either relate these scriptures to the 144,000, or simply say that they "apply to the first Christians."
Let's examine, therefore, one of the most important scriptures, the main pillar of their teaching.
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)
"And the Lord said, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful." (Luke 12:42-26)
First of all, the question is, did Jesus really talk about only a small number of his disciples going to heaven? Jesus addresses them as, "Do not be afraid, you little flock"? What do you think, just looking at the text, what is related here: their fear and their smallness, or the great multitude of other sheep and their smallness? The WTS would like you to think that when you hear about their smallness, it's not about their situation, but a limited number, i.e., the 144,000 should come to mind. This way, it can use Jesus' words (little flock) to contrast them with the countless multitude of other sheep.
According to their viewpoint, this scripture speaks about the 144,000 chosen ones, they are the "little flock". Moreover, they base their demand on this verse that their members must obey the Watchtower Society unconditionally, because it is the "faithful and wise servant" who provides the fellow servants their food in due time.
In fact, it is impossible to find a basis for such an interpretation of Jesus' words - quite the contrary!
If you read the text from verse 22, you can see that Jesus is continually encouraging the small group of his disciples. They had much to fear: Jesus, their master, had already predicted his own death by torture (Lk 9:22,44-45), religious leaders were increasingly resistant (Lk 11:53 cf. Mt 10:16), and they were worried about their supplies (Lk 12:11,22,29). Is it any wonder that they felt "little", that is, vulnerable and lost, and were afraid?
Secondly, did Jesus really say that only a small number of his disciples would go to heaven? Remember, when Jesus' words were spoken, his disciples were still here on earth. As for the "kingdom" expression, you probably think that this kingdom or reign is two-tiered: heavenly and earthly. The heavenly reign will one day fully extend to the earth. Since the WTS identifies the "little flock" with the "anointed with heavenly hope," they would like you to think of the heavenly kingdom when you read Lk 12:32.
If we examine verse 32 in its context, we can conclude that Jesus is not addressing a special group of his disciples here. The thoughts are part of an encouragement that is valid at all times for anyone who wants to follow him. The flock is small, not because it consists of only 144,000 individuals, but because it is made up of those who want to walk the narrow path (Luke 13:23-24; Matthew 7:13-14).
Furthermore, a central theme of Jesus' teaching is that no one should be lesser or greater, but all should be brothers, children of the same Father. Even if there are differences among Christians in terms of responsibility. There are older Christians who care for the younger ones, who can help them better, but their relationship should be like that between older and younger members of a family. Every Christian's responsibility is to build up the other (1 Peter 4:5, Ephesians 5:18-21).
In the parables, we should not attempt to identify every detail, as these are figurative expressions to illustrate the message. The content of this parable is similar to the one before it (verses 36-40). Jesus told numerous parables emphasizing vigilance, as he wanted to make us aware that only by persisting in the good and continuously obeying him can we reach our goal.
Another aspect is expressed in the parable summarized in verses 47-48. Everyone can be held accountable to the extent of their given responsibility. Those who knew God's will - the Christians -, just as those who did not know - the others. This thought may be the answer to Peter's question formulated in verse 41. Jesus wanted to make Peter aware of the fact that everyone must be vigilant, must watch the path of their life, regardless of the degree of their recognition and responsibility.
The question is, does the "kingdom" only have this one meaning? For example, according to Rom 14:17-18, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men." (Paul is writing to brothers who are scandalized by each other's eating habits from Rom 14:2.) So, the "kingdom of God" can also signify a state of the heart, God's rule over the human soul. If this is what Jesus meant, then the WTS cannot argue that Jesus promised heaven to the little flock. It's worth looking at the verse before Lk 12:32: "But seek the kingdom of God [and his righteousness, Mt 6:33], and all these things [i.e., necessities] will be added to you." (verse 31). The "seek" command cannot refer to them having to search heaven and earth for God's kingdom as a place where they will finally receive providence. Jesus says something else: they don't need to be afraid because the Father gives all this to them.
For further examination, let's look more closely at two questions:
1. DO THE PROMISES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT APPLY ONLY TO THE FIRST CHRISTIANS, OR TO ALL CHRISTIANS?
Jesus came to save humanity, to call to himself all those who long for God's glory. Therefore, we can clearly state that the New Testament was not written only for the first Christians, and not merely for the 144,000 chosen Christians. The promises apply to all Christians of all times. This fact is clearly visible from the following scriptures:
John, the apostle writes about Jesus' coming into the world as follows:
"He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:10-13)
Jesus did not come only for His contemporaries, but for all of humanity (a fact even Jehovah's Witnesses agree with). Consequently, John's words - stating that those who accept Him receive the authority to become children of God - apply to everyone who believes in Jesus. According to Romans 8:12-17, the children of God are led by the Holy Spirit and are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Wouldn't the joint heirs with Christ be with Him in heaven?
"So then, brothers and sisters, we are obligated, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if we in fact suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him." (Romans 8:12-17)
Similarly, Christians are referred to as "seed of Abraham", "heirs of the promise", "children of God", and "the new Israel" (Galatians 3:6-7.16-29; Ephesians 2:11-23, 3:6-7; Romans 8:17; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, etc.). Jehovah's Witnesses claim that these expressions apply only to the first Christians and the 144,000 chosen ones. In the case of Romans 8:17, we can see that the explanation lacks any foundation. Let's examine a few more cases. Paul speaks about the identity of Abraham's children in Galatians 3.
"Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would reckon as righteous the gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the gentiles shall be blessed in you.” For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed." (Galatians 3:6-9)
Paul says that the children of Abraham are all those who believe (verses 6-7), they are followers of Abraham's faith. Based on verse 9, they receive blessings with him. The children of God, through their faith in Jesus (verse 26), are heirs according to the promise (verse 29). Their faith is the guarantee of their inheritance (verses 26-29).
"For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:26-29)
Therefore, Abraham (according to the thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses, one of the heirs of earthly hope) inherits the same blessing as those who believe in Jesus, who are the children of God and the heirs of heavenly hope.
2. ARE THERE BELIEVERS WHO DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN? DID THE BELIEVERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT GO TO HEAVEN?
2.1 The unity of believers
First of all, we need to establish that the New Testament speaks of the unity of all believers, as we can see from the previous scripture (all believers receive blessings together with Abraham), and other scriptures confirm this position. Luke 13:25-29 clearly shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with all the prophets, will be in the kingdom of God with all the redeemed.
"Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. Once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then in reply he will say to you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say to you, ‘I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and take their places at the banquet in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 13:22-29)
Jesus answers the question of how many are the redeemed. He points out how seriously we need to take the struggle, not only to hear His word but also to keep it. He speaks of only two groups of people - those who are not saved and those who are saved - who sit at the table with Him in His kingdom. He mentions those coming from the east, west, north, and south, thus including all who accept Jesus, contrasting them with those who reject Him. The believers of the New Testament - even according to the standpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses - have heavenly hope, and therefore, based on this scripture, they will be part of the same community with God as Abraham and the prophets. The expression "to sit at the table" signifies a commitment to community in Jewish thought. See Luke 14:15-24 and Matthew 8:11-12, where the same idea is expressed: the Jews, who thought of themselves as "the children of the kingdom", since they were the chosen people, are cast into outer darkness, and others (the Christians) will sit at the table with God and the righteous of the Old Testament. The Letter to the Hebrews also expresses that God has prepared the same gift, the same completeness, for the believers who lived during the Old Testament, as for those of the New Testament (Hebrews 11:8-10.16.39-40). As we saw earlier in Galatians 3 concerning Abraham: he partakes in the same inheritance and blessing as all believers.
The conclusion that Old Testament people were deprived of heavenly hope can only be drawn if we interpret the following scripture out of context. If Jehovah's Witnesses maintain their view - against these obvious scriptures - that the hope of the righteous of the Old Testament, as well as the majority of New Testament believers, is different - the earthly paradise - they should support this claim with clear scriptures. Let's examine a few scriptures they use and misinterpret! It should be mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses have not always taught this. The concept of dividing believers into two classes was only introduced in 1935 when they "recognized" that Ezekiel 9:1-11, John 10:16, Matthew 25:31-46, Revelations 7:9-17, Acts 2:29.34, Job 14:13-15, Matthew 11:11, and John 3:13 speak about earthly hope, and that the number of the chosen ones, 144,000, has been filled.
2.2 Are there believers who do not go to heaven?
The first link in their chain of argument is to prove that there are believers who do not go to heaven. They base this on John 3:13, with the interpretation that until Jesus spoke, no one had entered heaven, therefore the righteous of the Old Testament did not go to heaven as they only had earthly hope. Examining the scripture in context helps with the correct interpretation.
"“Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." (John 3:11-13)
This passage emphasizes that no one among the people living on Earth has ascended to heaven (as Jesus did), so no one can declare what Jesus has revealed. See also: John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." No one has seen the Father, no one truly knew him: only Jesus was able to declare him. Therefore, His word must be authoritative for those who long to know God. Only He descended from heaven, from the presence of the Father, only he has a divine nature, and thus the authority and knowledge to speak of heavenly things and call us there. Jesus did not intend to talk about the fate of the dead. The same thought is expressed later in chapter 3.
"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted his testimony has certified this, that God is true. He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure." (John 3:31-34)
Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses, taking the example of some important Old Testament figures, claim that they are not and will not be in heaven.
a. David (Acts 2:34: "...for David did not ascend to heaven...")
According to the WTS, such great figures of the past as King David or John the Baptist did not make it to heaven. And if they couldn't make it, how could we, simple believers, ever hope to get there, right? However, it's worth continuing to observe how the WTS argues: The WTS poses a misleading question. No Christian denomination's theology claims that "every good person goes to heaven". This theory might be popular among non-Christians, but only someone who does not know the Bible could make such a claim. Again, examining the broader context helps us with the correct interpretation.
"Fellow Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having released him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover, my flesh will live in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades or let your Holy One experience corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ “Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.’ “This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”" (Acts 2:22-36)
Peter wants to prove that Jesus' resurrection was prophesied, and the Old Testament prophecy could not be fulfilled in David, because he did not rise like Jesus. Only Jesus' body was not found in the tomb. This contrast wants to emphasize Jesus' resurrection, but it does not reveal anything about David's state in eternity.
Acts chapter 2 uses David's prophecy about the physical resurrection. Peter makes it clear that David's prophecy could not refer to David, because David died, and his body experienced decay, his grave is still visible as proof of this. The contrast is between David's decomposed corpse in the grave and the living, immortally resurrected Christ. David's body saw corruption, Christ's body did not, but rose immortally and incorruptible. Christ is therefore clearly superior to David, and therefore He is Lord of David.
The Watchtower quotes Acts 2:34 about David, who did not ascend to heaven and claims that he will be resurrected for earthly eternal life - instead of heavenly life. However, just because David did not immediately go to heaven at the time of his death, this does not mean that he was excluded from the Old Testament saints who went to heaven at Christ's resurrection.
Moreover, far from the Watchtower using this verse to prove whether David has or does not have heavenly hope, the context does not mention David's resurrection at all, but rather Christ's and how He fulfilled the promises given to David. Thus, we see that when Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse as evidence for their view on David's resurrection, it is completely unfounded.
The translation of this verse is intended to support the idea that the deceased go into a "death sleep" after their death, and even the best do not go up to "heaven". Concerning the doctrine itself, we only note two things: (1) No biblical Christian denomination teaches that "every good person" goes to heaven. The condition for salvation ("being saved") is faith in Jesus (Jn 1:12-13), not living a good life. (2) The souls of the deceased do not go to the "heavan" after their death, as we are not talking about astronauts or airplane pilots, but to heaven. There is a difference between the two, as under the heavan we usually understand the atmosphere or outer space, under heaven we understand the place of God, his presence, the place where he is, that is, the invisible sphere of his kingdom.
However, it is more important now to examine the correct translation of the verse. In the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, it appears: "οὐ γὰρ Δαυεὶδ ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς" (see The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, WTB&TS, 1985. p. 527.). The correct translation of the text is: "For David did not ascend to the heavens...". Regarding the misinterpretation, consider the following:
Did you notice that the Society does not quote Acts 2:34 correctly? Its exact text is this: 'For David did not ascend to the heavens', but Christ, about whom David wrote in Psalm 110:1. Again, just observe the text itself! What do you think, was Peter really talking about David and his eternal fate, or was he preaching about Jesus? I believe Peter used David's lines to validate Jesus' resurrection. He is proving that David was not talking about himself in the psalm (since he died, his grave is well known, 2:29), but prophesied about Jesus (cf. Mt 22:43). Shouldn't David's fate be left in the hands of his Risen Lord?
We see another example of how the Watchtower Society rewrites, falsifies the text of the Bible in order to support its own teachings, and prints and distributes this in hundreds of millions of copies among the people seeking God. Is this an honest practice on the part of the translators and the publisher? Shouldn't we rather let the Scriptures form people's lives with their unaltered text? Can it really be said of Jehovah's Witnesses in the light of Bible forgery that they are the true religion because the "members revere the Bible as God's Word"?
Our understanding is aided by examining the broader context. Peter wants to prove that Jesus' resurrection was prophesied, and the Old Testament prophecy could not be fulfilled in David, as he did not rise in a manner similar to Jesus. Only Jesus' body was not found in the tomb. This juxtaposition wants to emphasize Jesus' resurrection, but it does not reveal anything about David's condition in eternity.
The real question that Jehovah's Witnesses need to answer is where David will be in the resurrection? The Watchtower teaches that Old Testament prophets will be resurrected on earth, as they are not members of the 144,000 chosen Jehovah's Witnesses who go to heaven. In contrast, the Bible teaches that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be in heaven. Jesus said, "But I say to you, many will come from east and west, and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
So what is the correct answer, did David go to heaven or not? In the end, yes. Two aspects need to be considered: 1. When David put the quoted text on paper, he was still on earth. 2. Today, David's soul is in heaven. However, his body has not yet risen, and it is not in heaven, as Acts 2:29 suggests.
b. Job (Job 14:7-15)
“For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth and its stump dies in the ground, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. But mortals die and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep. O that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath is past, that you would appoint me a set time and remember me! If mortals die, will they live again? All the days of my service I would wait until my release should come. You would call, and I would answer you; you would long for the work of your hands."
Job 14:7-15 reflects the hopeless thoughts of a suffering man. However, from this passage, we cannot conclude that Job had no heavenly hope, as Job did not deal with the question of heavenly or earthly hope. He speaks as if the dead would not rise and there would be no hope (even on earth). But later it is clear (see Job 19:25-27) that he recognized that the decay of the earthly body does not mean the end of human existence.
Therefore, Jesus certainly did not exclude Old Testament saints from the kingdom of heaven. Job also looked forward to a time when he would be in the kingdom of heaven and would indeed see God:
"For I know that my vindicator lives and that in the end he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!" (Job 19:25-27)
Job believed that the time would come when people could see God, and he believed that he himself would see God with his own eyes.
c. John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11-12)
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and violent people take it by force."
Remember that when Jesus spoke about John, John was still alive, he was only arrested (11:2). Secondly, note: does Jesus really claim that others are greater than John because he will only be resurrected on earth?
Does he indeed talk about John's future after the resurrection? And does he indeed compare him to those who make it to heaven?
According to Jesus, John is "greater than a prophet", he is the greatest man who ever lived (11:11,14). However, his earthly life, his fate is tragic: he is ultimately beheaded in prison.
Otherwise, Jesus does not claim that everyone will be greater than John because he will only be resurrected on earth. He's not talking about John's distant future, he's making a statement about the current situation. John is now, at the time of Jesus' words, such that everyone who will live in the glory of the kingdom of heaven is greater than him.
Finally, note: Jesus does not compare John's situation with that of the anointed with the heavenly hope, but with the privileged situation of those living in the future earthly kingdom. Of course, the WTS quotes Jesus' words from Matthew ("kingdom of heaven"), not from Luke ("kingdom of God", see Lk 7:28), because it's easier to think of heaven from the kingdom of heaven, and that Jesus compares John to the anointed who make it to heaven... However, the "kingdom of heaven" at Matthew and the "kingdom of God" at Luke refer to the same kingdom, which we are waiting for to be realized here on earth. Would John really miss out on it?
Jesus wanted to point out that the gospel he preached is on a much higher level than anything found in the Old Testament. He wanted to express metaphorically that although John the Baptist is the greatest prophet, he still belongs to the Old Testament as its last prophet. So anyone who lives in the kingdom of God (those who live in the time of preaching the gospel, in the time of the New Testament) are greater than John because they know Jesus' redemption. We cannot always identify the expressions "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" with the Church, as Jesus used these expressions in numerous parables to emphasize an element of God's work. Entry into the kingdom of heaven often means accepting God's word, turning to God, essentially living with God, not only after death, but from now on.
Examining the broader context, we can similarly debunk the false argument applied to other Scriptures. Ezekiel 9:1-11 speaks of the punishment of the Jews during the Babylonian captivity. Because of their idolatry and sinful lives, the Babylonians defeated them, destroyed their temple, killed many, and took the rest into captivity. Despite this, God promised that not all would perish, the obedient would survive. This passage has nothing to do with the various people's earthly or heavenly hope.
3. IS THE PROMISE OF EARTHLY INHERITANCE GIVEN TO ANOTHER GROUP OF CHRISTIANS?
The Jehovah's Witnesses often argue that the Bible speaks of the inheritance of the Earth, so this must apply to another group of Christians. Is this really the case? Jesus spoke about this promise in the Sermon on the Mount:
"When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he began to speak and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:1-12)
All blessings, the "inheritance of the Earth," the "attainment of the kingdom of heaven," the "satisfaction," the "receiving of mercy," "seeing God," and "becoming a child of God" express deep joy and fulfillment that God promises to those who seek him with a pure heart. All "conditions" of inheriting these promises, "spiritual poverty," "compassion," "meekness," "hunger and thirst for justice" are fundamental Christian qualities, expressing deep longing for God. It is impossible to divide the blessings into two categories, and thus also the Christians who participate in them.
4. DOES REVELATION 7 AND 14 SUPPORT THE TWO-CLASS THEORY?
Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Revelation 7:1-8 and 14:1-5 speak of those who inherit the heavenly hope, while 7:9-17 speak of those who will live forever on Earth in earthly paradise.
The interpretation of the figurative expressions of the Book of Revelation is not among the simplest tasks, therefore the images of the book are often used to support various theories.
In this case, numerous contradictions can be observed in the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses:
If the tribes of Israel are understood symbolically (that is, not referring to Jewish Christians, but Christians chosen from various peoples), then on what basis is the 144,000 taken literally? 12x12=144 is a symbolic number, just like "thousand", which symbolizes completeness.
Both the 144,000 (Revelation 14:3) and the great multitude (Revelation 7:9 and 15 - where they serve in His temple!) stand before God's throne, so it's quite arbitrary to claim that the 144,000 are in heaven, while the great multitude is on Earth!
Those belonging to the great multitude are dressed in white, which is the reward promised to the victors (Revelation 3:5), along with the certainty that their names are written in the Book of Life, and thus they have the right to enter the heavenly Jerusalem! Similarly, those who are victorious will be in God's temple, and will take their place on Jesus' throne. (Revelation 3:12.21)
There is no indication that the victors could be divided into 2 groups, and some would just put on white clothes but would not receive the other promises.
Rev 7:4-8 The WTS claims that literally 144,000 people make up the class of believers with heavenly hope. The 144,000 cannot be literally Jewish because (1) the tribal list does not match the Old Testament lists, (2) the tribe of Joseph never existed, (3) Dan and Ephraim are missing from it, (4) the Levites were not considered a separate tribe.
The WTS overlooks several biblical pieces of information. There are more than two dozen tribal lists in the Old Testament, only three of which match exactly, and some are incomplete (e.g., Deut 33). According to the Bible, Joseph was the son of Jacob, so he was indeed the founder of one of the 12 tribes. The tribal lists usually mention one of his two sons: Ephraim or Manasseh. The list in Rev 7 is unprecedented only in that Joseph and Manasseh (father and one son) appear as separate tribes. The reason for this is obviously substitution, as Dan, who became an idolater (Lev 24:11, Judges 18:1,30, 1 Kings 12:28-29), and Ephraim (Judges 17, Hos 4:17) are rightly missing. Levi could be on the list because, although he had no land, he was originally the son of Jacob and was considered a separate tribe by blood. Finally, it should be noted that both the tribe of Joseph and Levi are included in Moses' blessing (see Deut 33).
Perhaps you also missed that the 144,000 in Rev 7 are not yet in heaven, but stand on earth. The wrath of God and the earthly catastrophe can only be unleashed after their designation, their sealing, so that they can be protected from or under the calamities. Logically, they all survive the great tribulation, or at least its beginning, right? But then how could they be identified with all the "anointed" of 2000 years, as the WTS does? How could they have been constantly called since the 1st century, and only about 9,000 remain today if all 144,000 are on earth before and at the beginning of the "great tribulation"?
Rev 14:1-3 According to the WTS, the 144,000 do not sing on earth, but on Mount Zion in heaven. They were redeemed for heavenly life "from the earth" as opposed to other sheep with earthly hope.
Mount Zion here could indeed refer to heaven (cf. Heb 12:22-24). But notice the text: does it really determine the number of those who reach heaven? Doesn't it rather communicate that only this group of 144,000 was able to learn that certain new song, which they began to sing in front of the Throne? Yes, they are in heaven, and there are 144,000 of them, but where does the Book of Revelation say that only this group of believers is in heaven? See, for example, the souls of the dead martyrs who had to be reassured about the fate of their persecuted brethren left on earth (Rev 6:9-11). The WTS in its book "Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand!" pages 100-102 tries to identify the martyrs of chapter 6 with the 144,000, but the earthly sealing of the 144,000 only comes later in chapter 7.
It's also important not to overlook that the 144,000 in Rev 7 and Rev 14 according to the WTS is the same group. We saw that according to Rev 7, the 144,000 survive at least the beginning of the great earthly tribulation, but in Rev 14 they are already singing in heaven. However, the question is, how could they have been the anointed ones continuously called from AD 33 to 1935, for almost two thousand years? I'm not asking who they really are, but can they be those whom the WTS calls them? According to the WTS, only a few thousand of the 144,000 are still alive, the rest have long died and are in an unconscious "sleep of death"... How could all the "anointed" of 2000 years be the 144,000?
Finally, the WTS would like you to think that when you read: the 144,000 were purchased from the earth, immediately think that they were purchased for heavenly life as opposed to the other sheep with earthly hope. It's true that they were purchased from the earth, but does John really mention this to contrast them with the other sheep with earthly hope?
In Rev 14:4 we find this expression: "They were purchased from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb." The biblical meaning of "firstfruits" is the first in line or from a larger quantity. The 144,000 are followers of Christ who were first purchased from the earth, from among men for God and the Lamb. Either they are the first in an absolute sense (which is unlikely) or the first within a certain period. I'm not asking who they really are, but can they be all the "anointed" of 2000 years according to you?
Rev 7:9-10 According to the WTS, since the Greek word "enopion" means "in the field of view of something", the "great crowd" is not in heaven before the throne, but only in its field of view, standing on earth. The fact that they "stand before the throne" "does not necessarily refer to a place, but to their recognized status" (Rev 6:17, Lk 21:36). The "great crowd" is part of the "other sheep".
The WTS argues with the meaning of the Greek word "enopion": however, the basic meaning of the adverb is "in front of him", i.e. "before him", cf. Rev 5:8, 14:3. When it has a figurative meaning (in God's presence, seen by God) it is always clearly revealed from the context (see Lk 1:74-75, Acts 10:33).
To see where the "great crowd" actually is, just read through the chapter. The great crowd serves God in His heavenly temple, not just in the "outer part of the temple in the court of the Gentiles" or "the earthly court of the temple," as the WTS tries to claim. God has no temple on earth, only in heaven (cf. 11:19, 14:17). It is also questionable how there could be a "court of the Gentiles" in heaven, and where does the Bible write about the "earthly court" of the heavenly temple?
The WTS would like you to think that when you read: they "stand before the throne", do not think of the place (for the throne is in the innermost part of the Temple), but of their "recognized status". However, standing "before God's throne" does not necessarily mean recognized status, and even when there is no place left, only God's immediate presence (see the final judgment, Rev 20:11-15).
Notice that all the members of the great crowd came from the "great tribulation" (7:14). However, according to the WTS latest teaching, which I think is correct, the great tribulation has not yet taken place. But then the question is, how could Jehovah's Witnesses (or anyone else) have been identified with the "great crowd" since 1935? I'm not asking who the great crowd really is, but can they be those whom the WTS identified them as?
Finally, consider what else John writes about them (Rev 7:13-17): since they are in God's heavenly temple, they serve Him day and night, and "they shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." The great crowd will rejoice in this blessed state there in God's heavenly temple, not on the renewed earth. The question is not who the members of the great crowd could really be, but can they be those whom the WTS has identified them as since 1935?
5. CONCLUSIONS
The communion that Adam lost with God in the garden will ultimately be restored for humanity according to the book of Revelation. Contrary to the Watchtower's teaching of two different kingdoms (the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of earth), the Bible speaks of only one Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, where the new Jerusalem (the city of God) descends to earth, and the kings of the earth enter the city. "The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it." (Revelation 21:24) How can someone enter this Kingdom? Jesus said that there is only one way, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3) Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day when they closed the gates of the kingdom of heaven to the common people, "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them." (Matthew 23:13)
Revelation 21 strengthens this hope with a promise,
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them ... they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads." (Revelation 21:3 & 22:4)
As a final word, we can examine John 10:14-16:
"I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me, just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."
According to the WTS, these "other sheep" are the class of Jehovah's Witnesses with earthly hope, who must have a close relationship with the "little flock" of 144,000 with heavenly hope, included in the new covenant. According to their interpretation, the "other sheep" are not participants in the covenant between God and spiritual Israel, but they are the ones who will attain the Earthly paradise.
First, read the context: does Jesus really talk about how many kinds of sheep he has or will have in terms of their hope? Does he mention something like some of the sheep, for whom he gives his life as a Good Shepherd, will not be part of the new covenant after 1935? This explanation is clearly contradictory to the last sentence of the passage.
"...and there shall be one flock, one shepherd..." - this is the fundamental thought of the New Testament. In the Old Testament and even in Jesus' time, there was hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus came to tear down this hostility, and to form into one body all those who believe in God (Ephesians 2:15 (11-22); Ephesians 3:4-7; Hebrews 11; John 10:16; Galatians 3:9; Romans 4:16). This is God's miracle, to gather all His children together, to bestow them with the same gift, and to deeply unite them.
Pay attention to what Jesus himself says: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold" (literally: I also possess other sheep, which are not from this fold; both verbs are in present continuous tense). According to this, there was another fold and there were other sheep even at the time when Jesus spoke these words. Therefore, the "other sheep" mentioned by Jesus at that time cannot refer to a multitude called after 1935.
Notice also that the other sheep are "not of this fold." Who were "of this fold" for Jesus and the disciples? Jesus was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24), initially he also sent his disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:5-6), and he also called his disciples his sheep (Mt 10:16, 26: 31, John 21:16). The sheep of one fold are therefore clearly Jews, from whom the apostles came out, and the other sheep in the other fold are obviously not Jews, of whom his disciples will be in the same way (see Eph 2:14).
Although these other sheep existed already in Jesus' time, Jesus said, "I must bring them also" (literally: I must lead them also, again in present tense). At the same time, he will address them in the future: "...they will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock [more accurately: herd] and one shepherd." Would Jesus have been thinking about the distant future after 1935? I don't think so. According to Jesus' missionary command, all nations must be made disciples (Mt 28:19 compare Act 2:39). In him, all the dividing walls between the chosen people and the other nations fell. For the Jews, the "Gentiles" (literally: the nations) were "unclean" (Acts 10:15), "far off" and "strangers" from God (Eph 2:12-13) (see Eph 2:11-18). When? Already in the first century.
Jehovah's Witnesses falsify God's great mystery by claiming that "one becomes two", while the Bible teaches that "the two become one".
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

WHY THE WATCHTOWER NEEDS CHRISTENDOM
John Sefton
When a visit by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's agents, or "publishers", occurs they leave behind a definite impression that traditional Christianity, or "Christendom", is a corrupt and apostate religion, existing to subvert the true religion of God, or "Jehovah". There is no doubt that the WBTS sees Christendom as its mortal enemy and the agent of Satan bent on destroying it. Hundreds of pages full of invective and venom directed at Christendom and its "clergy" are published by the WBTS every year. It ranges from the publication of relatively innocuous facts (for example, see AWAKE!, March 22, 1996, Watching The World, More Churches for Sale) suggesting that Christendom has had its day (if so, why does Jehovah need to destroy it at Armageddon?) to full blown denunciation of Christendom and its practices (see The WATCHTOWER, April 15, 1996, Why Worldly Religion Will End).
The paradox of their anti-Christian stance lies in their total dependence upon and inability to withdraw from Christendom. The first part of their dependence upon Christendom comes about because our churches provide the main hunting ground from which they poach their converts. This is because they have no doctrine of regeneration, and therefore they are realistic in appreciating that they would be wasting time in the public bars and ghettoes seeking the lost. However the churches of Christendom have a ready-made pool of basically moral people who don't need a lot of retraining in the area of conduct, and always have a supply of frustrated individuals who don't really understand Christian doctrine or who have no real relationship with Christ to speak of. So the WBTS relies upon Christendom to do the hard work of producing a well-behaved flock from which to steal sheep.
The second part of their reliance upon the Christian church relates to the first. In order to steal our sheep, they need to use our terminology in order to appear to have the food with which to feed the flock. Gone are the days when you could nail the JWs on "being born again", "the blood of the lamb", "salvation by grace" and other important Christian doctrines. All these and many more terms have been adapted in one form or another by the WBTS in the last decade or so, as their awareness of who their target audience really is has increased. No degenerate drunk would care about the use of the term "the blood of Christ" (although he may well care about the benefits to him!), but a church-goer is much more likely to care. Recent Watchtower and AWAKE! articles have addressed issues important to mainstream Christianity such as prayer, bible study and preaching (all with a unique watchtower "spin"), in an attempt to make the stolen sheep of Christendom feel at home in their new pasture (the grass looks real, but so does Astroturf from the right angle!)
The third way in which the WBTS absolutely depends upon Christendom is the way in which they pilfer our scholarship. In any of their heavier books regarding their erroneous doctrines (for example, Should You Believe In The Trinity?, 1989), how many JW "scholars" are quoted? If you guessed "Zero", you were correct! The Watchtower, while having a huge library which most scholars would kill for, has few, if any, scholars to make use of it. However, just as Christendom provides a ready-made pool of well-trained church-goers, it also provides many centuries of bible scholarship. Why waste several years researching Plato's works and their impact on Greek thought in the first century yourself when you can quote (out of context, of course!) one line from a weighty tome by one of Christendom's "intelligentsia" (see for example the way Adolf Harnack is cited on page 11 of Should You Believe In The Trinity?). However, this is not to say that there is no special technique involved in stealing and perverting the intellectual legwork of our scholars. Just as real estate agents' most important creed is summed up in three words "Position! Position! Position!", so is that of the WBTS. The Watchtower's use of the principle is vastly different from that of real estate agents, however, in that the more obscure and inaccessible the position of the quote, the better! The 1969 Kingdom Interlinear in defending its John 1:1 stance made use of a large number of quotes from well known scholars, such as A.T. Robertson, Dana and Mantey and others. The problem with these sources is that they are readily available to any serious student of the Bible, and therefore the out-of-context nature of the quotes is easily exposed by someone possessing, or at least having access to these works. The Watchtower learned its lesson (probably expedited by Julius Mantey's threat to take legal action!) and the most recent Kingdom Interlinear (1985) only (mis)quotes the 1973 article by Phillip B. Harner in the Journal of Biblical Literature. Most Christians would have no idea how to lay hands upon this article (a trip to a good seminary library should suffice), and therefore they have no way to refute the contextualness of the quotes attributed to Harner. The principle is also borne out in the "Trinity" booklet in the way in which the early Church fathers are quoted (again out of context) to appear to lend credence to their assertion that the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity. Once again, the average Protestant would not have the slightest idea what the Fathers said on ANY subject, let alone the Trinity, and so the WBTS has again seemingly shown that the Watchtower grass is palatable to Christendom's sheep.
In conclusion, it is reasonably clear, even from the small amount of evidence cited above that the Watchtower is not an independent religion disseminating new revelation to a needy world, but merely a parasite, depending upon the body of Christ for its nourishment, and if Christendom were to ever die, as the WBTS so gleefully predicts, then they too will die as does any parasite after its host's death. So when the Watchtower's people come to your door next, don't treat them as enemy agents trying to subvert the true faith, but rather as Christendom's lost sheep who were lured from the fold with promises of greener pastures, only to be set upon by ravening wolves. If by our gentle teaching and prayer we can bring only one of them back to the fold, there will be much rejoicing in Heaven (cf. Luke 15:1-7).
4
The Phenomenology of Sectarianism
by aqwsed12345 in
1. jw
2. friends
the analysis of sectarianism has topical relevance today, and increasingly so.

however, the scarcity and insignificance of the responses to the challenge of sectarianism create the impression as if, for some unknown reason, the historical churches would avoid this challenge.

they usually satisfy themselves with emphasizing the dangers of sectarianism and the sweeping condemnation of sects - which, although often true, does not delve into the depths of the phenomenon; and does not help those who it is intended for to understand; or they point to the heretical nature of individual sects, the distortions in their teachings, their lack of catholicity, and usually do not omit the self-critical observation that in terms of trust and faith, community, and devotion, we too can learn a lot from them.
aqwsed12345

The analysis of sectarianism has topical relevance today, and increasingly so. However, the scarcity and insignificance of the responses to the challenge of sectarianism create the impression as if, for some unknown reason, the historical churches would avoid this challenge. They usually satisfy themselves with emphasizing the dangers of sectarianism and the sweeping condemnation of sects - which, although often true, does not delve into the depths of the phenomenon; and does not help those who it is intended for to understand; or they point to the heretical nature of individual sects, the distortions in their teachings, their lack of catholicity, and usually do not omit the self-critical observation that in terms of trust and faith, community, and devotion, we too can learn a lot from them. However, this is far too little. The present study does not wish to deal with doctrinal issues or the specifics of individual sects, but restricts itself solely to a general phenomenological description of sectarianism, naturally revealing the appropriate causes and drawing conclusions.
The historical churches of today - and increasingly the historical religions too - only touch upon the surface of people, are only superficially related to them, leaving the center of their being untouched. However, people crave something to touch them fundamentally and strikingly from the inside, at the center of their life imagination. That's why they watch movies, read books, and travel to unknown, distant countries. They crave touch. And they would expect this from their religion, their faith as well. However, if their religion, into which they were born, does not provide this opportunity, or even if they do not experience the need for their essential touch from their religion, but see that it is satisfied with superficial connection, then they try to quench the thirsty longing at the center of their being in other ways. If it doesn't work in a legitimate way, it's good in an illegitimate way too. And this is the sect.
The sect does not just touch the person on the surface. It reaches deep and grips at the center. Penetrates to the core. Up to the center, which for millennia has been accustomed to not remaining untouched - and is now untouched and empty. From this comes a blind and helpless thirst that makes it vulnerable and defenseless against anything that promises to grip it. Today, religion or no religion, people are empty and untouched, and can hardly wait to be touched and seized within. This is what every sect unconsciously knows, this is what every sect unconsciously builds on.
The sect as a phenomenon in its current form is completely new, one could say, a product of the last four hundred years, but its most developed forms are being created in front of the person at the end of the twentieth century. The sect as such was unknown in medieval Europe, unknown in Christian antiquity, and to this day unknown in the religious world outside Christianity. What, however, were known even under the name of "sect" were religions, religious trends, heresies, secret or exclusive religious societies, circles gathered around masters and prophets - and not sects. The sect is not just a small heretical religious community - this in itself is not a sect even if it strives for exclusivity. If we wanted to convey the otherness of the sect, fundamentally and radically different from previous religious phenomena, we would almost have to say that while the latter are offshoots of a religious tradition but grow out of it, the sect settles on this traditional trunk like a foreign parasite. This results in the very well observable feature that one parasite - contrary to doctrinal appearance - has much more kinship with another parasite at the religious phenomenological level than with the religious tradition that carries it. It can therefore be stated without further ado that from this perspective a Christian sect is closer to a Hindu sect than to its own "mother religion". The essence of the sect is not formed by the doctrinal substance, but by the form in which it appears: it is the form that makes it a sect. Never and nowhere did a religious trend or heresy become a sect simply by choosing its doctrines - however eccentric or even vulgar these doctrines may be.
The sect fundamentally differs from all previous religious phenomena. Essentially, it is insensitive to numbers, that is, its sectarianism is not related to how many followers it has. There are very small religious communities in which the traces of the sect are undetectable, while there are sects of millions and very large numbers of sectarian communities, often in the thousands. However, it is a general principle that smaller communities tend to show sectarian traits more than larger ones, which they tend to shed in proportion to their growth. Similarly, the doctrine is not a defining factor, but rather the mode and form of representing that doctrine. It is not inconceivable that while two religious communities profess the same teaching, one is based on traditional religiosity, while the other is a sect, although the latter always tries to provide some kind of distinguishing doctrinal mark, however insignificant, and then hypertrophy its importance. Of course, one should not overlook the fact that in terms of these distinguishing doctrinal signs, the "mother religion" itself is usually to blame, as it has partially or completely eliminated them. The dogmatized historical religions had to decide for a preferred alternative, and to eliminate the other or the rest, that is, to declare their representation as heresy. The contradictions and contradictions are undogmatizable, and this is partly true for complementary aspects as well.
The historical and intellectual roots of the sect are undoubtedly European, and to the extent that Christianity is responsible for European civilization, they are Christian. Just as "Enlightenment", institutional atheism, epidemic sexism, secularism, and liberalism are unimaginable without Europe, so is sectarianism; and just as A. Schmemann sees the stepchild of Christianity in secularism, the phenomenological monstrosity of European religiosity (or lack thereof) can be recognized in sectarianism. The religious roots of intolerance are particularly characteristic of the West, but they are increasingly gaining strength in the East as a result of their encounter with the West, and it is not difficult to predict that religious intolerance will increasingly characterize the East in the near future – precisely because of the religious liberalization of the West. It's interesting how most sects today almost ignore the gospels, while Paul's letters constitute the primary area of references. This is an unconscious acknowledgment that while the former are useless from a sectarian point of view ("who is not against you, is with you"), the latter have a layer that can be used in this regard ("stand before him, whether it is convenient or inconvenient"). Religious liberalism, which penetrates religions in the guise of secularism, does not increase tolerance but reduces awareness of differences between religions, and thus the differences themselves.
From this point of view, the American origin of the majority of sects is not accidental, as it is notoriously the most secularized country in the world. American sects fundamentally differ from their Russian counterparts (Philippovites, Skoptzis, Khlysts, Dukhobors), which are much more exclusive and secret religious societies, often with pre-Christian religious roots. However, the American sect not only bears the traces of the counteraction to secularism but also the traces of Americanism. Its member often dresses according to the latest male fashion and is, to put it mildly, not a fan of poverty. American hypercapitalism usually finds its match in the sect, and it is not uncommon for a newly converted sect member to start a business at the same time as their conversion. Business success validates the conversion, as Max Weber already explained in connection with Protestantism. And here we can't even speak of a backlash, because the vast majority of sects are direct descendants of Protestantism, where the idea of earthly reward came from Old Testament Judaism. From this point of view, the heightened philo-Semitism of the latest "fundamentalist" sects is not surprising. They are politically more liberal than conservative, and liberalism is a staunch advocate of secularism: let the historical values of religion, thousands of years old, perish. Thus, the sect reveals its ambivalent relationship with secularism, of which it is both a victim and an accomplice. This peculiar relationship to secularism is what "fundamentally" distinguishes Christian fundamentalism from Islamic fundamentalism, which is the sworn enemy of all secularism, and thus can be considered fundamental in itself.
Although the present writing tries to refrain from discussing the specifics of individual sects, in connection with the above, a few words about the so-called Krishna Consciousness movement are in order, which is considered a frivolous and tradition-alien heresy in its home country, India, and which has declared war against the sects (!) of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The real source of this multifront war against these four "sects" is the despair into which the Hindu world has been driven by the fact of Christianity's global spread, which was particularly significant in the South and East Asian region; furthermore, the realization that traditional Hindu religiosity cannot fight against Christianity. Of course, even for this realization, a sufficiently westernized consciousness was needed, that is, surrender to the Western concept of competition. However, the reform of traditional Hindu religiosity – if this reform was aspiring to significant missionary successes in the West – could only go in one direction, namely roughly towards the doctrines of traditional Christianity and the forms of sectarian Christianity. The Krishna Consciousness movement recognized that if it wants to have a chance in the religious world market (and the movement itself - as one of its founders says - "gradually becomes the most popular movement in the world"), then it must appear with roughly the same merchandise and packaging as Christianity and its sectarian versions. This assimilation, which is a peculiar unintentional proof of the superiority of Christianity (and thus it is not the orthodox-traditional form of Hindu religiosity, but the Krishna Consciousness movement that surrenders to Christianity), manifests itself firstly in the doctrinal content of the movement (personal God, who incarnates; the highlighted role of love), and secondly in its form (striving for exclusivity, agressive proselytism). The Krishna Consciousness movement has more or less become the paradigm of all sectarian movements coming from the East, and it is astonishing how the successors of the former closed circles, gathered around gurus, who selected their members very strictly, i.e., esoteric and exclusive religious-initiatic groups – mostly broken off to the West – become propagandist, expansive, and "community-like" sects that engulf and digest everything and everyone.
What is shocking about the sect and the sectarian is the unwavering certainty, the elemental absence of doubt, with which they can present the most absurd and most stupid views. Usually - it can be added: - this is mistakenly considered faith, even "great faith". Anyone who can represent colossal nonsense with such unwavering certainty tends to make even the most sober intellect stop and think. Therefore, personal commitment to the doctrine is an indispensable condition for successful proselytism, because such statements would never be taken seriously by someone who just reads them. If there was only one sect in the world, one might be inclined to believe that the zeal of the proclamation validates the truth of the proclaimed doctrine: However, the fact that the majority of sects proclaim principles that are diametrically opposed to each other does not allow this. Those who join a sect and adopt its worldview (although this is not a matter of "joining" and "adopting the worldview", but rather of being sucked in, falling into it), should at least think responsibly about this. Because he "chooses" the sect, the exclusivity; but why he chooses exactly that sect and that exclusivity is usually completely obscure, because the "choice" is totally accidental. Anyone who is capable of self-reflectively observing themselves during the undoubtedly very short process of being swept into a sect should ask themselves the question: Why exactly this one, when the others could also exert a similar intensity of attraction on me? What justifies this as opposed to the others, which also have "great faith", where I would also feel just as familial among them, which could also captivate me and turn me inside out (see conversion), just like this sect? Unfortunately, the intense subjective experience of the trends does not validate their substantive authenticity - and the same can be said about miracles. The author of these lines has therefore dared to suggest on several occasions, albeit not in appropriate forums, that the first world congress of sects should be held in order to clarify the relationship between sects. It is worth noting in this context that no sect ever polemicizes with another sect, but only with its own "mother religion", or other religions, and this reveals a remarkable self-awareness on their part.
If we accept that the basis of thinking is internal doubt, questioning, and discussion, then the sectarian is the par excellence creature incapable of thinking. This is because he is "happy", and happy people, as La Rochefoucauld also observed, are unwavering in their thoughts, because they believe that it is precisely their thoughts that make them happy. The fact that other "happy sectarians" owe their happiness to other thoughts, of course, does not arise as a problem. The sectarian, however, is not simply happy, but makes a kind of sport of it, and is capable of emphasizing his own happiness to the point of tastelessness. His eleventh commandment is "keep smiling", and there really is a sectarian who perhaps only gets rid of the grin frozen at his conversion on his face during the night. The sectarian is happy because he "found" it, found what his brother left outside the sect has not yet found, found the answer to all his questions (of course, all at once), that is, "became certain", and now he wants to pass on this certainty. Anyone who wants to understand the extreme proselytism and aggressive propagandism of the sect is on the wrong track if he seeks the roots in the selfless desire to spontaneously pass on the found happiness and certainty. Behind the sect's insatiable hunger for people, there is probably the realization that the best defense is offense: because the defensive sect is exposed to the danger of thinking. Secondly, the reasons lie in the unlimited predominance of quantitative thinking. Every sect sees itself as the hopeful heir to the newest world religion and proves its worth to itself through the continuous increase of its followers. Every sect makes it a point to mention during introductions how many followers it has amassed across numerous countries and how many languages its books have been translated into. In contrast, the quality sensitivity of a sect asymptotically approaches zero. It's beneficial if a person has no individual qualities, as these can only act as obstacles, hindering one's dedication and conversion to the sect. Before the eyes of a sect, it is the image of an ant colony made up not of individual entities, but of interchangeable units. The quality difference that ordinarily exists between two people is not between two members of the same sect, but rather between two different sects. Thus, a sect is a caricature of a community, as a true community is based on qualitatively differentiated individuals, while a sect consists entirely of quantitatively homogeneous homunculi. Where individual quality manifests, the sect begins to crumble. The sect is the apotheosis of qualitylessness.
Most victims of sects are young; some of these are so-called "seekers," while others are more or less deviants who, entangled in the nets of subcultures, gradually sink to the bottom of society. The converted drug addict or alcoholic is common, and what no influence or therapy could achieve, the sect accomplishes in minutes; and of course, it attributes this to its extraordinary nature. How it is possible that other sects with entirely different doctrinal bases have similar successes, of course, does not present a problem this time either. In this regard, it's worth noting that psychology knows that an obsession can only be displaced by another obsession. Since it is not people who have obsessions but obsessions that have their people (that is, the ownership relationship is reversed contrary to appearances), here giving up drugs is not an autonomous act of the person, but – one could almost say – an agreement between obsessions: I will leave if you agree to replace me. Just as the shy and foolish patient gradually becomes uninhibited under the influence of analysis, so the victim possessed by the sect's obsession suddenly becomes verbose. The jumped self-confidence, of course, has no more basis than before, it's just that the sect has surgically removed from him the consciousness of his own intellectual insignificance. This is how that characteristic sacred chatterbox of nearly every sectarian is created, who with unimaginable superiority and irrefutable self-confidence can speak about things of which he otherwise knows astoundingly little.
What is extremely important to see clearly in these cases: in the sect, it is never about the autonomous act and capability of the person, as in traditional religions, but about being moved by an implanted obsession, a real psychic possession. What lives in most people as fear of sects is precisely this fear of possession and being possessed, fear that the center of one's life imagination will be occupied by a sectarian obsession. Because one knows that the empty center of one's being craves something with which it can identify, but also knows that this would have unforeseeable, and – once the obsession is admitted – uncontrollable consequences. One fears that suddenly one will lose the ability to control oneself, yet one's deepest desire is also directed towards this. One fears and is attracted at the same time; just as a person with acrophobia simultaneously fears and is drawn towards the depth. One knows that if one takes just one more step, one will begin to fall uncontrollably, and the next day, one will sell all one's books.
Somewhere in this lies the explanation for why people with often sharp critical sense and excellent intellect – after their conversion – become victims of the most vulgar thoughts and the grossest errors, thoughts and errors whose anomalies they previously easily recognized. The rationale that is armed against external attacks can hardly defend against suggestions coming from the non-rational center of the human being: it bows before its "bread-giving master" and serves him. Therefore, the sect never tries to touch the central and irrational core of a person through the intellect, but through this nucleus, it "blows up" – almost instantly, not bothering with the details – that intellectual castle which often took decades of careful work to build.
To engage in a doctrinal battle with sects would be naive on the part of traditional churches and religions. The real sectarian can never be cornered doctrinally: at the last moment, through a 'deus ex machina', he always manages to escape. What's amazing in him is that the slightest doubt about his own thoughts never awakens and cannot be aroused in him. He doesn't even consider the theoretical possibility that he might be wrong, therefore he is completely good-natured in his logical death jumps, or which is the same, he takes himself extremely seriously at these times. Therefore, the most effective method is preventive enlightening work. However, the spread of sects will continue, and even intensify, as long as traditional religions are unable to grasp the person at the center of his life's imagination, as long as the minimalism will prevail, which reduces the Christian life to mere "obligations" and "prohibitions", the fulfillment of which – as the renowned Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemann writes – "in the least degree does not prevent our 'good believers' from actually living a completely secularized life, and adhering to criteria and norms that are almost entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel."
73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345

scholar
I answered all 9 "reasons", none of them "prove" that it was in the New Testament, nor that they were entitled to include it. Do you have ADHD so you can't process what I wrote, or what?
In the Lord's Prayer "Hallowed be Thy Name", this has nothing to do with the God's YHWH name used in the Old Testament, associated with the Hebrew cult. "Your name" here does not mean the Tetragrammaton, but God himself. "Blessed be your name", is a biblical phrase, it does not mean that the name, the string of letters that you wear, should be blessed, but that you yourself should be blessed. According to the WTS publication Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), page 1202:
For an individual to know God's name signifies more than a mere acquaintance with the word. (2 Chron. 6:33) It means actually knowing the Person-his purposes, activities and qualities as revealed in his Word . (Compare 1 Kings 8 :41-43 ; 9 :3, 7 ; Nehemiah 9:10.) This is illustrated in the case of Moses, a man whom Jehovah `knew by name,' that is, knew intimately. (Ex. 33 :12) Moses was privileged to see a manifestation of Jehovah's glory and also to `hear the name of Jehovah declared.' That declaration was not simply the repetition of the name "Jehovah" but a statement about God's attributes and activities. "Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth, preserving loving-kindness for thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but by no means will he give exemption from punishment, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation." (Ex. 34:6, 7) Similarly, the song of Moses, containing the words "for I shall declare the name of Jehovah," recounts God's dealings with Israel and describes his personality. - Deut. 3:3-44 .
See also Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 888, 889; the same material appears in Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pages 12, 13. According to Raymond Franz:
We can understand this by the fact that the term “name” is used in an identical way with reference to God’s Son. When the apostle John writes, “But to all who received him, who believe in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” John is clearly not referring just to the name “Jesus.” (John 1:12) He is referring to the person of the Son of God, to what he is as the “Lamb of God,” his divinely-assigned position as Ransomer and Redeemer and Mediator on behalf of mankind. Recognizing this, in place of “believed in his name,” some translations read, “[did] believe in him” (An American Translation), “truly believed in him” (Phillips Modern English), “yielded him their allegiance” (New English Bible). Somewhat similarly, the 1988 Watch Tower publication, Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!, page 280, in discussing Revelation chapter 19, verse 12, and its reference to the written “name” assigned to Christ, which “no one knows but he himself,” acknowledges that this “appears to stand for the position and privileges that Jesus enjoys during the Lord’s day,” hence not to any name in the common, everyday sense of the term.
Would the mere use of the name “Jesus,” or even a very frequent pronouncing of the name, or a constant calling attention to that literal name, prove anything as regards one’s being a genuine believer in Christ, a true follower of his? Obviously, none of these things would of themselves demonstrate that one is actually a Christian. Nor would they mean that one was truly “making known the name” of God’s Son in the real sense of Scripture. Millions of persons today regularly employ and speak the name “Jesus.” Yet many of them grossly misrepresent and in fact obscure the true and vital “name” of God’s Son because their conduct and course are so very far from reflecting either the teachings, the personality, or the way of life he exemplified. Their lives do not demonstrate conduct consistent with faith in his power to provide redemption. That, and not the use of a particular word or proper noun, is what is involved in ‘belief in his name.’ Compare Matthew 7:21-23; Romans 2:24; see also the article on “Jesus Christ” in Aid to Bible Understanding under the heading “The full significance of his ‘name,’” page 924; the same material is in Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, page 61.
The same is true of the use of the name “Jehovah.” No matter how often individuals, or an organization of people, may voice that literal name (claiming a special righteousness by their repeated use of such name), if they do not genuinely reflect, in attitude, conduct and practice, what the Person himself is like—His qualities, ways and standards—then they have not truly come to “know his name” in the Scriptural sense. They do not really know the person or personality represented by the Tetragrammaton (Compare Ezekiel 36:20.). Use of that name would then amount to no more than lip service (Compare Hosea 8:1, 2; Matthew 15:8.). If they claim to speak “in his name” yet misrepresent what He himself states in his own Word, or make false predictions “in his name,” or devise and impose unscriptural legislation and rules “in his name,” or make unjust judgments and condemnations “in his name,” then they have, in effect, “taken his name in vain.” They have acted in a way that neither has his authorization, nor reflects his qualities and standards and what He himself is as a Person.
The same is likewise true of using some form of the Tetragrammaton for sectarian purposes, employing it as a means to distinguish one religious group from other religious groups. The evidence is that the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” developed in response to such an interest. Similarly “to praise his holy name” or “to sanctify his name” does not mean simply to praise a particular word or phrase, for how could one ‘praise a word’ or ‘praise a title’? Rather, it clearly means to praise the Person himself, to speak reverently and admiringly of Him and his qualities and ways, to view and respect Him as Holy in the superlative sense.

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

WHY THE WATCHTOWER NEEDS CHRISTENDOM